So here's a woman journalist, economics expert, took on David Cameron on Newsnight... so how shall we describe her?
Meet the Credit Crunch Crumpet: The unmarried mum who clashed with Cameron on Newsnight
'Crumpet'. Well done to whichever sub from the 1960s managed to squeeze through a terrible piece of alliterative misogyny that Talbot Rothwell would have been proud of.
Gosh. Stephanie Flanders, the economics editor of Newsnight, has just told me that she rather likes being recognised as 'that bird off the telly who does numbers'. I'm confused. Isn't Carol Vorderman the bird off the telly who does numbers? Surely there can't be room on British TV for two women who can count?
This was written by a woman, by the way. I'm hoping - hope against hope - that there's a heavy dose of irony in here. But in Femail, you just never know for sure.
Eek. And she'll have to dumb down, I say. Over on Newsnight, viewers were patient enough to sit there while she explained why the Korean futures market was relevant to anyone, anywhere. In the mainstream world, with Desperate Housewives about to start, all people really want to know is whether the gas bill going up and by how much.
Eek. Gosh. What's all this jolly hockey sticks shit? And Desperate Housewives has been crap for the past two series, anyway - Dirty Sexy Money is clearly where it's at nowadays. Hmm. Well I can't make my mind up about this reporter Jenny Johnston, whether she's been tongue-in-cheek about the whole thing or just a woman-hating idiot. I'd like to hope there's room for the former at Mail Towers.
But aren't we afraid of overly clever women in this country - unless they bring out diet books on the side? Isn't the nation going to be intimidated by her?
What the fuck? Why? I just don't get it. Why is this even an issue? Was Evan Davis ('the flamboyant Evan Davis' as JJ puts it - yes he's gay! He's a gay!) interviewed like this when he took over the job? No? If not, why not? Because his qualifications and credentials were seen to be enough, because he's a man? And if that's the case, then what is this interview doing - the very thing it's trying to claim it's not?
Perhaps surprisingly Stephanie hasn't encountered that much sexism so far, "although there will always be men who simply think women aren't up to the job".
"I was a bit shocked to be constantly called a 'girl' when I was filming in Scotland recently, but mostly there's no overt sexism."
She hasn't been afraid to raise the issue, though. In a recent interview with the BBC in-house magazine Stephanie, herself 39, joined the controversial debate of what happens to all those nice female BBC presenters once the wrinkles set it. Are they going to disappear from our screens, as they have in the past?
She doesn't shy from the question today. "It's not a criticism, it's an observation. I do think we need to be watching what happens from here. There are quite a few high-profile women on TV who are in their 40s.
"Soon they will be in their 50s. Will there still be a place for them? The jury is still out on that one, but it's something the BBC is going to have to confront."
She hasn't come up against much sexism, apart from being asked ditsy questions by a Mail reporter. And is the BBC going to have to 'confront' the issue of sacking women for being older? The jury's still out on the issue of whether women should be sacked for being old, whereas men shouldn't. That's something for a jury? What in the name of...?
I like Stephanie Flanders immensely, and it is true that only she and her like can raise such matters. When older (sidelined) female presenters like Anna Ford speak out, it can seem like sour grapes.
Aaaaargh! So you can't say anything if you've been sacked for being old? Why not? Do you have to do it pre-emptively when you're younger?
she asks for this interview to be conducted at her home, where her 22-month-old son, Stanley, is running around. This makes it inevitable that we will talk about her new kitchen and the perils of finding a good nanny. She is pregnant, too, which makes things even more tricky. Baby number two is due in June.
Kitchens, nannies, oh it's textbook Mail fare.
This is all a little disconcerting. Would I sit here asking Huw Edwards how he manages to juggle a career and a family? Is it proper to ask the economics editor of the BBC about her breadmaker (yes, she has one)?
Well would you? Would you call Huw Edwards 'crumpet'? Would you ask him if he's been on the receiving end of sexism? Would you ask him if he thought it was OK for men to be sacked once they started going grey?
Stephanie's determination to be candid about her life could be disastrous for her career. She got herself into trouble a few months back on Newsnight when she was on a panel interviewing Tory leader David Cameron. Stephanie announced that she was an unmarried mother and asked if Cameron would rather she were married?
Stephanie was challenging Cameron on the Tory's tax-breaks policy, asking why the Tories would think that women like her - affluent, privileged, happy without a wedding ring on their finger - should be 'wooed' into marriage by the promise of a few extra pounds in the bank. It backfired badly. The message was lost amid headlines of Stephanie's 'single mother' outburst.
Did it backfire? I don't think it did. It only mattered at all because fuckwits in the Mail & Co launched the traditional salvoes against unmarried women, defending the Tory daftness to the hilt. Littlecock, in a triumph of cuntery, said: "If Stephanie Flanders speaks for Britain, I'm a gnu". And if you speak for Britain, Dick, then I'll put the revolver in my mouth right now.
And she isn't a 'single mother' anyway; she has a partner.
What's interesting is that Stephanie felt the criticism very keenly. She laughs off all the will she/won't she marriage stuff - she had photographers camped out in her garden and there were features examining her future with John - but she was hurt by suggestions that she was in no way qualified to speak for 'ordinary' people.
Which gutter-press newspaper did these photographers work for? The same one that printed pap pictures of Corinne Bailey Rae grieving for her dead husband? And where were the features examining her life with John? Well, Richard Kay wrote about Stephanie Flanders and whether she'd get married, and Bel Mooney, and there was a feature about Flanders and marriage in You Magazine, and the Mail quoted an attack by Ann Widdecombe on 'liberal tyranny' in which she took a swipe at Flanders.
To my horror, Flanders concedes that Littlecock was 'partly right' in what he said. That's like saying cancer is partly nice, but she's entitled to her opinion, I suppose - even if the Mail cares more about her lack of marriage than it does about her ability to talk about economics in a time when things are about to go down the toilet. Who cares? So long as we've got someone to slag off and take a swipe at the BBC, everything's going to be all right...