Bad Gender Science alert

It's my birthday today and what a gift The Telegraph have sent! Two of my least favourite things wrapped up in one. Bad science being used to justify sexism!

Apparently, we're told, men need nights out with the lads. Not someone's opinion or the advice of their in-house agony aunt, no. This is SCIENCE, we're told.

The subtitle reads "Researchers in Germany found it was good for a man's health to be allowed time to bond with fellow males".

But read the article and they found nothing of the sort. They found it was good for a male Barbary macaque's health. They add "a type of ape which exhibits remarkably human-like social behaviour" so presumably it spends half the morning nursing a hangover while playing Angry Birds and then writing about how it "really needs to get more organised" on Facebook?

The tenuousness of the link is made even more apparent when they try to compare men "watching each other's backs" with Barbary macaques picking ticks and fleas off each other. Hmm, alerting your mate to someone looking at him aggressively in the queue for a kebab doesn't strike me as obviously analogous to combing his back hair for him if he can't reach.

The only reason to assume that what applies to Barbary macaques will also apply to humans would be if humans and macaques shared a common ancestor who also exhibited this behaviour. Not so.

Humans are much more closely related to bonobos. Do you know what bonobos do to relieve stress? They wank off members of their own family. Really they do. Who wants to write a piece in The Telegraph about the health benefits of familial mutual masturbation? No me either.

The reality is that the only reason this piece got published at all was because they know perfectly well that guys out there wanting to shirk other commitments and responsibilities and go out drinking will latch onto it. Well sorry, not fooled.

Look at the all-male groups in most pubs and clubs night after night. Look at the crowd at football matches across the country. Believe me, if all-male socialising was the key to male health you'd all be immortal by now! Instead your life expectancy is considerably shorter than ours.

I'd bet the exact opposite is true in humans - all male groups are likely to drink more, smoke more, get in more fights, eat more fast food, do more dangerous activities. I'd bet all-male socialising is linked to to poorer health in human men. But no-one's going to publish that in The Telegraph are they?

36 Facts About Divorce - Corrected Version

Why exactly the Huffington Post thinks it needs a special section on the subject of divorce is beyond me. I never turned on the news to hear "And after the sports headlines we'll be getting a brief update on global divorce news". And for the record I don't think sports are news either!  Today a particular piece caught my eye and ire. And I do have some experience in the matter so here's a corrected version of "36 Things I Wish Someone Told Me About Divorce".


"1. It's nothing at all like when your husband was away on business and it was nice to have the bed to yourself. That gets old. You get lonely."

1. Once you're divorced you can sleep around guilt-free.

"2. He's not going to be there. Ever. Never again in the way that he was. He's gone. For good."

2. That was the point. If you wanted him around you wouldn't have gotten divorced.

"3. Don't rush things unless you are in an abusive situation."

3. Don't waste your life putting up with something that isn't right and doesn't make you happy.

"4. You may want to hide when you are first going through divorce. You won't want to talk about it with anyone."

4. Yes you may feel this way. Or you may not. You may want to go out and enjoy yourself. That's ok too.

"5. You will have to remind yourself that you are not a failure. That the relationship simply ran its course, it had an expiration date."

5. If anyone tries to suggest that divorce is a sign of "failure" stop being friends with them and don't go to their church.

"6. You may never feel truly sure you made the right decision particularly if you have children together."

6. Or you might be confident that this is the best thing for you. And the best thing for you IS the best thing for your kids, they don't want to be raised by two people who don't want to be together.

"7. There is going to be an in-law situation and you won't know how to carry on your relationship with them."

7. You can stay friends with the in-laws if you want. You don't have to. Mine are lovely, we hang out.

"8. When your kids are sick, you are the only one home to care for them and he's not there to ask him for help."

8. You might need childcare support. The absent parent should help with this, financially or practically.

"9. When you are sick, he is no longer there to care for you."

9. Lets hope your hot new boyfriend knows how to stick a Lemsip in the microwave.

"10. You will miss his cooking, even if he isn't a good cook, but simply because there was someone else there to make meals and it isn't all on you. And if he was a good cook, it's going to be even harder."

10. If you had a long day - you can order delivery food. Or just have a sandwich.

"11. You still may call him by the pet name you had for him and it slips out when discussing a matter and it hangs there in the air and hurts."

11. If you ever called him "snugglewumps" in Starbucks you are weird.

"12. If you thought talking about money with your husband was hard, try talking about money with your ex-husband."

12. If it was always a problem talking about money, you were right to consider divorce.

"13. There will be no more "stay here with the kids for an hour so I can run out to do errands.""

13. You can say "stay here with the kids for an hour so I can run out to do errands." to neighbours, friends, relatives, that hot new boyfriend or your lodger. Also you can drop them off with an absent parent and have a spa day.

"14. It may feel natural to reach out to hold onto his arm when you go out for coffee to discuss the kids, but you aren't supposed to hold onto his arm anymore."

14. Missing out on intimacy? Buy a dildo.

"15. You will miss your wedding ring... feeling it there on your finger and what it represented."

15. Your wedding ring represented a relationship that wasn't working. Take it off.

"16. Your wedding album is like a ghost."

16. Why are you sat around flicking through old photos? Go out and get laid.

"17. You won't know what to do with your wedding dress."

17. The only people who ever get to re-use a wedding dress are divorcees.

"18. If you knew what you knew now, you wouldn't have spent all that money on that wedding dress. Instead you should have banked it to save for couples' therapy."

18. Couples therapy is usually overpriced.

"19. You might have to politely ask your parents to take down your wedding photo they still have hanging on the wall in the living room because it hurts too much to see it."

19. If your parents keep some photos up it should save you all that time spent flicking through old albums.

"20. It's not easy. Not even if you are the one who wanted a divorce."

20. Being in a relationship that doesn't work is exhausting. Making some meals for one is not so bad.

"21. You'll wonder if he's dating someone new and if he's thinking she's better than you."

21. You'll start dating someone new. That'll take your mind off things.

"22. When he gets serious with another woman, dealing with that woman being around your children is going to be harder than you could ever imagine."

22. Great news, if he starts seeing someone else she can help look after your kids while you run those errands. Plus kids benefit from relationships with a wide range of adults.

"23. After all the hurt subsides, you remember all the good things and sort of forget the bad and the hurt starts again but in a different way."

23. The relationship ended for a reason. It wasn't working.

"24. What if... there will be lots of these."

24. What if you meet someone great? What if you get a job on a tropical island?

"25. You will look at your kids, that are his kids too, and wonder how in the world are you going to be able to make it through all these holidays for the rest of your lives and still figure out how to be a family that is no longer living together."

25. Your kids will grow up. Then they can choose where to spend Christmas. As can you.

"26. You may notice it feels weird to still have the gifts he's given to you over the years, even if it's something as mundane as a toaster. And you may start having nostalgia about the toaster."

26. You may need counselling.

"27. You might fondle the silverware gifted to you at your bridal shower and feel bad that all your friends and family gave you all these wonderful gifts for a marriage that didn't last."

27. Who the hell fondles silverware? Get a vibrator.

"28. You may worry some of your friends might be thinking about those gifts they gifted you."

28. Anyone more bothered about the gift they bought you than about your wellbeing is not your friend.

"29. You may lose some friends."

29. You'll have more time to spend with your friends. You may gain some friends, reconnect with some old ones.

"30. Some of your family may not understand why you are getting divorced and that can be very challenging to deal with on top of dealing with divorce itself."

30. If your family are unsympathetic, divorce them too.

"31. There will be a bit of pain when you refer to him as "Daddy" to your kids, but that's his name and how he's addressed, so you must deal."

31. Use whatever term you're comfortable with. Your kids will adapt.

"32. You are going to want to confide in your ex because you are so used to doing so, but you have to learn how to stop doing that."

32. You're going to want to spend more time with friends. That'll be nice.

"33. It may take a long time for you to be "friends" -- whatever that means. It may never happen."

33. You can stay friends. You don't have to.

"34. There will be a time when your kids will wonder how the two of you were ever together in the first place. They may never even remember a time when you were together."

34. Your kids will grow up. You will wonder if they were ever small. You will be glad you didn't raise them in a house full of arguments.

"35. You remember what it was like to fall in love with the man you married and you truly wonder how in the world did it all fall apart."

35. You might wonder how you hung in there so longer.

"36. The above makes you terrified to ever get married again."

36. Next time you get into a serious relationship you'll probably do things differently.

Outside the Man Box

This is ace, you should watch it.

Ikky and Creepy

I was in Putney tonight where I am resident compere at a great show called Duke's Headliners and (you guessed it) the Duke's Head pub.

Had a rather horrific experience on the way there though. Stopped in a newsagents to buy a can of drink and I was just at the counter paying (so i.e. using both hands to sort through my bag for the right change) when a guy came in, walked up right behind me and, with his arms out to either side of me, started vigorously thrusting his groin into my bum. Essentially he was miming anally raping me and sorry if that sounds shocking but that is what he was doing. Of course we were both fully dressed but he did make repeated physical contact.

I spun round and demanded to know what the fuck he thought he was doing (I was thinking their must be some explanation cos surely no-one would actually do that in a well-lit shop with witnesses there). He said he was "waving to his friend" and indicated the man behind the counter. I told him that was not the way that you wave to a friend. And he said "calm down love, I work round here".

Then he picked up whatever it was he had come in for, paid for it (the newsagent served him quite normally despite the fact that I was cowering by the door shocked and frightened). Then after he had left I paid for my stuff and he said "Sorry about that. He's a bit funny. We've tried to bar him but it doesn't work".

I did try to take a picture of the asshole but unfortunately my phone memory is full and I didn't have time to sort it out before he left. In retrospect I wish I'd just punched him. I suppose I could have called the police but I know from experience they'd most likely have told me I'd misunderstood and then refused to write it down as a crime and then I probably would have punched someone.

Despite that bad start to the night we had a great show. Although to be honest that's mostly testament to my ability to put things to one side and do a good show. Now I am home and despite proper comfort food dinner (deep cheese pizza and garlic bread) I still feel pretty grossed out and dirty. I think I'll put my jeans in the wash and take a shower.

Porn Addicts

Article on the BBC about the rise in men who are addicted to internet pornography. Not very surprising. Of course the article is all about how the men who have the addictions suffer. Not about how the women in their lives - both relationship-wise and their colleagues, friends and family members are affected. If you want to see what our easy-porn culture is doing to women take a look at the footage from Australia of women being chased by angry mobs of men shouting "get your tits out for the lads".

An Open Invitation

Mr Cru and I will both be celebrating our birthdays this coming Saturday 8th Dec from 8pm at the newly refurbished Princess Louise pub on High Holborn. Everyone is welcome whether we've met you before or not, and you're all welcome to bring friends too. Some of us might go to the OBJECT meeting beforehand which finishes at 6pm so just time to grab stomach-lining food (sushi!) and get to the pub.

Will Shag For Laundry?

Feministing has picked up on this rather worrisome article on CBS apparently the author is advising men that doing more housework will get them laid more often.

Over on Feministing there's lots of discussion of what share of the housework is a fair share. I'm sure that 50% is the obvious answer assuming that both partners have a balanced relationship in other areas. And also on whether men should get extra praise for doing housework since it constitutes a break-out from traditional gender roles. Well I'm happy to give them extra praise but I want it right back for me when I get a job, wind up as primary breadwinner and manage to unscrew tight jar lids on my own.

What bugs me more though is the other end of the deal... the idea that women will (sub-consciously mind) trade sex for housework. This rather assumes:

1) The woman doesn't actually want sex.

2) The woman, despite not wanting sex, is prepared (sub-consciously anyway) to do it in return for other things.

3) The man wants sex all the time.

4) The man wants sex with the woman even if the woman doesn't want sex and presumably therefore even if the woman isn't enjoying it.

5) The man is comfortable (consciously to his mind) trading other things for sex.

If any one of those things was true of my relationship, I would be seriously worried.

Return of the Fuckwits

They're back! The guys who think good parenting starts with disturbing the peace.

So time maybe for a recap on their aims and what is so horribly wrong with them.

(from their own site)

"AIMS:

Early Interventions & Mandatory Mediation
Before couples seek legal recourse, the government must recognise that ALL couples should be bound to enter into mandatory mediation, with appropriately trained mediators."

This is what we would all commonly call bullying. Mediation is and always has been available to those who wish to make use of it. Making it compulsory means that women who have been victims of physical or psychological abuse during their relationships are forced to either accept the demands of the father of their children or face intimidation and a risk of further abuse in the mediation process. Everybody and anybody in a legal situation has the right to take the matter directly to court. Anyway who are these mediators and who is going to train them?

"Presumption of Contact & Shared Parenting
The best parent is both parents. The starting point after separation should be to maintain where possible what the status quo was before separation. Children currently have no right in law to see their parents. The principle of shared parenting creates a level playing field where conflict can be reduced, as opposed to the current "winner takes all" scenario which generates maximum conflict."

The advantages of raising a child in a two-parent family are more than 80% explained financially. So if F4J really cared about children they would be campaigning to force absent fathers to contribute more to their child's maintenance.

Maintaining the status quo after separation is obviously not possible when one partner has moved out. The principle of shared parenting would mean that most children in separated families would spend 3 nights per week at one house and 4 at another. Evidence suggests this is hugely destructive to children's well-being.

One in four women in the UK is a victim of domestic violence at some point in her life. Of course some men are also victims of domestic violence, although the numbers are much lower. No parent should be expected to hand their children over to someone who is or has been violent towards them.

Raising children is hard work. Very few women would refuse genuine well-intended help from someone they considered trust-worthy with their children. By the time you get to courts, you have already fallen at that hurdle.

Last time around in the UK Fiona Bruce did a great job of tackling them head on and actually got them to close down for a while after it was revealed that a large number of their key spokespeople had convictions for domestic violence. At the time Matt O'Connor insisted that he did not encourage his members to intimidate court officials and legal professionals. This time around doing so is one of their stated aims!

Standards Falling

Tuesday's Evening Standard ran an article which sadly isn't available on the wed by Lucy Cavendish and her husband entitled "Why I Had To Give Up My House Husband". I should really have hung onto it so I could quote vast chunks and then dissect them but I left it on the bus, I think. Anyway the gist of it was "Lucy and her husband spent a year trying to have him raise the kids and it didn't work". The not-very-hidden sub text was "men can't raise kids, women should do it". But the article - when you read it through - was, well, odd for a few reasons.

1) He wanted to be a house-husband mainly because he thought it would be easy. He told neighbours he'd have time to go out for a game of squash every week. He doesn't seem to have realised that his kids need full-time supervision. It didn't work because he felt so tired and hadn't anticipated it being a full-time job. So his point is - men shouldn't stay home, it's too hard, only women are capable of doing such hard work. Neither of them bother to discuss the implications of that on the state of the women's pensions deficit.

2) Ms Cavendish herself hasn't ever been a housewife. She's been a journalist all along (and a very successful one thanks to big name papers publishing low-quality stories like these). So when at the end of the piece she says how she enjoys dropping them off at classes, buying their stuff and making their packed lunches, etc, even though she finds it below herself, she doesn't mention that she then enjoys having a meeting with her editor and planning her next two-page feature about how other women should live their lives.

3) She does however work from home an claims to have found it impossible to go out and leave him in charge. So who was in charge? And is it any surprise he couldn't do the job up to her standards while she was stood over one shoulder all the time looking angry?

Boring Sexist BBC

After a report released last week revealed that contrary to popular belief, men and women talk roughly the same amount as each other, the BBC has hit back with a "tongue-in-cheek feature" on the words women use that men don't. Here are some highlights:

Feminism: If even veteran feminists can't agree on what this means then it's probably best avoided by men.

I hear a lot of men use that word, sometimes because they are feminists and sometimes because they are making rude remarks about feminists. Same word for either use.

Afghanistan: A place where the debate is rather starker

Men don't talk about Afghanistan? What about the mainly men who decided to invade it? One would hope they have discussed it a few times.

Why: As in "why do you never call?"

Also as in "why do you keep calling?" and "why can't you leave me alone?", not to mention "why is the dog upstairs?" and "why don't we go to the pub later?"

And it goes on: book club, accessorize, body image, empowering, size zero, home birth, pilates, pomegranate (? I know, Mr Cru drinks pomegranate juice all the time), agony aunt, breastfeeding, flexible working, beefeater(?), superwoman, babies.

Some of it is just weird, some is downright offensive. And I didn't laugh once. Not so much tongue-in-cheek as foot-in-mouth...

Everytime I Open My Mouth...

...well I seem to get included in some new cool blog post! This time it is my post Brain Scan which is featured in the latest Brit Blog Round-Up. And ok so there are mutterings about feminism and stand-up comedy as though the two were somehow incompatible! Let me be clear though - the view from the inside - we don't need any more misogynist comedians, we are over-run with them already. I sincerely hope one day (SOON!) they will be as unwelcome as racist comics now, thankfully, are.

Who's The Daddy?

The government is off on yet another morality crusade, this time they are annoucing that they are going to make registration of father's names on birth certificates compulsory. Now you would think that this move would be so that they can ensure that fathers are contributing financially to supporting their families, to reduce mother's dependence on benefits. Not a bad idea as such (although if you really cared about that sort of thing though you would be working on strengthening the powers of the CSA (Child Support Agency) to chase up money from absent fathers - currently only 15 percent of lone parents on Income Support receive any child support) but you have to think that women who say they don't know who the father of their child is must be saying that for one of two reasons:

1) There is some kind of problem. They were raped and don't want the rapist to have rights and access to the child. They were a victim of incest and don't want the child to have that on their permanent record. The father has threatened them with violence or abuse if they "grass him up". They fear that an ex-partner or members of the family may attack or even murder the father if he is named.

2) They genuinely don't know who the father is. They had a one night stand and didn't get in touch afterwards or left false contact details. Or they may have been having simultaneous relationships with several men and not know which caused the pregnancy.

In either case who are they going to prosecute under the new laws? A new mother, baby under one arm, sat there either terrified or just quite honestly unaware of who the father of her child is? That doesn't seem very resonable. And how can they prosecute the father? They don't know who he is!

The quotes from Kate Stanley at The Institute of Public Policy Research are frighteningly out of touch with the realities of the kind of people who might be affected by this legislation:

"Everyone should know who to send a card to on Father's Day." Presumably newsagents are going to start selling 'Happy Father's Day - thanks for nothing!' cards shortly?

"Most people will be thanking their fathers tomorrow but many will be wondering who their father is and why they have not helped support their family." Does anyone really believe that writing the name of the man who abused and raped you on a birth certificate is going to result in that man coming round every other weekend to take your child out to the park and dressing up as santa on Christmas eve? And does anybody actually want their rapist round their house hanging out with their kids anyway?

Herd Instinct

I spent last weekend at the Kilkenny Comedy Festival. It was my best mate from uni's hen do and she currently lives in Dublin so seemed like a good excuse for a trip. Shappi Khorsandi and Reginald D Hunter were fantastic and a great time was had by all. It was a relatively modest hen do by modern standards. We had a meal, drinks and danced a bit in a local pub but there were no strippers, no accosting of strangers, no dares or sprints around the streets in our undies.

Not so Stephen Mallone who took his stag party to Slovakia where he proceeded to get arrested dancing naked in a fountain. The media coverage seems to have focussed on his future wife ("a former carnival queen" - oh please BBC, your reporters can do better than that) and her distress at the prospect of postponing the wedding while he serves time in Bratislava's local prison. Even the local MP has jumped in and appears now to have secured Mallone's release.

Personally I am in favour of locking him up. Not because naked fountain-dancing bothers me all that much (though I can imagine it was intimidating to some). But because I think taking your stag do overseas and then totally ignoring local traditions and behaving loutishly sucks. I've been to Prague twice in my life, once in 1996 when I was struck by the beauty and historical charm of the place, and once in 2005 when I was horrified to see street after street of strip clubs catering exclusively to English stag do tourists, many still roaming the streets shouting at nine or ten in the morning, clearly having been out all night.

I don't see Czecks and Slovaks (nor Poles, Estonians, etc) chasing round the streets of London demanding more beer and access to cheap lap-dancing clubs. At best it's totally unfair that we should force the very worst elements of British customs onto unsuspecting foreigners. At worst it's abusive sexual tourism.

I'd like to think my local MP spends their time following up genuine miscarriages of justice and figuring out how to address real issues like healthcare and education. And I think we should leave Stephen Mallone to rot in jail for a couple of months as an example to the others.

Why Is It Always Our Fault?

The Guardian in it's quest to provide the latest and most insightful research, is now publishing the results of surveys by FHM... This in itself poses a problem for me. If we are to assume that results of a survey compiled through FHM are a fair portrayal of the views of men in British society we are implicitly accepting that FHM's readership is an "average" sample of men. Of course it's not - it's a minority of men who enjoy reading deeply misogynist material. So unsurprisingly the results reflect that.

So this apparently is what men want: "a 50/50 partnership, in which both they and their partner would go out to work, sharing childcare and housework". So how would that work then? You would pop the child in a drawer in the office from nine to five while you both worked? I don't think it's possible to do half the housework and half the childcare and hold down a full time job. And where is the evidence that these modern-thinking guys are actually doing any more housework or childcare?

Here's another quote: "men believe they have made a dramatic shift in roles in the last 30 years - at the behest of women - the survey also suggests that men feel women have now changed their minds and want to go back to old roles." Sure. Or women stuck with these neanderthals are realising that if they want the job done properly they need to do it themselves.

The Sporting Post

Ok, this is going to be a big one. There are things in life that we take for granted, things we've always known to be true and don't usually feel the need to question. And then sometimes for one reason or another we end up questioning them and sometimes they hold up to that questioning and sometimes they don't. Now I'm going to say something controversial:

Professional sports are a waste of money and resources.

I guess what made me really start thinking about all this was the death of Bob Woolmer. It's still not clear what happened but the general consensus that seems to be forming is that someone cared more about protecting their own match fixing racket than about Bob Woolmer's life. Even if we found out that Bob died of natural causes, the fact that we all assumed there was enough incentive for murder there should be cause enough for concern.

Then a couple of days ago I got a letter from my energy supplier - EDF. They were proud to announce they would be sponsoring the forthcoming rugby world cup. So proud in fact they felt the need to write and let me know specially. All I could think was that this was an excuse by the management to use company money to get themselves ringside seats. Personally I will not benefit at all from their sponsorship. I would benefit much more if they instead reduced my bill by an amount equivalent to my share of the sponsorship. A bit like I would benefit much more from the London Olympics if they just reduced my council tax in line with my share.

Today I read an article from the BBC about the impact of sports on fans. The research showed that winning fans were in fact more aggressive than losing fans. They also found these fans were more aggressive than they had been before the game. Losing reduced happiness, but winning did not increase happiness. It's not the biggest study or the most impressive but it doesn't seem to have found any positive side effects to guys watching sports. And of course we've all seen horror footage of fans rioting after football matches. And I think most of us have been out socialising and had our evening disrupted by the arrival of a big crowd of noisy drunk guys huggging each other and singing something about "One-nil". And many of us have felt intimidated or actually been hurt, deliberately or accidentally by these guys.

Professional sports do nothing for gender equality. The three top sports in the UK: football, rugby and cricket are barely played by women, when they are the matches are almost never televised or promoted and sponsorship is negligible. No women play these sports professionally in the UK. Other minority sports face a continuous uphill struggle to get funding and recognition for the women's side of the game. How can we tell young people that they live in a society where we value equal opportunities, then say "boys you can work as professional sportpeople, sorry girls you can't"?

And finally look at all the other things that professional sports fans are encouraged to do: drink too much, smoke, eat unhealthy pies and chips and waste money gambling. They also are likely to hang around in big groups of guys leaving their wives unsupported and their children feeling unloved. If children are brought along they are dressed up in team colours they are too young to understand, taught how to shout abuse at other fans and exposed to drunken rowdy behaviour.

By now you are probably thinking "bah humbug"and you probably have a few questions racing round your head. A few points about the benfits of sports that have been drummed into us all from birth and are going to take a bit of dislodging...

What about encouraging children to take up sports? Surely we need sports funding more than ever now to combat rising child obesity?

I am all in favour of sport in schools. And indeed my EDF letter assures me that they'll be funding a major school rugby program alongside the rugby world cup. I can't get hold of the numbers but what percentage of the money they're spending is going to schools? I suspect very little. Lots more good could be done if management didn't need to keep their executive boxes.

When I was at school we all played sport twice a week. Well most kids did. We were told in every subject from music to maths that we shouldn't be competitive, it was about doing the best WE could. Except sport. Then is was about winning. And I wasn't good enough at it to win. So I wrote excuse notes, faked illness, went AWOL, etc. And I was wildly depressed about it - all the subjects I was good at I had to shut up about and the one thing I wasn't so good at I was paraded infront of the rest of the school and made to look like an idiot. Parents were not invited in for geography day - no, they came in for sports day and laughed at me.

Funding school sports equipment is the excuse for everything these days. You can even get free school sports equipment vouchers with chocolate eggs. Equipment doesn't make kids fit, bright enthusiastic dedicated teachers and parents who encourage kids to participate without belittling them make kids fit. Chocolate bars and a nation obsessed with sitting on the sofa watching others do sport don't help either. The number of children who will go on to play professional sport is tiny. The number who aspire to do so and see their dreams end in disappointment is much higher. And the number who know from the outset that they'll never be able to live up to that standard and are quickly taught that sport for them is something to watch, is the highest of all.

What about encouraging sports at grass-roots level for adults?

Years after I left school I discovered I enjoyed playing sport. I tried to join a team and when I couldn't find a team I started my own. Over the three years I ran that team (in Tokyo), I spent a fortune out of my own pocket paying for practice courts, balls, bibs, kit, spare shin-pads, socks, adverts to find new players, laundering kit, competition entry fees, website upkeep, hiring refs and linesmen, league subscription fees and internal administration money. Not to mention all the time I put in. Of course I was pretty careful about saving money where I could. We got our shirts from a local mens team who were throwing them out to get new ones, etc. Despite eventually winning the all-Japan women's five-a-side tournament, I was never able to get any sponsorship money from local businesses or government programs.

When I came back to the UK I joined a local FA-registered side. I paid £50 FA registration fee, I paid to train every week, we all chipped in to pay for coaching, I paid for a transfer when I wasn't getting a game and we payed for matches we played and covered our own transport to and from games.

As far as I can see there is NO FUNDING at grassroots level for adult sport in the UK or overseas. Or if there is it isn't coming into the women's games at all. I no longer play group sport, the effort and cost isn't worth it.

Don't men need sports to somehow use up all that testosterone?

Well, as the Cardiff University researchers have established, watching sport in fact generates more testosterone and increases the likelihood that guys will become aggressive. If guys wanted to use up excess testosterone, they could try playing sport. Mr Cru likes boxing - he used to participate but now he just watches it on TV. I'm not a fan but in the interests of domestic harmony I tolerated it when he first moved in. A little over a year later I've started deliberately leaving the room when it's on. If I watch it late at night I don't sleep so well and I have more violent and upsetting dreams. Even as cynical and defensive towards it as I am, I am still well aware that I am affected by it. I thought boxing was the extreme end of sports but I increasingly see similarly agressive behaviour being accepted as the norm in rugby and even in supposedly non-contact football. And of course our screens and stadiums are now welcoming the even more violent option of "ulitmate fighting" where kicking, strangling and breaking arms and legs are also allowed. Occassionally Mr Cru will watch this too to my horror and every time I see it, there is actual blood spilt.

But what if I like watching sport?

So do I. But wouldn't it be nicer to go and see a game where the stakes were a great deal lower, where the games were genuinely played for honour? The prize money came from the ticket sales and thus accurately reflected the entertainment value of the sport? So playing good quality skillful sport became as important as winning and diving and then screaming for a penalty was a thing of the past? I think a happy medium would be that ticket sales could go to pay players wages, sponsorship money could only be given to school sports campaigns and merchandising profits should as a sign of good will be given to charity. Government money should of course be barred from going into sports, other than where needed in schools. I think the fun to be had watching sport under that arrangement would be much greater. And you could genuinely feel that you were doing something positive by going to a game.

But what about our international reputation for being good at sport?

We could trade that in for an international reputation for having the good sense not to waste resources encouraging drunken violent sexist aggression, cheating and in some cases even murder. We could use the money we save to build a new reputation as the country which prioritises improving the human condition across the globe rather than spending all our money on having half a dozen guys who can kick really hard and run really fast...

The Right News For The Wrong Reason

Rapper Snoop Dogg has been refused a Visa to come and perform in the UK. And the concert's been cancelled as a result! In fact he's been refused because of a previous violent incident at Heathrow. What he should have been prevented from performing for is having lyrics clearly intended to incite hatred and violence against women. For instance:

"Can you control your hoe? (You got a bitch that wont do what you say)
You can’t control your hoe? (She hardheaded, she just won’t obey)
Can you control your hoe? (You’ve got to know what to do, and what to say)
You’ve got to put that bitch in her place, even if it’s slapping her in her face.
Ya got to control your hoe. Can you control your hoe? "

Not In The Mood

A report discussed in The Independent says British women lose interest in sex as they get older, more than women on the continent do. This of course is a huge surprise to anyone who has considered whether they would rather go to bed with a 50-year-old beer-gutted, armchair-dwelling British guy or a 50-year-old wine-sipping, gourmet-dining Frenchman who probably bothers to have a proper shave and wear clothes made and bought this century.

In fairness the article does cover things from a variety of angles. One thing you've got to wonder though is whether Britain's "lad" culture is in any way a contributory factor. We are bombarded with images of very young women posing "sexily", I certainly see such images and feel a bit like they're part of a world that has nothing to do with me and my life.

On the same note as I was channel-hopping last night I found one of these ubiquitous "Top 100 as-voted-by-you" shows, this one offering the Top 100 Sexiest Moments. The usual line-up of minor celebs was discussing some clips from various films and TV shows which the public had voted for. Maybe I'm getting old and nothing does it for me any more but a lot of the clips people had picked just do nothing for me. Like the basic instinct Sharon Stone crossing her legs moment. It lasts half a second. You can't see anything, no matter how many times you replay it. It was just a well-hyped media "event". Then again I suppose so is the whole idea of calling in on a premium rate line to vote for your top sexy moment...

Getting The Knife In

As regular Cru-blog readers will know, I am not a big fan of organised (or even disorganised) religion. One thing Richard Dawkins and I agree on is that children can't be defined as religious until they're old enough to make their own choice on the matter. We should never refer to a Christian baby or a Muslim baby. I also think we shouldn't cut parts of baby's bodies off for reasons other than medical necessity.

To be honest I'm not even sure we should allow adult men to undergo circumcision voluntarily. We don't allow people to have limbs or fingers removed just because they want to. If I started the cult of the Holy Digits and said all my followers had to have their little fingers cut off, people would soon have me up in court. Yet even when babies are DYING no-one makes a fuss about circumcision.

Now of course we could have the debate about whether some guys like being circumcised. They may do, although once you've gone there there's no going back so it's difficult to know. I have a friend who was circumcised for medical reasons as an adult who thinks that he lost some sensitivity and sexual enjoyment, but not much. At very least shouldn't we wait until adulthood and allow guys to choose for themselves?