Misandry - the acceptable face of discrimination

Most people reading this blog will, I imagine, be familiar with the term 'misogyny'. It's strict definition is a hatred of women, though its meaning has been broadened in the mainstream media to include any act of discrimination by males against females. It's something which ageing male television presenters seem to be accused of on a fairly regular basis, and of course a misogynistic attitude is wrong, plain and simple.

Who among you, though, is familiar with the term 'misandry'? Scholars of ancient Greek will recognise the fragment of 'andros' in there, the word for 'man', and so it should take no great leap of the imagination to discern that we're discussing a 'male equivalent of misogyny'. That is, after all, the term I put into Google to find 'misandry', though in my defence it's such an underused word that none of the spell-checkers on my computer include it in their standard definitions.

This is wonderful news, isn't it? A term so underused that it doesn't even appear in the dictionary. Surely, then, incidents of misandry are so rare as to be impossible to find. I wish it was so.

Misandry is woven into the fabric of modern popular culture. Don't believe me? Well, I can give you four common examples, and I'd be really surprised if you haven't come across at least one of these in the last six months.

• Diet Coke ads
  This is one which just keeps running and running, and has even been updated recently. If you're not familiar with the concept, allow me to explain; it's not very sophisticated... The idea is that a bunch of modern career ladies are working hard, and deserve a break. What better than a Diet Coke, because of course women are always worried about their weight, right? This advert is guilty of misogyny too!
  
  But of course, it's not that simple, because by some convoluted and not quite believable reason, there's a hunky guy strutting around their office performing some manual task or other, over whom they drool, thereby objectifying him in a manner which would cause outrage if the gender roles were reversed. But it's OK, because it's just a man, and they don't mind being made into sex objects, right?
  
• Silly Daddy Pig
  Peppa Pig is a very important part of many young girls' lives. I really can't object to the program as a whole - it's harmless, quite funny and moderately educational, and not even too annyoing for the parents (well, me at least. Can't speak for everyone here). However, one character takes a misandric bullet in almost every episode. Daddy pig is clumsy, lacking in common sense, prone to outbursts of anger and/or grumpiness, and generally seen as another dependent for Mummy Pig to look after.
  
  Wow. Stereotyped much? This falls squarely into a view of the world where the mother in any given modern nuclear family is the capable one, the one who manages the family, and the father is just another kid, albeit bigger. See also, the next point, regarding pharmaceutical adverts.
  
• Pharmaceutical and Pharmacy adverts
  What happens when winter comes? Daddy and the kids all mope around the house dying from a minor case of the sniffles, whilst mummy, who is suffering from real flu, period pains (their cliché, not mine) and possibly malaria, runs around doing everything. This usually includes the Christmas shopping, and Christmas dinner. All while holding down a big job in the city, making nativity costumes and curing cancer in her spare time. And how does she manage this? Well, apparently it's by taking Nurofen products and shopping at Boots.
  
  Really? Doesn't work that way in my house, and I suspect not in yours either. Mums are often amazing, don't get me wrong. But dads can be OK, too; they don't have to be (and often aren't) infantile dependents.
  
• Twilight moms
  Possibly the most disturbing case of double standards in recent times is the habit of middle-aged women screaming like pubescent girls over the teenage characters in the Twilight film franchise. I've used the American spelling of 'mom' since it's typically a US trend, though not exclusively so.
  
  Imagine this was a group of middle aged men getting hot and bothered about a teenage girl in a film. In public. With signs. And screaming. OK, that last part wouldn't happen anyway, one suspects, but just the very idea would have the Daily Mail up in arms about perverts. It's OK the other way around, though.
  
  Double standards are discrimination by exclusion - why should one group of people be allowed to behave in a certain way when another cannot? Or, rather, why should these women be allowed to get away with behaving in this (quite frankly disturbing) manner?

Why is this such an important issue? After all, haven't men been treating women in this way for centuries? Isn't it time for a bit of payback?

Well, no, not really. You see, even if misandry is deemed acceptable (and it certainly seems to be, according to mainstream media), that doesn't mean we should allow it to be part of our society. You see, following the logic of the 'payback' argument goes something like this:

1) Misandry is no different from misogyny.
2) Misandry is acceptable, because it's only fair.
3) Misogyny, being equivalent to misandry (see point 1), is therefore acceptable.

Um, no. No, it isn't. So, you see, if you make misandry acceptable, you're not only doing damage to the image of men, but serving to counter women's rights. Oops.

There's a second string to the 'damaging women's rights' bow, too - the idea that misandry is quite reasonable only serves to lower the tone of the argument. it says, "Look, we're just as bad as you are, now!" It serves only to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator. It's a race to the bottom, a fight to see who can be more discriminatory.

You might also be thinking to yourself that this isn't quite as important a fight as women's rights, or gay rights, or race rights, or the rights of any other oppressed minority. You're kind of right, I'll concede that. But, you see, if you blithely accept one form of discrimination, that leaves the door open for all of the other sorts. I'm not concerned that this misandry will have a significant effect on the role of men in society. What bothers me is that it is (and I really hate to use this term, because it's always used by those with a not-real-world view of the likely outcomes of anything) the thin end of the wedge. If this is OK, what else will be?

Two recent images

A couple of recent images to share. First up, a recent art project, on the subject of puns through sculpture. It's called "Cloud Computer", and is based on an old aluminium heat sink.

Second is "Nuclear Hospital", because that's sort of what it looks like...

Dear Pan-European Advertisers...

There's a bit of a habit sprung up in our modern word, where brands are global, and it's indicative of a thorough misunderstanding of the average British person. You see, we're not like other Europeans, not really. Oh yes, there are significant cultural divides right across the continent, but there's one way in which a great number of our European neighbours are quite similar - they don't mind crappy adverts. 

You know the ones I mean, the 'humourous' ones with plastic-looking, very European families. He is slick of hair and clean shaven, she looks like she's just stepped out of a salon, and the kids are dressed by Gap, and one of them carries a perfectly unused skateboard. They're hip, they're happening, and nothing like them has ever been seen west of the North Sea...

Then the advert gets dubbed. Badly. Because it's the same brand, we'll definitely have the same values when it comes to advertising, right? I mean, it's just an advert, isn't it? Well, no. Not exactly...

You see, here in the UK we get a bit antsy about adverts. We didn't have them for ages, then this channel started up called ITV, and it was paid for by advertising, and the whole game changed. Those precious moments when we could be watching the program we tuned in to watch, but are instead watching a sales pitch, are something to be treated very carefully. We don't want to be watching the advert, but if we have to it had better be damned good. Funny is a good place to start, but merely cool-looking will do. Expensive in look and feel is a definite, unless you're selling something cheap, in which case we'll forgive you, and ignore your product.

Adverts are a battle ground in the British media, a place for rival ad companies to try to outdo each other with their genius. The adverts get better and better, and we can tell when someone hasn't bothered. We can really tell when someone has just dubbed over an advert they've already used in Spain, France and the Czech Republic. And we resent it. Resent the laziness, and the assumption that we're anything like that unwashed, uncultured bunch over there on the continent (etc., etc.). 

Adverts on British television are an intrusion, and as such had better give us a damned good party trick or we'll boot them back out the way they just came in. 

So now you know.

Two rather important images

Firstly, it's important that you know that Amazon now sells Nerf guns by the ounce, like drugs (click image for larger, more readable version). I have no idea how this compares to the street price of cocaine. Anyone?

Secondly, it is also important that you know about the astonishing event taking place in Sheffield this Christmas. Just imagine "the magical blend of Christmas and the circus.... on ice!" I'm not sure one exclamation mark is enough to convey the excitement...

Why Americans need to be careful about who they vote for

There are plenty of reasons, I'm sure, for choosing one political party over another in the race for the American presidency. I imagine there's a fair amount of history involved, too - if your parents voted for one party or another, you're fairly likely to follow them, once you've got over your youthful rebellious phase. And of course, for the rest of us in the wider world, the outcome is extremely important - if the Democrats get in we'll get to hear rabid nonsense from Republicans for another few years about how America is going to waste, and if the Republicans get in we're likely to die in a massive nuclear war. Joys.

But Americans really need to have a good, long think about how they vote, because the direction of politics in America has a very profound affect on how the country is seen around the globe. Americans might suggest that they don't give a damn about what we think, and if that's their attitude that's fine. But it's short-sighted and naive, and I'll tell you why: without the export trade and the influx of tourists, the American economy is trousered.

These revenue streams are governed both by the strength of the American economy, and also - crucially - the perception of the American public across the wider world. People won't go to American if they think it's full of tub-thumping rednecks, and let me tell you one little thing you may have missed, America: if you elect Mittens Romney, people will think that you're a dangerous bunch of idiots.

Tourists will be shit-scared of your border agencies. Anyone who fails to believe in puritanical, Americanised Christianity will fear for their rights of religious freedom, and anyone living east of the Mediterranean will imagine themselves being arrested upon arrival for being a "damn Commie".

If you elect a Republican president, the world will, I'm afraid, have no option but to think of you as having potatoes instead of brains. You can complain all you want that I don't know the first thing about American politics, and you'd be mostly right, but this isn't about knowing American politics, it's about knowing how non-Americans think. And America, I've had years of practice at doing that...

Car Park Bingo: Sunny Day

Maserati Quattroporte! Only need the MC12 to complete my Maser line-up, as I've already had the GT in the same car park. Note the poor parking - squashed front off-side tyre.

For those unfamiliar with the rules of Car Park Bingo, it's quite simple: spy an exotic four-wheeled thingy in an everyday situation (supermarket car park, on the street, etc. - no motor shows!), and snap it with whatever photographic device is to hand. Upload it to your blog/Twitter/Facebook/other feed and label it 'Car Park Bingo'. There are no prizes and everyone's a winner!

Car Park Bingo: Upgrade!

I've had the V8 Vantage before, now I've got the V12 too...

Should we ban tobacco outright?

Recent legislation in the UK has seen another blow to the tobacco industry, with retailers no longer allowed to display tobacco and tobacco products on their shelves. Instead, these products must be kept in shuttered cabinets, with the shutters only opened at the precise moments of need. This is a further attempt to discourage youngsters from viewing the purchase of tobacco as a 'normal' activity, and further legislation might well get passed which enforces the sale of these products in plain, non-brand-designed packaging, to increasingly de-glamorise the industry. This move is already being implemented in Australia from December this year.

Clearly we are heading towards the point where sales of tobacco are eventually eliminated entirely. Certainly the current direction of policy is to marginalise the practise of smoking as much as possible - it is becoming harder to buy cigarettes, and the ban on public smoking sends addicts (an inflammatory term I very deliberately use) out into the freezing rain to get their fix. It would seem, then, that we are moving toward a society where smoking is banned outright.

Let me go on the record now to say that I agree with this outcome. Smoking should be banned, because it is an addictive, harmful activity with no benefit other than to satisfy a craving which only exists due to smoking in the first place. It costs the NHS something like £5bn per year, as well as having a knock-on effect onthe family and friends of smokers, not least through second-hand smoke inhalation.

Pro-smoking lobbying groups (often sponsored by, if not officially part of tobacco companies themselves) will argue that to smoke is the right of the individual, and that it should be a personal choice. To some extent it should be considered thus - after all, who are we to prevent others from making their own choices in these matters? On the other hand, though, imagine if tobacco was introduced to the world for the first time in 2012 - it would instantly be legislated against as a harmful drug, probably in Class C of the UK system, much like cannabis. It is only our history of using this drug, coupled to a perceived lack of impact on personality (unlike, for example, heroin use), which prevents it being considered quite as harmful as perhaps it should be.

Of course, a total ban is probably an impossible dream. Tobacco companies know they can't win the war, but they're fighting all the way. They support both the Conservatives and Labour in the UK, and as such can guide policy towards measures which, while they appear to be aimed at curbing the uptake of tobacco, will have very little effect on existing users - if you need your fix, you'll get it. We must also consider the revenue from tobacco sales, which is predicted to be £12.1bn for the 2011-2012 UK tax year, a not inconsiderable sum. Pro-smoking groups would argue that losing this revenue would dramatically harm the UK economy, and to a point they have a decent argument - the revenue certainly outweighs the quoted cost to the NHS, though in my sums I'm ignoring costs to the economy due to time off for smoking-related illnesses.

I don't know the answer, but I suspect it lies in the re-invention of the tobacconist, a shop type which has morphed into what we would now call a newsagent. Further marginalisation of the sales process is probably the only feasible means by which we will continue to decrease the demand for tobacco and tobacco products. Eventually there will come a time when the revenue from smoking begins to fall (according to the figures quoted in the link above, they have steadily climbed since 1990, and probably before that), and we will see a decline in the power of the pro-smoking lobbyists. Only at that point will a complete ban be on the cards.

Very Cross Words

In an attempt to rebuild my ailing internal thesaurus (which was, at one time, not entirely useless), I've been spending a fair amount of time recently doing crosswords. The simple kind, you understand, but it's those simple ones which help flex the imaginary brain muscles upon the strength of which ones synonym-system operates.

Mostly, I am able to complete these with ease, with the exception that on each an every crossword there is at least one clue which utterly confounds me, and it is typically related to some obscure matter of what, for want of a more accurate (or even slightly accurate) term, I shall call general knowledge.

It goes something like this:

"Three across, 'finger', five letters, ends in 'T'. Hmmm, well, that must be 'digit'.

"Nine down, 'thing for remembering', six letters, blank-blank-emm-blank-arr-blank. Easy: 'memory'.

"Right, nineteen across, five letters, '17th century Taoist monk'.... what the f***?"

In case you're wondering, it would be Zhang, as in Zhang San Feng, the inventor of Tai Chi...

That's not even the most awkward of them. My current favourite clue, still unsolved, is 'Common febrifuge'. I don't even know what a febrifuge is! Well, I do now I've Google'd it; but before that? No chance. I'll bet none of you do either, without looking it up. In case you can't be bothered, it's a fever-reducing herb. When was this  crossword set, the 14th century?

There really isn't a point to this, other than to rant about the deliberate efforts of Telegraph Quick Crossword setters to catch us all out. You have been warned.

When debating goes south

Before I begin to get into things, let me just go on record to state that this article has nothing to do with any opinions I might or might not have regarding the role of religion in the world. This article is nothing to do with that, it's all about how some people who should know better allow themselves to fall into a mode of argument which weakens the foundations of their arguments. Anyway, on with the rant...

There's very much been a recent trend towards a cheap, unintelligent approach to the debate over the relevance (or lack thereof) of religion in the modern world. I'm not intending to debate the rights and wrongs of religion, but rather to discuss a prevalent habit for lazy argument which makes its proponents look rather absurd.

Leading the way in this field is the humanist Richard Dawkins; you may have come across his work. He is according to all available accounts a fairly intelligent man, but he does have at least one serious failing - his inability to discuss his anti-religious feelings without highlighting them as exactly that: feelings. Dawkins approaches his arguments with a zeal which, were it not painfully ironic to do so, we would happily liken to a religious fervour.

That he is enthusiastic about his subject is not in itself reprehensible - quite the opposite in fact - but when he claims to represent the cold, hard face of reason, he cannot afford to allow his feelings to interfere. He must be the Jedi, the Vulcan, the dispassionate warrior of logic and reason. By not being so, he cripples his own argument.

And there is another angle to the modern anti-religious argument which is self-corrosive: the "sneering" attitude, which aims to suggest that the owner of the attitude isn't even willing to get into a debate about religion, because it's somehow beneath them, or the argument is pointless because it's already been won.

I'm a huge fan of Stephen Fry, a witty, urbane, intelligent man with a sense of humour which can dissolve me into fits of laughter. But he is prone to a rather sneering attitude to the issue of religion, an attitude which can be summed up as "oh, I'm sure it's a lovely thing for some people, but come now, it's not really something serious, is it? Haha".

I'm not interested in having a discussion about whether his views are right or wrong, but his approach to the argument, which simply put assumes that it is impossible for an intelligent person to examine religion and subsequently wish to join in, is rather crass and unworthy of the man. I'm convinced there are a number of really rather intelligent people involved in religion all over the world, and to assume that their faith comes as a result of some sort of failure of reason really does insult that intelligence.

I suppose my angle here is that I dislike sloppy argument with weak foundations. The same accusations could, I have no doubt, be levelled at the religious communities of the world, but, and here's the fundamental difference, religions never claimed to be based on cold, hard logic. Opposing views often do claim to be logical, and therefore arguments submitted by the anti-religion lobby need to transcend any possible emotional colouring, or the laziness of the condescending "come, now". Without being beyond reproach, these arguments begin to look a little childish, and therefore lacking in fundamental validity.