Category Archives: Rants&Rambles

For the birds!

Apparently the annual RSPB UK bird count survey is over and whilst I recognise the birds, it seems a bit different to my own garden feeder.

RSPB birdwatch – the top 10 birds

1. House sparrow – almost never see these in the London garden
2. Blue tit – probably the most common visitor
3. Starling – an occasional visitor
4. Wood pigeon – not so much of the ‘wood’ but we see the city sort daily
5. Blackbird – at least weekly visitors
6. Robin – each and everyday second only to the tits
7. Goldfinch – never spotted on my feeder though a friend four streets down is regularly mobbed by these
8. Great tit – probably the second most common visitor
9. Magpie – each and every day
10. Chaffinch – cannot remember the last time I spotted on here

My birdwatch – the top 10 birds

1. Blue tit
2. Great tit
3. Robin
4. Pigeon
5. Magpie
6. Long tailed tit
7. Rook
8. Jay
9.Blackbird
10. Nuthatch

At The End of the Day

There is an excellent article in the New Statesman by David Gauke, an ex-Tory politician writing about the current state of his old political party and what comes next.

With the drip, drip, drip of constant scandals from No10 where our leaders seem to be shameless in their partying whilst the rest of us were left isolated and alone, it feels somewhat like the final series in a tv soap opera. We all expect the PM to go. The only question is when and who puts in the knife.

It is tempting to believe that the new leader will remake the party, which is in power in the UK two thirds of the time, into it’s old rather staid and, well, conservative, image.

The politics of 2019 were certainly extraordinary and, it is certainly tempting to view Johnson as an aberration, someone that only came to power in those very extraordinary circumstances. Now that those circumstances have passed, the argument goes, we can return to normality. The Conservative Party can elect a more conventional leader and pursue a more conventional Tory agenda. Post-Johnson politics can look like pre-Johnson politics (only with the UK outside the EU because, after all, he got Brexit done). Let us never speak of him again.

But this ignores the causes of the Brexit impasse, it ignores the political risks that faced the Conservative Party in 2019 and it ignores the political opportunity which Johnson seized at the last general election and which the Conservatives are likely to want to replicate.

Johnson skilfully exploited the nation’s weariness with a problem he had helped to create – the apparently endless drama that was leaving the European Union. Reassured by Leave politicians that this would be a simple and straightforward matter in which the UK held all the cards, it came as a shock to the electorate that negotiations proved to be complicated and that the EU was not prepared to give the UK everything it demanded.

Matters were not helped by the most intractable issue being one of little direct relevance to the population of Great Britain – the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This received little attention at the time of the 2016 referendum (despite the best efforts of Tony Blair and John Major) but the logic of the issue meant that there was no way of delivering a ­satisfactory Brexit.

The UK’s regulatory and customs divergence from the EU meant that a UK-EU border was necessary. We could, of course, have decided not to diverge on regulatory and customs matters, but this would have brought into question the whole point of Brexit.

It was this trilemma that sunk May’s withdrawal agreement. As a sincere unionist and someone acutely conscious of the risks of creating a border on the island of Ireland, she obtained an agreement that effectively kept the UK in the single market for goods until the border issue could be resolved. This was a practical solution to the trilemma, but it failed the Brexiteers’ purity test.

Brexit had become redefined so as to mean that any compromise with the EU (or, indeed, any compromise with logic) was unacceptable. As one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, Johnson might have engaged with and understood the issue and tried to explain to his followers that it was necessary to address a real practical problem. Where he led, Brexit supporters might have followed.

Instead, Johnson dismissed the Northern Ireland border as nit-picking by Remainers (once likening it to moving between the two London boroughs of Islington and Camden) and sided with the sovereignty purists of the European Research Group. His answer to the Northern Ireland border question was to hang tough, shout louder and threaten the EU with a no-deal Brexit.

On the substance, Johnson turned out to be wrong. He thought he could avoid a border but agreed in October 2019 to putting one in the Irish Sea. He tried to reverse this while negotiating a new EU trade deal in the autumn of 2020 but again backed down and is still trying to renegotiate the Northern Ireland Protocol without much success. His position, however, did bring political rewards – the support of the European Research Group in the Conservative leadership election and a comfortable victory among the staunchly Eurosceptic party membership.

Johnson’s triumph among Conservative MPs was not, of course, limited to the diehard Brexiteers. It helped enormously that he was the favourite among the members and was always likely to win. That can focus the minds of those wanting a frontbench career. He was also the candidate who could most plausibly see off Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, the winner of the 2019 European Parliament elections.

The risk for the Conservatives in 2019 was that they faced being squeezed on the Brexit-supporting right by Farage while being squeezed on the Remain supporting centre by the Liberal Democrats. This had happened in the European elections and Conservative MPs were terrified that it would happen again in a general election.

Johnson’s strategy was to unite the Brexit side of the debate. Brexit had created a risk but also created an opportunity. By seeing off Farage, it meant that the Conservatives could appeal to a new part of the electorate – cultural conservatives who had voted Labour and Ukip in the past and who wanted to see Brexit done. They liked Johnson – a charismatic, anti-establishment, politically incorrect, optimistic, patriotic, affable character who did not take himself too seriously. He promised them change, more nurses and police officers and a bit of a laugh. He was also up against Jeremy Corbyn, an historically unpopular figure. In December 2019, Johnson’s ambition was fulfilled and he won an 80-seat majority.

It is worth dwelling on this moment. It tells us three things about modern politics that are relevant to the post-Johnson world as well as his emergence as Prime Minister – the nature of the parliamentary party; the determination to close down space to the Conservatives’ right; and the changing alignment of British politics.

Johnson’s three predecessors as Conservative prime minister – John Major, David Cameron and Theresa May – were all brought down (or, at least, deeply damaged) by their inability to control the Eurosceptic right. Johnson, in contrast, exploited the right.

For a sizeable element of the Tory party, sovereignty has assumed an almost theological quality. They no longer exist in a world of trade-offs and compromises, of pros and cons, but a world of absolutes. In the context of Northern Ireland, this requires a continued refusal to accept the choices available and an insistence that we can avoid a border in the Irish Sea and diverge from the EU. Future leadership candidates will be acutely aware of this.

Incidentally, for most of these MPs, they also have a vision as to what Brexit means. Divergence is for a purpose and that purpose is to make the UK more competitive, to deliver the next stage of the Thatcherite revolution. The reality is that Brexit means reversing much of Thatcherism – putting up taxes because the economy is smaller than it otherwise would have been, erecting trade barriers and imposing new regulatory burdens on business – but the increasing tendency is to blame Johnson’s Big State instincts for this predictable turn of events.

The events of 2018-19 also revealed a wider change of temperament within the parliamentary party. Conservative politics became about campaigning not governing, with well-organised factions talking to the like-minded, and using every method possible to exert pressure on the government. The Tories became more a party of protest than of government, with a research group for every cause.

In recent weeks, the most prominent of these groups has organised opposition to Covid restrictions. The country is fortunate that Omicron has turned out to be as mild as it has – something that was not certain when a hundred Conservative MPs rebelled over the Plan B restrictions. Had these MPs got their way, with Plan B not implemented, (and had Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, and Jenny Harries, the chief executive of the UK Health Security Agency, not warned the public to ration their socialising), the NHS may well have been overwhelmed this January.

Again, as with Brexit, Covid-19 has ­exposed a tendency among Conservative MPs to view the world as they would like it to be, not as it actually is. Their risk appetite is insatiable. Johnson’s removal would not change this – he was relatively cautious on Omicron.

The threat of an alternative party to the right of the Conservatives has diminished since 2019. This is partly due to Johnson’s positioning and partly due to coronavirus. Farage and other Brexit veterans have ­associated themselves with the anti- lockdown cause, which has had little cut-through with their traditional older, Covid-vulnerable supporters. The Reform Party has consistently performed poorly in by-elections and opinion polls. 

Post-Covid, however, the opportunity to change the subject and prompt public ­animosity towards immigration will increase. A significant breakthrough for the Reform Party remains unlikely but Farage’s influence comes not from his own success but his influence over those Conservatives easily spooked by the prospect of losing votes to him. If anything, Johnson’s removal would increase these Tory concerns because his successor will not have Johnson’s track record of diminishing Farage’s appeal.

The final lesson is that there is a long-term realignment of politics in the UK and throughout the developed world. Whereas once the economically secure voted centre right and the economically insecure voted centre-left, voting behaviour has become increasingly influenced by cultural matters. The way in which a particular constituency votes increasingly depends not on income levels but upon population density, ethnic diversity and education levels.

This has created an opportunity for the centre right and helped deliver the Red Wall to the Tories. Johnson, with his performative patriotism, ideological flexibility and apparently disarming personality, was able to woo this part of the electorate in a way that few Conservatives can. Reconciling the small-state instincts of many Tories with this electoral opportunity is a challenge that any leader of the Conservative Party will have to address but, with our current political geography, it is hard to see how the views of the median voter in a Red Wall swing seat (economically to the left, culturally to the right) can be ignored. This does not suggest a return to Cameroon-style liberal conservativism any time soon.

Johnson’s period in office may be coming to an end. What replaces him will not be Johnsonian as such. He never offered a coherent philosophy and, ethically, any change will be a step in the right direction. Rule-breaking parties won’t be an issue. But the forces apparent in 2019 – an unruly, even delusional, parliamentary party, the fear of a threat from the right, and a realigned ­electorate that rewards cultural conservatism – will continue to drive the politics of the Conservative Party for years to come. 

How to Enjoy…

About to go on a holiday with my eldest and somehow it’s started to feel a bit less like a treat and more of a risk. Why is it so hard to actually enjoy going on holiday?

Apparently anticipation is something that makes people happy. very happy. And honestly, I’ve spent months looking forward to this trip, making my sudden last minute nerves, well, unnerving! Part of me is still very excited at the idea of the trip, of the experiences it will bring and the delight of some time spent in the sunshine, on the water. But the other part has also moved onto the reality of around 24 hours spent travelling there, and another 24 hours travelling back. I’m old enough to remember being able to arrive at an airport just 30 minutes before a flight and still manage to make the holiday work.

Maybe I need to learn to love airports more. the queues are never as bad as expected until the one time that they are and the hours ahead of the departure just drag by. Usually there is at least an hour sat in the airport on pretty uncomfortable seats, followed by twelve hours on a very uncomfortable airplane seat. Time drags when travelling by plane. Is there anything fun to do whilst sat in an airport or on a plane?

Maybe I just need to make sure that I’ve downloaded enough music or maybe some podcasts.

It doesn’t help that the airlines at the moment keep messing about with the flight schedule. I can understand why – they need to try to keep things profitable and people are cancelling all the time because of covid. When they moved my connecting flight in Dallas to 16:55 ie 10 minutes before my flight actually arrived at the airport, it did seem a bit daunting. The agent has now re-routed me through Los Angeles but it made for an uncomfortable couple of days . Memo to self: always check your flights in the rundown to a trip.

The holiday involves a small boat, so my partner has no interest whatsoever but it also involves whales so my eldest just jumped straight into it when offered a chance to come along but now I’m left planning how best to make sure her father isn’t left all on his lonesome for two weeks. Again, my initial excitement at getting away from the everyday (don’t we all want a break some time?) has morphed more into worry about looking after him. I’m booking on-line grocery deliveries, organising activities for him whilst I’m away, trying to keep him busy.

Perhaps to get the most out of holidays it’s best to organise lots of smaller trips to maximise the anticipation and to minimise the schlep of travelling by plane. Even short haul flights seem to drag out for a full day but at least they don’t come with jet lag; something I’m enjoying less as I age. Peak enjoyment of a holiday is supposed to arrive somewhere around day eight. Isn’t this just sometime around the middle when, if you’re having a good time you suddenly realise it’s half-way over.

It does help to keep moving and having something else to look forward towards. Trips which have plenty of arrivals in new places after small enjoyable journeys can feel like great fun.

Experiential holidays are a new and rising part of the holiday market, but not something that our family has really bought into. I like to visit and photograph new places, primarily historical or sites or natural wonders which seems enough of an experience for me – not really into the idea of learning to dive, or cook.

Filling days with pleasurable things seems an obvious holiday plan but too often when the kids were young, a holiday could end up just moving all of the mundane jobs and responsibilities from home (convenient, everything you need in its place) to the seaside (less convenient, rarely everything required, never to hand). We were never interested in kids clubs or all-inclusive resorts but I can certainly see the benefit if you’re a stay at home mum and desperately need some rest and relaxation.

It used to be easier to leave work at home but nowadays technology makes that harder. Leaving the husband at home feels a bit like a return to those days where being on holiday meant leaving the everyday behind.

Part of it is to do with leaving my caring responsibilities behind – he is a grown man and able to look after himself but still there is a surprising amount of emotional labour required to be married to the man. Part of it is the basic facts that the boat does not have wi-fi so we will be literally out of communication with the rest of the world. And now after all of these years becoming accustomed to the internet on tap, that feels less reassuring than daunting.

Finally and most definitely something that I need to remember: the best parts of any trip have always been the planning and being home afterwards to put together the photographs. It is incredibly difficult to really enjoy being in the moment on holiday because everything is new and challenging. The memories of a trip are inevitable shaped by the photographs because they bring very specific memories to the front of our mind.

I love going on holiday. I love coming home.

Grim

It’s all looking a bit grim in the UK at the moment. The PM has been lying again. Caught again. No shame. No resignations. And almost worse are the people who trot out to justify his behaviour. Perhaps the most egregious damage Johnson has caused is the hollowing out of his own political party, all to avoid someone holding up a mirror to his own shortcomings. Whether you support their polices or not (I generally don’t) the Conservative party is in power in the UK most of the time and anything that undermines it is just bad for the country.

The elderly couple we visit to play bridge with once a week are active Tory party members who struggle to justify his behaviour but also to identify any competent MP to take over from him. Maybe that’s why he’s still there – they just can’t find anyone else willing or able to do the job that the members can stomach. And yet he’s still there. Still funnelling money to friends and family. Billions of taxpayer’s money.

Today the courts found that the government’s decision to award PPE contracts worth over £500bn via the “VIP lane” ie gravy train was unlawful. Billions of our money staffed away to Tory friends and family whilst apparently we’re unable to find the money to make classrooms safre for covid or feed kids through school holidays. It’s all about choices, isn’t it? Apparently “them” feeding at the trough, is a better Tory choice than educating everyone else.

And I’m trying really hard not to revisit the Brexit debate, but the last pieces of the puzzle with regard to import/export requirements are about to hit home, inflation is the highest its been for an awfully long time and the cost of utility bills is predicted to double.

Where is all the good news?

If you Knew

Ruth Muskrat Bronson
If you could know the empty ache of loneliness,
          Masked well behind the calm indifferent face
Of us who pass you by in studied hurriedness, 
          Intent upon our way, lest in the little space
Of one forgetful moment hungry eyes implore
          You to be kind, to open up your heart a little more, 
I’m sure you’d smile a little kindlier, sometimes, 
          To those of us you’ve never seen before. If you could know the eagerness we’d grasp 
          The hand you’d give to us in friendliness; 
What vast, potential friendship in that clasp
          We’d press, and love you for your gentleness; 
If you could know the wide, wide reach 
          Of love that simple friendliness could teach, 
I’m sure you’d say “Hello, my friend,” sometimes, 
          And now and then extend a hand in friendliness to each.

Men hate Men

Feminists hate men. It’s such a common accusation thrown at women whether they identify as feminists or not, whenever or wherever they say or write anything vaguely critical of a man or men.

Do I hate men? I’m married to one and after decades together he remains my delight in life so clearly if I do hate men then #not all men.

The accusation is normally followed by a whole series of replies denying that women hate men, yet given the way the world works, given the reality of women’s oppression, male privilege and men’s enforcement of both of those conditions, it is entirely reasonable for every women to have moments where she resents or hates men.

But if we are to clearly separate the individual man for the group of “men” the dominant and privileged half of the population, then it is equally reasonable for every man to have their own moments when he resents or hates men.

Hmm. Given the reality of our lived experience, it is hardly surprising that every man should have moments, when he resents or even hates other men.

Why men hate other men? It’s a much easier question to ask than why women hate anyone. Men are allowed to have active unpleasant feelings and attitudes.

Looking back at that ridiculous “women love men, because..” site, some of the reasons are blindingly obvious.

Men are unsafe

Any man who has a woman he loves in his life, be it a mother, a partner, a daughter etc. must hate the men that make his loved one feel unsafe.

Men kill women in large numbers, often in intimate settings. They rape women. They assault women, physically, emotionally and verbally. My daughter is not safe walking home because of “men”. Our lives are curtailed and made smaller by men.

Her father hates the men that threaten his daughter.

But more than disliking, resenting or hating men’s attitudes to the women in their lives, it is also true to say that men make other men feel unsafe.

Men kill each other in large numbers. They assault other men, physically, emotionally and verbally. Being a young man walking home is not safe, because of other men.

And because of the way the world is structured, men aren’t even allowed to easily admit or discuss the fact that they feel unsafe and afraid. Such fears are often described as unmanly, rather than the entirely rational reaction to the threat of serious damage.

Men are violent. They make the world unsafe for everyone, man or woman.

Men try to make other men feel manly and “masculine”. They define other men using quite narrow characteristics instead of letting men define themselves.

What it means to be a man, the required characteristics and attributes is heavily policed within society. There are some small variations around the world, but the definition is actually pretty consistent and rigid.

Too often being a man is defined in terms that negate and denigrate being a woman or feminine, but even setting that aside, the acceptable ways of being a man are very limiting.

When asked what society values about men in a Pew Research survey, two out of the top three characteristics, financial success and leadership are external characteristics related primarily to the workplace. They are also things that are significantly easier to achieve if you start out privileged and wealthy.

These are attributes that most men will not actually be able to achieve, except in comparison with less privileged and less wealthy groups and by making these two attributes key features for how men self-identify, it gives all men an incentive to maintain the current power hierarchy. All else being equal, no matter how bad his situation, a man will be better off than the woman in his life, better off than the people he knows from underprivileged ethnic and other social backgrounds.

Too often, men’s attempts to make themselves feel “manly” manifest in behaviour designed to demean or denigrate a woman, to make her feel or appear less powerful, to reduce her autonomy and independence.

These attempts manifest in an often violent rejection of behaviour and characteristics in other men that are identified as feminine. If you are a man who values nurturing his children, who wants to stay home and care for his mother, his child, his partner, then you lose status in most societies.

Men define each other into very small limited patterns of behaviour that limit other mens’ choices and make personal success and happiness very difficult to achieve.

#not all men

Men make bad boyfriends, husbands, fathers or grandfathers.

There are many ways to build a family and many roles within that family that can be the responsibility of either or neither gender. Ultimately successful relationships are built on mutual trust and cooperation with a huge dose of good communication.

Good families require empathy, caring and nurturing.

Empathy, caring and nurturing are characteristics and skills that require practice to develop, yet most men have very little opportunity to practice these skills and are often punished for showing these characteristics when young to “toughen” them up. The Pew research poll suggested few people believed empathy, caring or nurturing were important characteristics for men.

Human beings are intensely social creatures. We crave intimacy, physical and emotional. Yet men define each other into roles that require other men to stand outside of that intimacy, to police the perimeter of the family and that is a very cold and lonely place to live.

There is a reason that the highest cause of death for men aged 18-55 is suicide.

Men cut themselves and other men off from the intimacy with other people, men or women, that we all crave and need to be healthy.

#not all men

Men insist on providing financially for a woman as if that were the only, or even the most important job, except when they don’t.

Because men are closely defined by their financial success, their ability or lack thereof to provide for their partner and family is over-stressed and over-valued. It becomes too significant and other measures of support are consequently undervalued.

If a man learns to value himself primarily by external factors such as his financial success, then he is always going to fail: someone is always more successful.

Plus beyond a certain maintenance level, women will be looking for something more than finance. Families need emotional support and commitment. Financial success is just not enough.

The lack of value placed on emotional connection and empathy means that in the event of divorce, men often just walk away. After divorce, men often fail to adequately provide financially for their own kids, as well as absenting themselves from their lives physically and emotionally.

Men define male success in a narrow competitive way that makes failure inevitable.

#not all men

Men are purpose driven.

Because being a man is defined very narrowly and on terms that are almost entirely dependant upon external competition with other men, and in opposition to any characteristic perceived to be female, then much of a man’s life becomes caught up in doing “stuff” and being successful. At the same time, men punish each other for any characteristic perceived to be non-masculine, including but not limited to emotional intimacy or nurturing.

Men learn to do “stuff” to avoid intimacy. They use the stuff they do, whether it’s work achievements or obsessive hobbies, to avoid engaging emotionally or intellectually with other people. They compete rather than cooperate.

Nobody actually died wishing they’d spent more time in the office. Post-retirement, no one in that office will care what you have done. They won’t even remember your name.

Men are too concerned with status and prestige to actually focus on enjoying their everyday lives. They are too distracted by external validation to actually value intimate relationships appropriately.

Men define success in a way that makes emotional intimacy very difficult.

#not all men

Men insist women find them funny, even when they’re not.

As Atwood wrote, men worry about women laughing at them whilst women worry about men killing them.

If many women don’t have a sense of humour it’s because most men are just not funny. Honestly, the jokes are not very good, and no one really finds the threat of rape and violence that we live with very humorous except people who think it’s okay to rape or be violent. Don’t be that man.

Men are discouraged from questioning their role or responsibilities. They are encouraged to view the status quo as normal and natural, even whilst it works to restrict them, to force them down into a very small and painful box. It makes anyone or anything that does challenge the stars quo very difficult for them to deal with.

When a woman challenges a man’s view of himself and his role in life, it can feel like an existential or fundamental threat. The acceptable defined masculine role is so limited and so fundamentally unsatisfying, and painful to live, that almost anything and everything can be perceived as a threat or challenge to a man’s masculinity.

Men react violently to threats, even imagined ones.

#not all men

Men cope with the limitations placed upon them by making women pay the price.

We should each get to decide, within the limits society imposes upon us, our relative wealth, health etc. for ourselves what we value and what gives our lives purpose.

Men demand time and attention from the women in their lives. They require the women in their lives to put them first, to look after them, physically, intellectually and emotionally. Because they themselves are unable or unwilling to put in the emotional work, women are left to do all of the heavy lifting. It’s tiring. It leaves no time for women to actually live their own lives and make sure their own needs are met.

Men need so much attention from the women in their lives that the women don’t get any time for themselves. The personal cost for women is just too damned high.

Men put each other into really small boxes. They cut off huge parts of their personalities in order to fit into those tiny limited roles. They force each other into an insane competition with each other which means almost every man fails at some stage in their life, creating huge damage to each other.

Men expect women to pick up the emotional pieces.

#not all men

Men are not dependable

Given the number of single-mother families in the world men have never been dependable, never been reliable for the women in their lives, and families.

Men run away, emotionally and physically too often to be regarded as dependable.

The rules that make a few men powerful, make the rest brittle and fragile.

#not all men

Men have brought us to this point as a human race.

Men have been in charge for a long time, and let’s face it, it’s not looking like an overwhelming success. There are some obvious problems with the world, and men manage to both refuse to take responsibility for their fuck-ups and refuse to share any power or responsibility for making things better.

For every step forwards, there is a clear an obvious step back. My daughter’s life is not so different to my own.

Our privilege protects us from some men, #not all men.

Women Hate Men

Feminists hate men. It’s such a common accusation thrown at women whether they identify as feminists or not, whenever or wherever they say or write anything vaguely critical of a man or men. It’s normally followed by a whole series of replies denying the very idea so it was thought provoking to come across a book titled “I Hate Men”

I’m a feminist : do I hate men?

I’m married to one and after decades together he remains my delight in life so clearly if I do hate men then #not all men.

But typing in “women hate..” into a search engine leads to some very strange places (setting aside “SEX” which is a whole topic in itself).

Unlike “Women love…” which leads to some very strange sites written by men, mainly pick-up artists, with some truly bizarre ideas about what women want from relationships, “women hate..” leads straight to a wiki page on misandry, and it feels a little censored to be honest.

Apparently, Sociologist Allan G. Johnson argues in The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy that accusations of man-hating have been used to put down feminists and to shift attention onto men, reinforcing a male-centered culture. Johnson posits that culture offers no comparable anti-male ideology to misogyny and that “people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people” and that “[given the] reality of women’s oppression, male privilege, and men’s enforcement of both, it’s hardly surprising that every woman should have moments where she resents or even hates men”.

Hmm. Given the reality of our lived experience, it is hardly surprising that every woman should have moments, when we resent or even hate men.

Why do I hate men? Why is it such a difficult question to even ask without adding distancing quotation marks to “hate”?

Looking back at that ridiculous “women love men, because..” site, some of the reasons are blindingly obvious.

Men make women feel unsafe

Men kill women in large numbers, often in intimate settings. They rape women. They assault women, physically, emotionally and verbally.

My daughter is not safe walking home because of “men”.

She is underpaid and undervalued because of “men”.

Her life is curtailed and made smaller by men.

Men try to make women feel girly and “feminine”. They define women instead of letting women define themselves.

Feeling girly is not the equivalent of feeling feminine, the latter being something that individual women get to define for themselves, but usually involves a sense of power, control and self-determination (even when frills are involved). Experientially, no grown woman wants to feel like a little girl outside of some very, very limited scenarios, most of which involve her actual parents, or some pre-agreed kink with another consenting adult.

Too often, men’s attempts to make women feel “girly” manifest in behaviour designed to demean or denigrate a woman, to make her feel or appear less powerful, to reduce her autonomy and independence.

Far too often such behaviour is actually an attempt to make the man feel bigger or better by making the woman feel smaller or less.

#not all men

Men make bad boyfriends, husbands, fathers or grandfathers.

There are many ways to build a family and many roles within that family that can be the responsibility of either or neither gender. Ultimately successful relationships are built on mutual trust and cooperation with a huge dose of good communication.

Men are pretty crap at communicating. Getting a man to talk about their feelings, to deal with any strong emotions is like pulling teeth and I say this as someone with a relatively astute and caring husband of decades. They are also pretty lazy when it comes to doing any of the emotional heavy lifting in raising and maintaining a family. They’re not great at doing any of the leg-work involved in making relationships work, from physical organising, social diary keeping, playdates through to funeral arrangements, from the emotional rollercoaster that is raising kids through surviving menopause etc etc

Men are seriously quite bad at being boyfriends, husbands, fathers and grandfathers. This is the reason why, where women have a choice, more and more of them are choosing to divorce their husbands. Given a choice between a bad partner and no partner, it’s logical to take the second option.

#not all men

Men insist on providing financially for a woman as if that were the only, or even the most important job, except when they don’t.

Whether or not they involve men, relationships of all kinds are all about mutual support and providing for each other, emotionally, financially, physically.

Supporting someone financially does not excuse someone from doing all or any of the rest of the jobs involved in a relationship and family. More often than not, families need both parents working in the UK so why do men not share in the rest of the familial hard work?

And obviously in the event of divorce, men most often fail to adequately provide financially for their own kids, as well as absenting themselves from their lives physically and emotionally.

#not all men

Men are purpose driven.

Men do “stuff” to avoid intimacy. They use the stuff they do, whether it’s work achievements or obsessive hobbies, to avoid engaging emotionally or intellectually with other people. They compete rather than cooperate.

Nobody actually died wishing they’d spent more time in the office. Post-retirement, no one in that office will care what you have done. They won’t even remember your name.

Men are too concerned with status and prestige to actually focus on enjoying their everyday lives. They are too distracted by external validation to actually value intimate relationships appropriately.

#not all men

Men insist women find them funny, even when they’re not.

As Atwood wrote, men worry about women laughing at them whilst women worry about men killing them.

If many women don’t have a sense of humour it’s because most men are just not funny. Honestly, your jokes are not very good, and no one really finds the threat of rape and violence that we live with very humorous except people who think it’s okay to rape or be violent. Don’t be that person.

Men are rarely as funny as they believe themselves to be. They are also just not as charming or interesting as they imagine. I have reached the age when I am glad to be seated next to a woman at the table because frankly, they’re more fun and less hard work than a man. Men require women to be interested in them, to pretend to find them more charming than they are. Women are required to ask questions and feign a level of interest that just does not exist.

On her last date before lockdown, my daughter’s male “beau” spent 40 minutes talking about his job. He asked her one question about herself. There was no second date. He spent the next few weeks harassing her on-line, before telling her she was dull and uninteresting. How would he know?

#not all men

Men give a woman’s life more meaning. They suck up time and attention that would be better spent elsewhere.

We should each get to decide, within the limits society imposes upon us, our relative wealth, health etc. for ourselves what we value and what gives our lives purpose.

Men demand too much time and attention from the women in their lives. They require the women in their lives to put them first, to look after them, physically, intellectually and emotionally. It’s tiring. It leaves no time for women to actually live their own lives and make sure their own needs are met.

Men need so much attention from the women in their lives that the women don’t get any time for themselves. The personal cost for women is just too damned high.

#not all men

Men are not dependable

Given the number of single-mother families in the world men have never been dependable, never been reliable for the women in their lives, and families.

An extraordinary number of men kill themselves every week, in every country and culture around the world. Men run away, emotionally and physically too often to be regarded as dependable.

#not all men

Men have brought us to this point as a human race.

Men have been in charge for a long time, and let’s face it, it’s not looking like an overwhelming success. There are some obvious problems with the world, and men manage to both refuse to take responsibility for their fuck-ups and refuse to share any power or responsibility for making things better.

#not all men

Women Love Men

Feminists hate men. It’s such a common accusation thrown at women whether they identify as feminists or not, whenever or wherever they say or write anything vaguely critical of a man or men. It’s normally followed by a whole series of replies denying the very idea so it was thought provoking to come across a book titled “I Hate Men”

I’m a feminist : do I hate men?

I’m married to one and after decades together he remains my delight in life so clearly if I do hate men then #not all men.

But the very question leads down an entirely different rabbit hole on-line as searching “reasons women love men” leads to a very strange place aka “The Modern Man”

Men make women feel girly and feminine, which makes them happy and turns them on sexually.

No, really not true: feeling girly and “feminine” does not make me happy, and certainly does not turn me on sexually. To be honest I struggle with the idea that being made to feel childlike ie like a girl, could make anyone feel sexual unless adult-child play is your personal kink.

And if you turn it around and apply it to men ie Women make men feel more boyish and masculine, which makes them happy and turns them on then the whole thing really does seem to play into a weird parent-child schtick which again, if that’s your kink great, but otherwise “no”.

Men can be a boyfriend, husband, father or grandfather, which is something a woman cannot do

NO, though this is a bit of a weird one since it’s really just talking about gendered nouns and kicking out at any same-sex relationship structure. With a gay daughter, it seems pretty clear that two women can have an entirely functional relationship together and not feel any lack of a man. Perhaps more to the point, it strongly suggests that there is only one way to be a partner or “boyfriend, husband, father or grandfather” which is just mind-glowingly stupid. My husband is very different to my friends’ husbands, a different father to them also and no doubt will be a different grandfather. If my partner were a woman, they would be different also, but more because of who they are than what’s between their legs.

Men are proud to provide for a woman, whereas women hate that role.

Seriously no: Women provide for their families whether they have a man in their lives or not. In many ways the stereotypical “role” for women is all about offering up bits an pieces of their soul and their care.

Whether or not they involve men, relationships of all kinds are all about mutual support and providing for each other, emotionally, financially, physically.

Men are purpose driven, which matches well with love-driven women.

Almost everyone is looking for both purpose and intimacy, men and women so this is just drivel.

Men make women feel safe

Obviously no: there is nothing “safe” about a generic man for a woman when the world is full of domestic abuse and men murdering women, most especially the ones they know.

Men make women laugh

Less than you’d think. As Atwood wrote, men worry about women laughing at them whilst women worry about men killing them.

Men give a woman’s life more meaning

No: I give my own life meaning, just like everyone else in the world. We each get to decide, within the limits society imposes upon us, our relative wealth, health etc. we get to decide for ourselves what we value and what gives our lives purpose.

Men are dependable

Given the number of single-mother families in the world this just isn’t true and has never been true.

Men have created much of the technology that has brought us to this point as a human race

Even if this were true (and it isn’t since there are many documented female scientists, technicians etc) then it’s just a daft reason for anyone to love someone. The idea that she generic person somewhere in the world invented a computer (thank you Ida Lovelace) should somehow influence who I love today, is frankly bizarre.

A little Bit racist?

Is it possible to be a little bit racist? A group of racist white men ran riot in London leading to a number of comments suggesting the UK was racist.

This was immediately followed by a whole series of replies saying that actually the UK was not racist, they were British and not personally racist. The people rioting in London were nothing to do with them, did not represent them so it as, apparently unfair, to describe the UK as racist. Because they do not see themselves as racist, the country they live in cannot be described as racist even when clearly racist white men are running around the capital city looking for black people to lynch.

& it’s taking me some time to process all of this.

Clearly I don’t feel myself to be personally racist. Who does? Even the white men running around London looking for people to lynch probably don’t describe themselves as racist. They probably call themselves “patriots” or some other co-opted word.

As a white person, immensely privileged when living in a predominantly white country, I don’t think that I get to decide for myself whether I’m racist or not. I can decide to try not to be racist, todo my best to be positively fair, open and accepting of other people whatever their ethnicity but I don’t believe that I get to decide whether or not I’m succeeding in not being racist. I don’t get to mark my own scorecard.

Passively doing nothing cannot equate to not being racist.

Not charging around the streets of London looking for people to kick, people to spit on, people to abuse, is a pretty low bar to set as a minimum standard on not being racist. It’s really not good enough.

& it also doesn’t really seem good enough to say that the rioting racists are nothing to do with me, therefore I don’t need to worry, or worse still, you don’t need to worry. We’re not racist so everything is ok. Even as racist white men run around on the streets looking for someone to beat up.

“Yes, but…” seems a peculiarly inadequate response to a racist mob.

And suggesting racism is someone else’s problem because “I’m not racist” is just another way of trying to make the victims responsible for their own abuse and is in itself, intrinsically racist.

Because it just isn’t possible to be a little bit racist, anymore than a woman can be a little bit pregnant: racism is racism. And we are all responsible, responsible for identifying what we’ve done wrong that has allowed this to happen, as well as working out what we can do better to prevent it in the future.

Counting days

Life in lockdown is one of quiet tedium, for those of us lucky enough to have older kids, a big enough house for everyone to find some space and a garden to disappear into. The weather has been wonderful, warm and dry. The minute this is over, expect it to start raining and drop back 10C.

We’ve been isolated now for two weeks, and by isolation, I mean no contact with anyone outside of a single visit to a very quiet supermarket. By now, surely we’re disease free, yet paranoia about every cough, sneeze or sniffle is profound.

I’ve read that infection to death takes an average of 17 days. With more than that spent locked into our own home, we should feel relatively safe. For now.

Because covid-19 is pandemic, expected to become endemic. We will all be exposed to it, all of us catch it, sooner or later. Later is better not because it can be avoided, but because later means more health service resources available to keep us alive, more nurses, doctors, ventilators etc. It also means more chance of a vaccine though that’s 18 months away as a minimum and no one can stay in their own home, surrounded by their family for 18 months without going mad.

The UK coronavirus death toll is expected to continue to rise for at least two weeks, the government’s chief scientific adviser has said, despite encouraging signs about the rate of infections and hospital admissions. The official death toll understates the numbers because it only counts hospital deaths. Excluding deaths in care homes means the numbers can be misleading.

Pear tree

Sir Patrick Vallance told Thursday’s daily Downing Street briefing that the number of people to have died from coronavirus in UK hospitals had reached 7,978, after the deaths of a further 881 people. It is the second-highest daily total after Wednesday’s record 938 deaths.

Despite the slightly lower figure, Vallance said the peak of the outbreak could still be weeks away. “I would expect the deaths to continue to keep going up for about two weeks after the intensive care picture improves. We’re not there yet, but that’s the sort of timeframe I would expect.”

Presumably the people being hospitalised now, are likely to take a week or two to recover or die.

The chief medical officer for England, Prof Chris Whitty, pointed out that two weeks ago admissions to intensive care were doubling every three days. He said: “It’s now becoming not quite flat, but doubling time is now six or more days in almost every area in the country. That has only happened because of what everybody has done in terms of staying at home.”

Last week the health secretary, Matt Hancock, said the NHS was preparing for at least 1,000 deaths a day, at a time when scientific advisers were forecasting the outbreak to peak at Easter.

The peak was now expected to come in four weeks, after signs that the transmission rate was beginning to fall. New infections continue to fluctuate. On Thursday, 4,344 new cases were recorded, compared with 5,492 on Wednesday, but the day-on-day rise was still higher than three of the previous four days.

Again, the official numbers of new cases recorded in the UK is nothing like the total number, just the number hitting the hospital admissions and they tend to be the people with worst symptoms. It’s estimated that there are roughly 1000 cases undiagnosed for every one that hits the official lists.

James Naismith, a professor of structural biology at the University of Oxford, said: “It is a mercy that the number of deaths reported today is lower than yesterday but on its own, a single day’s number is of no value in judging the pandemic. The continuing volatility in daily figure of announced deaths [due to different reporting periods and delays] makes it almost impossible to identify any trend with certainty yet.”

He added: “If deaths are still following a rapid exponential growth, today’s new deaths would have been expected to be markedly higher than yesterday’s, and the total number of deaths to date would have doubled from that four days ago.

Most, if not all, the deaths reported today will have come from infections before the so-called ‘hard lockdown’. It does seem that the hard lockdown is, as expected, reducing the rate of increase in the number of new hospital admissions.”

But even with the hard lockdown, obviously infections within family groupings, locked down in close contact with each other, are likely to occur. Assuming an average family of four locked down together, infected in the first two weeks of lockdown will take another two weeks to recover or die – maybe four to five weeks total.

And then we have to expect a second wave of infections when we all come out of lockdown.

Though the UK government seems entirely unwilling to discuss how and when such an exit might occur.

With our PM in hospital, and the foreign secretary somehow promoted to take his place (how, why him?) with parliament not sitting over the Easter recess so very little by way of accountability, it’s becoming increasingly unclear who is making life and death decisions for the country in the event of likely conflicting medical advice on when to end the shutdown.

We have the world’s biggest crisis and no one apparently in charge.