Maxim Um Pornography

Firstly, an administrative point unrelated to this note. After a few random bits of spam on my last posts, fearing more now, I've finally decided to put Word Verification on comments to this blog. It should only take a second to use.

But there's a serious point to be made here. It has just been announced that the Maxim monthly magazine will cease publishing a UK edition. I have friends who were on the staff there - they still write good stuff as freelance journalists. But even in conversation with these employees, even at the height of their popularity, I confessed that I never liked Maxim, neither its siblings and offspring such as FHM, Loaded and Nuts.

It would be easy to pretend now that I didn't like them because they were actually soft pornography pretending to be general interest magazines. But I won't pretend. I didn't like them because they were actually soft pornography pretending to be general interest magazines. Exactly same words just different emphasis.

This is dodgy ground. But I'm a right-on PC dude really. Broadly speaking, soft porn portrays a stereotypical image of women. You know the typical attributes, typical poses. But again broadly speaking, hard porn celebrates diversity - women of all different shapes and sizes and behaviours. Not just women, unfortunately. But if we are to celebrate diversity, there will always be some elements of that diversity that are unpleasant.

Disclaimer: I do not purchase pornography of any kind, hard or soft.

The Ministry of Silly Games

The Olympics continue to ask plenty of questions for our brave athletes. As always, Monty Python continues to provide answers.

I understand the point of a competition to determine who can run the fastest or jump the highest or swim the fastest - but the ministry of silly games has decided that just seeing who is quickest across water from one bank to the other does not give enough scope for lanky Americans to pile up the medals. So we have backstroke and breaststroke and butterflystroke and sidestroke and sunstroke and heatstroke.

But this is unfair on athletics, the original olympic sport. We have various distances but only two basic kinds of track race, "freestyle" and "silly walk". There needs to be another race where you run backwards. Another race where you run with your legs splayed out to the side. Another race where you run, in honour of John Cleese, in full "goose-step" style and you are disqualified unless your leg stays perfecty straight reaching up at least to shoulder height on each step.

That's what they do in the pool. Alternatively, ditch the silly walks and return to olympic ideals.

Sex Tests

With the Olympics fast approaching, the pinnacle of worldwide athletic achievement, there has been a bit in the news about the "embarrassing" and expensive tests that suspects will be forced to undertake to prove that they are female.

The solution is blindingly obvious. A cost save and an efficiency win. And a better purer competition.

Simply scrap the tests. Have one competition, open to anyone; male, female or transgender.

The point is similar to that I mentioned regarding fit women in short skirts.

But oh no say the dissenters, the vast majority; the women need a separate competition, something not provided to other genetic groups. Some women would certainly beat some men, but the top female would not expect to win against the top male. So we should restrict each contest only to those with particular characteristics? Well, arguably yes. We should restrict the competition to those who are genetically human. But within that rather broad category, the competition is to decide who can run the fastest, jump the highest, throw the highest, etc. Surely that is an olympic ideal.

As should be evident in my views on medieval religions, I'm not misogynist, I genuinely love diversity. It would be great to see a woman break through the hegemony of male domination and beat the men at their own game. All under-represented groups should be encouraged to compete. And as the number of olympic sports increases, I'd hope there will be new ones where women tend to hold the top positions, and it is only a few brave men who try to match them. But for that to be possible we need to scrap the sex discrimination.

Beer, Music and Science

Loud music in bars encourages people to drink more, unless it drives them off. That's old news now, and we can attest from personal experience anyway.

The results, published online in Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, show that the louder the music, the more swiftly the drinkers finished their beer, ordered more – or left.

But though I was not very impressed by that conclusion, I was very impressed by the research of Katherine Sanderson of Nature. She simply looked at some of the other publications of Nicolas Guéguen, Professor of Behavioural sciences at the Université de Bretagne-Sud who led the study. A few examples of his published research from his website:

1. Semantically induced love and helping behavior

2. The domestic dog as a facilitator in social interaction: An evaluation on helping and courtship behaviors.

3. The effects of women’s cosmetics on men’s courtship behavior.

4. The effect of a woman’s smile on men’s nonverbal behavior.

5. Women’s eye contact and men’s later interest: Two field experiments

Well done to Katherine for the spotting them, that is real research. And well done to Nicolas for getting away with it.

Selfish Idiot

This morning's BBC thought for the day was particularly inspiring - of course I mean inspiring as in suggesting to me that I write something here, as opposed to being truly inspirational.

So today the speaker took off from the topical headline that crime rates for girls are increasing sharply. And the solution, justified with selected quotes from his sacred old book, was to make sure that the differences between the sexes are maintained. I notice that the quotes used to justify everything from physical assault to denial of voting rights were not used in this instance, though they would have been equally representative of his ridiculous book.

It's also funny how his special book does not even explain the fact that some people can be born with XXY chromosomes, that genes control the production of hormonal proteins and those proteins control the development of sexual characteristics, that neurological differences explain behavioural differences. But he still paraded his medieval nonsense as the source of unquestioned divine revelation.

But actually that wasn't the bit of his lecture that inspired me. It was his wilful and stupid misinterpretation of modern scientific thinking, blaming the apparent rise in individualism with the "selfish gene". Idiot. Only a nutcase could read Richard Dawkins and still not recognise that the selfish gene is precisely an explanation for co-operation and altruism.

Birds Beer Curry

When the lads go out for a curry after a few beers, it is often a challenge to see who can manage the hottest curry. I don't think I have a genetic advantage based on my DNA, but I should have a cultural advantage based on decades of tastebud desensitisation.

Unfortunately research proves that it is birds who can manage the hottest - chilis that would make not just my eyes but my whole head water are just tasteless vegetables for some.

Of course I'm not talking about my wife's habit of putting her coffee back into the microwave for a reheat before I even start drinking mine.

I've said before, the word hot is definitely misleading, arguably just wrong. The word should be jhal.

The Voice of God Washes Whiter

The television is on, and I am watching television adverts. No, I have not lost the PVR, but it's the excellent BBC programme Washes Whiter about the advertising industry, and it is mixing work with pleasure to see something so entertaining.

Interesting that the voiceover was referred to within the advertising creative industry as "the voice of god", that disembodied prompt that triggered the wife to tell the world just how well her washing powder really worked. She often looked upwards to the camera before speaking.

But, apparently, this "voice of god" did not work when advertising men's products - a man needed a genuine source of authority, someone like James Bond, or Jimmy Hill. Men would not talk to a voice from the sky in the way that women would.

And of course, while watching these back and white stereotypes, the 21st century man just laughs at how outdated and sexist those advertisements seem. That evil "old white man elite" seeking to perpetuate its authority ...

... but there is a less discussed counterargument in there. Probably from the 1960s onwards, and certainly today, those who worked in creative advertising have actually been at the forefront of progressive values - but most attempts of their attempts to push the boundaries too far, to try to switch away from stereotypical roles, were met with either incomprehension or distaste by the mass market world, or at least by the focus groups which represented that world.

So yes conservatives, be afraid, the advertising industry really is out to keep changing society.

Exactly how much housework does a husband create?

That was the title of the scientific article, summarised from detailed time-diaries for a project at the University of Michigan, and the first paragraph answers:
It creates an extra seven hours a week of housework for women
But a wife saves men from about an hour of housework a week

Not true here. It's also worth seeing this earlier study from the same source, and only a few months old:
Married Men Really Do Do Less Housework Than Live-in Boyfriends

Yet the summary of data presented for the recent study actually seems to suggest a completely different conclusion. Larry Moran draws the same conclusion that I saw from the data:
The average married man does eight more hours of housework than the average single man.

So the original headline, like many others, was misleading. Actually other factors like age of responder and number of dependents are the relevant variables.

But eight more hours of housework per week? I don't keep a time diary, but I wonder if it applies to me?

Sex With Vegetables

There are some things that I like about Ken Livingstone. Of course there are some things that I dislike too, for example his reputed association with religious bigots and his general support for incongruous skyscrapers.

But despite many practical difficulties with the implementations and pricing of his policies, his general attitudes to transport, housing and personal liberty have much to commend them.

However he has now crossed the line. While defending his decision to refuse to discuss his three children from earlier relationships, and making sure that the BBC beat the Mail to the exclusive story, he said that you should be free to do whatever you want in your private life "as long as you don't involve children, animals or vegetables"

Vegetables? So it is ok to abuse tomatoes then?

Productivity, Sex, Kids

OK, time to get accusations of sexism and anti-family bias. Yesterday's headline from the British Psychology Digest had the simple headline:

Childless Women Are The Most Productive

While you pause on that headline, also take into account that there were broadly four groups being compared:
- Women with school-age children
- Women without school-age children
- Men with school-age children
- Men without school-age children

The article was peer-reviewed research in the Journal of Vocational Behaviour. Abstract here.

The study seems quite explicit that women without school-age children are more productive than those with them. The BPS summary suggests this is due to "domestic responsibilities" though of course it presents this as explanation not as endorsement.

The study also seems explicit that men without school-age children are less productive than those with them. It suggests that this result is explained by the stereotype of "breadwinners", where increased family responsibilities required the men to work longer hours to earn more.

But that last line hints at the misleading nature of the headline. By productivity, the study measured it simply by counting billable hours. More hours worked equals more productivity. Perhaps true for lawyers in Canada, but is that generally true in the workplace?

And another implicit message in the headline. Free of childcare responsibility, women are more "productive" than men?

Adam and Eve

Although I refrained from doing so last year, this year I will sometimes permit myself to showcase an outside article in which I think something was explained well. Of course it must still be an example of insight that makes common sense out of apparently difficult concepts, but it will not necessarily be my insight.

However to start, a different subject from the core marketing and economic subjects as we take a short diversion into genetics. This is not the place to develop the theme that evolution explains everything. But when I first heard that "all women have a latest common ancestor who lived about 120,000 years ago" and "all men have a latest common ancestor who lived about 60,000 years ago" then I was initially sceptical.

Then I read this note by Mike Dunford and it all made perfect sense.

Should people be persecuted for what they write?

There have been riots in the city of my birth. According to the BBC, Wednesday's trouble in the state capital began after the predominantly Muslim All-India Minority Forum called for blockades on major roads in the city.

What triggered this? The Forum is angry about a "feminist writer". Critics say she called for the Koran to be changed to give women greater rights. Shocking isn't it.

The BBC seems to neither condemn nor condone the unruly behaviour. The article merely asks the question that titles this note.

I am not writing an answer. But if you suggest that certain thousand-year-old middle-eastern dictates should have no place in the modern world, then perhaps you should be persecuted too.

Nature should know better

There appears to be a regular stream of articles about the latest "hybrid species" to be discovered. Even reputable science journals seem to regularly dig them out with continual expressions of surprise.

Interspecies hybrids are usually sterile. Because chromosome pairs need to be reasonably close to align and transfer DNA. But the key word is usually it is not always. For those who insist on species-ism, new ones are continually being formed in front of our very eyes. It is evolution in action right now.

A species is only a group of organisms that tends to interbreed at a point in time. There may well be an ideal mate for each animal, but if the first choice is not available, then some do "choose" to mate across our specious divides. There are some weird individuals around :)

OK, it is probably useful to think in terms of species if you are categorising the diversity of life at this moment. But when looking through the eons of history then that model of nature is not so useful, it is more instructive to think of the transmission of molecular patterns rather than species.

Thirty years after the the publication of The Eternal Gene, surely Nature should know better.

Usability Sex Speed

We have recently heard a lot about the different preferences of men and women when it comes to designing and viewing web sites. I do agree. Perhaps this is oversimplifying, but women generally like bright colours, curved lines, organic forms, pictures of people, smiling faces, while men tend to prefer clean straight lines. Any commercial mass market site should ideally appeal to both.

This isn't exactly a web site, but in terms of the guidelines presented to us, I don't suppose you can get any more masculine than this. And the real websites I created earlier have followed the same lines. Does that mean that to broaden appeal I will be sticking in reams of poncy graphics to fluff up the site and slow down page loading? Does it hell!

Every site has its own style. Mine is simple. Plain. Fast. The ultimate male ;)

Fit women in short skirts

In the occasional break between rain delays, the tennis at Wimbledon plods to its million dollar conclusion. I'm not going to compare the general level of pay for top sports performers with that for soldiers or nurses, nor discuss the effect on society of such gross differentials. But this is the first year that Roger Federer (I'm going out on a limb here) is going to receive the same prize money as the winner of the competition that is restricted to ladies. Can that be right?

The usual justifications were about 3 sets versus 5 sets. Anyway the first few matches for the top female players often end 6-0 6-0 within 30 minutes. That doesn't happen in the men's game. Adding another set would achieve nothing in those circumstances. Sound reasoning, old arguments.

At a more basic level, isn't it still nonsense to insist that a competition restricted to ladies should have equal pay to a competition that is simply designed to find the best tennis player - regardless of age or race or gender?

There should be equal opportunity, in tennis as in virtually everything else. It's true that some women can beat some men. So if a woman wants to compete in an open tournament and wins, good luck to her!

But the ladies cry foul. Because on average the typical man is faster and stronger than the typical woman, then there must be a separate competition for them. So should we have a separate competition, offering equal prize money to the main one, for those who are born with an extra X chromosome? Or for those born with Down's Syndrome? Those are genetic differences too. But there aren't so many of them so it doesn't matter?

There are loads of Chinese and Indians though. So if the average one is at a disadvantage to the average white or black guy, does that mean that we should have a separate competition for those ethnic groups? Well isn't that broadly the same principle as giving their own tournament to those missing a Y chromosome?

If ladies want to have a separate competition, fine. If men want to watch them, fine. If they want to dress in revealing attire, fine. But if it's a separate competition, judge it on its own merits. Reward it on its own merits. Does it have the same value?