This is an interesting little finding, that women are closing the infidelity gap with men.

Perhaps I should explain a little background first. It’s long been known that women report fewer sexual partners over a lifetime than men do. It’s also long been known that men tend to commit adultery (and we’re using that in the wider sense here, not just straying from a marriage, but from a relationship) more often than women do.

Now given that it takes two to make the two backed beast, this might be thought of as being a little strange, for it one man strays then so must one woman. But the standard explanation is that there are some women, some very small number, who have a huge number of partners. Prostitute is one name for them of course.

Another point often made is that as men are seen as virile if they have many partners while women are seen as promiscuous, then men over report and women under.

However, researchers are now finding that this infidelity gap is shrinking.

But a handful of new studies suggest surprising changes in the marital landscape. Infidelity appears to be on the rise, particularly among older men and young couples. Notably, women appear to be closing the adultery gap: younger women appear to be cheating on their spouses nearly as often as men.

The older men part is easily explained: Viagra. But the younger women part is a little more complex. However, not so complex that I don’t think we can tease out the likely reasons.

One part of it is that sex itself has simply become more normal. Of course, human beings have always been having sex, that’s why there are still human beings, but it’s only in the last generation or two that non-commercial sex without marriage has become easily available. That in turn rests primarily upon the invention of reliable contraception. With that women have become as free (perhaps “almost” is necessary there) as men to have sex for fun, without the potential problems of childbirth.

So, if sex itself becomes more of the openly admitted and enjoyed part of the society then it won’t come as all that much of a surprise if various aspects of sex and sexuality, like infidelity, also change in their incidence.

There’s also obviously an economic aspect to this. It wasn’t all that long ago that a woman found it very difficult to live a life independent of a man in a financial sense. Crude though this may sound, many a bargain was struck in which the woman agreed to be exclusively available to the man who was providing for her. Think, for example, of the way in which adultery was both a reason for divorce and one which also would change the financial settlement of it.

Again, that dependence has now gone as well, so it’s not surprising really that the incidence of what there were such incentives against is rising.

So, the infidelity gap is rising because women are freer and more independent than they were: sounds like a good think to me really.

A lady in red is more attractive to men than a lady dressed in any other color. Or so yet another of these surveys reported in a newspaper insists. I’m afraid I don’t buy the explanation though, this lady in red thing being genetic, or associated with monkeys and baboons.

The study said that men appear to be driven by primal instincts that associates the colour with sex.

Women sporting shades of scarlet or crimson are more likely to be asked out on a date, according to the research from the University of Rochester in the US.

That monkey explanation for the lady in red being salivated over is here:

Prof Elliot said: “Although this ‘red alert’ may be a product of human society associating red with love for eons, it also may arise from more primitive biological roots.”

Noting how certain male primates were attracted to females when they displayed red, he added: “It could be this very deep biologically based automatic tendency to respond to red as an attraction cue given our evolutionary heritage.”

The basic attraction for red I’ve no problem with, but that evolutionary explanation looks very odd to me indeed. While certain primate females do indeed display red patches when they are fertile, most do not. And we’re very different indeed than monkeys and apes in our sex habits: for example, we have menstruation rather than its opposite, oestrus.

I’d say that this is purely societal. We’ve had such a long association in our culture (and it’s very much worth noting that the association of red with sex isn’t common to all cultures) with sex and red that those wearing it will almost inevitably be seen as being more sexual. And given the depth of this cultural association (from phrases like the scarlett woman, the scalrett letter, the lady in red of the song and so on) there will also be that association amongst women who decide to put on red cloting. Which if course will simply reinforce the assumptions of the men that observe the behaviour of those that wear red.

No, nothing to do with monkeys, entirely a cultural phenomenon.

Good news for those wondering about how to split the household chores! We finally have a scientific argument to put all of the gender arguments to rest.

Who should do all those household chores then? Yes, it’s the women.

Now, before you accuse me of being a misogynist, I can prove this contention. And no, it’s not the point mentioned a few weeks back about why women should do the cleaning, that they care more about the standards of cleanliness than men do.

So, what is this evidence to show that women should do the household chores?

Doing heavy household chores could slash a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer by a third, experts have found.

Well, that convinces me, doesn’t it you? A mid level newspaper reports it so it must be true!

Scrubbing floors, washing windows and digging the garden are just as effective as running, cycling and playing tennis at warding off the illness, a study claims.

But lighter tasks like vacuuming and painting, or pastimes like bowls and walking do not have the same effect, said the report for the journal Breast Cancer Research.

Now all I need to do is bribe some scientists into announcing that drinking beer while reading a book prevents prostate cancer and the world will be perfect. My wife and I will be able to avoid the most common cancers that each of us, for gender reasons, might be prey to and I will be able to read and drink in a clean house!

Somehow though, despite the thorough scientific grounding of this finding, I’m not really sure that I’ll be able to get my wife to believe it. Sadly.

An interesting little survey on what it is that makes men and women happy. Although, umm, I have a feeling that I’m interpreting the results a little differently than the writer is. That, I think, comes from the difference in the various dialects of the English language. I’m fluent in English English and have a pretty good grasp of American English (good enough that I can and do write for American newspapers) but Australian English has rather passed me by.

I’m told that there are more euphemisms for “vomit” in Australian than in any other language but I have a feeling that this is an invention of Barry Humphries, the man who is Dame Edna Everage. Still, here’s the results:

Both men and women — or 63 percent of overall respondents — picked relaxation as the activity that made them happiest, but that is where the similarity between the sexes ends.

Well, yes, that seems obvious enough. There’s a few things we have to do in order to stay alive (eat, sleep, wash, use the toilet etc) and while these can indeed be enjoyable (as anyone who has been holding it in on a long car journey can attest) they’re not really the things that we would choose to do all the time. Then there’s work, which for most of us is in fact what we do so that we can do the other things in life. And then there’s recreation, relaxation or leisure, all very much the same thing. The spice of life if you wish. The reason we do it all.

More men than women, 48 percent versus 40 percent, found happiness being intimate with another person while 38 percent of men, and only 28 percent of women, said drinking with friends brought them joy.

I have to admit that the idea that only 38% of Australian men enjoy being in the pub really rather surprises me. I would have thought it would be much higher than that.

But where this linguistic problem comes in is that phrase “being intimate with”. In Englich English (and I think also in American) that means having sex with. That only 48% of Australian men find happiness that way rather surprises me…I’ve met (and not been intimate with) a number of Australian women which is the reason for my surprise at such a low number. On the other hand, having met a number of Australian men (and also not been intimate with them) that that many Australian women enjoy intimacy with them similarly surprises.

Or maybe I’m mistranslating the phrase.

But this bit makes perfect sense:

For men, bliss is often just a mouse-click away while quality time with family is guaranteed to put a smile on women’s faces, according to an Australian study of what makes people happy.

Given that fewer than 50% of Australian men find happiness by being intimate with Australian women then yes, I suppose the exiestence of porn on the internet does indeed engender a certain bliss.

Or have I mistranslated that as well?

This is very fun, an article on the differences between men and women. We know that there are in fact 78 differences between men and women because that’s the genetic difference between us. So the BBC got a number of people to describe what they thought those differences between men and women were:

Women know when all you want is a glass of wine, nodding sympathy and a good whinge. Men offer a solution.
Wendy, UK

That’s certainly true. I’ve actually been told off for doing that, offering a solution to a problem when that wasn’t what was desired at all.

Women understand colour. They seem to know what to wear all the time. Men just think red is nice, pink is nice, so why not have them together?
Jeremy Vine

Yes, that works too as one of the differences between men and women.

On being told that someone has bought a new car women usually ask what colour it is - men ask what sort is it.
Anna Ford

Oh, quite.

Women have the If you need to be told I am not going to tell you gene
David Bergin, Switzerland

Which man hasn’t fallen foul of that one?

Men appreciate the importance of a 42 inch plasma screen. Women do not.
Jonathan, UK

It is indeed men who insist that size matters.

Women can use sex to get what they want. Men cannot, as sex is what they want.
Eoin Dempsey, Ireland

Quite profound that one.

For men, 2am is time for sleep. For women, 2am is time for a discussion about where our relationship is going.
Luke, UK

Slightly unkind, even if it’s true enough that it has happened to most of us.

Men have a gene which makes them blissfully unaware of impending emotional outbursts, but which sometimes backfires resulting in the registering of physical pain.
Gary, UK

Quite, as we know, men are less empathic (on average you understand).

Men can write their names clearly in the snow.
Riccardo, UK

An old one there Riccardo, but a good one none the less.

Men enjoy publicising their faults on BBC websites; women enjoy publicising men’s faults on BBC websites.
Paul, UK

And a new one and a good one on the differences between men and women.

Men cannot watch sports and talk to their wives at the same time.
Lisa, Canada

Well, yes Lisa, for men are almost always more emotionally involved in sports than they are with their wives….or is that just Englishmen?

Men have the shed gene, where being locked up in a small wooden structure in quiet contemplation with a collection of garden equipment counts as stimulating entertainment.
Lorraine, UK

That one definitely only applies to Englishmen.

So, any other attempts at defining the differences between men and women?

One of those often asked questions is why there aren’t more women in politics. Do the voters discriminate, for example? Do the parties themselves discriminate? Or are there other, simpler, reasons for the lack of women helping to run the country?

It would appear that there are actually.

When women run for office, they win as often as men do.

So, if that is true then the problem must be in the number who put themselves forward to run for office. And that leads us to many of the same asnwers that we find when considering the gender pay gap. Women put themselves forward less often just as they ask for pay rises less often than men. They’re also advised or mentored to do so less often than men.

However, I do think there’s another reason, one that reflects very well upon women. Strip away all that rubbish about helping to run the Republic, wanting to do the best by one’s fellow citizens, and look at what politics actually is. It’s self-aggrandisement, pure and simple. A reach for power over others….and those two are things that men suffer from a great deal more than women do.

As the writer points out, there have been innumerable articles (books even) trying to tell men how to tell if a woman desires them.

I have a feeling that it isn’t the men that buy these books however, rather, it’s the women. To try and find out what men think women do rather than men trying to find out what it is that women do. For, this is clearly and obviously true:

I suppose there might be a few men out there who can’t tell when a woman is into them, but I’ve never met any. In my experience, men always assume women are into them and if not, they assume she must be a lesbian.

This is a very interesting piece about the differences between male and female writers.

The men just think that it’s a matter of typing it out, of getting something down on paper, while the women rather insit upon having something to say, something important to say, something where they have the knowledge about what is going on.

I’d certainly say there’san element of truth in the contention, given that I myself am quite happy to write on anything at all and most of the women writers Iknow will insist on actually knowing about the subject before starting.

Hmm, perhaps that’s not the wisest thing I’ve ever actually admitted in public, is it, you might go back and check my writing!

Anyway, here’s her point:

My caller saw no need for any of this. With the chutzpah of the privileged young male, he believed he could bypass it all and still produce something for which the public would be duly grateful. In fact, there’s only one way of writing a book in these circumstances: you deliver a manuscript that is all about you, with Africa as a picturesque backdrop to your macho derring-do.

I realised that my conversations with aspirant writers, and there have been dozens, had one thing in common: they all involved the male of the species. Africa is full of female reporters who tramp through Darfur’s refugee camps and grit their teeth during Mogadishu firefights. Yet not one of these indomitable females has ever called me for the Quick Guide to Successful African Book Writing. I think I know the reason. It’s the same one that ensured I tried my hand at being an author only after 16 years of journalism. Women probably see an Africa book as featuring Africa first, their own exploits second. They fear they know too little, have nothing original to say. Even in this neo-feminist era, they have a sneaking suspicion they are not worthy.

Now as to the truth in detail of this, rather than it only being her won impression, I’m not sure. But I should point out that the writer is Michela Wrong who has written “In the Footsteps of Mr Kurtz”, possibly the best book on Equatorial Africa of the last few decades.

I’m pretty sure I also know the name of the male writer she was unhappy with, a certain Tim Butcher, whose much less good book I’ve also read. Still a good book, just much less so than hers and for all the reasons she gives. He goes on an adventure knowing very little about the place whereas she wrote about somewhere she had been reporting from for more than a decade.

The future of work is female that is. OK, so these figures are from the UK and I’d expect the US to be about 10 years ahead of us, as you’ve pretty much always been on social matters.

Statistics compiled by The Sunday Telegraph reveal that women now provide half of recruits and trainees for what were once the traditionally male bastions of medicine, law and the church, while the proportion of women in professions like architecture and veterinary medicine is also rising sharply.

The phenomenon is thought to be the result of girls overtaking boys at school and university, greater expectations among women growing up in the post-feminist age and recruitment practices which encourage and even favour them.

This is something which I’ve touched on before and I think it’s worth reiterating my point again now that it’s becoming more generally acknowledged.

We know that we very much did have, in hte past, direct discrimination against women, in deed, in some countries we still do. For example, it wasn’t all that long ago that women were expected to leave the workforce when they married….certainly when they had children, as is still the caase in Japan today.

We’ve torn down a lot of (most of, all, to your taste) and we now see that college entrance, college degrees awarded and as above, entry into the traditionally high paying professions are now all female majority. About the only area of academia which isn’t female denominated is in the award of higher level degrees.

And yet we still see that women earn less on the dollar than men do: how can we reconcile this absence of discrimination with this outcome? There’s two effects at work here.

The first is that women still do, at least they do a great deal more than men do, drop out of the workforce for some time whilethey have and raise children. They might work part time, or decide not to take promotions, their raises that go with them and also the higher time committment necessary. Not so much a gender pay gap as amotherhood one….but it’s OK, we’ve gone through this enough here not to need to repeat ourselves again at length.

The second reason is I think the still underappreciated one. When we look at the gender pay gap we look at it across all age ranges. That’s what gets us our 79 cents on the $ number, for example. Now, if we did indeed have discrimination in the past and don’t now, then we’d expect that some age group which was discriminated against, would have a lower income, a smaller set of chances, than those now not being discriminated against.

For example, those at the end of their working lives now would have been in their last year or two of high school in 1960. Do we think that there was gender discrimination then in education, in the careers and professional opportunities? Umm, yes, I think we pretty much do think so.

Do we think there still was in 1970? 1980? I’d be surprised if anyone thought that we’d got rid of that “men do these things, women those” before what, say, 1990? So we’re really only seeing the effects of the absence of (this sort of) gender discrimination amongst those who are under about 35 to 40.

Which leads us to an interesting conclusion. OK, we still might want to look at the Mommy discrimination (although since much of it seems to be driven by Mommies’ choices, perhaps we don’t) but it’s certainly possible that direct discrimination is over. Whatever it was that we needed to do we’ve already done. Women are the majority of entrants into these professions now and all we need to do is wait a generation so that they are similarly represented at the top and we’re done.

Which is cheering news, isn’t it? Another problem solved, done and dusted.

Slightly odd question, I know, asking what vegetable are you? And no, this isn’t asked on the basis that you might be as intelligent as an eggplant either. Rather, what body shape do you think you have?

A third of them questioned in a survey admitted that they resembled the purple vegetable – with a belly which bulges beyond their hips and shoulders.

(Aubergine is the English English for an eggplant, just so that you know).

Hmm, 13% of men shaped like carrots? With the classical V shape of a swimmer perhaps? I think we can conclude from that that somewhere near 13% of men are in fact liars: or at best severely deluded. For there’s just about no one, outside the ranks of professional sportsmen, who is actually that sort of shape.

This strikes as being rather more true:

Man boobs were voted the most unattractive male feature by a quarter of those questioned.

Quite so, quite so and:

In another survey, women chose the muffin top, a roll of flesh spilling over the top of the jeans, as the worst feature of the female form.

Yes, I’ve never really forgiven the inventor of hipster jeans for that. Or perhaps I should say the person who made them fashionable. They can indeed look very good on the right figure but on someone of a more normal shape, umm, eek, muffin tops.

However, I have to admit to a certain problem myself…even in a pair on non-hipster jeans I’ve been known to show a certain amount of muffin top myself. Hie me to a gym I think, no?