Wee Guys

LC has a group of friends who have (mostly) stuck together since her school days, and each year we get together for a meal in the run up to Christmas. As can be expected, most of the original group were girls (now women, of course), and although there are a few partners now there are still twice as many women as men. Additionally, the families now number six children between them (one 17 year old, and the rest Funsize's age and below), with Surprise! being the only small boy among them.

All of which may seem odd context, but is fairly important to what I'm getting at. So, to recap: there was Surprise!, one teen, and three older men present.

Anyway, as the meal was winding down, I noticed that there came a point where Funsize had rushed off to play with the other girls, and LC was with most of her friends at one of the tables, leaving myself, one of the other men, and Surprise! at a second table. I was on one side of the table, with Surprise! and C on the other.

Anyway, C and I were chatting, and as we did so I gradually noticed that Surprise! was occasionally glancing across at C, and then carefully mirroring him - as C moved his arms or adjusted his posture, Surprise! did the same things.

This very closely matches the experience when he's with his cousins: despite being the youngest of five boys, Surprise! always wants to get involved as best he can in the games, and very much takes his cue from the older, bigger boys. (And, finally, it's worth noting that he fairly idolizes his childminder's son - another older boy.)

It's hardly an epiphany, but: wee guys look up to bigger boys as their guide for how to act.

And that doesn't really change - whether formally or informally, men seek out those they perceive as successful in whatever milieu they want to thrive, try to identify the behaviours that those role models exhibit, and copy those.

That, unfortunately, creates something of a problem, because positive male role models have become rather thin on the ground: our politicians are a fairly unimpressive bunch (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way), religion has lost almost all its sway (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way), our civic authorities are viewed with skepticism at best (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way), and our media and sports stars often seem more interested in the trappings of fame than in providing good examples (not to mention being mired in various scandals along the way).

It's also the case that a great many boys are now being raised by single mothers. (At this point I need to stress that is in no way a criticism or a value judgement; just a statement of fact.) And our education system is run by women, and increasingly for women.

All of which adds up to an awful lot of wee guys having no positive male role models who they can look up to.

And that's why the likes of Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson are so dangerous. Because wee guys will look up to bigger boys as their guide for how to act, and if they have no positive male role models, they will look up to negative ones.

So, what is to be done?

Well, firstly, we men need to up our game. Whether we like it or not, we are the role models for the next generation - there isn't anyone else. So it's important to be aware that at any time, any one of us may find ourselves being observed, looked up to, and copied. You may find that you are the role model, so be a good one.

But society has a part to play as well:

• We need to see an end to the casual misandry that has wormed its way into much of our media - particularly egregious examples are the blithering idiot that is Daddy Pig and the oh-so-funny 'jokes' in Doctor Who. The mainstream media no longer make equivalent jokes about women, and that's a good thing; they need to stop the reverse.
• And I'm afraid there's a degree of casual misandry in our education system at all. A few months ago, I was fairly horrified to see our local university holding a 'debate' with the topic "We submit that masculinity is inherently toxic". Again, reverse the sexes and there would have been outrage; it absolutely would not have been allowed. This needs to stop. (Indeed, if I never again hear the word 'toxic' being used in reference to people, it would be too soon.)
• We need to stop viewing initiatives and groups aimed at men, and even those aimed exclusively at men with suspicion - very often, the moment any such group or initiative is started it is immediately the subject of a pile-on from accusations of misogyny, or demands that it be 'inclusive'. But women-only groups are accepted and celebrated.
• Perhaps most important of all: we need to stop demanding perfection from role models. I've spoken about this before, in the context of politics - absolutely nobody is perfect, so if you tear down and drive out any largely-positive-but-flawed role model for falling short of perfection, the alternative isn't perfect exemplars; it's the ones who you can't tear down, whether because they're too powerful, too entrenched, or they just don't care. In politics if you can't tolerate Tim Farron the alternative isn't a better Tim Farron, it's Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. In role models, if you're going to tear down anyone who is less than perfect, you'll be left with Andrew Tate.
• Much as I have agreeing with Tory blowhard politicians, the ones who periodically lobby for a Minister for Men and Boys are right - the specific problems of boys falling into addiction and crime, of them taking their own lives, and of them falling under the sway of the Tates and Petersons of this world probably need a dedicated person in government to focus on them.

Why does all this matter?

Society has long taken the view that there is such a thing as "male privilege" - that women have been disadvantaged in society simply by virtue of their sex while men are not. And there's historically a great deal of truth in that. But it is emphatically not true for the current generation of young men and boys, who are struggling in a great many ways. If the goal is equality, there is a great deal to be done - and not all of it in the direction that you'd expect.

But maybe you don't care. Maybe you're of the view that men had it all their own way for centuries, and now it's time for payback.

Okay, fair enough. But consider this: none of those young men and boys who are struggling is entirely isolated. Every one of us is connected to a web of other people: families, friends, colleagues, acquaintances, 50% of whom are women and girls.

So when a boy goes off the rails and spirals into the manosphere and misogyny, the women and girls around them suffer. When a boy is driven to despair and falls into addiction or suicide, the women and girls around them suffer.

The bottom line is that if we fix the problems being faced by the current generation of young men and boys (and, yes, the problems being faced by the current generation of young women and girls - I'm not blind to these; they're just not my topic for today), then we all of us benefit, and all of us will be the happier for it.

Which should be obvious, but presumably isn't.

Suddenly...

Firstly, many congratulations to St Mirren on winning the League Cup. A few weeks ago the match seemed to be something of a formality as Celtic strolled to the first step in yet another treble (at least potentially), and then suddenly it didn't.

In fact, it turns out that their winning the match was very much not a shock. They played extremely well, but the usual rule that "you need to play extremely well and need them to have an off day and need a lot of luck to boot" didn't apply - Celtic just haven't been their usual selves all season, and so a really good performance by St Mirren was enough.

Which leads me to the surprising realization that, suddenly, it looks like we might be looking at the first season since the 50's when neither Celtic nor Rangers pick up any silverware.

The thing is, this year we're at a point where they are no shock results: anyone can beat anyone else (well, apart from poor Livingston...).

In terms of the league, that means there are no false positions: Hearts are deservedly in the lead, Celtic are deservedly behind them - not far, but a little, and then Motherwell, Rangers, and Hibs are deservedly a bit further back. By the end of the season, the best team overall will be in the lead... and at the moment, that's Hearts.

For the cups, it's a matter of putting together a run of a few games, but crucially the right few games. There are a whole load of teams that you could see doing that: Hearts, Celtic, Motherwell, Rangers, or Hibs easily. Aberdeen could come good and retain their Scottish Cup, or St Mirren could readily do the double.

In a world where anyone can beat anyone, though, Celtic are probably the favourites... but it's also the case that it's more likely to be someone other than Celtic than it is to be them. (And the same for Rangers, and I suspect more likely even for them together.)

But while I said that this is a year that there are no shock results, I suspect there is one: specifically, if neither Rangers nor Celtic win something, that I'm sure would be a shock.

(Of course, there's a transfer window coming up fast, and the smart money is on both Celtic and Rangers strengthening. But it is worth noting that Celtic have come out of all of the last three transfer windows than they went in, and they're going into this one with their best player wanting away. Meanwhile, Rangers have managed to spend a huge amount of money on a team of duds. So while I expect both clubs to recruit, I'm by no means convinced they'll strengthen.)

It's going to be fun!

Voyage's End

Some time ago I found myself in a Star Trek-ky mood. I think it was probably at one of the points where we had a Paramount+ subscription, but where I'd watched all the latest shows. And so I made the mistake of starting a rewatch of "Voyager".

The reason I chose "Voyager" shouldn't be a huge mystery: as I've mentioned on the blog before (albeit a long time ago), I lost track of it after the end of the fifth season, making it the only one of the middle run of Trek TV I never finished. (I've also never seen all of TOS, and never seen any of TAS, but I'm afraid I have no great enthusiasm for those.)

Of course, one might very well question why I went for a rewatch, rather than just jumping back in at the sixth season. Certainly, I'm now wondering just that...

(The reason, incidentally, is that it's been so long that I wanted to see if my previous impressions still held. And, for the most part they do - I find myself somewhat kinder of some aspects of the show, but also struck by how many of the characters are unlikeable, or just dull, and how much wasted potential there is in the show. Also, I've just reached the middle of the third season, and hit a run of really, really bad episodes.)

So "Voyager" has been my recent go-to for a brainless show to kind-of watch when I have nothing much else to do. Which has been going okay.

Except that last week Netflix let it be known that it will be leaving in a couple of weeks. Meaning that if I really push myself, I may manage to get to somewhere early in the fourth season - just after the introduction of Seven of Nine, and the beginning of the show's painful obsession with all things Borg. I might, just about, reach the "Year of Hell" episodes that mark the halfway point of the whole (and also the very "best" episodes of the show).

And then it will be gone, just as surely as it was before. Typical.

(I daresay that at some point we'll take out Paramount+ for another couple of months, presumably when "Strange New Worlds" returns. At which point I may race through some more of "Voyager". Or maybe not.)

My Pettiest Annoyance with "Stranger Things"

We watched the first set of episodes of "Stranger Things 5" when they were released a few things ago. To be honest, I wasn't as keen as I previously would have been - the very long delays between seasons has largely blunted my enthusiasm for what had once been must-watch TV. (George RR. Martin may want to take note...) In the event, the episodes were mostly very good, and nicely set up a race to the finish. So I'm pretty happy with that.

But...

There is one thing that rather annoyed me. Though be warned, it's absurdly petty...

In one of the episodes, Mike gives Will a pep talk, likening Will to his D&D character, "Will the Wise". However, he later notes that Will isn't really a wizard like his character, but rather a sorcerer because his magic is innate rather than learned.

Which is a nice, clever D&D reference that will sail over the heads of those unfamiliar with the game, but serve as a nice little "Easter Egg" for those of us who are.

Here's the thing, though: "Stranger Things 5" is set in 1987, when the current edition of the game was 1st Edition. Indeed, the books for this edition have been showcased in "Stranger Things" over the years - it's very clearly the edition they have been playing.

The sorcerer class was introduced to the game in Third Edition, which was published in 2000. Until that point, the distinction between wizards and sorcerers was no different than in plain English - they're one and the same thing.

So that clever little reference is, I'm afraid, an anachronism.

As I said, it's a very petty annoyance!

#29: "Skyward Flight", by Brandon Sanderson and Janci Patterson

Punitive

A few days ago we received a card from the Royal Mail saying someone had sent us something and failed to attach postage - if we wanted it, there was a charge to pay. Of course, there was no indication of what the thing actually was, so...

Anyway, I ended up paying the fee and arranging for a redelivery for yesterday. The item therefore arrived this morning.

Anyway, it turns out to be a Christmas card, and it looks like a straightforward mistake. At a guess, they wrote a whole bunch, stuck stamps on them, checked them, managed to miss one, and then posted them. (I hope that's it, and not that they completely forgot to stamp all of them!) No big deal; it happens.

Except for one thing: the charge to receive this item was £5. The item in question was just a card, which would be £1.70 for first class delivery or 87p for second class (both of which are already outrageous, but that's another rant). That's a mark-up of between 3 and 6 times the regular cost, which frankly seems punitive - especially since this was not, in fact, our mistake.

Given that the postal worker in question had to visit twice (once for the original card and another for the revised delivery), I would have thought a fee of double the original might be reasonable, but surely no more than that?

All of which amounts to nothing, of course. Royal Mail are now a private company responsible for their own charging patterns, and if we don't like it we get to go to the (non-existent) competition. That's the joys of privatization for you. Oh well.

Just one thing though: please do remember to stamp your cards before sending!

Celtic's Management Woes 2025, part two

Just kidding.

Back when Brendan Rodgers left Celtic and they appointed Martin O'Neill as interim boss, I thought that was an inspired move - O'Neill is the only living Celtic manager who can be placed in the same quality bracket as Rodgers, and so he was the safest of safe pairs of hands. And so it worked out - eight matches, seven wins, and an all-around improvement in their form was the result.

But it was only ever going to be an interim appointment. Martin O'Neill wasn't going to take the job long-term, which meant that a permanent manager needed to be found. And while there was no rush, it needed to be done in time for the new guy to assess the squad in good time before the January transfer window opened. All of which meant that they had reached the point where it really had to be done.

And that in turn meant that Wilfried Nancy was always going to face a baptism of fire - the fixture list in December is absolutely packed, so he was always going to have a match within a couple of days of arriving, and a 'crucial' match within a week at absolute most. This week, with a top-table clash, a must-win European match, and then a cup final, is perhaps more crazy than most... but only a little.

So the first match was always going to be difficult.

Additionally, given that Nancy was hired, at least in part, because he has a very clear, distinct style, he needs to assess the squad not just in general but also in terms of how they fit that style - if that's why he's here, that's what he's going to play, so he needs to players for it. He basically needed to make the change right away, and accept that it led to a rough start.

So the first match was always going to be difficult.

The outcome of that match was not what would have been wanted by Celtic, but the immediate knee-jerk response by their fans has been quite a thing to behold.

But the harsh reality of things is this: Martin O'Neill is gone. It was fantastic to see him in action once again, and he left Celtic in a much better place that he found it, but he's gone now. Time to stop looking back and move onwards: Wilfried Nancy is the manager now, for better or worse, and he needs the support to actually give him at least a little time to get bedded in.

Of course, maybe it really won't work, and he'll have to be removed. But the time for that is 4-5 months after he arrives, not 4-5 days.

(And, actually, the more important thing is what happens in January. Celtic have had a couple of remarkably poor transfer windows, and can't afford another. So the key determinant of the destination of the title is really about who Celtic bring in, rather than the identity of the man bringing them in.)

Family Tickets

Last week I read an article in the Guardian about family tickets, and in particular a perceived unfairness faced by single parents (as the tickets are generally "two adults and two children", or sometimes "one adult and three" children - most single parents of course have one, and less commonly two, children and so are ineligible).

I am, obviously, not a single parent. However, LC regularly has preparations for her work that she needs to do at the weekend, and which is best done without the distractions of children in the house. The consequence of this is that I frequently take Funsize and Surpise! out to various places and so have noted exactly this same issue. (Naturally, as a lone father who is, gasp, taking care of his own children!, I am routinely hailed as an absolute hero when out on these trips. So it's not quite the same.)

For any businesses who are keen to do something about this, I have a suggestion to make. I should stress that I'm personally not particularly bothered either way, since not getting a discount isn't a big deal to me. But I can well see that for a single parent, it might be the difference between something being affordable or not.

My suggestion is simply this: pitch your "family ticket" as "one adult and one child", but also offer a discount on additional tickets bought along with that ticket - the price works out the same, but is then much more flexible. Of course, it's not quite as simple as a fixed 2+2 family ticket, but that's the price of flexibility.

Or just offer "10% off for multiple tickets bought together" - that's close to working out at the same thing anyway, and much easier...

#28: "Warriors of God", by Andrzej Sapkowski

Race to the End

It's hard to believe that we're into December already. Unfortunately, November saw something of a slip on multiple fronts, meaning that goals that I thought were definitely going to conclude easily within time are now at risk - in theory, I'm still right on target with these goals, but the progress over the last few weeks suggests it may be a struggle.

So the race is on - can I complete three books this month (with two well in progress)? Can I manage a further nine blog posts (after this one)? Will I find time to update the church website?

And, ultimately, do these things necessarily matter all that much?

This Year's "One New Thing"...

As I mentioned in my Guide to the Stress-free Christmas, I quite like the notion of building a strong foundation for Christmas and then each year adopting a "one new thing" rule - in order to avoid things becoming samey and repetitive, each year try to identify one new thing to try.

However, this year I think our "one new thing" is actually going to be "no new thing" - partly because Christmas worked so well last year that I'm keen just to keep things the same, and partly because we're rather over-stretched at the moment and so this is a year to just keep things on narrow rails. Which is fine - for various reasons we're all going to be somewhat busier this year than last (some of which I can't talk about), so not taking anything extra on feels like a good step.

That being the case, Christmas this year is going to look somewhat like this:

• Obviously, we have presents to buy and wrap for a number of people. This has started, but has quite a long way to go. I'd like to get all the presents bought in the next two weeks, and then wrapped in the week after, but we'll see.
• Likewise, we have cards to send to a number of people. I'd hope to get this dealt with fairly soon, too.
• The Christmas tree and other decorations will go up over the weekend, officially on Sunday. (I then have a second tree to put up on Monday...)
• We need to place an order with the butcher in the next couple of weeks.
• There's the village Christmas Lights Switch-on, which happens tonight. My band's competing event has been cancelled this year, likely permanently, and it looks like our annual visit to the Zoo lights has likewise fallen by the wayside.
• However, we will go to the Mill Farm Christmas event, including a visit to Santa there.
• Funsize has a number of performances with her Stage School over the next few weeks.
• My work night out is the Friday before Christmas (and LC the week before). I'm not planning as later a night as last year - I think I'd prefer just to get to bed.
• The weekend before Christmas I'm hoping to do some Christmas baking. Not as much as last year (as we had too much), and a different selection, but a couple of nice things.
• The Big Shop will hopefully be on the last Friday before Christmas, but may slip a little later. Then, a day or two before Christmas we need to pick our order up from the butcher.
• Then, on Christmas Eve I'm hoping to take the children over to my parents' for a visit, followed by the Christingle service, and then bed.
• Christmas Day should then have the same format as last year - a relatively slow morning involving presents, breakfast, and a nice walk (weather permitting), followed by the big meal, and then a fairly lazy afternoon/evening. At some point we'll watch a nice film or something on TV.
• Then, on Boxing Day it's over to my parents' again, this time for the big family gathering. Fun!

And that's basically it. Which, in fairness, is quite a lot.

Thoughts on the Budget

I must admit, I had expected today's budget to be absolutely horrendous - the various bits of speculation I'd seen online had suggested it would be a near-perfect attack on every aspect of my finances, and that has proven not to be the case.

In the event, the effects we'll face are likely twofold: the freezing of the tax bands will mean paying slightly more tax than might have been expected... but in the way that frankly is unlikely to be noticeable, and the change to NI payments on salary sacrifice pensions means paying a little more in NI (though by my calculations is a pretty small increase). That's not horrible (though I can well understand that people living in very expensive properties, or those in London, people saving large amounts in cash ISAs, or people who use electric cars might feel differently).

And, frankly, the removal of the two-child limit for child support (and the corresponding "rape clause") can only be a good thing.

So, a cause for hints of optimism, I think.

However...

I was extremely bemused to see that the OBR published their report (by "mistake") ahead of the budget, meaning that the key analysis was all in place before Rachel Reeves even stood up to talk.

But more to the point, there was all the speculation beforehand, which as I said had given me the impression that this was going to be a horror show. The thing is, all that speculation involved a great deal of talking down the economy, of suggesting all manner of badness, which will have prompted a load of people to take actions that now are ill-judged (such as, for instance, the suggestion that the rules for pension lump sums were going to change, encouraging people to take them early, or the likely damage to investor confidence). There's a decent change that that very speculation caused damage to the economy.

Needless to say, this is something of a problem. (And, incidentally, I don't recall this level of feverish speculation about any other Budget. I don't like pointing to misogyny as the sole root cause of things, because it tends to be reductive, but in this case I can't help but think that it was a big part of it. Either that, or our right-wing press really hate Labour, which they do, and thought this could be a useful target.)

That said, I don't really know what could be done about that - I'm really loathe to advocate restrictions to the press without absolute need.