Has the World Health Organization met women before? On such occasions, are your representatives dismayed that women do not lower their eyes and bow?
I’m just asking, because part of the WHO draft of the global alcohol action plan for 2022-2030 reads like something you might have found nailed to a church door in medieval times. Among other things, he recommends not to drink during “women of childbearing age”. At first, I read it wrong and thought it was an advice for pregnant women or any woman who wishes to get pregnant in the near future. But no, the WHO advice is for all women of “childbearing age”. That women should steer clear of their shots of wine jelly and vodka for… what? Prepare for the glory of your gestational future? Preserve your uterine integrity? Go fully to Gilead, accept that they are not fully human, and embrace their God-given destiny as walking, talking vessels for the wombs?
WHO has been beaten as sexist and paternalistic, which sounds good. Sure, there is a funny side to this. (We’re British. Cut out the alcohol, and what sex are we having anyway?) But the WHO advice is inherently troublesome and borders on the sinister. There is a narrow-minded presumption that all women want children when some women don’t. It is unscientific to focus solely on alcohol when there are a myriad of factors that influence fertility. It also does not make sense to focus only on female alcohol consumption, as it is now believed that male alcohol consumption It has an effect on fertility and fetal health.
There is also the distinctive odor of judgment on female lifestyle choices, which in turn taps into a deeply ingrained social need to control the behavior of women, who have always been held in much greater disdain for drinking. Whenever there are news reports of New Years revelers or marauding British tourists, it is surprising how many more photos of intoxicated women are used and how sexually impure and compromised they are made to show off, with high skirts and bra straps. in sight.
Even today, it seems to be accepted that “nothing is as disgusting as a drunk woman.” Actually – nothing? Surprisingly, despite all the feminist advances, this misogynistic creed is also frequently accepted without question by women – making fun of other women – as well as by men. Nor does it always stem from concern for the safety of drunk women at the hands of predatory men. Too often these are women groomed en masse to keep an eye on each other.
In this way, the WHO advice is no longer just about health. After all, most pregnant women, or women who want to get pregnant, can be trusted to make the right decisions without harshly talking about “prevention.” On some unspoken level, it’s about the levels of purity and even modesty expected of 21st century femininity. The message: women, if they dare to have fun, they will be punished and judged.
Has Ronaldo burst the sponsor bubble?
Do I understand that Cristiano Ronaldo does not want to teach the world to sing? Portugal’s captain withdrew two bottles of Coca-Cola at a Euro 2020 press conference, saying “agua” (water). The action briefly cut £ 2.8 billion from Coca-Cola’s market value and UEFA said it would fine the teams if sponsors were treated disrespectfully. Andriy Yarmolenko from Ukraine was one of those who took this lightly, holding up the Coca-Cola and Heineken bottles, saying, “Please contact me.” England’s Gareth Southgate and Harry Kane refused to join Ronaldo’s protest; I guess you could say they bottled it. (The ObserverThe sponsors would like me to apologize for that joke.)
All of this has been heralded as a watershed moment, not just for the dark art of sports ad product placement, but also for star player rebellion and activism. Anti-obesity groups praised Ronaldo for using his influence to promote health awareness, which is understandable. There are millions circling sports advertising and many kids who would do better if the players they admire keep them away from sugary drinks.
Still, he has to raise a smile that, by moving a few bottles, Ronaldo could end up as an anti-consumer living saint. Ronaldo is a billionaire, earned not only by playing soccer, but also by endorsements. In addition, he has 500 million followers on social networks: his posts on Instagram reach a million dollars. Think of him as a Kardashian in soccer shorts. Are you principled or so stinky that you think you can do whatever you want? Ronaldo’s stance against sugary drinks is commendable, but when it comes to sports consumerism, he’s a great player.
Fear not, Matt, Rees-Mogg is here to save your honor.
Do you know what I like to see? Politicians are sweet and loving to each other. Dominic Cummings has once again unleashed his alter ego: the Westminster ghost whistleblower. Cummings has released new horror texts to the outside world, in one of which the prime minister describes Matt Hancock as “totally desperate.” Tough but fair, although with the caveat of Boris Johnson: you hired him.
Cummings must now be the favorite for the most vengeful former employee of the Millennium. Still, who should rush to the rescue of Hancock’s reputation but the leader of the house, Jacob Rees-Mogg? After dismissing questions about Cummings’ texts as “trivialities … fleeting … unimportant,” he described Hancock as “the brilliant, the only successful genius who has been running health care for the past 15 months.”
Is this the same Hancock the rest of us have witnessed “running” health? But never mind that, are you still crying? Rees-Mogg was so tender in public that one can only imagine what happened in private. Perhaps, Rees-Mogg took Hancock’s wounded face in his hands and whispered, “I support you, friend, you better believe it.” Isn’t it nice when politicians are the best of friends, like 4-eva? Next week: Gavin Williamson braids Oliver Dowden’s hair and doesn’t care who sees it.
George is Digismak’s reported cum editor with 13 years of experience in Journalism