Has the World Health Organization ever met women? On such occasions, are its representatives dismayed that women do not lower their eyes and do not bow?

I’m only asking, because part of the draft WHO Global Alcohol Action Plan 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 for “women of childbearing age”. At first I misread it and thought it advised against drinking alcohol for pregnant women or any woman wishing to become pregnant in the near future. But no, the advice of the WHO is intended for all women “of childbearing age”. That women should turn away from their shots of wine jelly and vodka for… what? Prepare for the glory of their gestational future? Preserve their uterine integrity? Go all the way in Gilead, accept that they are not fully human and embrace their God-given destiny as walking and speaking vessels for the wombs?

WHO has been slammed as sexist and paternalistic, which seems fair. Of course, there is a humorous side to it. (We’re British. Take the booze off and what sex do we have anyway?) But WHO’s advice is inherently problematic and borders on sinister. There is the narrow-minded presumption that all women want to have children while some women do not. It is not scientific to focus solely on alcohol when a myriad of factors affect fertility. It also doesn’t make sense to focus solely on female alcohol consumption, as it is believed alcohol consumption in men has an effect on fertility and fetal health.

There’s also the distinct scent of judgment over women’s lifestyle choices, which in turn taps into a deep-rooted societal need to control the behavior of women, who have historically been held in a much greater contempt for it. alcohol. Whenever there are reports of New Year’s revelers or marauding British tourists, it is striking how many more photos of drunk women are used and how sexually impure and compromised they are , with raised skirts and exposed bra straps.

Even today it seems accepted that “nothing is as disgusting as a drunk woman”. Really – nothing? Surprisingly, despite all the feminist advances, this misogynist creed is also frequently accepted without question by women – making fun of other women – as much as by men. Nor does it always come from concern for the safety of drunk women at the hands of predatory men. Too often, these are women being treated en masse to control each other.

In this way, WHO advice is no longer just about health. After all, most pregnant women, or women who wish to become pregnant, can be trusted to make the right choices without talking harshly about “prevention.” On a tacit level, these are the levels of purity, and even modesty expected, of 21st century femininity. The message: women, if you dare to have fun, you will be punished and you will be judged.

Did Ronaldo burst the sponsor bubble?

Guess Cristiano Ronaldo doesn’t want to teach the world to sing? The Portuguese captain took two bottles of Coca-Cola to a Euro 2020 press conference, saying “agua” (water). The action briefly slashed Coca-Cola’s market value by £ 2.8 billion, and UEFA said it would fine the teams if sponsors were treated disrespectfully. Ukrainian Andriy Yarmolenko was among those who shed some light on this, bringing the bottles of Coca-Cola and Heineken closer together, saying, “Please contact me. Englishman Gareth Southgate and Harry Kane refused to join Ronaldo’s protest – I guess you could say they bottled him. (The ObserverThe sponsors of would like me to apologize for this joke.)

It was all billed as a watershed not only for the dark art of sports advertising product placement, but also for star player rebellion and activism. Anti-obesity groups have praised Ronaldo for using his influence to promote health awareness, which is understandable. There are millions of people hanging out in sports advertising and plenty of kids who had better be kept away from sugary drinks by gamers they admire.

Still, it must make you smile that by moving a few bottles, Ronaldo could end up coming across as a living anti-consumer saint. Ronaldo is a multimillionaire, earned not only by playing football, but also by sponsoring. Plus, he has half a billion social media followers – his Instagram posts cost up to $ 1 million. Think of him as a Kardashian in soccer shorts. Does he have principles or is he so rich that he thinks he can do what he wants? Ronaldo’s stance against sugary drinks is laudable, but, when it comes to sports consumerism, he really is a player.

Don’t be afraid, Matt, Rees-Mogg is here to save your honor

Do you know what I like to see? Politicians are gentle and loving to each other. Dominic Cummings has once again unleashed his alter ego – the Westminster phantom whistleblower. Cummings launched new terrorist texts to the outside world, one featuring the Prime Minister describing Matt Hancock as “utterly desperate”. Tough but fair, but with the caveat to Boris Johnson: you hired him.

Cummings must now be the favorite for the most vengeful former employee of the millennium. Yet who should rush to rescue Hancock’s reputation but the head of the house, Jacob Rees-Mogg? After dismissing questions about Cummings’ texts as “anecdotes … fleeting … irrelevant”, he described Hancock as “the brilliant, the one and only successful genius who has managed health for the past 15 months.”

Is this the same Hancock the rest of us have seen “run” in good health? But whatever, are you crying already? Rees-Mogg was so tender in public, one can only imagine what happened in private. Maybe Rees-Mogg takes Hancock’s hurt little face in his hands and whispers, “Hold on, buddy, you better believe it.” Isn’t it cute when politicians are real besties, like 4-eva? Next week: Gavin Williamson braids Oliver Dowden’s hair and doesn’t care who sees.