My last blog was quite sore on those of my own sex who mope, whinge and generally waste their lives.

Now its time to explain why they might be like this.

Behold – the glory that is sexual equality on the BBC!

Good for…what?  Would the world be a better place without men? Scientists claim to have grown human sperm in a lab, and columnists and bloggers are musing on the possibility of a world where men are no longer needed.

Tell a women that she’s a sex object or a walking womb and there’s an uproar.  Tell a men that he’s a (now defunct [allegedly]) sperm bank and its a bit of a laugh!

First of all, I take the science with a pinch of salt.  There’s plenty of sceptical voices out there…if you read the smallprint.

Second, the idea that this might make men redundant is absurd.  Who invented it?  A man. Men will always be needed to invent stuff.  Even the PC, male-hating view of men propagated in the media is mostly conceived  and carried out by men upon their own kind.

Third, there is one male role that women will never be able to fulfil.  Fatherhood.  Boys need something that only another man can give – initiation into the world of men.  So by ‘father’ I don’t mean the mere biological progenitor.  I have in mind something more like a mentor.  That’s what fatherhood is at its heart.  Initiation into a way of life can only be carried out by someone who has already followed the path.

Synthetic sperm?  Probably not.  Synthetic fathers?  Synthetic equality?  Definitely.

A synthetic world where men are rendered obsolete?  Only in Internet chat rooms, feminist fantasies, scholarly papers, and the masochistic tendencies of modern men – reactionary and liberal alike!

So I’m not going to call for men to be treated with respect.  Respect is something a man has to give himself.  And if he can do this, he won’t worry what the media, science or anyone else has to say.

And he can start by indifference toward The Simpsons.

If you don’t know what I mean by this, then go to the first blog in the series and start again.

What I would particularly recommend you take a peek at are the Wellbeing Guides.  These are an assortment of videos, tracks, and fact sheets on a whole range of interesting and relevant topics.  They are presented by an array of people, from the formerly-irritating Ruby Wax to a variety of less-known – but highly respected – health experts.

I dare you to try out some of the tracts from the guided Meditation or Relaxation and not feel the benefits!

And in case anyone thinks that all this talk of well-being is incurably low-brow, I urge them to read Well-Being: Its Meaning, Measurement and Moral Importance by J Griffin for starters.  Or The Morality of Happiness by Julia Annas.  I’m glad to say that these topics are receiving a lot more attention in the field of philosophy now than they have for many years, as with psychology.

Who knows, maybe, in some far-off, bright-and-glorious day, we’ll even design an education that combines academic wellbeing with our physical and moral condition.  Hang on, didn’t the ancient Greeks do this thousands of years ago?  Yes – they called it paideia, in case you’re interested.

But I’ll leave that for another blog…

Unless you’re a politician, that is.

In a heart-breaking and logic-defying article, apty titled Let’s not get personal, BBC correspondent Mike Baker has highlighted yet another government u-turn, this time in education (the usual victim when it comes to government fads and sound bites).  Once, not so long ago, meddlers as mighty as Blair and then Brown recognised the fact that ‘children learn in different ways, at variable speeds, and in response to different teaching styles’, several decades following many psychologists.  Therefore modern teaching methods should follow suit.

Not so.  Now, a leading academic has branded the new government guidelines for personalised education as ’well-intentioned waffle’.  Nice.  Straining to do much better himself, the academic said education should be “customised” rather than “personalised”.  The difference?  Apart from an increased smell of market-forces, no-one knows.  Now they want to scrap the whole policy.

The real problem is not one of definition but one of contradiction, that much is obvious to me.  As Baker succinctly puts it:

“Ministers are, on the one hand, encouraging teachers to innovate and use curriculum flexibility to teach as they think best for each pupil.  Meanwhile, they are pressing for constant, linear movement towards ever higher test and exam scores, attempting to fit all children and schools into national targets.”

Typical New Labour thinking – combine contradictory policies and then brand it an ground-breaking ‘third way’.  More like a highway than a third way, a highway to hell that is.  It is the first law of logical thought that “one cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”  But, silly me, when did logic ever have anything to do with politicians?

What a crying shame!