The central character in Philip Roth’s The Counterlife described the priorities of his English wife’s family as, “if you weren’t a dog or didn’t have a penis, you weren’t likely to get much attention.” He was clearly referring to ‘good’ attention rather than the all too familiar ‘bad’ attention lying behind the ‘me too’ movement.

Having recently visited England, Roth’s comments appear to remain apposite. It is not a situation peculiar to Britain. It is difficult to reconcile the need to rectify the imbalance with what I observed to be the continued pandering by young women to obnoxious young men, who treat the public and their partners like shit.

What I find more puzzling is the central place dogs are assuming in our lives. You cannot go anywhere in England without your dog. Everyone has to have one, preferably a pure breed with a human name. They are allowed in national parks, hotels, restaurants, historic buildings. I am not sure when humans stopped thinking highly of other humans and put dogs on a pedestal. Mind you, most of the dogs I saw were extremely well-behaved and quiet, in stark contrast to the people for example strolling up the main street of Canterbury, who might have been from Essex.

To think that dogs are higher on the pecking order than women is disturbing. It’s all very well to own a dog, but it comes with responsibilities. If a dog is not looked after or given attention, it barks or howls all day long. It is a nervous wreck when it goes outside. If that happens when a dog doesn’t get attention, what did Roth think would happen if women did not “get much attention”?