If there is one black and white area left in the gender arena, where men could feel indisputably in the right, perhaps "paternity fraud" - the pretence that a man has fathered your child - is it.

Last week, the first-ever case of "paternity fraud" hit the appeal court. Mark Webb was "duped" for 17 years by his former wife Lydia Chapman into believing that Elspeth Chapman, now 22, was his biological daughter. A DNA test four years ago confirmed that another man was the father; at which point, according to what Elspeth told a newspaper, Webb "disowned" her.

While Webb was denied the opportunity to take his complaint to the House of Lords, barrister Nicholas Mostyn mused that the case had raised "profound questions" about a "spouse's duty of candour". Mr Mostyn was absolutely right. Just so long as this "duty" and "candour" business cuts both ways.

First things first. No one is underestimating Webb's agony. What Lydia Chapman did was deplorable. Not least because every trouble-making, disgruntled ex-spouse in the nation will now feel justified in plucking out his progeny's hair or scraping a Q-Tip over their gums, and posting it to DNA-U-Like. Which, considering that quite a few males think nothing of spraying their seed around as indiscriminately as crop fertiliser, strikes one as a tad rich.

Moreover, however much one feels sympathy for Webb (and personally, I'd feel even more if it transpired he hadn't "disowned" the innocent child in this matter), this idea of "fraud" being employed in this context is somewhat muddied by the fact that many women have their own stories to tell. Indeed, if we are all to accept the idea of "paternity fraud" as the ultimate female betrayal, shouldn't we also agree that there are men out there who are no slouches when it comes to "frauds" of the uniquely masculine kind?

If it's procreative "bloke-fraud" you want, I'll give you it. How about those men who dodge fatherhood for so long, they effectively "defraud" entire generations of their female counterparts of their right to reproduce without having to resort to painful and expensive IVF? How about when men fob off women they're with for years with adamant declarations that they "never want children" and then - whoops! - get the next woman pregnant? What "duty of candour" has been achieved here?

Elsewhere, programmes such as The Jeremy Kyle Show and The Maury Povich Show are rammed with men forced to take DNA tests by women mocked for their inarticulate hysterics, when effectively they have been sent mad with grief by months, even years, of their child being denied.

Then there are the stories of fathers taking pride in hiding their assets when the Child Support Agency came knocking. Or other fathers, who enjoyed the babies arriving, proving something about their virility, but found the business of actual fathering too difficult. And the list sprawls on.

Indeed, ultimately I would bet there are (far) fewer women pretending children are their partner's than there are actually "real" (biological) fathers who behave as if they have no responsibility to their child at all. But when do deserted, reluctant single mothers get to stand up in court and talk about how they feel "defrauded"? And maybe this is what happens when the legal system tries to navigate areas such as "paternity fraud". Suddenly you find yourself in a swamp full of waving female hands, shouting: "Hey, me too!"

With this in mind, one has to wonder what Mr Webb was hoping to achieve with this attempt to take his appeal to the highest level - more rumination on duty and candour, more "profound questions"? If so, bring it on. It may be just what the courts need - the law taking more heed of any hurt and emotions involved. Just so long as it is acknowledged that for every man devastated at being duped into believing a child is his, there may be women who have been wronged ("defrauded") by a man in ways much less legal, or provable, but perhaps no less painful.



Don't criticise Madge - how else would you expect a recent divorcee to behave?

Getting a bit sick of Madonna being insulted for posing in that S&M bandage outfit. Granted, she looks bizarre - as if she were slowly evolving into a box of Elastoplasts. Nor did I care for that other picture of her dangling the Louis Vuitton handbag on her ankle, with her crotch splayed, which made her look as though she'd been injured in a freak yoga accident in the John Lewis luggage department.

That said, Madonna only looked strange, not "hideous" or "pathetic". More pressingly, it seems more than a bit sexist to bawl "Put it away!" every time an older woman feels like getting a bit of wriggle on.

And what happened to sisterly empathy?

These days, there are always at least three good reasons to despair of Madonna (Kabbalah, Kabbalah and, oh yes, Kabbalah). However, not right now. Madonna has just come out of a marriage where, only allegedly mind, her husband, hardly the "teen lead" himself, nicknamed her "Grandma", and, again only allegedly, referred to her body as "gristle". Cor, girls, aren't we glad this little charmer is back on the market - where do we form an orderly queue?

Coming out of a situation like that any woman's self esteem would be on the floor. So who cares if Madonna poses in a few mildly disturbing outfits.

These photographs are really just an extreme celebrity version of acquiring a "Screw you, sunshine!" post-relationship haircut. Which is every woman's inalienable right; even Madonna's.

David Simon wowed us with The Wire and then he does this...

Those still mourning the end of The Wire (wherefore art thou, Jimmy McNulty?) can comfort ourselves that creators David Simon and Ed Burns will be bringing Generation Kill, a mini-series set in Iraq in 2003, to our screens, starting tonight. Hurrah.

Except that Simon made it clear in a recent interview where we can stick our hurrahs, unless one happens to be an authentic Baltimore drug dealer, docker, cop, politician or US soldier. This may prove difficult for UK viewers.

Reading said interview while "hanging in my Wimbledon hood", I discovered that Simon and Burns didn't care what fans think of their work. The only opinions that register are those from the "real-life" characters who inhabit the front line of the worlds they dramatise. It's from them they get confirmation of the verisimilitude of their work.

Says Simon: "We really don't care what the average, middle-class, two-car family with 1.7 kids, a dog and a cat viewer thinks of The Wire." Oh dear, did someone forget to take their anti-pomposity pill?

One can see where Simon is coming from. Clearly, he has become irritated by the chattering-class swoonathon directed at The Wire, though perhaps he should count his blessings. Critical acclaim and viewer-support from suburban whitey must have been key factors in keeping The Wire alive. Much more worrying is that, creatively, Simon is way off-beam.

Realism is key to the kind of work Simon does and he is right to think it important to get feedback from the ground. However, isn't audience empathy just as crucial? Call it squalor porn if you like, but it could also be considered amazing and moving that The Wire inspired such levels of feeling and interest among people who will never experience these kinds of harsh realities.

If Generation Kill manages to do likewise, galvanising and informing all those middle-class, 1.7 kids, dog and cat viewers, it would be a huge compliment to the creators. It's one that perhaps Simon should consider taking with grace, rather than coming out with statements that make him sound like a pompous, posturing and very middle-class (as in self-loathing) ass.

High ranker

Now that Andy Murray has beaten Jurgen Melzer in the third round of the Australian Open, let's just run through Murray's incredible achievements so far. Britain's highest-ranking seed for eons, entering the official ATP Top 10 last year, he's also beaten world number one Rafael Nadal and was runner up to Roger Federer in the US Open. Now here he is, tipped for victory in the Australian Open and even possible Grand Slam glory. Nah... still don't like him.