‘Dad bod” is an expression coined by Mackenzie Pearson, writing on a US college site, about how young women like her are “all about the dad bod”. Dad bods don’t usually belong to actual dads – perish the thought! – but to young males with soft bellies and phantom abs. It’s not about being properly overweight, but about being a little out of condition, non-intimidating, cuddly. Pearson writes: “The dad bod says, ‘I go to the gym occasionally, but I also drink heavily on the weekends and enjoy eight slices of pizza.’ ”

The New York magazine identified the definitive dad bod as belonging to actor Jason Segel, although it could be any actor who played a slacker character in a Judd Apatow film. Men came forward to talk about their own dad bods. There was a scathing female backlash – why should men be celebrated for being slobs? Where was the gender parity? Arguably, women were more entitled to have “mum bods”, seeing as some of them have actually carried babies.

However, I’m not sure if any of this is really about young women suddenly developing a fetish for soft, squishy men who gorge on pizza. This is about excessively vain men, young or old, gay or straight, and how no one in their right mind likes them.

I’m not talking about men who simply like to look good or take their fitness seriously. There’s a big difference between old-school Mr Vains – exhibitionist, self-adoring, but essentially sweet (happy peacocks) – and a certain breed of hardcore vain men, self-satisfied, hyper-critical, mean, who like to spread the pain around by commenting on how everyone else is looking, too.

The judgmental vain man is a nightmare and there seem to be more of them about. While there are vain women, too, female vanity generally seems directed inwards and is more likely to be self-critical. A certain brand of male vanity is probably just as much about insecurity, but seems directed outwards. In basic terms, it’s the difference between someone who looks in the mirror to check what is right (so incredibly right!) about their appearance, rather than what is wrong.

Moreover, while there is said to be new pressure on men to look a certain way or have a particular physique, this doesn’t seem to be what’s driving obnoxiously vain men.

These are no shrinking violets, anxious for validation, desperate to be accepted. On the contrary, they seem to think that their taut abdominals give them a free pass to air extremely strong views about how others are supposed to look, from people they know – partners, friends, family members – to complete strangers. These days, this is frequently, and unconvincingly, disguised as “concern” over obesity and related health issues. Their mouths say: “I’m worried about my fellow human beings.” But the translation of this is: “I’m better than my fellow human beings.”

Who would want to be in a relationship with that kind of toxic hot mess? How could it be possible to be happy and relaxed, never mind naked and vulnerable, with these creatures? It’s as if some men can’t handle being good-looking or physically fit – it turns them into catty, judgmental monsters, with a tape loop of Walk This Way where their heart and their manners should be.

Bearing this in mind, it’s understandable, even cheering, that young women such as Pearson appear to be subconsciously trying to avoid these vain men in favour of sweeter, more laidback guys who are going to let them breathe a little.

This isn’t really about how a man looks, it’s about how he makes someone feel. It’s not so much the look of the dad bod that appeals, it’s the personality that comes with it.

Talk is cheap, except with the Clintons

It’s been revealed that Hillary and Bill Clinton have earned more than $30m (£19m) since January 2014, the bulk in paid speeches to banks, corporations, et al. (Hillary also made in excess of $5m from her memoir, Hard Choicescorrect.) The New York Times estimates that, since leaving the White House in 2001, the Clintons have amassed $125m (£97m). Since his wife announced that she was running for the presidency (the reason that these figures have been made public), Bill Clinton has not slowed down. Then again, why should he?

Obviously these figures are an embarrassment for Hillary, because she is attempting to position herself as an everywoman. Then there was her claim when promoting Hard Choices that the Clintons were “dead broke”. Surely there’s no problem with Bill, no longer in public office, whose speeches have earned the bulk of the money? Then there’s our own former PM, Tony Blair, who conspicuously runs a highly lucrative public speaking career, for which he is constantly derided. It always feels as though people are supposed to get automatically riled by former presidents, prime ministers or other major politicos earning big sums on the public speaking circuit, but why?

Not all former PMs or presidents rake it in on this circuit quite so eagerly, but should there be such condemnation of the ones who do, even those whose naked greed makes you shudder? Granted, it’s all hanging on the status of their previous position and experience, but, arguably, that goes for any speaker.

Would I want to sit through one of these speeches? Probably not – and some former politicos droning on self-importantly would be more enraging than others, but that’s not the point. Public speaking is a perfectly legal and valid way of earning money, post-politics, so why all the sniping? It’s what politicians do in office, not out of it, which really matters. The rest sounds like a bellow of perhaps righteous dislike but (less forgivable) envy.

Oh dear, there goes the Edge over the edge

U2 have become extremely accident-prone. First, singer Bono mashed up his arm in a cycling accident. Now guitarist the Edge has fallen off the stage at Vancouver’s Rogers Arena during their Innocence and Experience tour. The fact that he did so during a rendition of I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For could be deemed hilarious to those with enough of a cruel streak to yell: “Do you mean the edge of the stage?”

It was also interesting to note the distinct lack of age-related derision directed at the Edge, for having the audacity to be 53 years old and “flaunting himself” on stage. Compare and contrast with Madonna, who famously took her own much nastier stage tumble at the Brits, when she was pulled over by her stage cloak.

Just a few years older, the rather athletic Madonna was promptly vilified as a withered old hag who shouldn’t be staggering about onstage, in her hideous arthritic liver-spotted way, as it was becoming unseemly at her age.

In stark contrast, I’ve yet to read that the Edge should view it as a “sign” that it’s time to hang up his beanie hat. Funny that.