The Wonderful Co-op.

Co-op are not going to be stocking a number of exploitative magazines aimed at a manipulative and patronising construct of masculinity (my rather long winded avoidance of saying 'lad's mag's!). 

Wahooo!!!!

This is because those companies have refused to provide said magazines in sealed bags which would prevent people being able to see the content unless they actively wanted to and bought them. (Unfortunate that these have been referred to as 'modesty wraps')

The wonderful wonderful thing about this is that no one can call this censorship - it is not. The Co-op is, well a co-operative, and has a membership, a membership today I am very proud to be part of. This decision is a response to listing to that membership. Democracy at work. 

The publishers where given a choice and they made a decision, a decision I would imagine might bring the co-op many more customers and members. 

What I love about what's happened at the Co-op is that it demonstrates how alternative business structures bypass the debates other organisations will inevitably get tangled up in: Freedom of speech (aka I want to wank to whatever I like) vs. the right to live free of oppression and intimidation, everyone needs to be free to chose and we can't possibly do anything to effect our profit margins, etc, etc.

Members of the co-op said um actually no we don't like it so it's going - simple.

I suspect though that the co-op will be miss-understood and accused of censorship. Just as David Cameron fundamentally misunderstood the point of the 'No More Page 3 Campaign' . There seems to be a disconnect between campaigners using collective voicing of issues to challenge and change attitudes and practices and those who should understand democracy and the democratic process seeing calls for censorship everywhere.

There is a co-operative alternative to capitalism. 

Food glorious food.

Of course its more expensive to eat healthily than to eat rubbish. Anyone who has to do any sort of budgeting would know this. 

Also lets think of the advantages of eating healthily. You feel fitter, stronger, are more productive, happier. Why on earth would the current capitalist system want to encourage that? There are so many advantages to keeping the poor depressed, miserable and lacking the energy to fight.

Cooking food from the raw ingredients rather than pre-made tins, jars and microwave meals containing who knows what, is also time expensive. A family on a low income working all the hours sent on pitiful wages that have to be subsidised by the state, also lack the time to cook. They don't have 30 minutes and quiet frankly I have never cooked a 30 minute recipe in 30 minutes.

The parents who wonder home to a cleaner cleaned house, who's kids have been picked up from school by the paid for childcare arrangements,  rather than having to juggle favors between friends, have time to cook with ingredients most people have never heard of, picked in some far off countries by other people's children. 

Fresh fruit and veg is incredibly expensive it is much cheaper to fill your shopping basket with crisps. The farmers are all struggling though so who is getting all that money? But also could I be so bold as to suggest that if fruit and veg where properly affordable the rich wouldn't eat it? 

The state of meat we eat makes me want to cry. What we do to animals and what we put in our own bodies doesn't bear thinking about. Good sustaining meat is really really not cheap or affordable or available in your local supermarket.

Another observation I am sure I am not the only one who has made, is that a large number of people have become incredibly anxious about what they eat. This has lead me to the conclusion that there is a difference between healthy eating and eating healthily. Collective food anxiety has been fueled I would dare to say deliberately by those with a vested interest in selling gym membership, dieting foods, and an entire industry directed at making us 'healthy'. The actual aim of all these industries  obviously is to make money so keeping you in a state of constant paranoia about what you put in your mouth is good business for them. People who eat healthily are very few and far between.

A critique of what we eat and who eats what is desperately desperately needed. But focusing the blame or 'not being judgmental' questions at the "choices" of individuals is not going to take us very far forward. We need to ask questions of the structures people find themselves in, the choices they find themselves facing with regard to what they eat. 

Lets ask these sort of questions http://www.sustainweb.org/childrensfoodcampaign/our_campaigns/

British bank notes - Gender and class politics played out

Pride, Not Prejudice, we did it! 35K signed on @UKChange & @bankofengland will put a woman on banknotes http://ow.ly/i/2GVq6 

Is filling me twitter feed. Is it only me who feels a little deflated by this. Yes we have kept a woman on a bank note and the swap will happen at the same time as losing Elizabeth Fry from the £5. But lets be careful not to confuse a woman on a bank note with women on bank notes. There are 4 notes are there not and will still only be one woman (aside from the Queen). 

I did sign the campaign and am incredibly relieved that women have not been lost altogether and grateful to those women who tirelessly led the campaign at great cost to themselves, but at most this represents a stalling if not a slight regression and certainly not progress. Elizabeth Fry was an activist and reformer who called out abuse and exposed oppression. Jane Austin wrote love stories, which however subversive or radical they might have been at the time probably represent a message to women today to conform to a worldview that regards achieving matrimonial bliss and securing Mr Darcy and his large house as women's primary goal in life.

I am more interested in the outcomes of a review of selection policy which has also been announced and how that policy is implemented.  Currently the criteria requires that candidates be uncontroversial but Churchill made it through. How can anyone do anything significant and not be controversial? Churchill wasn't just the PM during the second world war he also fiercely opposed Indian independence and was no friend to women's suffrage, hardly. It is his memory which is supposedly uncontroversial not him himself.

Is it only me who in this age of cuts and shameless right wing propaganda feels uneasy that as a replacement for the social reformer Elizabeth Fry we have Winston Churchill. It just feels like a bit more hiding of a certain British history. Just like we saw at the jubilee and Thatchers funeral the right speak a narrative of our shared history many of us don't feel we share.

So sorry for not joining the party but while Jane Austin may have some feminist elements I can't see it as a massive achievement. Especially when she's got on at the expense of Elizabeth Fry - we should not have to have an either/or. Patriarchy pitting woman against each other on our bank notes. 

I know I'm spoiling the party. Sorry.

Not a Princess

My daughter (2&1/2) announced yesterday that she was a princess. This was inevitable, but I had not thought it would come so soon. I informed her that she was not and reminded her of her name. She then started singing the wheels on the bus, life moves on fast at 2. But it did make me think I need to pre think some strategies for tackling this one as it continually raises its head over the next few years. 

The timing of this comment was interesting since there is also another child born recently who will not be a princess but will most probably, though finally getting a republic is always a possibility, become a prince. I have to say that along with Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett I also feel a slight sense of relief that the royal baby is male and will not have to suffer being a princess.

Anyway in search of advice I went to twitter, and while I received some excellent suggestions much was about how to re-define or reshape what a princess is. I'm not sure I want to. I think I'd rather make being a princess an unattractive option. Also I don't want to lie to my daughter. I am not royal so she will never be a princess. I could say that princess can run around, climb trees, wear trousers, but they can't. Kate cannot wear what she wants, say what she wants, eat what she wants, yesterdays revolting issue of OK proves that. 

Also there is the danger of simply replacing one stereotype with another. I don't know if my daughter will enjoy climbing trees yet and I don't want her confronted with the options of pink princess or 'tom boy' princess. I'd rather she could just be her in any combination of interests and abilities she enjoys. 

It is not just the gender stereotyping of princess that I find so difficult but also the inherent hierarchy we cannot all be princess. As much as I love Brave and watch it with my little one repeatedly I'd much rather it ended with the king abdicating and setting up a democratic co-operative community. 

There is too much, competition, I'm the best, look at me, in children's media and for girls princess seems to be the ultimate expression of that. Princess also teaches our daughters to place the highest value in their appearance to the exclusion of other attributes. And not their appearance for their own enjoyment creativity or self expression, their appearance as measured by how sexually attractive they are to adult men. Which is why I would rather expose princess for what they really are (slowly and in an age appropriate way) than redefine princess as something a little more diverse. 

It's going to be hard work.

Taxes

There have been many terrible terrible thing's that have been said of late about social security and those in receipt of it. And there are many people doing a valiant attempt to refute them in the rhetorical war exploding around us. However there is a phrase that I keep hearing that is not being challenged which is 'Taxpayers money'.

Is it just me or does this phrase not make sense. If I pay taxes then the money that I pay to the treasury is by definition no longer mine but belongs to the nation. Now I have a democratic duty to hold the government to account for how they administer our collective resources, but it is not my money it belongs to all of us as a collective.

The problem with referring to it as taxpayers money implies that as a taxpayer I somehow have greater right to decided how it is spent than those who currently are not paying tax, and by inference the more tax you pay the more decision making power you have. There is something inherently undemocratic in that. 

I am also fed up of being told what upsets me as a tax payer. There are things about social security that upset me, but not the ones the government tell me are upsetting me. It upsets me that there is such a thing as working tax credits and that people can work a 30 -40 hour week and still not earn enough to survive. I fundamentally think the purpose of social security should not be to subsidies the private sector; they should jolly well pay decent wages. 

It upsets me the amount of housing benefit people need to claim. Which is the result, not of too many children or people scrounging of the state, or living in Kensington. It is the result of unscrupulous capitalists, decades of daft housing policy and an obsession with private ownership. It upsets me that the tax system isn't such that it curbs the behavior of such empire builders.

But what upsets me more than any of this is that while friends and love ones are being squeezed to live on what is not possible to live on, while the price of everything is going up and life is getting tougher for almost everyone I know. I take a walk round central London and see wealth oozing out of the city. When I pass 6 Starbucks on a street and get sent links via amazon. When I see an add for a bank that the country bailed out with amounts of money I can't even conceive of, offering me an app to help me budget better. Then I get really really mad. That is what Tax payers are upset about (well this one at least).

Shopping

I just did the weekly grocery shopping. It was quiet exciting. 

I have decided it is time to make public my new years resolution, which is to move our household to more sustainable patterns of living. I think I need to say it out loud and have it eternally recorded for the world to see because: 

1.) I am starting to struggle to separate online and offline worlds and have overwhelming urges to tweet every thought that passes through my head.

2.) It is a way of keeping myself accountable and motivated.

3.) Politicising housework might make me feel less demotivated about the whole thing.

So the first big project is grocery shopping. Today I went shopping and went only briefly into 1 supermarket (co-op) which didn't anyway have the mustard powder I was after. The whole process did take longer than had I popped to the local supermarket however I came home without a headache and a well exercised and now sleeping toddler. There where many other pleasing aspects too for example:

• When queuing to pay for my shopping at no point was I presented with an array of chocolates and sweets carefully positioned at children's eye view. In fact the only thing my daughter asked for was bread and a banana, both of which I was happy to supply.
• At the butcher (not quiet ready to tackle meet consumption yet) I witnessed one of the staff tacking the time to have a nice long chat with an older man who was sat having a cup of tea, I guess during his weekly shop. 
• I discovered at the green grocers that truffles are currently selling at around £4000 a kilo. I've got to find me some of them I thought. (I am aware that they are probably not growing in my garden but who knows!)
• The veg was considerably cheaper and better quality than it would have been in a supermarket, and not packaged.
• The fair trade rice and porridge I bought in the whole food shop was also cheaper than supermarket equivalent even though it was organic - mostly because I bought it lose. 
• I had a very nice chat about the relative ethics of two cleaning products. 
• No one asked me repeatedly if I wanted to use the self service check-out and then look at me baffled when I asked them if they realised it was taking their jobs.
• Everyone looked happy with life.
• I can be sure that the majority of what I spent will stay within the local economy.

So I appreciate these are very humble beginnings and we have a long long way to go, but it's a start and it's about habit changing and that takes practice. I'm aiming for a place where sustainable living is second nature. I'll keep you posted and would welcome guest posts on the subject. 

It's not a shortage of knives in the kitchen!

I believe in good men. I am married to one. I read a great blog today from a good man. It moved me deeply. It is profoundly feminist to believe in good men. We wouldn't do what we do if we didn't deeply believe in the whole complete humanity of men. 

I also believe in human men. Men who stay silent or laugh awkwardly at rape jokes. Men who feel nervous about the inevitable loss of power equality will bring. Men who have a serpision that they have privilege but aren't sure how to find out how it functions or what they should do about it.  Men who believe in the equality of women but still regularly speak over them.

Just as I don't understand what it means to be white, don't always take every opportunity to empty myself of that privilege because I'm human, fallible, selfish and negligent. But the call on my life is to move forward to grow, to change, to learn.

The challenge and offer of the women's movement  for men is full humanity because while some of us aren't free none of us are free. 

Bellow is an extract from a speech Andrea Dworkin gave to a group of male politicians. This international women's day I thought it was a great appeal that powerfully explains the relevance of the women's movement to men.

'The things the men's movement has wanted are things worth having. Intimacy is worth having. Tenderness is worth having. Cooperation is worth having. A real emotional life is worth having. But you can't have them in a world with rape....

You can't have equality or tenderness or intimacy as long as there is rape, because rape means terror. It means that part of the population lives in a state of terror and pretends--to please and pacify you--that it doesn't. So there is no honesty. How can there be? Can you imagine what it is like to live as a woman day in and day out with the threat of rape? Or what it is like to live with the reality? I want to see you use those legendary bodies and that legendary strength and that legendary courage and the tenderness that you say you have in behalf of women; and that means against the rapists, against the pimps, and against the pornographers. It means something more than a personal renunciation. It means a systematic, political, active, public attack. And there has been very little of that.

I came here today because I don't believe that rape is inevitable or natural. If I did, I would have no reason to be here. If I did, my political practice would be different than it is. Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It's not because there's a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence.'