Tuesday, 27 August 2013

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/




Wednesday, 24 July 2013

British bank notes - Gender and class politics played out



Pride, Not Prejudice, we did it! 35K signed on & will put a woman on banknotes

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.