I cannot begin without attempting to give an adequate reason for my absence from blogging. As many of you know, the last academic year was my final year studying for my degree. Whilst the content of my final module presented me with some incredibly emotive blogging material, all of my time and energy had to be directed to five hugely in depth research assignments and what felt like the most significant exam I've ever taken! I hope you will allow me to pick things up where we left off!
It is, in fact, my university who has inspired today's blog post. The Open University has recently launched a campaign on social media called #LovePartTime. The purpose is to celebrate, and reflect on, part-time study. Having also received my degree certificate today, I thought I might reflect on what part-time study has given me and perhaps encourage others to give it a go, either formally or informally.
Probably the most important thing I discovered on my voyage of study, as another OU campaign proposes, is what I am capable of. When you begin studying you wonder how on earth you will fit it all in! Finding time to study in between family and friends, a full-time job, running a home, and all the other things 'adulting' throws at you seems an impossible task. And let me tell you, it still seems impossible when I look back! But, studying part-time teaches you to prioritise, to organise and very often, to let go! I must say, my house is a lot cleaner since finishing!
On the other hand, I could never take all the credit for getting through my degree in one piece. I met my now husband in my final year of my access course and I started my degree the following year, so he has never had me all to himself. I have spent most of the evenings and weekends of our entire relationship staring at computer screens and books yet, I can honestly say, he didn't complain once (I think he misses the peace and quiet now!). The same goes for my family and friends, when I have had to turn down invitations and gatherings so I could finish an assignment - never a huff or puff. So another thing you learn is how wonderful and supportive your loved ones can be.
Diverting a little from the part-time theme, I also want to reflect on what studying history has taught me. History isn't just facts and figures, it is the study of humanity, which can be harrowing, moving, joyful, or downright hilarious (and I have both laughed and cried)! The discipline encourages you to dig deep into the psyche of another human, or the consciousness of another community, of a different time and space. This leaves you with an ever-present desire to try to understand - other people, other cultures, other beliefs, other concepts and other ideas. You learn to look at one thing from a variety of perspectives, which makes the world a much more interesting and engaging place.
I really would encourage anyone to try some part-time study. In the world we live in now there are so many learning resources readily available, whether you want to work towards a qualification or you simply want to find out more about a topic. The Open University's #OpenLearn is a wonderful (and free!) place to explore http://www.open.edu/openlearn/. It may well be a rough, choppy voyage of discovery but, I guarantee, there will be huge amounts of treasure buried along the way!
Saturday, October 3, 2015
Sunday, March 2, 2014
The world we have made
Studying gender roles, particularly women's role in the building of the British empire in the nineteenth century has led me to question part of the reality I, and most likely you, have grown up with.
My upbringing started in the 1980s, not the 1880s but I do question the extent to which values changed over that period. After all, 100 years need only see three or four generations. My Nan, born in 1912 could inculcate values in me that she had adopted from her parents who lived through the late Victorian period. Women's rights changed dramatically over my Nan's lifetime, but assumptions about women's role in society, I believe, have changed very little. Even our very own formidable female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, ironically, believed a woman's place was in a domestic setting.
All you need to do to establish the views of today's society on the things men and women 'should do' is explore your local Toys R Us. We introduce our children to their future roles in society at a very early age. Girls get play kitchens, dolls, pushchairs, cleaning equipment and shopping trolleys and boys get toolkits, cars, toy guns and sheriff badges. Of course any one of us could flip those conventions, but experience tells us that if we operate outside of social norms we will be shunned - very few people would risk this destiny for their children.
So the role of women in the home, deified in the modern, enviable title 'domestic goddess', isn't far removed from the old Victorian one. The difference now is that, fuelled by feminist ideals, women are under pressure to be so much more. A successful career is admirable and to be a successful, high earning working mother and supporting partner is considered as reaching the pinnacle of women's achievement, although I'm sure being all those wonderful things must take its toll on a woman.
What I'm not presuming to do here is say that a woman or a man shouldn't be all those things if that's want they want from life. I'm not saying women should stay at home and men go out to work and I'm not saying women shouldn't have successful careers and men can't be stay at home dads. So what roles should men and women assume? What I'm suggesting is, rather than jumping head first in the role that society has been setting you up for for the last millennia, make a conscious decision about what roles feel right for you. If you're one half of a couple, talk about this and see what works for both of you rather than unconsciously assuming 'traditional roles'.
Remember, we live by standards that European culture has invented. Other cultures attach value to other things. Had our history been different, the ability of women to bear children might have elevated their status above men rather than leave them dwindling behind and we could be living in a very different society.
I am probably not what you would consider a traditional feminist. I believe in true equality for all, individual liberty, agency and choice where those freedoms do not impeach on another's right to the same. It's hard to imagine a world any different from the one we live in. Just listen to John Lennon's 'Imagine', the world can only change if we challenge our assumptions and imagine, and work towards, alternatives.
My upbringing started in the 1980s, not the 1880s but I do question the extent to which values changed over that period. After all, 100 years need only see three or four generations. My Nan, born in 1912 could inculcate values in me that she had adopted from her parents who lived through the late Victorian period. Women's rights changed dramatically over my Nan's lifetime, but assumptions about women's role in society, I believe, have changed very little. Even our very own formidable female prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, ironically, believed a woman's place was in a domestic setting.
All you need to do to establish the views of today's society on the things men and women 'should do' is explore your local Toys R Us. We introduce our children to their future roles in society at a very early age. Girls get play kitchens, dolls, pushchairs, cleaning equipment and shopping trolleys and boys get toolkits, cars, toy guns and sheriff badges. Of course any one of us could flip those conventions, but experience tells us that if we operate outside of social norms we will be shunned - very few people would risk this destiny for their children.
So the role of women in the home, deified in the modern, enviable title 'domestic goddess', isn't far removed from the old Victorian one. The difference now is that, fuelled by feminist ideals, women are under pressure to be so much more. A successful career is admirable and to be a successful, high earning working mother and supporting partner is considered as reaching the pinnacle of women's achievement, although I'm sure being all those wonderful things must take its toll on a woman.
What I'm not presuming to do here is say that a woman or a man shouldn't be all those things if that's want they want from life. I'm not saying women should stay at home and men go out to work and I'm not saying women shouldn't have successful careers and men can't be stay at home dads. So what roles should men and women assume? What I'm suggesting is, rather than jumping head first in the role that society has been setting you up for for the last millennia, make a conscious decision about what roles feel right for you. If you're one half of a couple, talk about this and see what works for both of you rather than unconsciously assuming 'traditional roles'.
Remember, we live by standards that European culture has invented. Other cultures attach value to other things. Had our history been different, the ability of women to bear children might have elevated their status above men rather than leave them dwindling behind and we could be living in a very different society.
I am probably not what you would consider a traditional feminist. I believe in true equality for all, individual liberty, agency and choice where those freedoms do not impeach on another's right to the same. It's hard to imagine a world any different from the one we live in. Just listen to John Lennon's 'Imagine', the world can only change if we challenge our assumptions and imagine, and work towards, alternatives.
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Humanising Henry
As usual in the Mayou household, the topic turned to history earlier, and this brought back a whole flood of thoughts from a presentation I did a couple of years ago on Henry VIII. What has always struck me about interpretations of one of England's most famous monarchs is that as an 'historical figure' he is portrayed as if he were of another world. What I love about history is that whatever culture, whatever era, whatever place a person comes from, human nature remains unchanged. Think you have nothing in common with a Roman, or a Viking, or an ancient Egyptian? You do; we are all human beings who have felt love, pain and heartache, jealousy, anger, fear and desire. It is with this in mind that I choose to view Henry VIII.
The traditional view of Henry is of a tyrannical ruler who beheaded two of his wives in cold blood and founded the Church of England so he could get shot of his first. Like many historians, I am going to offer my views of the man in terms of three of Henry's six wives (and believe me I have views on the other three, perhaps a part two?).
Wife number one: Catherine of Aragon. A happy marriage for around 17 years, many think the 'divorce' (actually it was an annulment, so the marriage had technically never been - ouch!) was all about Henry's lust for new hottie Anne Boleyn. Well, it kind of was, but don't forget that Katherine had never produced the all important surviving son and heir, and by the time Anne came along Catherine was pushing 42! Henry's father, Henry VII, had literally fought for the throne, with a tenuous claim to it, and Henry did not want to be the man to put an end to the dynasty. Not only that, being a bit of a theologian, I believe he genuinely convinced himself, courtesy of a passage in the Bible, that his marriage was cursed because he had taken his brother's wife (Catherine had been married to his older brother, Arthur, who died). It took Henry about 6 years to get the marriage dissolved, and excommunication from his precious Catholic Church (as a child Henry was groomed for the priesthood, not the throne). He sacrificed his faith, his hugely popular and once loved Queen, and six years of his life for a woman; lust or love?
But love can lead to hate, to jealousy and to anger. Anne Boleyn had powerful enemies. She was too loud, too outspoken, and far too protestant for some. There is little doubt in my mind that Anne was set up when it came to accusations of adultery. Whether or not she was guilty is of little consequence because Henry certainly believed she was. Betrayed by the woman he loved, the woman he had fought and sacrificed so much for, humiliated as a man and a King, it is not difficult to understand his anger and sorrow. She was actually executed for treason on the grounds that she had plotted to kill the King, so being found guilty, it was the law that called for execution, not the King. Did he wish her dead for her deeds? Here, my mind is divided. Meek and mild Jane Seymour (his next wife) was already on the scene and Anne had miscarried a son not so long before her demise. Jane was a huge contrast to troublesome and opinionated Anne and I think Henry longed for a fresh start with a marriage and hence, an heir, that all Europe viewed as legitimate (Catholics never accepted his annulment to Catherine; she was dead at this time). Perhaps Anne's sentence was a convenience to Henry, but he was only acting within the law, and he allowed her a quick, pain-free death by opting for a swordsman, not an axe or the agonising stake. A small mercy by today's standards I suppose, but a mercy nonetheless from a wounded and humiliated King.
Henry's precious third wife, Jane Seymour, died as a result of childbirth, and perhaps the fact he is buried with her shows the tragedy Henry's longed for son, Edward, brought with him. I believe that Henry did love, at a time when so many monarchs only married for convenience and dynastic reasons. There are countless examples of beautiful letters he wrote to his lovers, reminiscent of scenes from Romeo and Juliet. Love was on his list of priorities, I am sure. Up to this point, I see Henry's life as a constant, conflicting battle; to be the King he was never meant to be, to secure his father's dynasty with a son, to love and to be loved and to do God's will as he interpreted it. The saddest part about this battle is that his first wife, Catherine (pictured), was probably his perfect match all along. She was a strong woman, from a powerful dynasty, who stood by him as King and whom I believe loved him, and certainly at one time, he loved her. She had sons, but they died in infancy.
Henry was smart enough to allow his two daughters to rule in their own right if his son died, which he did after only a short reign. In a time when women were considered unfit to rule in England, little could Henry have known that one of his daughters would actually be one of the greatest monarchs England would ever see; Elizabeth I. But as all we humans know, hindsight is a wonderful thing!
The traditional view of Henry is of a tyrannical ruler who beheaded two of his wives in cold blood and founded the Church of England so he could get shot of his first. Like many historians, I am going to offer my views of the man in terms of three of Henry's six wives (and believe me I have views on the other three, perhaps a part two?). Wife number one: Catherine of Aragon. A happy marriage for around 17 years, many think the 'divorce' (actually it was an annulment, so the marriage had technically never been - ouch!) was all about Henry's lust for new hottie Anne Boleyn. Well, it kind of was, but don't forget that Katherine had never produced the all important surviving son and heir, and by the time Anne came along Catherine was pushing 42! Henry's father, Henry VII, had literally fought for the throne, with a tenuous claim to it, and Henry did not want to be the man to put an end to the dynasty. Not only that, being a bit of a theologian, I believe he genuinely convinced himself, courtesy of a passage in the Bible, that his marriage was cursed because he had taken his brother's wife (Catherine had been married to his older brother, Arthur, who died). It took Henry about 6 years to get the marriage dissolved, and excommunication from his precious Catholic Church (as a child Henry was groomed for the priesthood, not the throne). He sacrificed his faith, his hugely popular and once loved Queen, and six years of his life for a woman; lust or love?
But love can lead to hate, to jealousy and to anger. Anne Boleyn had powerful enemies. She was too loud, too outspoken, and far too protestant for some. There is little doubt in my mind that Anne was set up when it came to accusations of adultery. Whether or not she was guilty is of little consequence because Henry certainly believed she was. Betrayed by the woman he loved, the woman he had fought and sacrificed so much for, humiliated as a man and a King, it is not difficult to understand his anger and sorrow. She was actually executed for treason on the grounds that she had plotted to kill the King, so being found guilty, it was the law that called for execution, not the King. Did he wish her dead for her deeds? Here, my mind is divided. Meek and mild Jane Seymour (his next wife) was already on the scene and Anne had miscarried a son not so long before her demise. Jane was a huge contrast to troublesome and opinionated Anne and I think Henry longed for a fresh start with a marriage and hence, an heir, that all Europe viewed as legitimate (Catholics never accepted his annulment to Catherine; she was dead at this time). Perhaps Anne's sentence was a convenience to Henry, but he was only acting within the law, and he allowed her a quick, pain-free death by opting for a swordsman, not an axe or the agonising stake. A small mercy by today's standards I suppose, but a mercy nonetheless from a wounded and humiliated King.
Henry's precious third wife, Jane Seymour, died as a result of childbirth, and perhaps the fact he is buried with her shows the tragedy Henry's longed for son, Edward, brought with him. I believe that Henry did love, at a time when so many monarchs only married for convenience and dynastic reasons. There are countless examples of beautiful letters he wrote to his lovers, reminiscent of scenes from Romeo and Juliet. Love was on his list of priorities, I am sure. Up to this point, I see Henry's life as a constant, conflicting battle; to be the King he was never meant to be, to secure his father's dynasty with a son, to love and to be loved and to do God's will as he interpreted it. The saddest part about this battle is that his first wife, Catherine (pictured), was probably his perfect match all along. She was a strong woman, from a powerful dynasty, who stood by him as King and whom I believe loved him, and certainly at one time, he loved her. She had sons, but they died in infancy. Henry was smart enough to allow his two daughters to rule in their own right if his son died, which he did after only a short reign. In a time when women were considered unfit to rule in England, little could Henry have known that one of his daughters would actually be one of the greatest monarchs England would ever see; Elizabeth I. But as all we humans know, hindsight is a wonderful thing!
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
What a 'big man' he is!
You may well be surprised to see a football related blog entry here. Believe me, I'm as surprised as you are! However, when something incenses you so entirely you know it's time to write, write, write! Two words, John Terry.
If you haven't just seen the appalling behaviour of the Chelsea and England captain during the Chelsea v. Barcelona match, you surely must have heard about him sleeping with his best friend's (and team-mate's) fiancée and racially abusing Anton Ferdinand. Now, if you didn't see today's incident you will soon find out, courtesy of the media, that he deliberately and maliciously kneed in the back Alexis Sanchez of Barca whilst another player was making a pass their way (though this isn't how he put it, of course!). He was out of sight of the referee, but it is rather stupid of a professional footballer to think that one of the referee's assistants won't spot such a blatant act of foul-play.
BUT this man can do no wrong! "We're all human beings, and under a lot of pressure these players, we all make mistakes", said Chelsea manager Roberto Di matteo (and I'm typing this live by the way!), when asked if he was angry with Terry. Jamie Redknapp and Glenn Hoddle seem to think that Terry has been "a big man" coming forward and admitting his mistake. Well, I don't think that's exactly what he did, did he? What he actually said was, "yeah I can see how it looks bad on the replay". He made up some ridiculous nonsense about him 'protecting himself' and that what he did wasn't intentional. In fact he hopes that all the people who know him and the fans would know he would never do anything to intentionally hurt someone.
Well this man is either incredibly ignorant, or he's a liar. Because I'd say sleeping with your best friend's fiancée is always likely to hurt somebody, and hurling racial abuse isn't exactly a picnic in the park for the recipient. But all is well, because Terry is the captain, and the team love him, and he's apologised. He's "a big man". When are the footballing world going to realize that there are plenty of talented footballers out there who deserve to hold the captaincy? Men who believe in fair-play, who support their team-mates and set an example. Managers should not allow men like Terry, who repeatedly brings shame to their club, to hold such a prestigious role within the team - what example does it set?! Paid millions to act like a 12 year old bully-boy; embarrassing!
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Inspiring Olympians
I was so pleased today to pick up my copy of Zest magazine and see the beautiful athlete Jessica Ennis on the front cover (yes I know this pic is from Marie Claire, she's everywhere!). I find Zest's health chat inspiring enough but their inclusion of Jess pushed it to a whole new level. This got me thinking...
I know the Olympics is supposedly going to do wonders for our economy, for our capital and for our country but how else could it benefit us everyday people? My conclusion: inspiration. What is an Olympian? They are not just 'sports people': they push themselves to their limits, and then they do it some more. They strive, everyday, to make themselves better. They dedicate every aspect of their lives, their diets, their time, their bodies, to the achievement of their goal.
We might not be sports people, but can we not all learn something from our Olympic athletes? I don't just mean from a physical perspective but I will stick with the theme to illustrate my point. Very recently, due to various happenings, I have become increasingly aware of the potential frailty of the human condition. It has served to remind me (and forgive the old cliché) that we should be grateful for what we have. I am blessed with four fully functioning limbs, and a system of internal organs in fully working order, and I think I have a duty to look after that. We actually have the potential to push our bodies to the limits that Olympians do! Of course, we might choose to dedicate our lives to other things, but that doesn't mean that the same concepts can't exist in these other areas to reach our absolute potential. Certainly the same thing can be applied to our minds, to our family lives, to our talents etc etc. 'Use it or lose it' suddenly springs to mind!
Another thing that occurred to me looking at Jess Ennis, is the role model she is in terms of society's obsession with the body beautiful! What is the body beautiful? Surely it is a body that has reached it's full potential in terms of health and ability: Jess Ennis's body! Now I'm not advocating we all train to be a heptathlete, or spend a furious 2 hours a day on the treadmill and the Smith Machine, but I do hope the beautiful healthy bodies that will be photographed and splashed all over the media during the Olympics will serve as some inspiration, especially to the younger generation who are bombarded with images of very slim fashion models. Perhaps the Olympians will help them to understand that there are many different body types, and that a healthy body, however it looks, is an enviable one.
Gold medals all round I think!!!
We might not be sports people, but can we not all learn something from our Olympic athletes? I don't just mean from a physical perspective but I will stick with the theme to illustrate my point. Very recently, due to various happenings, I have become increasingly aware of the potential frailty of the human condition. It has served to remind me (and forgive the old cliché) that we should be grateful for what we have. I am blessed with four fully functioning limbs, and a system of internal organs in fully working order, and I think I have a duty to look after that. We actually have the potential to push our bodies to the limits that Olympians do! Of course, we might choose to dedicate our lives to other things, but that doesn't mean that the same concepts can't exist in these other areas to reach our absolute potential. Certainly the same thing can be applied to our minds, to our family lives, to our talents etc etc. 'Use it or lose it' suddenly springs to mind!
Another thing that occurred to me looking at Jess Ennis, is the role model she is in terms of society's obsession with the body beautiful! What is the body beautiful? Surely it is a body that has reached it's full potential in terms of health and ability: Jess Ennis's body! Now I'm not advocating we all train to be a heptathlete, or spend a furious 2 hours a day on the treadmill and the Smith Machine, but I do hope the beautiful healthy bodies that will be photographed and splashed all over the media during the Olympics will serve as some inspiration, especially to the younger generation who are bombarded with images of very slim fashion models. Perhaps the Olympians will help them to understand that there are many different body types, and that a healthy body, however it looks, is an enviable one.
Gold medals all round I think!!!
Monday, April 16, 2012
A WHAT?!!!
I do hope that many who have engaged in any kind of media today feel the same as I do. I'm finding the British media more and more tiresome. In their desperate bid to sell sell sell they just talk absolute nonsense, exaggerate immensely, and it's getting embarrassing. Today, the British public have been advised by the media there is a severe drought!!! And not only that, it could continue until after Christmas!!! Oh my word, WHAT is to be done, you ask?!!! Well, actually, according to Sky News (and please note this information is nearing the end of an article that has made it sound like we've almost run out of the essential liquid of life), 'Officials stress that public water supplies are unlikely to be affected by the ongoing drought but are reiterating calls from consumers to combat the dry conditions by using scarce water wisely'. So basically, what's the problem here?
Apparently there's a hosepipe ban; what's the worst that can happen??? Your car stays a bit dusty, you need to use a watering can to water your prizewinning hydrangeas and that water fight you promised your kids at their summer sleepover is off. Big deal.
A 'drought' is what they have in Africa. A 'drought' is where it doesn't rain and there isn't enough water to sustain life. Human beings die of thirst and starvation because there isn't enough water to drink or to sustain crops. There isn't any money, there isn't any import, there isn't any aid.
So lets put this 'drought' into perspective shall we?
1) take a trip to Tesco and see how much bottled water is for sale. Not just that; we have juice, pop, milk etc etc. So none of us will die of thirst!
2) we import food from all over the world. We have access to fruits no one knows how to eat! We will not starve!
3) 'public water supplies are unlikely to be affected by the ongoing drought'. So basically, you can use your dishwasher, washing machine, flush, have a bath or shower as often as you like, we won't run out! Public advice will be what it's always been: have a shower instead of a bath (but who's policing this?!). The UK will remain smelling sweet and Radox will undoubtedly stay in business!
To the British media: get real, your sensationalism is ridiculous!!!
Friday, April 6, 2012
'Hate the haterz'!!!
I love this phrase, Lily Cooper (formerly Allen) used it on Twitter last night and I frequently see it on facebook. 'Hate the haterz'. I'm going to ignore the fact this phrase is a complete paradox because it goes off my point, which is this... I am a hater!
Frequently when I look in the mirror, I hate this bit or that bit. I want a bit off here, a bit more on there. I've been this way since I was a teenager, one of the first to develop scary boobs and notice stretch-marks on my then rather skinny thighs. I thought because I had stretch-marks I must be fat. No one told me that they just pop up during puberty and ironically it was probably more likely down to sports and the development of my muscles. It's difficult to change the thinking patterns you develop during your teenage years.
This is why I was so thrilled to see the Dove Self Esteem Programme for girls and boys aged 11-14. One statistic given in their literature: 'While only 19% of teenage girls are overweight, 67% think they 'need to lose weight' ' (Jan 2004, Bliss Magazine) (I have to say this statistic was most likely published in a teenage magazine brimming with images of skinny models and actresses - ironic!). The programme aims to educate young people in building their self-esteem and body confidence, and teaches why these things are so important in life. Kids answer questions like 'Who says who is beautiful?' and view the work that airbrushing does to the images of actresses like Kate Winslet. There are free, downloadable workshops and activity guides for school-teachers to use in class, but also for parents to use at home. http://www.dove.co.uk/dsep/support-tools/workshops.html
If I had a teenage daughter, I would absolutely be using these resources and encouraging her school to do the same. I was always keen on Dove's 'Real Beauty' campaign but I think they have really pulled it out of the bag with this, working alongside 'beat', an eating disorder charity. Whilst much of the media world tries to shrink everyone down with ridiculous syrup diets, some campaigns are positively fighting back. The fact is, to be as fit and healthy (body and mind) as your situation allows, whatever body that comes with, is the most important thing, and this should be encouraged. I love magazines like Zest and Women's Health who encourage us grown ups as well (so perhaps it's not too late for me either!) So no more haterz please, it's positively unhealthy!!!
Frequently when I look in the mirror, I hate this bit or that bit. I want a bit off here, a bit more on there. I've been this way since I was a teenager, one of the first to develop scary boobs and notice stretch-marks on my then rather skinny thighs. I thought because I had stretch-marks I must be fat. No one told me that they just pop up during puberty and ironically it was probably more likely down to sports and the development of my muscles. It's difficult to change the thinking patterns you develop during your teenage years.
This is why I was so thrilled to see the Dove Self Esteem Programme for girls and boys aged 11-14. One statistic given in their literature: 'While only 19% of teenage girls are overweight, 67% think they 'need to lose weight' ' (Jan 2004, Bliss Magazine) (I have to say this statistic was most likely published in a teenage magazine brimming with images of skinny models and actresses - ironic!). The programme aims to educate young people in building their self-esteem and body confidence, and teaches why these things are so important in life. Kids answer questions like 'Who says who is beautiful?' and view the work that airbrushing does to the images of actresses like Kate Winslet. There are free, downloadable workshops and activity guides for school-teachers to use in class, but also for parents to use at home. http://www.dove.co.uk/dsep/support-tools/workshops.html
If I had a teenage daughter, I would absolutely be using these resources and encouraging her school to do the same. I was always keen on Dove's 'Real Beauty' campaign but I think they have really pulled it out of the bag with this, working alongside 'beat', an eating disorder charity. Whilst much of the media world tries to shrink everyone down with ridiculous syrup diets, some campaigns are positively fighting back. The fact is, to be as fit and healthy (body and mind) as your situation allows, whatever body that comes with, is the most important thing, and this should be encouraged. I love magazines like Zest and Women's Health who encourage us grown ups as well (so perhaps it's not too late for me either!) So no more haterz please, it's positively unhealthy!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)