Morrisons: sexism for you, everyday.

 

Last weekend I emailed Morrisons(are they allergic to apostrophes? more anon...)  via their 'contact us' link  asking them to engage with me about the way that they merchandise their magazines. They haven't replied at all, other than the instantaneous, unhuman "we have your email" ping-back. I find that rude, but probably unsurprising. I'm wondering if anyone who reads this blog might  like to copy my letter below, and perhaps if the weight of my argument doesn't warrant a reply, they'll respond to volume instead.

Dear Morrisons, 

The magazines at the front of your store are presented under banners which seek to outline the content. One banner reads 'Womens Interest' (note; no apostrophe) under which gossip and fashion magazine are situated. At the other end of the racking there is a banner proclaiming "Mens and Motors" (damn that pesky apostrophe again!) and here there are a number of titles including "Runners 'World" cycling magazines, Computer and Gaming magazines, Horse and Hound and a number of science titles. 

Sports, science, games and computers are not gender specific. Girls and women do not only want to read about soap stars in their bikinis. As a teacher and parent of teens, I know how vital it is that girls and young women are presented with science and technology as something that is relevant to them. 

In my view, Morrisons, this is lazy stereotyping and your merchandising is not befitting a company keen to represent itself as a modern and vibrant community store. 

I'd appreciate your feedback regarding these concerns.


For those wondering why I think this matters, it is discussed here, and here and in a gazillion other places.

Fuel poverty, smug-twattery and a real suggestion

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/25/david-cameron-energy-reforms-gas-bill?commentpage=3

Eco-smug. This man has spent 30,000 making his house cheap to heat, but thanks to changes to standing charges, will now have to pay up to £120 A YEAR for gas.

He funded the work by not running a car. A real sacrifice considering he lives in Zone 2

This is all just chatter around the edges, obviously. No-one's crying into their breakfast at a rich bloke paying 100 quid extra a year. He should probably pay that in smug-tax alone. This ^ is nothing to do with people who actually can't afford to be warm.

Similarly, all the helpful hints all over the press about closing doors, fitting room thermostats, overhauling your boiler system, showering instead of bathing don't apply to many of the most disadvantaged in society.

Those of us in the private-rented-sector, those people who have no security of tenancy beyond the next pay-cheque, whose landlords see us as cash-cows and our homes merely as financial instruments have no remedy here. I can't invest in insulating, plumbing or upgrading a home which isn't mine beyond November. I'm loath even to fit a door onto my sitting room, which has been missing since i moved in.

If we're really getting into taxing unreasonably high profits in order to alleviate the fuel bills of the poor, perhaps the private rented sector has a part to play. Return on investment in the rental sector is about 6% per annum, HIGHER than returns currently on investing in the energy sector. 

We can make private landlords face up to the social responsibilities of providing homes for profit. They've been lining their own lofts with with piles of cash, milked largely from the housing benefit system. It's surely time for them to put ALL their houses in order. 

"Lady" Antonia Fraser.

This morning on the Today programme,  Antonia Fraser was to be heard gushing plums about the Royal progeny. It won't surprise those who know me to learn that I couldn't be less bothered about a "Royal" anything, and Kate and her husband leave me fairly cold.

However, Fraser's comments this morning left me with an odd tinge of something for the poor Duchess of Cambridge, I'd like to call it sympathy, but that would probably be flattering me with more grace than I have towards the over-privileged. Let's call it basic humanity.

Fraser's apparently generous assertion that bringing this commoner (Middleton) into the fold was actually (gasp) a good thing for the royal family was horribly snobbish, but she's an old woman and I sort of winced a bit like I do when my nan's a bit racist and just wonder how she got past the BBC research team. However she went to speak in terms which I found pretty disgusting no matter what generation or socially twattish circles she was raised in.

Unchallenged by the studio, Ms Fraser's assertion that Kate has brought "good strong blood" to the family, because her family are all " good looking" made the poor new mother sound like some sort of brood mare, and good looks somehow the measure of strength and nobility. It also seems a bit impolite to be speaking of the girl as is she was selected as some sort of pelvis-for-hire by the noble Wills.

One wonders about the morality of such a mindset. If the child has a cleft lip, or a birthmark, a learning disability or any other of the possible quirks that nature likes to send our way, that challenge our notions of perfection in our children, will that make them less royal? Les valid?

Of course daft old posh ladies are entitled to their stupid views. I just wish my morning radio programme of choice didn't present them to me, unchallenged, before my second cup of coffee.

Silly season

What is wrong with this picture?

Oh nothing really. It's probably just me. 

But, isn't that a really, really weird place to put a public bench?

On the far side of the fence is a school's sports pitch. This side is a public footpath. Just WHO is this bench meant for?

Anyway, I've taken to affectionately calling it the paedo-bench, and the name is beginning to stick amongst colleagues. What do you reckon I can get it removed by the powers-that-be through the power of a silly name and Chinese whispers?

I hasten to add here that I have no genuine concerns that paedophiles are using the bench to observe gym sessions. I'm not a sabre-rattling-peados-on-every-corner type of gal. In fact the only person I have ever seen indulging urges on the bench is a colleague eating chips and enjoying an off-premises smoke. 

It's very slightly 'silly season' in school (you may have noticed). Exams are nearly done with. ALL my Law students are on study leave and whilst I have plenty of work to do, it's generally of the 'pushing paper' variety.

It's been a real delight to spend some days with colleagues in the staffroom with similar workloads, indulging in the kind of water-cooler gossip that is largely impossible during normal teaching life. Before I started teaching last September it never really occurred to me what a lonely job teaching can be. In terms of adult interaction, it's been a desert. As someone new to the area and the job it's been very hard to grow a social life out of my new school. Here's hoping that a few more days sweltering in the staff-room will lead to some more burgeoning friendships.

Exam Board Shenanigans

Ok, so I'm a bit of a stickler sometimes. A tad pedantic. I also have a strong 'mother-hen' streak where my students and their potential exam results are concerned. There's a healthy amount of self interest there too of course; I expect them to make me look FABULOUS on results day. 


It was with perturbation (what a great word, hitherto unused by me!) that I read over one of the recently-sat GCSE papers and found the following question:

a) Judges take may factors into account when deciding upon sentencing, including aggravating and mitigating factors. List below THREE factors which may be considered 'aggravating'.


So far so good. I actually taught them this schizzle! Possible answers are things like ' racially motivated crime', 'use of a weapon' or 'vulnerability of the victim'. 3 marks in the bag. Get IN! (God! I'm good. Etc etc ad nauseum)

b)Discuss what any TWO of these factors influencing sentencing are seeking to achieve.


OK, here's the 'rub'. I have enormous issues with the question. Mostly of the 'WTAF?' nature. When you've finally unravelled the excruciating grammar, just what are they asking? The literal, logical translation might be: 'What is use of a weapon trying to achieve?'


Unanswerable nonsense. This Utter B*ll*cks accounts for ten percent of the marks for this entire paper! That's ten percent of my FABULOUSNESS at stake. Let's put this in perspective!


Naturally, being me, I couldn't shrug this off, so I contacted the relevant exam board to raise my concerns. Their response wasn't as reassuring as I'd hoped. "Question papers are put through a number of quality assurance checks and this question was considered to be fair and answerable".


Well that's OK then. Oh, wait, no it's not. 


The rest of the reply was of a slightly 'arse-covering' tone. My concerns will be tabled before the marking panel apparently. Fingers crossed for a sensible approach. This is all virgin territory for me as an NQT. 


I'm quite grateful really, for the distraction of exam board complaints. With ALL of my law students off on study leave, and some very dull scheme of work tasks to deal with, little intrigues and outrages like this make my life bearable, and offer some relief from the malaise of staff-room moaning.


We KS5 teachers with no pupils at the moment are a rare and smug breed in my school. Today a colleague and I entertained ourselves for the entire afternoon asking passing, rushing, harassed-looking teachers 'Are you still teaching this term?' on receiving an affirmative answer, we'd look at each other knowingly and say 'Oh! How QUAINT!' followed by gales and cackles of laughter from us and (generally speaking) a single-digit symbol of annoyance from our victim. We'll get our just deserts, I'm assured.


On a personal note, bad educative news in the LawTeacher household. #2 has been denied a place in grammar school despite all of my best efforts in the appeal process. The appeal panel, rather annoyingly, have accepted all of my (excellent) points.

They accept the evidence that she's both able and appropriate for grammar school. They also accept that the system is unfair to those who move into an eleven-plus county without opportunity to practice and prepare.

But still, it's tough shit because there are no spaces. The grammar system is broken. There's a multitude of good reasons that 80% of the country have abandoned this system, you know. Still, the traditionalists nobs of Tunbridge Wells environs will have their say and continue to buy extra coaching for their little darlings, ensuring that opportunity is the preserve of the wealthy and they can continue to spend what they save on private schooling on ski holidays and pricing the rest of us out of the housing market. Deep, deep joy.

My job makes me SMILE

My job teaching 16-19 year-olds amuses me more than just about anything. Every day brings a new portion of complete and utter sheer-daftness. Some of it emanates from me. This entry is of my last three working-days worth of nonsense.

Last Thursday brought an all-staff email entitled 'new silly thing boys are doing', just when I thought I'd seen just about all of the silly things that boys do. Apparently a load of boys from the lower school, so aged about 13 and 14, have been spending their lunch breaks "snorting" their drinks. This has created a spate of severe nosebleeds. I remind myself at times like this that, as Whitney once said, 'the children are our future.' God help us.

Friday afternoon brings with it a double lesson of my most tricky characters. Last week, I dashed out mid lesson to avail myself of the restroom facilities. On my return to the room, a student asked where I'd been.
"To the loo." Cue an audible intake of breath from most of class. They stared at me, slightly agape and one student said "Miss, I think you're the only teacher that has ever admitted to going to the toilet." The others agreed and I tried then to shrug nonchalantly while thinking "God, I  must have missed the 'don't admit to peeing' lecture on the PGCE!".

Today, I have had fun by turning some teen-talk back on the students. Exam stresses have turned the GCSE class extra-petulant. I suspect this new party trick of mine which both amused them and shut them up has limited mileage. I'm giving it until Wednesday. I shall sketch out my new approach below:

Student: Miss, these exam questions are sooooooo stupid!
Me: So's your face.

Student: Miss, Billy's being really annoying!
Me: So's your face.

It works on so many levels. Well, one, actually. But we all enjoyed it. I'm really hoping I carried it off with enough irony so they don't think I'm actually one of the try-hards. Like the poor young maths teacher in my school who tried to "talk their language" and called a bunch of middle-class white boys from Kent "blud"  in a blunder that is now legendary.

Add to the above the class my year 13 boys (all 18) presented themselves, entirely performed in Phone-Jacker style and you'll understand why very often on the quiet drive home I realise that my face aches from smiling all day.

Soft Porn in school

The tween and teen girls in school are sporting various versions of the Hollister 'Hunk' (90s' word alert) on paper bags that they transport their teenage gubbins about in. My objections are threefold.

Firstly I'm a bit of an unreconstructed feminist. If the boys in school were brazenly flashing about 'glamour' pictures of scantily clad females I'd feel obliged to object. Forget all that nonsense about the women making a choice and rejoicing in the body. It's porny and creepy. I live in abject fear of being caught in a double standard, so the bags will have to go I'm afraid.

Secondly, having grown up with a deep and generally unfounded fear that my body doesn't cut the mustard, the proliferation of ANY blatantly airbrushed body 'ideal' in an education setting makes my sensitive little hackles rise. I'd like to do any small thing I can to protect my students from the ridiculous body-image obsession in the world around us. School should be a haven where the pressure is to do something you haven't done before, to learn something previously unknown or to make something you've not made before. The pressure to be like something other than you are should come from parents, and in the future, spouses.

Finally,a practical point: the bags are made of paper. They turn to mush in the rain or the bottom drops out on those days when you've got both PE and cooking. I'm quite tired of forlorn girls sadly sticky-taping over the weirdly shiny groins of headless men.

So, in my view the bags will have to go. I now have a choice. Do I take my concerns to the governers? Let them have a meeting. Then perhaps there will be a meeting about the meeting. A decision will be made about the time that trends have moved on and students are sporting Femidoms as rain hats. The alternative to the ominous 'right channels' is covert brand subversion.

I have discovered that apart from being a brand associated with clothes for the young and beautiful, Hollister is a brand name for a company in an entirely different sector. Still bag related. I think if I can build a synapse connection in these young, malleable minds to these products, the power of branding will eat itself.