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.