I see you didn’t comment one way or the other on that.
That's because I think it's complicated; if you tax "crap", what else can people eat? Will other, healthier foods be forced to become correspondingly cheaper? Will primary caregivers be given time off work to cook healthier meals for kids? At what point do you allow for the fact that sometimes people are fallible and sometimes basic humanity means that a kid is allowed hot chips?
Who’d a thought homemade pasta sauce could become so controversial, eh?
I love to cook; I am half-Cajun and we have great (if unhealthy) food traditions. I make all the meals in my house. But it takes time, and you get sore feet, and managing to hide all the vegetables the kids just won't. fucking. eat. inside a rissole or something is complicated, and I've finally handed over my dinners five days a week to Nadia Lim so I don't have to do it any more. But I can AFFORD My Food Bag, and I have the time to cook those meals, because I don't work full time. If you want a varied, healthy diet for several people in a household, it's quite a difficult operation, and if you work all day, and you barely make ends meet as it is... it just seems that we're blaming specific *people* for something really shitty that neoliberalism and capitalism have created. Food isn't about "personal responsibility": food is political.
Sadly, I don't currently consider this the kind of space where anyone affected would want to contribute their perspective.
Wait. I thought you guys were telling me to stop thinking so much? You can't have it both ways.
I'm quite a succinct person: I prefer to boil down arguments to the bare bones. So essentially, what Rosemary and Katherine are saying is (and please do correct me if I have this wrong) yes, this is probably structural and complicated and to do with poverty and inequality and all sorts of other things BUT (and here is where the hand-wavy part comes in) we should all stop thinking about it so much and tell poor people off for not doing stuff "right" instead.
You'll pardon me if I find that solution less than satisfying.
Perhaps, Danielle, you could elaborate on that? I would not want to take from that what was not intended.
I find it hard to engage in many threads in which I am interested because I can't be bothered deconstructing large numbers of blanket assertions I find problematic. I'm not sure whether the culture of the threads has changed, or if I have.
In some circles, putting sugary drinks into the baby’s bottle is tantamount to abuse.
Like this. I can't work out which bit of this I want to argue with first. If you don't tell off someone for giving their baby sugar, you're condoning what some people consider the moral equivalent of child beating. I mean... OK? Do you really think that's a helpful approach?
And I kind of agree with the time poverty argument, but if we just look at pasta sauce as an example, it can be made early and stored in the fridge for days.
Maybe, if you work some shitty minimum wage job, you don't want to spend your day off making pasta sauce? Maybe you want to hang with your kids, or play social netball, or sit on your ass? I don't know, it's like we're constantly framing this as some sort of Moral Failing of the Poors, and at some point we're going to have to say that this is structural and socio-economic and... stop doing that finger-pointy tsk-tsk thing we, as a society, love to do.
Here's what I'm saying: accosting parents or fat people or fat parents or chip-eating students or people at the dairy or whoeverthefuck about their choices is probably the LEAST helpful thing anyone can do.
(I barely post here anymore, compared to previously, so take from that what you will about my opinions of the tenor of discussions lately.)
How many of us have seen this here – and said nothing?
Never. I've never seen it. However, it seems I spend rather less time than the rest of you do staring at fat people and judging them, because I have better things to do with my life.
I know what oxytocin is. I've only recently stopped wearing maternity bras. But it's actually deeply weird to place all the responsibility for nurturing and protection on women and then "other" men as people that aren't emotionally and morally invested in protecting their own kids. Why are we divesting them of that responsibility? It's the sort of approach we used during the temperance movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Could we maybe dial down the weird separate-spheres gender essentialism in this thread? Like, dichotomising women into nurturers and men into... not-nurturers... is the sort of approach that limits everyone as complete human beings.
Twitter is killing this place.
I think Twitter is great for this place because it allows people to a) form their thoughts before they're posted here (which is what I do quite a lot of the time) and b) removes a lot of noise that might be kind of unhelpful at PAS (if I become annoyed with something I can tweet about it and then come back here to be more polite, having cleansed it from my system).