Upsy Daisy White Washed

Anyone who has a baby is likely to have seen the sweet little programme "In the Night Garden". It is a magical garden that the main character Iggle Piggle goes to at night when he falls asleep, to play with the other characters Upsy Daisy, Makka Pakka, the Tombliboos, the Pontipines and the Wottingers, unique wildlife - the Titifers and Hahoos and even sentient transportation in the form of the Ninky Nonk and the Pinky Ponk. Everything in this programme is magical and great fun, reminiscent for me of Bagpuss, The Clangers and The Teletubbies. Jasmine loves the programme and the characters and claps and smiles and dances to the songs. All the parents I know who have little ones tell me their kids love it too. Now that a toy range has been manufactured, its set to make a killing. Anyway hearing that the toys were available and Jasmine having received birthday money I decided to get her the doll Upsy Daisy, one of the main characters and the only female character available.

When I saw the doll I was shocked. Upsy Daisy is black doll in the show, but the doll available for sale is not. The doll is identical to the TV character in every other way. Now Jasmine being the product of a mixed race couple, I feel that the messages we, her parents give her about race, particularly at this early stage of her development are vital to her confidence and pride as an adult, especially if we are to counteract the overwhelming negativity of the both subliminal and overt messages portrayed about black and mixed race people in the media and in the marketplace. I felt that in addition to the charming story and characters, to make one of the main characters of this mainstream children's show a black character was a very positive thing. I thought kudos to the BBC and Ragdoll Worldwide for their positive reflection of a multicultural society. Sadly that positivity did not extend to their merchandising. You can see more views on this here http://www.newstatesman.com/200708020019 and http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment.cfm?id=1351362007

I quote from news.scotsman.com

"Ragdoll Worldwide, the production company which makes In the Night Garden for the BBC, told The Scotsman it had decided that toys from the series did not have to exactly resemble those seen on screen. Andrew Kerr, its spokesman for global licensing and marketing, said: "In spite of their various differences, the characters co-exist and interact in simple and charming ways. The toy range reflects this diversity. "We decided that their colours, shapes and sizes would be dealt with playfully, as they are in the television programme, and as a result do not always bear an exact resemblance to what is seen on screen. "Regarding Upsy Daisy, her face-tone will no doubt vary both darker and lighter in future interpretations."

Now Ragdoll worldwide may have decided that the toys do not have to replicate the shows characters and interpret the toys "playfully" but why is it that the only thing the have "played" with is Upsy Daisy's complexion while all the toys including Upsy Daisy remain identical and true to the characters in every other respect? As for varying Upsy Daisy's face-tone, it seems this will not be happening anytime this side of Christmas. If you would like to tell Ragdoll Worldwide what you think, nickk@ragdoll.co.uk (Nick Kirkpatrick, Head of International Sales) matts@ragdoll.co.uk (Matt Schweitzer, Senior Manager Media and Merchandising) lynng@ragdoll.co.uk (Lynn Godfrey Senior Director of Marketing).

Also quoted from the news.scotsman.com article is

"A spokeswoman for the National Assembly Against Racism said: "By replacing the only brown character with a white-tinted doll, it looks as if the producers of the doll have reverted to racist 1950s attitudes. The BBC should pull its contract with the manufacturers immediately.""

The NAAR site can be found at http://www.naar.org.uk/index.asp. This statement brought to mind this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0BxFRu_SOw&mode=related&search= where a 17 year old student Kiri Davis examines opinions regarding skin colour and race and recreated the the famous doll experiment of the 1940's by psychologist Dr. Kenneth Clark.(more info http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/iml04/soc/ush/civil/clark/index.html) It shows that negative attitudes regarding race absorbed by the very young in the 1940's are still prevalent in the very young today. Toys DO make a difference, positive images of black characters in mainstream children's programmes ARE important to the self esteem and development of youngsters. For the BBC and Ragdoll Worldwide to make such a positive, constructive step forwards only to renege when it comes to merchandising shows that educating our children is not the focus of their activities, maximising merchandising profits is, and the fact is a black Upsy Daisy might not deliver as high a profit. I say might because bearing in mind the popularity of the programme, a stand could have been taken, a step towards changing outdated concepts, but it seems that Ragdoll weren't brave enough to find out, to take the risk of putting principals in front of lesser profits. It seems clear that while they are happy to have a black Upsy Daisy in the programme, they do not have the balls to stick to their multi-cultural convictions in the face of the expected pre-Christmas toy rush. Below is the post that I submitted to the Cbeebies Grown Ups Message Board. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbcbeebies/F2704763 )

"Both my daughter and I love "In The Night Garden". It's a great program and as soon as she hears the music my little one stops what she is doing to watch. So naturally I was eager to buy the toys when the range came out. I was very disappointed to find that the Upsy Daisy doll has been whitened. Now I realise that the toys have been manufactured in order to make a profit, and that marketing rules supreme especially in the run up to Christmas, and that it has clearly been decided that a black Upsy Daisy will not make as much money as a white Upsy Daisy, but I feel that should be irrelevant. How much better if a toy from a mainstream children's programme accurately reflected our multicultural society and sought to change this as opposed to supporting this sad fact? What message does this kind of action give our children? Why can't my daughter have an Upsy Daisy doll that looks more like her? The colour of the character hasn't stopped the programme being one of the most popular on TV for this age group, so why have the BBC and the toy manufacturers made this sad and short-sighted decision? What do other parents think?"

If you feel as disgusted as I do, let the BBC and Ragdoll Worldwide know how you feel!

Happy Birthday Jasmine!

Its official, Jasmine is 1 (her birthday was yesterday)! The day was great and I have had a busy few days, getting presents, baking a cake (organic vegan double layer carrot cake with lemon butter icing and covered in slices of fresh strawberries, yummy), you know the type of thing. She had visitors Tuesday, yesterday, and she will get some more tomorrow. She has been well and truly spoiled! For me it seems this year has gone by in a whirlwind, and yet it also feels as though there wasn't a time that she was with us. The occasion was the excuse for a moment of nostalgia, to look through Jasmine's "keepsake box". It is a box of mementos and has an assortment of items in it, such as all the congratulations cards, her wristbands, a ceramic plaque with her hand and foot prints, from a mould taken of her feet and hands about 3 days after she born, the very first babygro she wore, her "babies first Christmas stocking" the umbilical cord clamp and in a small malachite box the remainder of her umbilical cord that dropped off. (The plan was for this to be buried and a tree planted over it, (to tie her to the earth) by her grandfather in Jamaica, but for one reason and another this hasn't happened (yet). So now I will be adding 1 birthday cake candle. I wonder what she will make of this odd collection when she is older? I remember coming across a small collection of teeth in an ornamental box on my Mum's dressing table. I can't remember if they were mine or my sisters but I thought it was gross. When I said so, my Mum said well they are mine, I paid for them! So much for the tooth fairy. So much has happened in this past year. I have become a mother and Jasmine can communicate, she can feed herself, walk and has become part of a community. (People come up to me to introduce themselves and say "we haven't met yet my name is (xxx), Hello Jasmine". It seems my daughter already has a separate social life and personal fan club. But that is how it should be. Her successes are in some way my successes. I will always represent her past, and Jasmine will always represent my future. I am her teacher and she is mine.

Defending The Indefensible

Daisy Goodwin Executive Producer of Bringing Up Baby

I have been prompted to write a second post about the Channel 4 programme Bringing Up Baby after reading an article in The Sunday Times News Review. The article can be read in full here. Daisy Goodwin, who devised the idea behind the programme and in the article defends the programme and Claire Verity. The premise of the programme could, had it not been an "reality TV" experiment on babies unable to provide consent and parents at a time when most vulnerable to the opinions of others, have been an interesting exploration of childcare ideologies, especially if there had been recognition of the vast improvements and new discoveries in childcare made over the time scale chosen 50's - 70's and been inclusive of developing awareness of the cognitive and emotional development in an infant. As it was , to me in this article Daisy Goodwin is defending the indefensible. The article begins by claiming that Claire Verity has received death threats, as though we should feel sorry for her. Now let me be clear on this point, I do not advocate violence or the threat of violence against anyone, but I am not surprised that Claire Verity's behaviour towards babies has elicited this response and I do not feel sorry for her, I feel sorry for the babies who have been emotionally and physiologically scarred by this so called child care expert's regime and their parents, who while they may reap the rewards of quiet nights from their traumatised babies now, are likely to raise a withdrawn or angry, emotionally detached child who has difficulties with anxiety, forming relationships and depression and later may look back with regret.

Claire Verity claims to be a "victim". She says she has received death threats. In another article from The Times http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article2490406.ece She complains that the NCT are "bullying her and about a blog that has been created to get rid of her (anyone know the web addy of that blog and of heckled at events she has spoken at. Here are quotes from that article.

“Oh yes,” she says, “I’ve been hung, drawn and quartered by the National Childbirth Trust. The last lot looked like they had just come off some peace camp. They accuse me of being a bully: I think they are the bullies. They have their opinions and their boxes to tick and they stick to them. But they’re just as rigid as any of my routines.

“They look appalling – and they are appalling. I just loathe them. They’ve even started a blog to get rid of me,” she continues, warming to her theme. “There they were, barricading the back of the room, bitching about me. What does she know? She doesn’t have any children of her own.’ Well, I always say: does a heart surgeon have to operate on himself?”

I rather think that a heart surgeon may not have to operate on himself to know how to do it, but he/she would still need to have a heart, something that seems to be lacking in Ms Verity's makeup. The comparison with a surgeon is telling for me, as Claire Verity reminds me of those medical professionals who have become desensitised, for whom a patient is no longer a person but a task, or even worse a chore or inconvenience. Hilariously in the comments section of the article I found these two gems that seem closer to the truth to my mind, especially as I have seen the same observation made on other sites.

"Jo, Wolverhampton, UK
As a mother stood at a recent baby show with my happy child in a sling talking to other happy mothers I presume I am a heckler who barricaded the room? That comment is nonsense as is the fact it was the NCT. Claire Verity was asked why she goes against DoH and SIDS guidelines by one lady in a polite manner. She was not heckled, yet she called security as she has no way of defending her outdated and damaging methods. As a nanny she claims to have bedded Mick Jagger with his wife and child in the next room. If you refuse to let a mother hold her child why not sleep with her husband too? Take every bit of love she has?"

"Mrs K Martin, West Yorkshire,
I was at the baby show where Claire verity asked for security to escort 'hecklers' away. The 'hecklers' were asking her why she goes against Department of Health advice on breastfeeding and where baby sleeps. The question was met with a call to security, rather than any sensible rebuttal of the DoH's information. Says an awful lot about the woman and the methods, I think."

But I digress. What I really want to write about here are the comments made by Daisy Goodwin. As programme maker claiming to show all methods impartially, I feel that she has, in defending the Truby King method used by Claire Verity so vehemently, taken sides in the argument especially when she claims Claire Verity's detractors to be self-rightous child care fundamentalists. There is also no sign of remorse or at least understanding of the strong feelings this programme has generated in viewers, the vast majority of whom are appalled.

Reading the article I truly feel that Daisy Goodwin has completely missed the point that is provoking outrage in so many. She says

"A year ago I approached Channel 4 with the idea of comparing and contrasting in real time the most influential childcare manuals of the past 50 years. I was intrigued at the way the fashion in childcare more recently had swung from the liberal, trust your instincts approach of Spock and Penelope Leach, which were current when I had my first child, to the more authoritarian approach of Gina Ford, who also advocates a routine, which topped the bestseller lists when I had my second child 10 years later. "

Now in theory that all sounds fine, but there are routines and then there are routines. Gina Ford may have a fair few of her own detractors but according to yet another times online article http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article2615136.ece

(Gina)"Ford has also joined the battle, writing to the NSPCC denouncing Verity’s techniques as almost a threat to young lives"

Most viewers are not upset at the thought of a routine. What bothers people is the lack of compassion that Ms Verity shows towards babies, the roughness with which she handles their tiny little bodies, the attitude she displays towards them, as adversaries who need to be broken and conquered, the lack of compassion she shows for the parents, treating the mother child bond as an irrational form of hormonally induced idiocy, the leaving children abandoned, isolated and left to cry for hours at a time, the denial of a babies need for family love, human contact, stimulation, eye contact, and being held, the implementation of a 4 hourly feeding routine that makes breastfeeding an impossibility, as opposed to say a 2 hourly feed and is carried out in a manner that is akin to force feeding. (She was literally ramming as much of the teat as she could down this poor babies throat in the second episode). Would it not have been possible to demonstrate a "routine" method that was not carried out in this way? Daisy Goodwin's article continues:

"There are some aspects of Truby King’s routine, such as putting a child in its own room, which are now challenged by cot-death charities such as FSID, which advise mothers to keep babies in the same room for the first six months, and the programme makes current guidelines on this clear. But apart from that there is no hard medical evidence to suggest the Truby King approach poses any threat to a baby’s physical or psychological health."

To say that there is no evidence that the Truby King approach to baby care poses any threat is ridiculous. There is a wealth of evidence that isolation, abandonment, lack of socialisation, ie eye contact and cuddling causes serious damage in the brain development of the infant.ref AN Schore "Introduction And Effects Of A Secure Attachment Relationship On Right Brain Development, Affect Regulation And Infant Mental Health, Infant Mental Health Journal 22, 1-2,2001, also ref LG Russek and GE Schwartz,"Feelings Of Parental Caring Predict Health Status In Midlife: A 35 Year Followup Of The Harvard Mastery OF Stress Study" Journal of Behavioural Medicine, vol 20,pp1-13 to name just two.

"But this is heresy to the self-right-eous childcare fundamentalists of the Internet who loathe Verity so much that she has been spat at in the street and received death threats.
So what’s really going on here? Why has this maternity nurse replaced Posh Spice as the most hated woman in Britain? Her clients all speak highly of her, the families who used her methods on Bringing Up Baby are still following her routines. What is so sinister about parents wanting their children to be in a routine?"

Nearly everyone that I know who has seen any of the programmes feels the same way about Claire Verities methods. It is not as I stated earlier the use of "routines" that specifically bothers people. Women who raised children who were themselves children of the fifties and used "routines", women who have never had children, fathers, and parents who each had their own unique approach, breast feeders and bottle feeders alike, sleep trainers and co-sleepers. All condemn Claire Verity's treatment of babies. Are we all self righteous childcare fundamentalists of the Internet? This throwaway comment seems absurdly dismissive of the mainstream horror that Claire Verity be upheld as a victim, a paragon of good childcare, an "expert" and has urged so many to sign a petition to be presented to No 10. My personal feeling is that Daisy Goodwin and her colleagues at Silver River and at Channel 4 were only too aware of the uproar that this programme would generate, for who could fail to see the outcry the portrayal of the actions of this woman would provoke in the viewing public. I believe that they rubbed their hands in glee at the thought of their little goldmine, knowing the ratings, publicity and advertising revenue such an outcry would provoke. Maybe (as if) Claire Verity is a victim of unjustified crowd anger. We the viewing public may be the abusive jeering crowd, throwing rotten fruit and vegetables, but we weren't the ones that put her in the stocks and displayed her sins for the populace to witness. What responsibility does Daisy Goodwin, Silver River and Channel 4 take? None.

If you would like to contact Daisy Goodwin http://www.daisygoodwin.co.uk/ or Silver River http://www.silverriver.tv/prog_bringingupbaby.php ,Channel 4 http://help.channel4.com/ or Ofcom http://www.ofcom.org.uk/complain/progs/specific/ here are the links ;0)

I Love Cakes

Little Jasmine will be 1 year old on Wednesday, so with this in mind my thoughts are turning to cake. I havent decided what kind of cake to cook yet, bearing in mind lil J has never tasted cake. (Cake is for mummies.) I think I'll cook her a carrot cake, but haven't decided for sure yet, as double choc chip is the other option I am considering. Whenever my thoughts turn to cake, I think of my favourite. Ginger Cake. (In particular my own recipe for Vegan Ginger Cake). I bake it when the number of people offering me cake/biscuits etc that are non vegan has hit critical mass, just to remind myself that I can eat cake too, I just prefer to eat cruelty free, additive free cake that is flavour-some instead of contains "flavourings"! We have friends and family coming to visit on her birthday, before her birthday and after her birthday, so I think I might bake a ginger cake too! I thought I'd share my recipe with you. By the way the photo of the Ginger cake is not my ginger cake, its just some generic ginger cake photo that I found, but mine does look a bit like this. I love ginger, its a great tonic for digestion, the urinary system, soothing for period pain, anti-inflammatory, can ease chills and sore throats, nausea and is often recommended for morning sickness and can be useful with migraine and arthritic conditions when eaten in foods, as a tea or applied as a blended oil, so indulge in some cake in the knowledge that as well as being yummy, it may be doing you some good too! ;0)

Melanie's Vegan Ginger Cake

Soya Milk 4fl oz / 4 Tablespoons
Golden Syrup 2fl oz / 2 Tablespoons
Black Molasses Treacle 2fl oz / 2 Tablespoons
Oil (any of your choice) 2fl oz / 2 Tablespoons

Self Raising Flour 6 oz / 6 Tablespoons
Raw Cane Sugar 2 oz / 2 Tablespoons
Fine Chopped Fresh Root Ginger 1 oz / 1 Tablespoon finely chopped
Ground Ginger 1 teaspoon
Spices (vary according to taste from a combination of ginger, cinnamon, clove, nutmeg, allspice (pimento), coriander and cardamom)
Salt 1 pinch

• Cook in preheated oven at 190C, 380F or Gas mark 6 fpr 25-30mins
• Sift flour, spices and salt into a bowl
• In a mixing bowl place all wet ingredients and sugar
• Sieve dry ingredients into the wet ingredients (double sifting is important)
• Fold dry ingredients into mixture lightly. Be careful not to overmix
• Fold in chopped ginger and any additional ingredients. (eg chopped walnuts)

Enjoy!

The Art Of Communication & Listening

I have a sweet little story to tell on the art of communication and perhaps more importantly, listening. I will also warn you that there will be a small but controlled bout of maternal bragging, but I'll try to keep it short. Shortish. Now if you have read previous posts you may be aware that I am a highly enthusiastic promoter of baby signing. This is a method of developing language and communication skills with your baby, before they have the ability to talk. Babies brain development shows that babies have the ability cognitively to understand communication and language at a far earlier stage than the stage at which babies vocal chords are sufficiently developed to allow speech. What you have in between those two stages is frustration and tears for both parent and child. Much of the tantrums of the toddler stage has been attributed to this inability to express themselves and be understood in a way that matches the child's cognitive capabilities. Baby signing bridges that gap, giving the child tools to both understand and express. Many babies will develop their own signs spontaneously, usually around the time they start pointing at things and waving hello and goodbye. There a number of methods and classes available in the UK and it is an approach that is growing in popularity in other countries too. Here in the UK most classes use either Makaton which is based on BSL (British Sign Language) but adapted for children with special needs and which also incorporates the use of signs. UK readers who are parents may be familiar with the children's programme Something Special which uses Makaton.(http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/somethingspecial/signs/) Other classes use signs that are strictly BSL based. On the whole there are variation between signs even within BSL, and some signs you may come across are adapted for easier use by babies. Still generally speaking you can get by with a combination. If you can't find a BSL sign for something but you can get a Makaton sign instead, then why not.

I have been using baby signs with Jasmine since she was 4 months old. At times I thought there seemed like little point in continuing, but once she started with her first few signs, it became like an avalanche of new words. Jasmine often sees something interesting and will turn to me or Daddy to see if we can give her a sign for it. That period of time where nothing at all seems to be happening is most likely when the biggest discoveries in your child's learning of language is taking place. Baby is learning that things have names, people have names and feelings have names etc, and that those names or words have a consistent relationship with the thing they represent. Using words can help you get what you want or need. Signs and words can have a relationship that is consistent. You may think your baby is contemplating their toes and pondering their next filled nappy, but they are actually working out some major stuff! Because Baby signing is both physical/visual and a language skill, it combines right brain and left brain activity and boosts development as a result!

So far, with her 1st birthday a mere 4 days away Jasmine knows and uses signs for the following: All Gone; Bed (Not one she uses very often, strangely); Bird; Bite (as in don't bite Mummy); Brush Teeth; Clap (usually this means I am so clever); Clean; Clean or Wash Face; Daddy (far too over used IMO); Dance (Jasmine is a funky groover); Dog; Don't Touch; Eat / Food; Fan /Fan Me (Sounds decadent but Jasmine made this one up herself when I took a fan out with us for use on the bus in hot weather); Flower; Get Up; Good; Hello / Goodbye; Hurt / Pain; Light / Sun (Baby is obsessed with light fittings. Perhaps she will be an interior designer); Look/See; Milk (2nd most used sign after Daddy); More (often used with milk); Mummy (for when the Milk sign hasn't had the desired effect with Daddy); Music (Jasmine really loves music and asks us to put the radio on in the morning); Nappy (very useful); Phone (used right before she cuts me off mid conversation); Pig (Used to entice Daddy to chase her around the living room making piggy noises); Play/Toy; Rain; Sand; Sleep/Go to Sleep; Stand; Stop; Toilet; Walk; Where (a favourite for peekaboo and hide the toy games); You. In addition Jasmine understands about double the number of signs she actually uses. Jasmine can speak two words, Mumum and Dada. Imagine, she can express and understand such a wide variety of things, but had she not had access to this wonderful tool, she would be restricted to just Mumum and Dada. I believe that although Jasmine is incredibly special to me, her signing abilities are not, she is simply doing what the majority of babies are capable of. You can see why little ones get so frustrated and angry.

So to the cute story My DSLP gets up with Jasmine before he goes to work so that I can catch up from the night time waking and he can get a bit of quality time with her. Now wonderful man that he is, and perhaps this is just my experience, he is a man. Which means that generally he doesn't listen. I find this quality irritating. Its a combination of zoning out and being unable to multi-task, ie watch the news and listen at the same time. Its a focus thing I think. Anyway Jasmine had eaten breakfast and DSLP had just changed her nappy when he decided to clear up her tray in the kitchen which adjoins the living room while she played with her toys. A little while later he noticed she had taken her nappy off and was crawling about in her birthday suit. He said OK then you have your naked run around I'll be back in in a minute. Very shortly after he brings her into the bedroom to clean her and put on a nappy. "You'll never guess what happened" he said. The nappy Jas had taken off had been a pooey nappy and she had then crawled about making a glorious mess, so he wanted me to hold her while he cleaned up. I said "That's very unlike Jas, she usually tells me when she needs her nappy changing" . He looking a bit embarrassed said, well she did do the nappy sign, but I had just changed her so I thought it couldn't be, so I decided I'd check a bit later" I how I laughed! "I told you that you never listen. I hope you have learned your lesson" To be honest it made me feel quite proud. Jasmine being the smart (bilingual), independent young lady that she is had decided that if she wasn't going to be listened to or understood, then she wasn't going to wait on any man, not even Daddy, to do something for her that she could do for herself! That's my girl, start as you mean to go on!

Dying To Be Beautiful

I'm having a bit of an "ugly day" today. My hair won't go right, I have a cold sore and my eyes are those of a woman whose little angel woke her up one time too many the night before. So we have had a stay at home day today, for me to rest and recharge the batteries and hopefully tomorrow when I wake up I'll feel more like my usual self. We are constantly bombarded with unachievable, unrealistic images of "beauty" that when you have an off day its hard not to feel like a cross between a yeti and elephant man, and that perhaps you should be wearing a paper bag over your head to protect the rest of the world from your hideousness!

Just how unattainable these visions of beauty, that smile down at us benignly from bill board adverts, shop windows, newspapers, magazines, television programmes, cinema screens and just about every type of media you can think of are, was brought home to me by a website I came across on Stumble Upon : http://www.digitalphotoshopretouching.com/retouching.htm
It shows pictures of women who are absolutely gorgeous who are then, using the magic powers of photographic trickery, "improved". The truth is that no-one looks like the men and women who are chosen to represent what is considered to be the apex of beauty, not even those said same models! Need a chin-remodel, rhinoplasty, eyebrow lift, wrinkle removal, etc, etc, etc? You got it. A click of a mouse button here, a blend there and hey presto, now they look good! So if these naturally beautiful, leggy, lithe, never had a stretch mark, spot or bar of chocolate, paragons of beauty are additionally "improved", what hope do the rest of us have of approaching this ideal? Not a hope in hell.

But what is the end result of this body fascism? People, especially women, then feel that they need to have these operations for real! They think they need to nip, tuck, chop, vacuum and enlarge various parts of their anatomy, just to look normal, as if there even was such a thing. There are endless programmes on TV that take a person who does not feel good about themselves and feels that they are so ugly they must need drastic surgery to look even halfway decent, tells them that "you are so right! You do need surgery!" then subjects them to all manner of unnecessary procedures on camera to then turn out the homogenised "look how good you look now, and all you needed was life endangering surgery!" beautiful person. The person is so grateful to have been humiliated, dissected and made to look like a different person, as though their own original, unique, characteristics had no value. These programmes, of which there are so many, simply reinforce to others who also are feeling bad about themselves that for them also, surgery is the only answer.

See http://westwardbound.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/the-necessary-adjustments-mommy-makeovers/ for a brilliant article on this. She discusses the emphasis now being placed on mothers specifically, to "sort out" post baby bellies, saggy boobs and wobbly thighs. Like being mother to a little one doesn't give you enough insecurities as it is! Hey whats wrong with the 9 months on 9months off concept, rest, healthy eating, exercise, and most importantly, self acceptance. I too

" want to live in a society where women are not embarrassed by the way their bodies change over time, as they live their lives. Furthermore, I want the lower breasts, pad of belly fat, and thicker thighs that often come with motherhood exalted as the medals of what our bodies have achieved." Beautifully said Westwardbound!

The incidence of body dysmorphic disorder, anorexia and bulimia nervosa seem to me to be symptoms of a society that constantly gives the message that we mere mortals are ugly and imperfect. Our babies, particularly our daughters are picking up these messages from much earlier stages in their lives than ever before, as mothers insecurities are heightened, and the sexualisation of children becomes ever more pervasive, clothing manufacturers selling THONGS to the under fives (I kid you not I have seen this in clothing shops) nine year olds talking about dieting and sixteen year olds thinking that they need a boob job. Its depressing, because this steals their joy in life, robs these developing souls of their self esteem and denies them the ability to acknowledge their innate beauty that needs nothing more than self acceptance and for inner confidence to be nurtured and grown.

The other aspect of our lives which is under constant attack is aging. While in many cultures the older woman is seen as the embodiment of beauty, wisdom and experience, aging in the western world is seen as a curse. The elderly are seen as invisible and inconveniant. We are told that employers are ageist (this is true to a large extent) and actresses over forty are considered past there sell by date and rarely feature in leading roles, while the same is not true of the leading man. Eternal youth is the ideal, yet when I was younger, I was being told by the media messages around me that I was just as ugly as I am expected to believe that I am now, now that I have a few more grey hairs and wrinkles. Now, I feel that if I wasn't, by the standard of the media, beautiful when I was was young, slim and fresh faced and I still am not "acceptable" now, that I am never going to be, that the bar is always just out of reach, no matter how old we are, no matter how we look, no matter how we are perceived. The key is how we feel, and the truth is that the media and advertisers actually want us to feel bad about our selves! Because that is when we spend our money! We buy anti-aging creams, padded bras and knickers with added support, hair dye, teeth whitener, plastic surgery, make up by the ton, diet pills, the latest magazine that promises to "Make you look younger, slimmer, better, sexier etc in just 1 week". We buy into the fantasy that we can get stuff to "fix" the fact that we feel we are not good enough the way we are.

I remember when I was 17 and I started working in a administrative and sales environment, I felt I had to wear make up every day in order to look professional. It was my mask. Every day I would wear moisturiser, foundation, concealer, eyeliner, eye shadow, mascara, eyebrow pencil, blusher, lipstick, nail varnish, deodorant, perfume, hair mousse and hair spray all applied for a "natural, not over done effect". The irony of it now is plain for me to see, but in those days I was a walking chemical factory. My mum always wore make up, and I had been wearing makeup from a young age and now I wore even more, to appear well groomed. That was just what women do to look good, right? Gradually I came to wear less "products" and when I started studying complementary health I got a whole new perspective. Many "beauty products" are bad for your physical and emotional health. I stopped wearing make up and my skin got really good. I stopped wearing jewellery and I felt lighter. I felt vulnerable at first and exposed, but self acceptance grew. Nowadays I wear makeup occasionally, although usually no more than a lick of lip gloss and some eyeliner. Makeup isn't my mask anymore, I wear it to augment my features, not to disguise them! This subtle difference in outlook is important.

As I said before many "beauty products" are bad for your health. I try to buy products carefully to avoid toxic products, and many products I avoid all together. As a vegan, you spend your life reading ingredient lists. Its quite an eye opener, especially when you turn your eye to beauty product ingredients. Did you know that hairspray can be used to clean off nail varnish? When you are spraying it around your head, you are breathing in particles of it! The same is true of any spray. Eye make up can contain small amounts of mercury, aluminium, and lead acetate all of which have toxic effects. Putting any substance on the skin is the quickest way to absorb it into the bloodstream, far quicker than even digestion. This is the reason behind the effectiveness of an aromatherapy massage or the reason why many medical treatments, such as hormone medications come in the form of a patch. The list of dangerous chemicals is endless. It has been estimated that the average make up wearing woman is absorbing up to 5Lbs of chemicals from make up annually. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/womenfamily.html?in_article_id=462997&in_page_id=1799 and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?xml=/health/2005/03/18/hmake18.xml&page=1 for more info on these hidden dangers.
I don't use hairsprays, waxes etc anymore and I am careful of the cosmetics I buy, but top of my danger list are deodorants. Have you ever read the ingredients of these products that most of us blithely roll or spray onto our armpits daily? What follows is the list of ingredients of the deodorant I used to use:

"Aqua, Aluminum Zirconium, Tetrachlorohydrex Gly, Glyceryl Stearate,Laureth 23, Magnesium Aluminum Silicate, Polysorbate 20, Behentrimonium, Methosulfate, Laureth 4, Cetearyl Alcohol, Lauric Acid, EDTA, Parfum, Amyl Cinnamal, Benzyl Cinnamate, Citronellol, Coumarin, Alpha Isomethyl Ionone, Geraniol, Limonene, Linalool."

Compare that to the deodorant I use now (Optima Iceguard Natural Crystal Deodorant):

"Natural Mineral Salts, Ammonium Alum"

When I got pregnant, although I rarely wore make up I decided to examine what products I was using, bearing in mind that what ever was in my blood stream was also in babies (Little Wriggler as she was then known) That led to a large bathroom clear out. (No wonder cancers are now so prevalent) What I considered later was had I still been using said same former deodorant, the chemicals being absorbed into my underarm area would also be making their way through the placenta and also into my breast milk. Now I don't know about you but I find both prospects frightening. Even more horrifying is that many mainstream baby products use these worrying chemicals too! This website gives some good recommendations for less toxic beauty products http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/94/goodbadugly and mothers will be able find many organic and natural baby products to buy. By buying products that require less manufacturing of chemicals, there is also a beneficial impact on the environment. In the case of natural crystal deodorants like the one I use, there is also less packaging, as it can last up to a year!

The thing that gets me the most about the Beauty Machine though, aside from the psychological damage, toxic products, and environmental damage is that it is all so external. No matter how we look, we are beautiful and valid and should be able to view ourselves lovingly. The messages are so deceptive, they tell us "to be worthy and appreciated you must look good" instead of saying "to feel good you need to appreciate yourself". All the pressure, products or fashion in the world won't change the person that I am essentially. I, like everyone else, am a spiritual person living in a physical experience. When I die, I won't be thinking "I wish I'd got my boobs done and spent more time on my hair". Life is for living, not striving for acceptance to an unrealistic "club of the beautiful people". It seems to me that the beautiful people are nonexistent, fake, or neurotic, and living in fear of the day their facade falls off! Dying to be one of the beautiful? I say forget it and accept your beauty instead. So I have a cold sore and a bad hair day. Who gives a damn. ;o)

P.S Just wanted to add a little extra. I have just been reading the feeds I subscribed to and found an article by the wonderful Half Pint Pixie, which is on a similiar theme and points out the pure hypocrisy and psychological exploitation of one well known brand. Here's the link http://halfpintpixie.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/dove-part-of-the-problem/

First Steps!!

I just had to share my joy. On the 3rd of October, exactly 1 week before her first birthday, Jasmine decided to take her first steps! Her show stopping performance brought tears to my eyes, tears to her Daddy's eyes and it made my friend who was on the phone with me at the time well up too. That girl will do anything to get my attention when I am on the phone! :0) I'm so happy just thinking about it!