New Year's Resolutions

Giving up chocolate failed to work again. Neither did being nicer to my little brother, but I’m not surprised about that one. But what is it about New Year’s resolutions that makes them so hard to keep? And should 2014’s resolution be to stop wasting my time making them?

In my opinion, we are becoming disillusioned with resolutions. It is becoming more about showing off something you can already do than challenging yourself to do something new. Maybe next year I should give up sprouts – at least it would be the first resolution I could actually keep!

On Valentine’s Day this year, the film About Time will become available on DVD. A fantastic, heart-warming romantic comedy, the film tells the story of Tim, who finds he has the ability to time-travel, and uses this power to win over the beautiful Mary. By the end of the film however, he has realised that rewriting the past has consequences. The following quote, from the end of the film, is one that I have thought back to many times:

“Tim: The truth is, I now don't travel back at all. Not even for the day. I just try to live every day as if I've deliberately come back to this one day to enjoy it, as if it was the full final day of my extraordinary, ordinary life.”

There’s a lot we can learn from Tim’s resolution. None of us know which day will be our last, and I for one know that I want to fully live my last day. So why waste time? If today was to be my last day, would I have made the most of it? Would my family and friends remember me the way I want them to, or would the legacy I left be an undesirable one?

This year, I want to start living every day as if it is my last. It sounds morbid, but it has already made a real difference to my life. I still have bad days, and I still fight with my brother, but I try my best to start each day by reminding myself how lucky I am to be alive, and be as productive as I can throughout the day. Instead of promising to do things, I just do them: why wait? Today could be my last opportunity.

This new outlook on life is no doubt influenced by a shaky 2013; for me, last year included both new, exciting opportunities such as the start of university, and worry and loss, with the death of a close family member and the sudden illness of another. It was the first time I had truly understood that life is short, and instead of letting this scare me, or just ignoring it, I decided to do something about it. I decided to start living: now.

However, how long will this last? Of the three resolutions I have made, probably, and hopefully, forever. A resolution like mine is, I would argue, more of a life choice than a whimsical promise to myself. Giving up chocolate and being nicer to my brother were resolutions made for no other reason than the fact it was New Year’s Eve. That is why they won’t last – because I have no real desire to stick to either of them. My resolution to start living my life differently is a choice I made for a reason, and I did not need any excuse, like the fact that it was the start of a new year, to start it.

Maybe it’s about time I resolved to stop spending New Year’s Eve frantically thinking of a resolution to make. If I want to make a change in my life, I should just make it, without needing to wait for midnight. My friends too have stopped trying to make serious New Year’s resolutions. I leave you with a text from my friend that reveals exactly that. He is using 2014 to “properly focus on buying the orange properties in monopoly”.

Happy New Year!  

"Get back in the kitchen, love"

Nowadays, few young people like to label themselves a feminist. The stigma attached to the word means that ‘feminist’ often conjures up images of hairy old women, or mouthy, hysterical university activists. Laura Bates is neither of these. She is young, intelligent, attractive, well-spoken and down-to-earth. Yet she is a feminist, and probably, so are you.

The definition of feminism is ‘the advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes’, therefore a feminist is someone who believes in equal rights regardless of gender. This is no war against men, but the belief that women and men should have exactly the same opportunities. If you believe in equal rights for men and women, you are a feminist!

Laura Bates is founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, which is a website that catalogues sexism, allowing both women and men the chance to speak about and share with others their experiences, how small and seemingly trivial. Having met Laura, and heard her speak passionately and powerfully about her beliefs, it is clear that the chance to speak out is one step on the very long road to gender equality. The website shows that sexism does exist: so often we are told that men and women are equal in today’s society, and although it is obvious that it is not true, the stories on the website prove that.

 

As The Telegraph reports that the ‘No More Page Three’ campaign, supported by Miss Bates, continues to have a limited impact on the attitudes of the national newspaper editors, it is clear that equality is as far off as it was in the 19th century, when the suffragette movement began. What has changed in the time between Emmeline Pankhurst and Laura Bates? Legally a woman’s place in society has improved – our right to vote, for example. However, it is common knowledge that women continued to be persecuted.

 

Laura Bates, whilst an undergraduate, was so struck by the lack of any real respect for women that she set up the Everyday Sexism Project. Although predominantly used by women, the project is open to men as well, and the aim is to get people talking about sexism – it does exist, and although its prevalence is worrying, it also provides a platform for other victims to recognise that they are not alone. The website is full of contained, sensible, but passionate anger. Shocking statistics are rife, to reinforce the point that women are still subordinate to men, and this so-called ‘advanced age’. Only 22% of MPs in the House of Commons are women, and although women are told to have their cake and eat it, only around 13% of FTSE 100 corporate board members are female. Women: don’t take this abuse lying down! Why do women still allow men to subjugate them? Ever been labelled ‘uptight’, ‘prudish’, a ‘bra-burner’, or maybe even worse? Ever been told to stop whining and get on with it? Ever been told – this one is my personal pet hate – to ‘get back in the kitchen, love’? Well, enough is enough! Share your story on the Everyday Sexism Project website.

 

This is just what Sam did, and I have shared her story here to highlight the nature of the problem Laura is tackling:

“I'm 14 and just finished my first year of high school. All year I've had guys feeling me up, grabbing my boobs, unbuttoning my blouse buttons, and coming into the girls locker room and unhooking my bra. One guy even put my hand on him and told me to suck him off. I told my most trusted teacher about it, and she went with me to talk to the headmaster. He stated that "if my physical appearance was provoking them, it was my job to change it" and "not their fault they were provoked." He suggested a breast reduction to a 14 year old girl. My teacher and I were both disgusted, and I shouldn't have to change myself in order to feel safe. I'm shouting back because I have no more options left.”

Horrific, no?
 

Furthermore, this is not just a problem for women. Sexism can also be directed at, and seriously affect, men, and men can be the victims of sexual harassment and even rape. It may not be as ‘normal’ for a working woman to make unwanted remarks of a sexual nature at a male colleague or passer-by, but Laura is keen to stress that men can be the victims of sexism too.
 

So what is the Everyday Sexism Project doing to prevent sexism in 2013? Laura believes that the very existence of her website has helped break down stereotypes and allow the targets of sexism a voice to shout back. An unwanted comment from a stranger in the street might make someone feel ashamed, embarrassed or angry, and the website is the perfect place for these people to ‘air their dirty laundry’, and find comfort in sharing their problem and reading the saddening but often inspiring stories that others have posted.
 

It’s time to all stand up together, time for change. It’s not ok to be sexist anymore. I am proud to be a feminist. I don’t think that women are better than men, but I don’t think that men are better than women either. I believe that everyone deserves to be equal. What is so controversial about that?

Syria: to war or not to war?

"While the Labour whips were applauding, laughing and cheering Miliband in their office, Assad napalmed a school. Yeah, very funny stuff."

This statement, from former Conservative MP Louise Mensch on Twitter, sums up the general feeling in Britain about the potential war on Syria. It has become, not a war against President Assad, but a war between Miliband and Cameron. His view is that Assad’s actions are war crimes, and need to be dealt with. Miliband’s views are the same, but he feels Britain should learn from the mistakes of Iraq: we can’t keep fighting the Middle East, the consequences are too dangerous.  So both men agree that Assad is wrong in using chemical weapons, and something needs to be done about it. However, Miliband feels Britain should not be bullied into acting in the same way as the USA, so blocked Cameron and weakened the PM’s reputation. Now, Britain will play no part in Obama’s upcoming intervention in the Syrian conflict. Is this the right outcome?

New York Daily News front page, 30th August 2013

The American press was clearly shocked by the news that Britain would not engage in military strikes on Syria, as seen on the front page of yesterday’s New York Daily News (above). Many commentators believe this signals the end of the “special relationship” between Britain and the US and the front page of The Sun this morning certainly repeated that belief (below).

The Sun front page, 31st August 2013

However, should British focus be on David Cameron or Ed Miliband, or should we be paying more attention to President Assad and Barack Obama? As Louise Mensch pointed out, while the British government was wrapped up in its own domestic politics, this international crisis was growing even more horrific. John Kerry, US Secretary of State, announced that estimates of Assad’s victims have now reached 1,429 people, 426 of those being children. This means that now more than 100,000 people are believed to have been killed in Syria since the conflict began in March 2011. As Kerry announced, the US is to push ahead with fighting “this crime against conscience, this crime against humanity”. It looks as it France will offer support, although Obama’s actions will be, in his own words, “a limited, narrow act” and will involve no boots on the ground. Importantly though, Obama has assured the world that he will continue his fight against Syria. Whether this is the best move or not remains to be seen. As the Daily Mail announced to Britain today that “Obama plans to blitz Syria without us”, all we can do is wait and see what happens.

A recent photo from Syria showing children killed by the chemical attacks.

I hope that Cameron will do his best to aid the situation in Syria. As the photo above shows, the conflict has reached the point where something must be done: Assad’s actions are very clearly war crimes. However, I am equally pleased that Britain will not offer military support in the campaign. Perhaps Labour is right, perhaps we should learn lessons from our past mistakes in the Middle East – we have fought dangerous dictators before and not always returned victorious. Assad may be a horrific tyrant, but is the answer to the problem really military strikes, or will this simply incur more unnecessary deaths of innocent people? David Cameron said he recognised that the British public did not want war with Syria, even though the disturbing, upsetting images and videos circulating the internet are particularly moving.

Moreover, should the Syrian problem be a political one or a humanitarian one? Did Miliband focus too much on ruining Cameron to see that the bigger problem was the loss of thousands of innocent lives? This argument is convincing but so is Miliband’s – why should we always do as the Americans do? Will the planned military strikes on Syria end Assad’s crimes or simply provoke him and increase them?

This post is full of questions, because I don’t know what I think. It is true that we have an already struggling economy that does not need to spend money on foreign policy like this. It is true that America can cope without us, and leaving them to face Assad alone does not make us suddenly enemies. It is true that we, the British people, do not want war with Syria.

However, it is equally true that while we are concentrating on Cameron’s ruined reputation, the death toll in Syria is still increasing. At times like these, I cannot help but remember Amnesty International’s Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1: “Everyone has the right to life”. Perhaps the USA has it right. Assad is a murderous thug who should be stopped, and perhaps he can be. I hope, for Syria’s sake, that Obama doesn’t need us, and his actions will put an end to this global crisis. And won’t Ed Miliband look silly then.

Farmers: literally feeding the future

Congratulations are in order for Ian Pigott, Hertfordshire farmer and opinion writer for the ‘Farmer’s Weekly’. As a farmer’s daughter myself I spend a lot of time reading the ‘Farmer’s Weekly’ over my breakfast, although as a self-confessed ‘townie’, it is rare that I have something to say on the matters that arise. However, Mr Pigott’s article in the latest magazine, published 16^th August 2013, was full of the eloquent anger and contained despair that I felt regarding the same topic. It was time to make my voice heard.

Mr Pigott laments the way that farmers are still, in 2013, treated with “condescension and curiosity”, and held in similar regard to a circus monkey. He had come across an article in a well-known broadsheet about the success of Tyrell’s crisps, and was disappointed to find that the author of the article, financial editor James Quinn, had concluded his piece, “not bad for the son of a potato farmer”. I too find issue with this comment as it suggests that the sons of potato farmers, or indeed any farmers, are expected to achieve very little, and although Mr Quinn almost certainly did not mean to cause offense with his comment, it is particularly disparaging to the farming community.

As Mr Pigott points out, farmers’ sons have shaped our world: Jethro Tull, Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Newton, Norman Borlaug, Henry Ford and Johnny Cash – just a few famous names who have influenced our world, and all came from a farming background.

So why are the children of farmers not expected to do well? Or, more importantly, why are they not celebrated for what they do well? I don’t think it is just Will Chase, founder of Tyrrells crisps, who has made something from a farming background. Whether they have continued the family farm, established their own business, or branched into new enterprises, every single farmer’s son or daughter should be celebrated. Farming is essential to our world. We cannot feed our children without hard-working farmers, and Mr Quinn would do well to remember that.

Mr Pigott, on the other hand, should be praised for his dedication to future farmers. As the founder of Open Farm Sunday, he is clearly passionate about promoting farming, and so he should be. The National Federation of Young Farmers’ Club goes from strength to strength and as former JLS band member Jonathan ‘JB’ Gill recently announced he is to start farming upon his retirement from the band, farming might be seen, finally, as the rewarding, enjoyable job it is.

As a farmer’s daughter myself, I hope that whatever I do for a living, I remember and stand up for my roots and my farming background. It’s time that farmers were taken seriously. The view that farming is a backward profession for peasant families is one that, hopefully, should be long gone. Farmers nowadays are entrepreneurs, biologists, chemists, vets, engineers, managers, buyers, sellers, presenters, and in the case of Mr Pigott, journalists. While the uniform might not be as clean and the coffee not out of a Starbucks takeaway cup, farmers deserve the same amount of respect as their journalist peers. Mr Quinn should be ashamed of himself as he conforms to old-fashioned, out of date stereotypes about farmers. Maybe if he had done a bit more research on “Will Chase, Herefordshire farmer”, he would have seen farming as it really is in 2013: a community of men and women with incredibly diverse skills, proud of their heritage and their farming ancestors.

The Modern Monarchy: Will It Survive?

As leading royal historian David Starkey noted as soon as baby George was born, the royal family is adapting. He believes, even hopes, that when Charles is King, the House of Windsor will be a smaller, tighter unit. Starkey celebrates the new royals, for their staunch support of tradition as well as a refreshing commitment to change. The updated succession laws mean that there is no longer any need for a large extended family, and the glamour of Kate, William and baby George has only added to the revival of public interest in the royals.

I believe, as do many, that this interest was sparked by Diana, Princess of Wales. The people’s princess, she epitomised timeless style, charisma and compassion. Dancing with John Travolta, picking her way through potential active landmines, and speaking to the press with that characteristic honesty that so irritated Buckingham Palace, Diana was the first ‘real’ royal. She was beautiful, fragile, stubborn and human. Her marriage broke down like countless others, and she spoke frankly of her battle with depression. Her infamous comments about her “crowded” marriage of three people – referring to Charles’ love for Camilla Parker-Bowles – helped form the public opinion that is so positive towards Diana and her sons, and often frosty towards Charles, with whom the public appear to have adopted a ‘forgive but don’t forget’ policy.

When Catherine Middleton, known affectionately to us all as Kate, stepped onto the scene, opinion was initially unsure, perhaps a little wary of this newcomer, but as she stepped out of hospital with her baby son cradled in her arms, she must have felt herself the wave of love and warmth generated by the crowds of well-wishers. She was quite clearly the public’s new favourite, exuding the glamour we had all craved since Diana, and her dresses, often affordable, high street designs, prove this as they still sell out immediately after she wears them. It is clear to anyone that today’s Great Britain belongs to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge; like Mo Farah or Clare Balding, they are seen to epitomise our nation, and represent everything that is great about Great Britain.

The big question, therefore, is will the monarchy survive? Has it seen it’s hey-day, or will a public desire for tradition keep it afloat for many years to come? Peter Hitchens, in the Comment section of The Mail on Sunday, writes that “the Windsors will be history soon”, and his argument is convincing. He points out that no political party supports the monarchy, few still hold on to the idea that the monarchy is divinely chosen, and many countries in Europe are now governed as republics: a monarchy appears to be a dying breed. The Queen is, as Hitchens puts it, “the nation’s favourite grandma”, but writes that this popularity is personal to her, and will not pass on to Charles. I find that here, I have to agree with him. Kate, William and the new baby, with their personal family portraits taken by grandfather Michael Middleton, are popular enough now, but for how long? Will the Great British public tire of the monarchy soon, and will the whole institution, as Hitchens believes, come to an end?

Like Hitchens, I am a keen monarchist, but possibly, although the arrival of George Alexander Louis of Cambridge is the start of a new chapter for the royal family, it is one in which they feature less and less. In 2012 we all celebrated with the royals the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee, but as for the next 60 years, we will have to wait and see. Will the monarchy survive the next decade, the next century? We cannot be sure right now, but what can be seen is that opinion appears to be mixed: we love our royals, but can we see, in them, a bright and shining Great British future?