Ah, a book to sell! I wondered why that was such a melodramatic article 🙄 Eg. “Just as a little sugar in an infant’s diet trains the child to become dependent on it throughout life, as an emotional reward and physiological prop”. Errant cr@p. Not that children should be given lots of sugar (or any at all when they’re very young) but that implication that a tiny bit causes an addiction is rubbish and scare-mongering. In addition, people over-indulge on many foods that don’t contain sugar, eg chips, crisps, burgers, fried chicken, etc etc.
Of course, this article is in Health & Well-being, mainly read by women many of whom are all too ready to beat themselves up about supposed dietary sins 🙄
As for the bizarre use of Mary Wollenstonecraft’s “A Vindication of the Rights of Women” - a major feminist work - that’s rather offensive. She wasn’t writing about sugar. She was writing about the inequalities women were subject to, and how half the human race was treated as inferior. Here’s a fuller quote (the work is in the public domain and not under copyright). I’ve bolded some bits:
But, to have done with these episodical observations, let me return to the more specious slavery which chains the very soul of woman, keeping her for ever under the bondage of ignorance.
The preposterous distinctions of rank, which render civilization a curse, by dividing the world between voluptuous tyrants, and cunning envious dependents, corrupt, almost equally, every class of people, because respectability is not attached to the discharge of the relative duties of life, but to the station, and when the duties are not fulfilled the affections cannot gain sufficient strength to fortify the virtue of which they are the natural reward. Still there are some loop-holes out of which a man may creep, and dare to think and act for himself; but for a woman it is an herculean task, because she has difficulties peculiar to her sex to overcome, which require almost superhuman powers.
A truly benevolent legislator always endeavours to make it the interest of each individual to be virtuous; and thus private virtue becoming the cement of public happiness, an orderly whole is consolidated by the tendency of all the parts towards a common centre. But, the private or public virtue of woman is very problematical; for Rousseau, and a numerous list of male writers, insist that she should all her life be subjected to a severe restraint, that of propriety. Why subject her to propriety – blind propriety, if she be capable of acting from a nobler spring, if she be an heir of immortality? Is sugar always to be produced by vital blood? Is one half of the human species, like the poor African slaves, to be subject to prejudices that brutalize them, when principles would be a surer guard, only to sweeten the cup of man? Is not this indirectly to deny woman reason?
www.theguardian.com
