Activist Wife Swap

hope it works out

What a pile of shite and a waste of your time ... you would be better of smashing windows or joining the ALF than wasting your time watching this bullshit.

oops* sorry to be offensive

XX

i think that the program was interesting and did help spred the word a bit

so undercurrents aren't bothered about sexist stereotypes, yes let's 'wife swap' ha ha, yes women are just objects to be swapped between men aren't they....your politics are seriously messed up

It made me piss myself with laughter but i think i'd be seriously deluding myself if i thought it helped spread the bloody word. The green sorts came accross as wierdo, preaching, benefit scroungers. The image channel 4 gaves us of them is hardly one we want as a figurehead for the movement.

Still it did make me titter. Oh cynical consumerism, you've never been so good.

Well, I didn't watch the programme, because I didn't know it was on, which is a shame, because I would have liked to watch it.
But I have read the entries above, and I think that qualifies me to comment on the entire show with authority.
I thought it was great. I especially liked the bit where they swapped wives (it remineded me of my days as a schoolkid, swapping stickers, pogs, pokemons and girlfriends with all the other lads.
Another favourite bit was when they were portrayed in a bad light and didn't further the cause. That bit was good. Anyway, must dash, thanks for your time, this has been very theraputic for me.
Azz

Dear Rosa,

It in fact challenged sexist stereotypes quite thoroughly (obviously within the confines of mass media/audience) through the attitudes of Larch and Em, and according to the other couple's interview on the Channel 4 website, has made some differences within their family.
As for it coming over as preachy or weirdo, well, again, limits of TV (compared with the size/nature of the audience of Indymedia & our leaflets etc) - much more comes across in the interviews on the website than in the programme. We don't know how it was edited - actually read the text above and you (Rosa) might care to notice that Undercurrents arranged it, but had no control over editing (but then it's so much more fun to condemn and point the finger, eh). I would have been a lot more confrontational (though not preachy - it's enough to say "no thanks" to a lamb chop to get see as preachy!) about the death and destruction that the conventional family's life is reliant on, and what their taxes actually gets spent on (including further death etc) - maybe Larch was, and it got edited out...

It wasn't perfect, but it was definitely worth while.

As will all the programs in the series, both parties came out looking both good and bad. The suburban wife clearly became very hostile to the whole situation, and learnt nothing. She basically ended up looking obstinant, lazy and uncaring.

The suburban husband started off quite hostile, but he did soften towards the end of the experience. It was great to see him getting into the environment fair that the Eco-wife organised, even though he'd been opposed to the idea. In the group discussion at the end, it was also clear that the program had given him a greater understanding of the probems he and his wife had with their relationship with their daughter. (Although, what he learnt was a small fraction of what he needs to learn. :( )

Obviously highlighting the differences between peoples lifestyles is part of the point of the program. In that respect, in some ways the eco-family did look "weird", as a previous poster commented. However, I think this was more than balanced out by the portrayal of the suburban families as ignorant, uncaring consumerists. Other than the differences in their lifestyle, I think the eco family were actually portrayed as being relatively normal. I was afraid before watching the program that they would have picked an eco-family that were much more stereotypically "hippie/crusty" environmentalists. (Not that I am in any way criticising such people, but there is clear media stereotype of environmentalists, and I think that the people in the eco-family did not fit the stereotype, which is obviously good.)

I don't see how the program could have been made without paying significant attention to the lifestyle of the eco family, and how it differs from that of "typical" British people. This is the point of the program, and is what "typical" people will be interested in. The show did draw attention to the fact that the eco-husband lives on benefits, but the program itself was making no judgement on this - it all came from the suburban-wife. How could it have been left out, as it was something she had a huge rant about?

Despite the negatives, I think the eco-family were portrayed as being positive, caring people. If I were in their shoes, I'd be pretty happy with the program.

Oh yes, as for the allegations of sexism by a previous poster in this thread, I rather suspect the author of that comment has never watched the program. They have picked "Wife Swap" as a provocative title for the program, but the actual content of the series doesn't objectify women. It is, admittedly, the wife who goes to a different family, but the families spend 1 week living by the wifes rules, and 1 week living by the husbands rules. I don't see how the program in any way furthers or encourages the oppression of women. Indeed, in this episode of the program, they contrasted the equal sharing of domestic duties by the eco-family with the disgraceful sexism in the suburban family - this was another way the eco-family ended up looking much better than the surburban family.

Further to my earlier post, I would just like to express my wholehearted support for the authors of the previous posts, and the interesting points they have made.
I just think that it needs to be said that some of the points were definately valid, whilst others were accurate and thought-provoking.
It is, in these situations, imperative that we meticulously weigh out the pros and cons and come to a sensible conclusion.
Why does no-one love me?

Well done undercurrents! Wife swap showed how meaningless most peoples lifes are when confronted with a couple who are putting their mouths with their action..shame we get people like rosa above saying its sexist etc...showed he (I assume that its from a male).

Larch came across a bit preachy but they probaly edited him to highlight that trait.

But overall, I think it helped the movement!

I thought the programme was very interesting and worthwhile, and I was particularly impressed with the difference made to the child from the conventional family when she was given some attention and some outlet to be creative instead of watching television. It also showed how powerful TV and marketing are at hypnotising kids - the 'alternative' kids seemed only too pleased to be given junk food and sit stupefied in front of the telly! As a regular watcher of 'wife swap', the only 'reality TV' programme I watch because I find it absolutely fascinating viewing every time, I think that it's often the kids, rather than the adults, who display the true impact of these swaps and will probably go on to instigate more permanent changes in their households, because of course they're far more flexible and open than the adults towards change. I don't think the straight kid will have to put up with being so ignored by her father in future.

I thought the funniest part was when the straight father tried to take the credit for the street party and particularly when he sat down 'to survey my empire'. I hope he was wriggling with embarrassment watching that!

I thought the 'alternative' couple were lovely (and I'd LOVE to know how the hell you get to live in such an idyllic log cabin in Wales! Where on earth did they get the permission/money from?) but my only criticism would be to echo that of the straight couple: ultimately, the alternative couple's lifestyle seemed to depend on the generosity of other taxpayers, and so wasn't actually self-sustainable. Much as I hate to side with the conventional couple on this, it did show up a weakness in their entire way of life, and ultimately (in the edited version of events, I mean) ended the final argument about the validity of their way of life. I know that in reality things aren't anywhere like as simple as this, and the system stinks so bad that it's difficult to deal with it at all, but how much stronger would have been their argument if they could honestly have said that if everyone lived like them the world would be a better place. As things are, unfortunately, if everyone lived like them the national health service, education, etc. would go straight down the pan! Not to mention email!

Oh dear, I sound like an old Conservative! Actually, I've spent a good chunk of my life living in a truck without even a toilet, never mind electricity or water, so I'm on their side really. Good luck to them anyway, I thought they were great and we definitely need more people like them in the world even if we can't all quite work out a way to do it just yet.

Kathleen Greco

How did they get the permission/money for the log cabin in Wales? I'm not sure you're asking the right questions...Only a guess here but last time I saw Larch, it was roundabout the time of the Holtsfield community campaign, where a community of chalets with pepper-corn rents were being threatened with eviction and demolition for development. Is this where the programme was set perchance? Empty chalets were squatted and defended alongside the long-term residents'.

Undercurrents asked if their calculated risk in collaborating with the mainstream worked or whether it was counterproductive. In my opinion they could not have realistically hoped for a much better result.

When you consider the massive viewing figures a programme like this gets then lot of people would have got positive impressions of Larch & Emma’s value systems even if they personally felt unable to match them. It showed that their approach can work, is being tried successfully by real people and would have been inspiring to many watching.

The main problem was the benefit situation, which did undermine their case.

> he alternative couple's lifestyle seemed to depend on the generosity of other taxpayers
I agree that lots of people will see no deeper than that, however,
the conventional couple's lifestyle seemed to depend on the exploitation of other humans.

I thought it was brilliant. It portrayed em and larch really really well. Loads of issues got aired well, and I reckon it would make a lot of people think what a great way to live. The whole TV issue especially came across really clearly, and so did the organic/fair trade thing. This will have done a lot to improve the image of the 'radical environmental movement' generally. People shouldnt jump to the conclusions because of the crap title.

The suburban consumer-whores came across as total losers by the end, though the suburban guy did seem to be coming around in some ways, especially about spending more time with his kid.

I saw the programme. I thought it was interesting and probably did put across the eco-views quite successfully. My concern was for the other couple.

It was obvious that the eco-family were well-educated, probably from educated and well off backgrounds and consequently very confident and able to manage,even manipulate,the situation to a degree. This is confirmed by the fact that it was set up by Undercurrents. They went into it with the explicit intention of using it to promote something. The Liverpool couple despite being richer were not well educated, not culturally middle-class (and in the case of the mother not White). They were clearly at a cultural disadvantage.

How do you think the different couples, off screen, related to the television crew, producers, directors etc. ? Do you think the director most envied the idyllic country life of the 'intellectuals' or the estate of the 'loud-mouthed' scousers?

Unsurprisingly the programme makers (almost certainly also white, educated and middle-class) edited the programme in a way that made the Liverpool family seem vulgar and tacky and superficial. I read here that they consquently suffered quite a backlash:
( http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0300whatson/newandreviews/tm_objectid=14423432&method=full&siteid=50061&headline=reality-bites-back-name_page.html)

I notice that the above posts mostly imply that the eco-family are the marginalised ones. I think there are broader issues of culture and class in play here. The kind of culture and class that means you can get a property in an extremely expensive and desirable, wildlife protected area, live as a freelance 'knowledge worker' and run the benefits system to your advantage.

James

James,

you make interesting points which I echo.

However, "They went into it with the explicit intention of using it to promote something" about the eco-family you say. Read the C4 Wife Swap page, and in the interviews, both couples are in it for that purpose.

Also, about the expensive wildlife-protected area - it's nonsense, check out Holtsfield Campaign in a search for a bit of background.

This is not to dismiss your points though. Thanks.

Well the best bit was the rich family wife going into the shopping centre and saying something like, ah, thats better, normality. Funny.

The prog was interesting, but to be honest much less interesting that previous wife swap episodes. Setting up the consumer versus anti-consumer clash made for much more boring and less insightful tv.

Previous wife swap shows have been journies where participants have learned different perspectives, mostly where they have learned something about themselves. Some have been very emotional including many where the husbands involved have realised that they are almost completely cut off from emotional interaction with their own children.

This show was the worst ive seen in this respect - an artificial clash of ideological views. You can see how little was achieved in the end when the two couples, after being re-united, met to discuss their experience. Often in previous shows this was a highly charged and interesting exchange, while here it was over in a flash.

The eco couple obviously had no answer to being accused of dole scrounging, and even seemed to be a little guilty about it.

In short not that exciting, but worth it? Yes.

ps its hardly getting your hands dirty is it, by arranging your mates to be on a tv show. Im sure theres much better examples of getting your hands dirty.

The programme showed just how destructive TV can be. After just 40 mins of TV Rowan wanted to kill someone! As someone who falls in between the two couples: a consumer who recycles as much as possible, I actually found myself leaning towards Emily and Larch. They are about giving and the other couple were about taking. I only hope Joanna was caricaturing herself - she came off as an over-consuming beast with no redeeming qualities. I also hope that poor Rowan and Sage are not traumatised by the experience.

hi, i saw a comment somewhere that said that larch and emilys children go to school. i wondered if it was a typical school or something different. also i wondered if they had ever tried home educating or not, and what their experience of it was?

sorry i know this isnt much to do with anything, its just that i picked up on the school thing and wondered how it sat with their ideas of freedom for their children. no criticism here, just genuine interest. i thought maybe they had set up their own 'school' with other parents from families with similar ideas, like a 'co-op' sort of thing. ive got a kiddie myself and am really interested in other ways of schooling besides, um, schooling.

i would just like to say that it made me open my eyes. Throughout the program I was made to dislike the consumerist wife and her lifestyle and the way she seemed to be corrupting the eco-kids with clothes, junk food and television. I felt that I was on the side of the eco family, particarly on the side of the eco wife, who as well as strong enironmental morality seemed a non-judgemental and compassionate person. But I could not help but feel as I examined my own life afterwards, that as much as I rooted for eco wife (and in some ways strive to be like her) my own life probably resembled that of the consummerist wife. And that is being harshly honest with myself. For example when the consummerist wife took the kids shopping for clothes and told the eco husband that she just likes to browse it makes her happy it sounded so fickle. I feel that this has opened my eyes wider to the fact that a consummerist attitude to life is not the path to happiness and a better world.
cheers thanks for reading :)

I thought they came across well and its a good imaginative way to try and engage the mainstream. The couple they swapped with remained unconvinced and were stuck on the 'they are scroungers' idea. Whether they represent the views of the majority I cannot say but it will be interesting to see what feedback you get.

Mx