So, Nigel Farage has justified his views that HIV immigrants should be denied treatment as a 'sensible, Christian thing to do'.
Meanwhile, in Conservative land, David Cameron is 'standing up' for the Christian faith.
It is Easter Sunday. For many of you, it means little beyond chocolate eggs, a long weekend and a chance to catch up with friends and family. Good! As with Christmas, it is something we can all enjoy, regardless of faith. However, from a Christian point of view, it's something a little deeper. Everyone knows Jesus was crucified, and then rose again.
Here's a very rare R.E lesson from me, on Easter:
Jesus was a man. Oh he was the son of God, and supposed to be perfect, but he was also in a human body, and subject to the same cultural prejudice and conditioning as everyone else in his society. And his society was a right-wing patriarchy, where the Roman Empire was in charge, despite having little in common with normal people, and the church monopolised ethical behaviour, often hypocritically. Sound familiar?
So, Jesus was a man, but he was not like others, while also being the same as everyone else. He worked. He went to the church. He welcomed women amongst his followers, as friends. He was totally unafraid of the sick. 'Leprosy' at the time was considered similar to HIV in the 80s - you had to go and live outside civilisation if you had it. And the church decided if you had leprosy, so often you might just have particularly vicious eczema or acne. He accepted the poor, the sick, and the shunned as better and more deserving than those with money or power.
Jesus was killed, on trumped up charges because he was giving the church such a hard time and causing a lot of trouble. According to the Bible, this was a perfect sacrifice, because he had done nothing wrong. The importance of sacrifice in the most ancient religions has been lost, but you gave up something you really needed (usually food, clothing and wealth, in the form of animals) in exchange for forgiveness. Deuteronomy is full of the different sacrifices that had to be given either to thank God, or in exchange for forgiveness.
The world needed Jesus. The world killed Jesus. The world was forgiven.
Jesus rose again, proving the world was forgiven, that God was real, that God was his father.
So, on Easter Sunday, the Christians are happy because we were saved by one man's selflessness. I know, it's full of theological plotholes, but that's the message.
Now, the Christian message has been so warped and demented over time, that it's sometimes quite difficult to understand that Jesus was an example of total radical thinking and cultural overhaul. The Christian message has been co-opted by those in power to win them more power over the years, losing the inclusive, social justice imperatives that were quite simply revolutionary in the first few centuries CE. The powerful stories in Christianity have been adapted to suit different cultural beliefs (Easter probably didn't actually happen in Spring, but a lot of fertility rites did, so it superseded them, See also: Christmas and the birth of the new year) and the laws of the old testament have been used to develop law systems across the world.
In other words, the rigid, right-wing, superior exclusivity that is now viewed representative of Christianity is A TOTAL BASTARDISATION.
Nothing shows this more than the British right wing political parties (and similar across the world) using Christianity to justify their shattering policies of giving more to the privileged and taking from those in need.
Christianity is about love, acceptance, fairness, equality. It's about helping those most in need. It's about sharing. If Jesus were alive today, he would be screaming from the rooftops about how hideously unfair welfare reforms, taxation loopholes and criminalising poverty is. That's what he did in his own time, according to the Bible. That's why the powers that were killed him.
He wouldn't be sitting in judgement on people with HIV. He wouldn't be taking from the disabled, and workless. He wouldn't be exploiting workers. He wouldn't be encouraging the government to take from the poor to increase the rich.
If you consider yourself a Christian, and you support UKIP (and to a lesser extent, the Conservatives) you really need to reconsider your faith, or your politics.
Faith and politics should be kept as far apart as possible, because nothing shows up the rampant hypocrisy of government like pretending to have God on their side.
5 Mar 2015
Anxiety
My second child, Jack, is tiny for his age. He doesn't grow properly, and has poor gross motor skills. He doesn't care - he hurls himself round like a child twice his size. He's being measured again next month, and if his growth is still too far under what it should be, he will probably need a referral to check up on him. He's currently on the 9th centile for height, and 50th centile for weight. He is a BALL and he bounces accordingly. He's normal, otherwise, developmentally, so we don't worry too much.
Jack suffered from intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) when he was inside me. My bump stopped growing at 34 weeks. When I was in labour at 42 weeks, my bump measured 33cm. It should have been around 42cm. His smallness was noted, but no action was taken. It was assumed by my midwives that I was losing a lot of weight from my marital split, and therefore I had a smaller bump.
To demonstrate how small I was:
I put on 8lb total in that pregnancy. At 38 weeks, a different midwife worried he was breech and sent me for a scan. His foetal weight was estimated at 7lb. At 40 weeks, my usual midwife finally sent me for a growth scan, because I was on call for a homebirth with a clinically SFD baby. They estimated his foetal weight at 8lb, and sent me home to wait for birth.
He was born two weeks later, at 42 weeks precisely, on my sofa after a predictably short labour. I was due to be induced six hours later, but had a strong feeling that having my waters broken or labour augmented would be the wrong decision. I also woke up the day before he was born convinced he would die. I'd had a lot of negative thoughts like that in the buildup to having him, but that was an acute, passionate feeling of something going wrong.
He suffered decelerations during his second stage of labour, but since I was at home, there wasn't much to be done except push harder. He was born in fine fettle, quiet and alert with a head of long, gingery hair. But his cord had nearly killed him.
Jack's cord had two, true, figure-of-eight, tight knots in it, about 10cm apart. One true knot is fairly rare, and is one of more common causes of stillbirth. Two knots is so rare as to be reported in medical journals. They had been in place since around the 9th week of pregnancy. They could have tightened, and killed him, at any point from them. They'd reduced his placental flow. They'd given him a thick, horrible cord. They'd tightened as he was being born. The backflow from this caused me to have a fairly horrible haemorrhage as I lay cuddling him.
He survived. I'm still not sure how. He weighed 7lb 12oz, which was 25th centile using the universal centile system, 8th centile for my particular variables. His growth scans had overestimated his weight considerably. In comparison, his older brother was 9lb 1oz, and almost two weeks earlier.
His birth has left me with anxiety and fear about this baby like you wouldn't believe. I am under consultant care, more for the haemorrhage and IUGR than the knots themselves. There is no way to predict or diagnose true knots before delivery. I'm having growth scans to check this baby grows to my schedule (which predicts a term birthweight of around 9lb) and also to check umbilical flow. I want another homebirth, but nothing can be decided until they know the baby's growth is OK.
This would be fine and reassuring (and it is), except I've also got a lot of bad feelings that have resurfaced about Jack's pregnancy. I suffered from severe antenatal depression when I was expecting him, primarily because my ex left. I wasn't concerned about his lack of growth. I didn't care. I'm quite sure had I displayed any concern for my tiny bump, they would have perhaps picked something up sooner. Instead, I ignored it. I ignored him. It was easier.
I get flashbacks. All the time. They're usually related to significant pregnancy events, like midwife appointments, endless blood tests and scans, but also the general condition of pregnancy is a reminder. I never wanted to feel how I did when I was expecting Jack again. I never wanted to wake up hating the world, dreading the day ahead, fearing every phone call, not wanting to leave the house.
But I do.
Not all the time. But the flashbacks are vicious and they hurt. They are like normal pregnancy anxiety + the anxiety I should have had for Jack + guilt + anger that I was ever made to feel like that. I cry a lot, and I let myself do it. I'm trying to get this grief and anger and pain and terror out of the way, in the most natural way I can think of. I sat on it last time. I can't do that again.
In many ways, feeling like this is normal. Feeling like this a natural consequence of my last pregnancy. Pregnancy is never just about THIS baby, it's about all the babies that have been before.
It may also be related to the B12 deficiency anaemia I get in every pregnancy. B12 is one of those vitamins that you don't realise you need until you haven't got enough. Then your nerves stop working properly, you faint a lot, you become depressed, you feel so tired you might die, and you go a ghastly luminescent colour. I haven't had my blood tested since November, but I suspect it's contributing to the feelings of doom.
It's just hard. It's hard to talk to happy, first time pregnant ladies and compare notes, without sounding like a doom-laden horror crow. I've never wanted to be a woman who terrifies people with birth stories, but it seems to happen anyway. It's hard to be honest when people ask how it's going, to not just weep because I can't walk properly (possible side effect of birth injury, I've got physio next week, thank god) and I'm so tired, and I'm so scared.
But it's not all the time. And the crucial difference is that I want this baby. I'm terrified because I want him to be OK so much. I want a safe birth. I want a healthy child. I want to be well afterwards - I really wasn't well after Jack was born, because of birth injuries and haemorrhaging, and I'm afraid of that happening again. I want so much that most people take for granted with their pregnancies, and all I can concentrate on is how it might go wrong.
I've not written this for sympathy, or anything really except in the hope that giving it an audience might help somehow. If anyone wants to see the double knotted cord, shout and I'll send you the picture - it's way too grim to post on here though.
Only 18 weeks to go!
Jack suffered from intrauterine growth retardation (IUGR) when he was inside me. My bump stopped growing at 34 weeks. When I was in labour at 42 weeks, my bump measured 33cm. It should have been around 42cm. His smallness was noted, but no action was taken. It was assumed by my midwives that I was losing a lot of weight from my marital split, and therefore I had a smaller bump.
To demonstrate how small I was:
 |
| 34+5 with Jack. 20w with current baby. |
I put on 8lb total in that pregnancy. At 38 weeks, a different midwife worried he was breech and sent me for a scan. His foetal weight was estimated at 7lb. At 40 weeks, my usual midwife finally sent me for a growth scan, because I was on call for a homebirth with a clinically SFD baby. They estimated his foetal weight at 8lb, and sent me home to wait for birth.
He was born two weeks later, at 42 weeks precisely, on my sofa after a predictably short labour. I was due to be induced six hours later, but had a strong feeling that having my waters broken or labour augmented would be the wrong decision. I also woke up the day before he was born convinced he would die. I'd had a lot of negative thoughts like that in the buildup to having him, but that was an acute, passionate feeling of something going wrong.
He suffered decelerations during his second stage of labour, but since I was at home, there wasn't much to be done except push harder. He was born in fine fettle, quiet and alert with a head of long, gingery hair. But his cord had nearly killed him.
Jack's cord had two, true, figure-of-eight, tight knots in it, about 10cm apart. One true knot is fairly rare, and is one of more common causes of stillbirth. Two knots is so rare as to be reported in medical journals. They had been in place since around the 9th week of pregnancy. They could have tightened, and killed him, at any point from them. They'd reduced his placental flow. They'd given him a thick, horrible cord. They'd tightened as he was being born. The backflow from this caused me to have a fairly horrible haemorrhage as I lay cuddling him.
He survived. I'm still not sure how. He weighed 7lb 12oz, which was 25th centile using the universal centile system, 8th centile for my particular variables. His growth scans had overestimated his weight considerably. In comparison, his older brother was 9lb 1oz, and almost two weeks earlier.
 |
| Isn't he gorgeous? |
His birth has left me with anxiety and fear about this baby like you wouldn't believe. I am under consultant care, more for the haemorrhage and IUGR than the knots themselves. There is no way to predict or diagnose true knots before delivery. I'm having growth scans to check this baby grows to my schedule (which predicts a term birthweight of around 9lb) and also to check umbilical flow. I want another homebirth, but nothing can be decided until they know the baby's growth is OK.
This would be fine and reassuring (and it is), except I've also got a lot of bad feelings that have resurfaced about Jack's pregnancy. I suffered from severe antenatal depression when I was expecting him, primarily because my ex left. I wasn't concerned about his lack of growth. I didn't care. I'm quite sure had I displayed any concern for my tiny bump, they would have perhaps picked something up sooner. Instead, I ignored it. I ignored him. It was easier.
I get flashbacks. All the time. They're usually related to significant pregnancy events, like midwife appointments, endless blood tests and scans, but also the general condition of pregnancy is a reminder. I never wanted to feel how I did when I was expecting Jack again. I never wanted to wake up hating the world, dreading the day ahead, fearing every phone call, not wanting to leave the house.
But I do.
Not all the time. But the flashbacks are vicious and they hurt. They are like normal pregnancy anxiety + the anxiety I should have had for Jack + guilt + anger that I was ever made to feel like that. I cry a lot, and I let myself do it. I'm trying to get this grief and anger and pain and terror out of the way, in the most natural way I can think of. I sat on it last time. I can't do that again.
In many ways, feeling like this is normal. Feeling like this a natural consequence of my last pregnancy. Pregnancy is never just about THIS baby, it's about all the babies that have been before.
It may also be related to the B12 deficiency anaemia I get in every pregnancy. B12 is one of those vitamins that you don't realise you need until you haven't got enough. Then your nerves stop working properly, you faint a lot, you become depressed, you feel so tired you might die, and you go a ghastly luminescent colour. I haven't had my blood tested since November, but I suspect it's contributing to the feelings of doom.
It's just hard. It's hard to talk to happy, first time pregnant ladies and compare notes, without sounding like a doom-laden horror crow. I've never wanted to be a woman who terrifies people with birth stories, but it seems to happen anyway. It's hard to be honest when people ask how it's going, to not just weep because I can't walk properly (possible side effect of birth injury, I've got physio next week, thank god) and I'm so tired, and I'm so scared.
But it's not all the time. And the crucial difference is that I want this baby. I'm terrified because I want him to be OK so much. I want a safe birth. I want a healthy child. I want to be well afterwards - I really wasn't well after Jack was born, because of birth injuries and haemorrhaging, and I'm afraid of that happening again. I want so much that most people take for granted with their pregnancies, and all I can concentrate on is how it might go wrong.
I've not written this for sympathy, or anything really except in the hope that giving it an audience might help somehow. If anyone wants to see the double knotted cord, shout and I'll send you the picture - it's way too grim to post on here though.
Only 18 weeks to go!
3 Mar 2015
Child Murder
Murder is the worst crime. It violently takes away life, often for little motive further than greed or perversion. It ruins countless other lives. When a child is murdered, these feelings are amplified by the loss of innocence, of potential, and the empathy for the fear the child would have felt. You would think, from reading the press, that all our children are at a constant risk of murder. You might be wrong.
Sometimes I think I'm the only person in the world that doesn't worry about my children being murdered when other children are murdered. Maybe it's because of the sheer statistical unlikelihood. About 300 children die through murder, neglect or indirect abuse a year, out of a child population of around 11 million. That is too small a number to be given as a percentage.
Maybe it's because my kids are still very young and almost always in my care. And boys, who are less well represented in the media when murdered unless it's either salacious or A SIGN OF BROKEN BRITAIN. But my youngest sister is 13, and regularly goes out on her own. I can't say I worry she'll be horribly murdered too often either.
Maybe it's because I've never been murdered myself. I've been assaulted a few times. I've lived on the same street as a child who was brutally attacked by a stranger in her house. I lived in Wisbech, murder capital of the fens, for several years. I live close to female serial killer Joanna Dennehy's stamping ground, but she seemed to prefer killing men, as well as close to where poor Ross Parker was randomly murdered by racist animals.
To be honest, if I have any worries about being murdered myself, it's usually as an adjunct to a serious sexual assault rather than as a spontaneous, single crime.
Maybe it's because I'm an unfeeling monster who doesn't care about other people.
Or maybe it's because I'm cynical of the press.
Most children are murdered by their family - usually by their parents. I don't fear I'm going to murder my children. I don't fear my children's father will murder them either, or in fact, any of their family. However, parents murdering their children is so common (at least three quarters of the total, if not more, there is no definitive statistical information at present) that the national media rarely report it. Even the infamous case of 'Baby P' Peter Connolley wasn't reported in the national press until he'd been dead a year, and only then because of the social services failings around his death. Honour killings (as they're rather genteely named) are well represented in the press, but more because of underlying Islamophobia than because the press genuinely cares about children murdered by parents. It's boring. It happens every week. It's not news, unless there's some perverted sexual aspect the press can report in horrified, gleeful detail.
HOWEVER, when a child goes missing, that's a different case altogether. Think back just in the few months. Alice Gross, missing, murdered, dismembered by a man who then selfishly killed himself rather than face arrest. Zaani Bevan, killed in a murder-suicide by her mother. And now, also in Bristol, it seems poor Becky Watts' body parts have been found after being missing for a few weeks.
Going back a few years: April Jones was abducted and murdered by a neighbour. Her body has never been found. Sarah Payne, abducted and murdered by a paedophile outside her house. Madeline McCann went missing on holiday in suspicious circumstances and has never been found. Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, abducted and murdered by their school caretaker one weekend. Milly Dowler was abducted and murdered by a serial killer. Billie-Jo Jackson, going a bit further back, was murdered in her own garden and the killer has never been found. These are not the only ten girls to be murdered in the last eighteen years - far from it - but they are the poster children of violent crime. They are representative of the fears you have for your children when they step out of the front door to play. The monster lurking by the playground. The terror waiting by your back gate.
You'll note all of these victims are young. They're all female. They're all middle-class (with the possible exception of Zaani Bevan, who the press has now forgotten). They're all white. There is an actual name for this overreporting: Missing White Women Syndrome. It's in no way representative of the actual risks presented to your children.
The biggest killer of children in the UK is cancer. Not a lot you can do about that: you either get it or you don't. This is followed by accidental death, mainly through road accidents. 91 people are involved in traffic accidents every single day, resulting in death or injury. Sometimes, the press reports these, but only if they're really interesting. There are some interesting pie charts showing the change of cause of death by age of child in this report.
In short, you might be better off investing in cancer research, or teaching your children road safety from a very young age than worrying about the near-mythic creature, the killer lurking in the midst.
Sometimes I think I'm the only person in the world that doesn't worry about my children being murdered when other children are murdered. Maybe it's because of the sheer statistical unlikelihood. About 300 children die through murder, neglect or indirect abuse a year, out of a child population of around 11 million. That is too small a number to be given as a percentage.
Maybe it's because my kids are still very young and almost always in my care. And boys, who are less well represented in the media when murdered unless it's either salacious or A SIGN OF BROKEN BRITAIN. But my youngest sister is 13, and regularly goes out on her own. I can't say I worry she'll be horribly murdered too often either.
Maybe it's because I've never been murdered myself. I've been assaulted a few times. I've lived on the same street as a child who was brutally attacked by a stranger in her house. I lived in Wisbech, murder capital of the fens, for several years. I live close to female serial killer Joanna Dennehy's stamping ground, but she seemed to prefer killing men, as well as close to where poor Ross Parker was randomly murdered by racist animals.
To be honest, if I have any worries about being murdered myself, it's usually as an adjunct to a serious sexual assault rather than as a spontaneous, single crime.
Maybe it's because I'm an unfeeling monster who doesn't care about other people.
Or maybe it's because I'm cynical of the press.
Most children are murdered by their family - usually by their parents. I don't fear I'm going to murder my children. I don't fear my children's father will murder them either, or in fact, any of their family. However, parents murdering their children is so common (at least three quarters of the total, if not more, there is no definitive statistical information at present) that the national media rarely report it. Even the infamous case of 'Baby P' Peter Connolley wasn't reported in the national press until he'd been dead a year, and only then because of the social services failings around his death. Honour killings (as they're rather genteely named) are well represented in the press, but more because of underlying Islamophobia than because the press genuinely cares about children murdered by parents. It's boring. It happens every week. It's not news, unless there's some perverted sexual aspect the press can report in horrified, gleeful detail.
HOWEVER, when a child goes missing, that's a different case altogether. Think back just in the few months. Alice Gross, missing, murdered, dismembered by a man who then selfishly killed himself rather than face arrest. Zaani Bevan, killed in a murder-suicide by her mother. And now, also in Bristol, it seems poor Becky Watts' body parts have been found after being missing for a few weeks.
Going back a few years: April Jones was abducted and murdered by a neighbour. Her body has never been found. Sarah Payne, abducted and murdered by a paedophile outside her house. Madeline McCann went missing on holiday in suspicious circumstances and has never been found. Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, abducted and murdered by their school caretaker one weekend. Milly Dowler was abducted and murdered by a serial killer. Billie-Jo Jackson, going a bit further back, was murdered in her own garden and the killer has never been found. These are not the only ten girls to be murdered in the last eighteen years - far from it - but they are the poster children of violent crime. They are representative of the fears you have for your children when they step out of the front door to play. The monster lurking by the playground. The terror waiting by your back gate.
You'll note all of these victims are young. They're all female. They're all middle-class (with the possible exception of Zaani Bevan, who the press has now forgotten). They're all white. There is an actual name for this overreporting: Missing White Women Syndrome. It's in no way representative of the actual risks presented to your children.
The biggest killer of children in the UK is cancer. Not a lot you can do about that: you either get it or you don't. This is followed by accidental death, mainly through road accidents. 91 people are involved in traffic accidents every single day, resulting in death or injury. Sometimes, the press reports these, but only if they're really interesting. There are some interesting pie charts showing the change of cause of death by age of child in this report.
In short, you might be better off investing in cancer research, or teaching your children road safety from a very young age than worrying about the near-mythic creature, the killer lurking in the midst.
2 Mar 2015
Studying with the OU when pregnant
I'm a little over halfway through my fifth and sixth uni modules. It's going quite well, and I'm astonished that this is my penultimate year. I started 37 months ago!
I'm also halfway through my third pregnancy.
Pregnancy has given uni work a new dimension of difficulty that I didn't expect:
- It is much, much harder to not procrastinate. I have lost all self-discipline. If I want to sit and watch two hours of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and wail, then I do. I'm not particularly behind, but I do struggle to juggle it all.
- It is harder to remember everything. Baby brain is, unhappily, not a total myth. Some days I'm fine. Some days, I'm wading through mental custard.
- Pregnancy is not an illness. Alas, it causes me to be rather ill. Several months of morning all-day sickness, a wonky hip, sciatica, SPD, anaemia, and sheer exhaustion has somewhat knocked me for six. All these things are either resolving or in line for treatment, so hopefully I should feel better soon, but I recommend you aim for your first trimester to be in the summer break!
- My working habits have altered. Before, I got all my work done in the morning when I was full of the joys of spring. Now, I'm fairly useless first thing in the morning, and completely useless mid-afternoon. I have to work round it.
Despite all this, I'm doing OK. I actually got a pass one in my first level 3 TMA - my first ever pass one in an essay-based subject. I've dropped off a bit since then, but I'm hoping for a pass two overall. TMA writing is hard, because I feel woolly a lot of the time - not to mention stressed! It's so hard to remember everything and write something incisive.
The real challenge will be that I don't finish this year until I'm 36 weeks pregnant. I've got an EMA, which should be OK because I can put that together over time. It's the exam that worries me. Not so much from a "WHAT IF I GO INTO LABOUR???!!?!?" perspective, because that's unlikely. It's more about the sitting-uncomfortably-for-three-hours. BUT I WILL COPE!
Then I get my results around when the baby's due, when they'll have become a distant memory in a haze of sleepless feeds. So, hurrah!
I'm also halfway through my third pregnancy.
Pregnancy has given uni work a new dimension of difficulty that I didn't expect:
- It is much, much harder to not procrastinate. I have lost all self-discipline. If I want to sit and watch two hours of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition and wail, then I do. I'm not particularly behind, but I do struggle to juggle it all.
- It is harder to remember everything. Baby brain is, unhappily, not a total myth. Some days I'm fine. Some days, I'm wading through mental custard.
- Pregnancy is not an illness. Alas, it causes me to be rather ill. Several months of morning all-day sickness, a wonky hip, sciatica, SPD, anaemia, and sheer exhaustion has somewhat knocked me for six. All these things are either resolving or in line for treatment, so hopefully I should feel better soon, but I recommend you aim for your first trimester to be in the summer break!
- My working habits have altered. Before, I got all my work done in the morning when I was full of the joys of spring. Now, I'm fairly useless first thing in the morning, and completely useless mid-afternoon. I have to work round it.
Despite all this, I'm doing OK. I actually got a pass one in my first level 3 TMA - my first ever pass one in an essay-based subject. I've dropped off a bit since then, but I'm hoping for a pass two overall. TMA writing is hard, because I feel woolly a lot of the time - not to mention stressed! It's so hard to remember everything and write something incisive.
The real challenge will be that I don't finish this year until I'm 36 weeks pregnant. I've got an EMA, which should be OK because I can put that together over time. It's the exam that worries me. Not so much from a "WHAT IF I GO INTO LABOUR???!!?!?" perspective, because that's unlikely. It's more about the sitting-uncomfortably-for-three-hours. BUT I WILL COPE!
Then I get my results around when the baby's due, when they'll have become a distant memory in a haze of sleepless feeds. So, hurrah!
11 Feb 2015
Criticising Fifty Shades of Grey
I've written about my general dislike of 50 Shades of Grey before. If you like porn, there's far better sources of it, for free, online.
As far as a romantic novel goes, it's based around an abusive relationship. A lot of romantic novels are - nobody could say Catherine and Heathcliffe had a healthy relationship. What's worrying in the 50 Shades universe is that this is written as an integral part of a normal BDSM sexual relationship, and indicates that being submissive sexually also means you relinquish your self-determination and self-control. Except in some reasonably extreme situations, this is not the case. Most couples who engage in BDSM activity explore it together and are careful to avoid it slipping into abuse. A full time dom/sub relationship takes an enormous amount of energy to sustain, as well as requiring trust and mutual agreement. The key word, as always, is consent, and consent is the one thing Anastasia Steel does not seem to have the right to give or withdraw. Instead, she's negged, gaslit, physically and sexually abused, and in her innocence, thinks that it is true love. There's a very good blog here detailing how Grey's actions amount to abuse. When the government see fit to televise relationship abuse awareness adverts, what sort of message is that to give young women?
Now, ethical considerations aside, it's not a very well written book. I'm not entirely sure why it became so popular - after all, erotic fiction is hardly a new publishing phenomenon - and I assume it was a slight cash-in on the link to the Twilight universe. The film comes out this weekend, and early reviews seem to indicate it's not going to be a huge critical success. This is hardly surprising - it doesn't exactly have strong source material to work with, and film-tie-ins are rarely appreciated by critics. Pretty as Jamie Dornan is, working with BBFC certificate system means the sexual content is going to be heavily censored. I'm sure the director's cut will be marginally better.
However, I've noticed a new weapon in the army of 50 Shades fans - sexism. Apparently, people don't like 50 Shades because it was written by a woman, and the film is directed by a woman. Now, I'm quite sure for some people that's true. The arts attract misogynist critics as a matter of course. As a feminist, I would argue that the fictional depiction of a disturbingly abusive relationship being widely accepted as 'true love' is more of a blow for women's rights and feminism than attacking EL James for writing it in the first place.
However, it seems unlikely that EL James was aware that her fan fic would ever reach such an enormous amount of people, that it would be so widely appreciated, or that it would be so widely criticised. Sam Taylor-Wood seems the right choice to direct (although the idea of Michael Bay directing it, with random explosions every five minutes has just doubled me up laughing), and she has had to work with a troubled production and difficult material. There's only so much you can do in adapting a book with such a legion of fans expecting it to reflect their reading experience.
This brings me to the thought that triggered this post in the first place. Is 50 Shades of Grey rubbished because a woman wrote it and women writers are universally patronised by the artistic patriarchy?
No, I don't think it is.
Women writers are regularly belittled by terms such as 'chick lit', used for the sort of everyday-woman fiction that fills the shelves. Male writers, and their endless battery of war-porn (McNab) and dead-prostitutes (Nesbo) don't seem to be subject to the same condescending disparagement (except by me, every time a new shitty Dan Brown 'thriller' comes out) But I rarely look at the gender of the writer when I'm choosing a new book, and a straw-poll on twitter suggests I'm not alone in this. A quick once-over the bookshelves shows that I own a lot more books by male writers than female, but I've actually had to LOOK. I buy most books based on blurb, not by forename.
Some of the industry disapproval of EL James will be based on the fact she's a woman writing for women, thus excluding men and making them indignant and cross. There is sexism inherent in every industry. But I think the very real concerns about the way the content of the book is presented risks being overlooked by accusations of misogyny. It's not prudish to find abuse abhorrent. It's not sexist to be concerned that this textbook example of abuse is being considered a template of a perfect relationship.
There is a lot of sneery criticism (of which I'm evidently guilty of doing) of women who enjoyed the book assuming that the only worthwhile literature is either the classics or Booker prize winners. Everyone likes different types of books, and the market caters for everyone. But the problems I have with 50 Shades of Grey go far beyond mere literary appreciation. For instance, if Lolita was rewritten from Lolita's point of view, we wouldn't be recommending it to all our female friends. There wouldn't be a much-hyped cinematic release on Valentine's Day, with Lolita and Humbert's relationship lauded as sexy perfection. Lovehoney would not be selling Lolita themed sex aids. Women would not be wishing they had a much older stepfather to groom, drug and abuse them.
It's an extreme example (and of course, Lolita gets to escape by dying at the end. Anastasia does not) but the point stands. Relationship abuse is not negated by awesome sex, even if it's written in an appealing way, or dressed up as part of BDSM culture.
As far as a romantic novel goes, it's based around an abusive relationship. A lot of romantic novels are - nobody could say Catherine and Heathcliffe had a healthy relationship. What's worrying in the 50 Shades universe is that this is written as an integral part of a normal BDSM sexual relationship, and indicates that being submissive sexually also means you relinquish your self-determination and self-control. Except in some reasonably extreme situations, this is not the case. Most couples who engage in BDSM activity explore it together and are careful to avoid it slipping into abuse. A full time dom/sub relationship takes an enormous amount of energy to sustain, as well as requiring trust and mutual agreement. The key word, as always, is consent, and consent is the one thing Anastasia Steel does not seem to have the right to give or withdraw. Instead, she's negged, gaslit, physically and sexually abused, and in her innocence, thinks that it is true love. There's a very good blog here detailing how Grey's actions amount to abuse. When the government see fit to televise relationship abuse awareness adverts, what sort of message is that to give young women?
Now, ethical considerations aside, it's not a very well written book. I'm not entirely sure why it became so popular - after all, erotic fiction is hardly a new publishing phenomenon - and I assume it was a slight cash-in on the link to the Twilight universe. The film comes out this weekend, and early reviews seem to indicate it's not going to be a huge critical success. This is hardly surprising - it doesn't exactly have strong source material to work with, and film-tie-ins are rarely appreciated by critics. Pretty as Jamie Dornan is, working with BBFC certificate system means the sexual content is going to be heavily censored. I'm sure the director's cut will be marginally better.
However, I've noticed a new weapon in the army of 50 Shades fans - sexism. Apparently, people don't like 50 Shades because it was written by a woman, and the film is directed by a woman. Now, I'm quite sure for some people that's true. The arts attract misogynist critics as a matter of course. As a feminist, I would argue that the fictional depiction of a disturbingly abusive relationship being widely accepted as 'true love' is more of a blow for women's rights and feminism than attacking EL James for writing it in the first place.
However, it seems unlikely that EL James was aware that her fan fic would ever reach such an enormous amount of people, that it would be so widely appreciated, or that it would be so widely criticised. Sam Taylor-Wood seems the right choice to direct (although the idea of Michael Bay directing it, with random explosions every five minutes has just doubled me up laughing), and she has had to work with a troubled production and difficult material. There's only so much you can do in adapting a book with such a legion of fans expecting it to reflect their reading experience.
This brings me to the thought that triggered this post in the first place. Is 50 Shades of Grey rubbished because a woman wrote it and women writers are universally patronised by the artistic patriarchy?
No, I don't think it is.
Women writers are regularly belittled by terms such as 'chick lit', used for the sort of everyday-woman fiction that fills the shelves. Male writers, and their endless battery of war-porn (McNab) and dead-prostitutes (Nesbo) don't seem to be subject to the same condescending disparagement (except by me, every time a new shitty Dan Brown 'thriller' comes out) But I rarely look at the gender of the writer when I'm choosing a new book, and a straw-poll on twitter suggests I'm not alone in this. A quick once-over the bookshelves shows that I own a lot more books by male writers than female, but I've actually had to LOOK. I buy most books based on blurb, not by forename.
Some of the industry disapproval of EL James will be based on the fact she's a woman writing for women, thus excluding men and making them indignant and cross. There is sexism inherent in every industry. But I think the very real concerns about the way the content of the book is presented risks being overlooked by accusations of misogyny. It's not prudish to find abuse abhorrent. It's not sexist to be concerned that this textbook example of abuse is being considered a template of a perfect relationship.
There is a lot of sneery criticism (of which I'm evidently guilty of doing) of women who enjoyed the book assuming that the only worthwhile literature is either the classics or Booker prize winners. Everyone likes different types of books, and the market caters for everyone. But the problems I have with 50 Shades of Grey go far beyond mere literary appreciation. For instance, if Lolita was rewritten from Lolita's point of view, we wouldn't be recommending it to all our female friends. There wouldn't be a much-hyped cinematic release on Valentine's Day, with Lolita and Humbert's relationship lauded as sexy perfection. Lovehoney would not be selling Lolita themed sex aids. Women would not be wishing they had a much older stepfather to groom, drug and abuse them.
It's an extreme example (and of course, Lolita gets to escape by dying at the end. Anastasia does not) but the point stands. Relationship abuse is not negated by awesome sex, even if it's written in an appealing way, or dressed up as part of BDSM culture.
10 Feb 2015
Rape
TW: Distressing, but non-explicit images.
In the last few years, lots of famous men have been accused, and convicted of rape and sexual assault, such as Dave Lee Travis, Max Clifford, Rolf Harris, Chris Denning, Ian Watkins, and Ched Evans.
In the last few years, lots of famous men have been accused, and convicted of rape and sexual assault, such as Dave Lee Travis, Max Clifford, Rolf Harris, Chris Denning, Ian Watkins, and Ched Evans.
Now, you'll note that although guilt was virtually assumed for the four older men listed above, nobody really believed Watkins or Evans were guilty at first. Watkins was found guilty of some truly disturbing sex crimes, and jailed accordingly. Twenty months prior to that, Evans had also been found guilty and jailed for five years.
In October, Evans popped up again, released on license. And people IN THEIR DROVES have argued that he's served his time (he hasn't, not until 2017), and he should be allowed to rebuild his career, and this is all a well-orchestrated scheme by a conniving bitch to get money from him, and ruin his career.
I didn't even know who Ched Evans was until he was convicted. Turns out he's a footballer, who thought having sex with a really drunk woman he'd never met before was an excellent idea. Seeing as she'd already agreed to have sex with his friend, naturally he assumed she was also up for it with him. Woo hoo! Sexy free for all in the hotel! The woman woke up alone in a strange bed, with very little memory of this, and went to the police. And thus, Ched Evans was convicted of rape, and his friend, Clayton McDonald was acquitted.
Alcohol's a strange thing. You are most drunk about 90 minutes after drinking it, after which it drops off in toxicity by around one unit per hour. Long have women been warned of the perils of drinking to excess, in god-awful posters like these:
You read it right. If women get drunk, they are BOUND to get raped, and it's all their fault. Silly drunken women should know their limits.
The CPS guidelines on alcohol and consent state:
In plain speech, a woman can be too drunk to consent, long before she loses consciousness. This was the crux of the Ched Evans case: that the victim was able to consent to McDonald, but too drunk to consent to Evans when he decided to come and have a go on the apparently available woman. But this is fine, according to Evans' numerous supporters! His ACTUAL DEFENCE was that he didn't NEED to rape anyone because he's Ched! Evans!! [paragraph 2]. This has been believed by a lot of people, including one poor woman who thinks that because she was violently raped, all other rape is entirely invalid. He is currently trying to get his case to appeal.
Recently, odious Gove-lover Sarah Vine waded into the argument, again saying that women who are drunk can't be raped. I mean, she dresses it up by saying things like "we've all invited the wrong person in for coffee" (have we? I haven't), and that having to prove consent is ridiculous, and poor men who have sex with someone they've just met are going to end up on trial for rape, but her message is simple: women can't prove they didn't give consent, and men shouldn't have to. This somewhat overlooks the fact that all rape cases rest on whether or not consent was given. Most women who are raped, are raped by someone they know in a place they've been before.
About 85000 women are raped a year in England and Wales. Of these, about a thousand people are convicted - just over 1%. Swathes of women are raped, and hardly anyone ever goes to prison for it. And now, those who DO manage to get their rapist to court and convicted can have the likes of Sarah bloody Vine speculating on whether they were REALLY raped, or just making it up to look good or ease a troubled conscience.
Guess what people!
- Being drunk doesn't give anyone the right to rape you.
- Consenting to have sex with one man doesn't mean you've consented to have sex with ALL the men.
- Not all rapists are ugly.
- Sometimes, rich and famous men rape too!
- You're far more likely to be raped by someone you know than someone you don't.
- But if you are, it's still NOT YOUR FAULT.
USEFUL LINKS
Rape Crisis
NHS Sexual assault services
Alcohol's a strange thing. You are most drunk about 90 minutes after drinking it, after which it drops off in toxicity by around one unit per hour. Long have women been warned of the perils of drinking to excess, in god-awful posters like these:
This advert was issued by West Mercia Police in 2012.
This advert was issued by ControlTonight.com who are a general drinking awareness group in Pennsylvania, USA.
You read it right. If women get drunk, they are BOUND to get raped, and it's all their fault. Silly drunken women should know their limits.
The CPS guidelines on alcohol and consent state:
"In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case."
CPS Legal Guidance: Statutory Definition of Consent. Available at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape_and_sexual_offences/consent/
In plain speech, a woman can be too drunk to consent, long before she loses consciousness. This was the crux of the Ched Evans case: that the victim was able to consent to McDonald, but too drunk to consent to Evans when he decided to come and have a go on the apparently available woman. But this is fine, according to Evans' numerous supporters! His ACTUAL DEFENCE was that he didn't NEED to rape anyone because he's Ched! Evans!! [paragraph 2]. This has been believed by a lot of people, including one poor woman who thinks that because she was violently raped, all other rape is entirely invalid. He is currently trying to get his case to appeal.
Recently, odious Gove-lover Sarah Vine waded into the argument, again saying that women who are drunk can't be raped. I mean, she dresses it up by saying things like "we've all invited the wrong person in for coffee" (have we? I haven't), and that having to prove consent is ridiculous, and poor men who have sex with someone they've just met are going to end up on trial for rape, but her message is simple: women can't prove they didn't give consent, and men shouldn't have to. This somewhat overlooks the fact that all rape cases rest on whether or not consent was given. Most women who are raped, are raped by someone they know in a place they've been before.
About 85000 women are raped a year in England and Wales. Of these, about a thousand people are convicted - just over 1%. Swathes of women are raped, and hardly anyone ever goes to prison for it. And now, those who DO manage to get their rapist to court and convicted can have the likes of Sarah bloody Vine speculating on whether they were REALLY raped, or just making it up to look good or ease a troubled conscience.
Guess what people!
- Being drunk doesn't give anyone the right to rape you.
- Consenting to have sex with one man doesn't mean you've consented to have sex with ALL the men.
- Not all rapists are ugly.
- Sometimes, rich and famous men rape too!
- You're far more likely to be raped by someone you know than someone you don't.
- But if you are, it's still NOT YOUR FAULT.
- And most importantly, if someone tells you they've been raped or sexually assaulted,
BELIEVE THEM.
USEFUL LINKS
Rape Crisis
NHS Sexual assault services
7 Feb 2015
Choice (...or the biomedical dominance of obstetrics)
Why does pregnancy and birth often mean the loss of autonomy and free choice for women?
At no other stage in life have I been encouraged to have a flu jab with quite the demented intensity as in the last four months. I've always qualified for one, and never had one, and nobody has ever cared until NOW. Now, I know the risks of flu in pregnancy, and I know how little difference the flu jab makes to anything, so on balance I prefer not to put anything in my body I haven't had in there before (please don't confuse this with some sort of raging anti-vaccination stance - I don't react well to any vaccination and prefer not to have them if it's not strictly necessary).
I've also been told I WILL HAVE the whooping cough vaccination at 28 weeks. Again, I understand the rationale, actually completely agree with it, and will happily have it. But I've not been asked to consent. I've not even been told that dissent is an option.
I've been told I MUST have a GTT (glucose tolerance test, a blood test for diabetes) at 28 weeks on account of being fat and having had a big baby. Now, my 'big baby' was actually spot on in weight for my height and ethnicity, according to the hospital's own growth chart system. I've also had a majorly underweight baby. I've never had diabetes in my life, and certainly not in pregnancy, and yet I have been told to go to the hospital and have this test (which takes two hours) and have never been given the opportunity to dissent, or had it explained that it is a choice.
Then you have the large number of people, including politicians, who believe smoking and drinking in pregnancy should be illegalised. Now, it is perfectly legal to actually kill your baby before 24 weeks of pregnancy, if you want to, provided you go through the proper channels. How can you decide, in law, that a baby has no rights to life before 24 weeks, but definitely has the right to not to be poisoned? It's a totally flawed argument, with extremely limited evidence. As it is, you're told to stop drinking and smoking the second you find out you're pregnant. Now, this has never been a problem for me - I don't smoke, and I don't drink if I suspect I'm pregnant - but it's a big problem for a lot of other women, particularly smokers.
Every single woman in England, if not the entire UK, has the right to ask for, and be permitted a homebirth except in high risk circumstances. Yet, I know many women who are never told it's even an option where they live. Presumably this is why homebirth rates are so low. I want a homebirth, and will blog about the whys and wherefores later on in pregnancy, but I've already had to see a consultant to be 'approved' for one, based on a one-off situation that's unlikely to be repeated. There is a strong sense among obstetricians that homebirths are inherently risky, as opposed to the safety of a hospital birth, ignoring the simple truth that BIRTH is a risky business, and yet women have been doing it to varying degrees of success since we evolved into bipeds.
Much is made of choices around labour. My maternity notes have a whole page in which to discuss my birth plan, and explain on what I would like to happen. Dear reader, I will totally ignore that page, because I know full well that the second something in my labour changes, that plan will get lobbed out the window. I strongly advise you to do the same. Birth choices are only acknowledged and acted upon until something changes. That can be as simple as not having a waterbirth because the waterbirth room is already occupied, to labouring far too fast to have a chance to light the myriad candles and incense, to needing an emergency caesarean. And women are not really made aware beforehand that the time and effort they put into organising their birth choices and preferences in their head, and in their notes, is wasted the second something goes slightly awry. This in itself can lead to angst and unhappiness postnatally.
Women's choice in labour is removed entirely if a risk is detected. Few women are ever given what would normally be called 'informed choice' prior to an emergency caesarean, on the basis that there simply isn't time. This can be accepted, if the baby or woman is dying. However, often women aren't given informed choice when there is no immediate risk to life. I've discussed how induction is rarely explained as an option rather than an inevitability. I was told when I was overdue with my last baby that it was up to the consultant whether I could decline an induction. Er no, it's definitely up to me!
The same can happen with episiotomy, although less so than in the days (1950s-1980s) when episiotomy was done as standard, and one woman was CUT AFTER DELIVERY so the midwife wouldn't get into trouble for not doing it during the birth.
Too often, in the chaos of the delivery room and the fear of perinatal death, the birthing woman is not told what is happening, what has gone wrong, and what needs to happen next.
I don't understand why women's choice is so heavily curtailed in pregnancy and birth. Are we really to be thought of as silly children, who are incapable of understanding risk? Who would put our own prejudices above the health of our babies? Are we thought of as not able to understand the rationale and say no, regardless of what current NICE guidelines are? I mean, it's not like consultants follow the NICE guidelines about perinatal care half the time anyway. Perhaps the real problem is that midwives and consultants simply don't have the TIME to properly explain the reasons for certain tests and advice.
The only real choice I feel I've been given so far is whether or not to have the sexual health blood screening for HIV and syphillis, and whether or not to have the NT scan. Everything else has been done to me.
It's a strange feeling, to feel as though your body is not really your own anymore, simply because there's another person in it.
At no other stage in life have I been encouraged to have a flu jab with quite the demented intensity as in the last four months. I've always qualified for one, and never had one, and nobody has ever cared until NOW. Now, I know the risks of flu in pregnancy, and I know how little difference the flu jab makes to anything, so on balance I prefer not to put anything in my body I haven't had in there before (please don't confuse this with some sort of raging anti-vaccination stance - I don't react well to any vaccination and prefer not to have them if it's not strictly necessary).
I've also been told I WILL HAVE the whooping cough vaccination at 28 weeks. Again, I understand the rationale, actually completely agree with it, and will happily have it. But I've not been asked to consent. I've not even been told that dissent is an option.
I've been told I MUST have a GTT (glucose tolerance test, a blood test for diabetes) at 28 weeks on account of being fat and having had a big baby. Now, my 'big baby' was actually spot on in weight for my height and ethnicity, according to the hospital's own growth chart system. I've also had a majorly underweight baby. I've never had diabetes in my life, and certainly not in pregnancy, and yet I have been told to go to the hospital and have this test (which takes two hours) and have never been given the opportunity to dissent, or had it explained that it is a choice.
Then you have the large number of people, including politicians, who believe smoking and drinking in pregnancy should be illegalised. Now, it is perfectly legal to actually kill your baby before 24 weeks of pregnancy, if you want to, provided you go through the proper channels. How can you decide, in law, that a baby has no rights to life before 24 weeks, but definitely has the right to not to be poisoned? It's a totally flawed argument, with extremely limited evidence. As it is, you're told to stop drinking and smoking the second you find out you're pregnant. Now, this has never been a problem for me - I don't smoke, and I don't drink if I suspect I'm pregnant - but it's a big problem for a lot of other women, particularly smokers.
Every single woman in England, if not the entire UK, has the right to ask for, and be permitted a homebirth except in high risk circumstances. Yet, I know many women who are never told it's even an option where they live. Presumably this is why homebirth rates are so low. I want a homebirth, and will blog about the whys and wherefores later on in pregnancy, but I've already had to see a consultant to be 'approved' for one, based on a one-off situation that's unlikely to be repeated. There is a strong sense among obstetricians that homebirths are inherently risky, as opposed to the safety of a hospital birth, ignoring the simple truth that BIRTH is a risky business, and yet women have been doing it to varying degrees of success since we evolved into bipeds.
Much is made of choices around labour. My maternity notes have a whole page in which to discuss my birth plan, and explain on what I would like to happen. Dear reader, I will totally ignore that page, because I know full well that the second something in my labour changes, that plan will get lobbed out the window. I strongly advise you to do the same. Birth choices are only acknowledged and acted upon until something changes. That can be as simple as not having a waterbirth because the waterbirth room is already occupied, to labouring far too fast to have a chance to light the myriad candles and incense, to needing an emergency caesarean. And women are not really made aware beforehand that the time and effort they put into organising their birth choices and preferences in their head, and in their notes, is wasted the second something goes slightly awry. This in itself can lead to angst and unhappiness postnatally.
Women's choice in labour is removed entirely if a risk is detected. Few women are ever given what would normally be called 'informed choice' prior to an emergency caesarean, on the basis that there simply isn't time. This can be accepted, if the baby or woman is dying. However, often women aren't given informed choice when there is no immediate risk to life. I've discussed how induction is rarely explained as an option rather than an inevitability. I was told when I was overdue with my last baby that it was up to the consultant whether I could decline an induction. Er no, it's definitely up to me!
The same can happen with episiotomy, although less so than in the days (1950s-1980s) when episiotomy was done as standard, and one woman was CUT AFTER DELIVERY so the midwife wouldn't get into trouble for not doing it during the birth.
Too often, in the chaos of the delivery room and the fear of perinatal death, the birthing woman is not told what is happening, what has gone wrong, and what needs to happen next.
I don't understand why women's choice is so heavily curtailed in pregnancy and birth. Are we really to be thought of as silly children, who are incapable of understanding risk? Who would put our own prejudices above the health of our babies? Are we thought of as not able to understand the rationale and say no, regardless of what current NICE guidelines are? I mean, it's not like consultants follow the NICE guidelines about perinatal care half the time anyway. Perhaps the real problem is that midwives and consultants simply don't have the TIME to properly explain the reasons for certain tests and advice.
The only real choice I feel I've been given so far is whether or not to have the sexual health blood screening for HIV and syphillis, and whether or not to have the NT scan. Everything else has been done to me.
It's a strange feeling, to feel as though your body is not really your own anymore, simply because there's another person in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)