In 1825, ish, a doctor named William Turnbull wrote the following on the poor of Britain:
"Many a decent family, which has long been maintained in comfort by the exertions of the parents, has been brought to real misery by the sickness of the father or mother; or as is frequently the case, the earnings of the parents are all consumed in the means of cure, or in alleviating the anguish of child suffering [...] A poor family is driven, during sickness, to depend for the very necessaries of life upon their credit with their neighbouring Shopkeeper ; and a system is thus introduced, which, more than any other tends to degrade and demoralise the character.
The feeling of compunction which at first arises at running into debts, which they have no prospect of discharging, wears off by degrees; and when the possibility of supporting themselves creditably is gone; when hope, the great stimulus to exertion, is no more, all further effort is palsied, a sort of moral despair succeeds and they are contented to leave their debts unpaid, to forfeit all their independence of spirit, and idly to rely on a Parish for the future: thus they become useless, if not hurtful, members of the community."
Nothing really changes, does it?
Turnbull, W (1825) An Appeal on Behalf of the Intended Hospital at Huddersfield, Huddersfield Library
19 Feb 2014
9 Feb 2014
Halfway
It's been an age since I wrote about my studies. In that time, I've got divorced (huzzah), engaged (more huzzah), and my eldest has been diagnosed with autism. So, it's been a busy few months, but I have hit the halfway point on both courses.
A218, or history of medicine, is the bigger of the two courses. In the last few months, I've learned far more than I thought I would ever need to know about the rise of medicine from the Ancient Greeks to the Enlightenment, when things actually began to change. What interests me most is the way governments used the new discoveries and trends in health to keep an eye on the population (and pathology, but there's not been a lot of pathology thus far). This interest in public health has led me to elect to do a level 3 module in it next year. My TMA results have been solid - 80%, 79% (that would have been 86%, had I not gone massively over the word count) and 84%. I am really pleased with these marks. I wasn't sure if I was cut out for history, but I'm loving using sources to back up arguments in a way you can't with sociology.
SK277, or human biology, is the shorter of the courses, but by no means the easier. The biology is mainly framed as "This is the system, this is what happens when it goes wrong", which is fine but SO intricate. There is a lot more cellular level biology and biological chemistry than I was expecting. I started this course thinking "I know LOADS about anatomy and physiology" and I do...but not nearly as much as I thought. So far, it's covered cells, nutrition and the GI systems, neurology, skeletal system, muscles, the senses and my arch enemy, endocrinology. My TMAs have been really good - 83% and 88% - but don't contribute to my final mark. That's all on the exam. Eek.
It's been a challenge doing 90 credits, moreso since eldest still isn't in full time schooling because of his special needs, but I've found it rewarding and enjoyable, with the odd moments of despairing, hateful anxiety (TMA weeks, I'm looking at you). I can't wait to do the next half...except for the exams. I bloody loathe exams.
A218, or history of medicine, is the bigger of the two courses. In the last few months, I've learned far more than I thought I would ever need to know about the rise of medicine from the Ancient Greeks to the Enlightenment, when things actually began to change. What interests me most is the way governments used the new discoveries and trends in health to keep an eye on the population (and pathology, but there's not been a lot of pathology thus far). This interest in public health has led me to elect to do a level 3 module in it next year. My TMA results have been solid - 80%, 79% (that would have been 86%, had I not gone massively over the word count) and 84%. I am really pleased with these marks. I wasn't sure if I was cut out for history, but I'm loving using sources to back up arguments in a way you can't with sociology.
SK277, or human biology, is the shorter of the courses, but by no means the easier. The biology is mainly framed as "This is the system, this is what happens when it goes wrong", which is fine but SO intricate. There is a lot more cellular level biology and biological chemistry than I was expecting. I started this course thinking "I know LOADS about anatomy and physiology" and I do...but not nearly as much as I thought. So far, it's covered cells, nutrition and the GI systems, neurology, skeletal system, muscles, the senses and my arch enemy, endocrinology. My TMAs have been really good - 83% and 88% - but don't contribute to my final mark. That's all on the exam. Eek.
It's been a challenge doing 90 credits, moreso since eldest still isn't in full time schooling because of his special needs, but I've found it rewarding and enjoyable, with the odd moments of despairing, hateful anxiety (TMA weeks, I'm looking at you). I can't wait to do the next half...except for the exams. I bloody loathe exams.
7 Dec 2013
Feminism Is Not A Bad Thing
Hello, I have a vagina. I identify as female. I'm heterosexual. I'm a mother of two. I gave up work to look after my children. I live with my male partner, who is the main breadwinner. I have been married. I dye my hair. I shave my legs and armpits. I wear a bra.
And I am unequivocally feminist.
Women comprise about half the population of the world. Women come in all races, all sizes, all sexualities, all manner of gender identity. Women are all different - there is no overarching definition of womanhood. However, there are certain scions of society that believe women come in two types:
THE BLAZING RADICAL FEMINISTS vs
THE OTHERS
Now, regardless of your gender, you can probably appreciate that ideologies come in many different degrees. Nobody rational would say someone whose politics fall centre left is a Maoist. Nobody rational would say someone who supports the Conservative party are neo-Nazis. Nobody rational would say all Muslims are terrorists, or all Christians are Westboro Baptists. But plenty of usually rational people think feminism means extremism.
"Feminists don't want me to wear pink." "Feminists want me to be a hairy beast." "Feminists want me to suffer in childbirth." "Feminists hate men." "Feminist are all ugly lesbians." "Feminists abhor beauty."
Erm. No. Feminists want women to be on an equal standing as men. And that's not happened yet.
Radical feminism has been responsible, among other social factors, for revolutions in women's rights. It is difficult to fathom for young women now JUST HOW MUCH has changed in relatively recent years. Fifty years ago, the contraceptive pill was only available to married women. Abortion was illegal. Women were expected to give up work on marrying in order to have children. Thirty five years ago, illegitimacy made a young mother a social pariah. Twenty five years ago, marital rape was legal. Domestic violence against women was seen as a waste of police time well into the 1990s. Equal pay, despite being legislated for since 1970, is still widely ignored - indeed, Wimbledon didn't start paying equal prize money until 2007.
Women are regularly discriminated against, due to likelihood of pregnancy, by employers. This is becoming more of a problem as jobs demand increases. Personally, I was passed over for promotion to a salaried managerial role because I was engaged. Realising that work were unlikely to give me any job opportunities while I remained a pregnancy risk, I went ahead and had my children, with the rationale that when they were older, I'd still be young enough to establish a career. Five years on, I hope that's true.
In the UK, women are fortunate to have the reproductive rights they do, although many would argue that they are still too restrictive. In the US, supposedly the most developed country in the world, states deny women abortions. The same states also deny any sort of financial support to women raising these unwanted children. The lack of women's rights in less developed countries is highlighted as an action point by the US, while they simultaneously enact misogynist policies.
Look at our government. 508 male MPs, versus 147 female MPs. This is a country that considers women to be equal with men, yet they constitute just 22% of our government. We have a country that is so concerned that female doctors will outnumber male doctors in a few years that the DoH has recommended an emergency policy. And why is this a problem? Because despite this so-called equality, women are still expected to do the bulk of childcare, and when a child is sick, the childminder/nursery/school/nanny can't help. Despite this equality, women still do more housework than men, regardless of their working status. My marriage was not the finest in the world, and not a perfect example, but it was expected of me to do the majority of the housework, even when working full time, because I worked slightly less hours than my ex husband. Once my eldest was born, I was expected to do ALL the housework, ALL the childcare AND work part time. I mean, this was a man who cited my lack of doing the washing up as a reason for adultery, but I don't think his expectation of women is uncommon.
Then there is the aspect that seems to divide feminists and anti-feminists most deeply: makeup, hair dye, pink toys, youth.
The simple truth is that this is ACTUALLY a problem. Professor Mary Beard is a stunningly intelligent woman, a professor at a major university, with a real art for presenting history programmes. And people HATE her because she has the TEMERITY to turn up on TV screens with white hair. People threatened to kill her for daring to exist in a form she was comfortable with. Women, mainly those in the public eye, are expected to maintain their youth regardless of their actual age. When was the last time you saw a female presenter over 45 on your screens, that actually LOOKED her age? Ageism is a constant row in the media, but really it's a argument of sexism. Women are simply expected to remain young. If men don't, that's fine - they're silver foxes or distinguished. But a white haired woman on TV is worthy of death threats.
In the Early Learning Centre, which is normally pretty fair on gendering of toys, the doctor's kit comes in blue, but the nurse's kit comes in red or pink. The doctor's outfit is white and blue, but you can also have a pink nurse's outfit. The idea that men = doctors, women = nurses is so deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness (despite evidence to the contrary) that its pervading children's toys.
Some women wear makeup. Personally, I don't, for all kinds of reasons - chiefly, I shouldn't have to create a mirage image to be socially acceptable - but I'm not against people who DO. I'm very against the media message that women MUST wear makeup; that pimples or imperfections are crimes against humanity; that only the beautiful are capable of personal relationships. THAT is worth fighting against. I dye my hair because I like it red instead of dirty blonde, not because I'm FIGHTING THE SIGNS OF AGEING. My self worth is based around more than what I look like, but due to the media pushing perfection as standard, millions of women feel very differently. Men, however, just need Lynx to get women. Nothing oozes sex appeal like smelling of teenager-on-a-date.
The ideal size for women varies vastly with the fashion. A few years ago, the trend was for stick thin women, now it's for stick thin women with big boobs. Fifty years ago, curves were sexy. The fact that this is all a media illusion, and that personality will win out over looks 70% of the time, is irrelevant. Women suffer from body dysmorphia from a ridiculously young age, and again, it's because the media push perfection from childhood. Barbie may seem innocuous enough, but when her utterly unrealistic and anatomically impossible form becomes the target size of a young girl, things are seriously wrong. Fat is seen as universally Evil: unattractive, with connotations of sloth, of greed, ill health and poverty. Again, it is mainly women who suffer from this portrayal. Men don't usually struggle to buy clothes in larger sizes. Women are faced with dress racks in size 6-12, with a small 'fat' section at the back, for those in sizes 14+. Petite clothing far exceeds tall clothing, because small is feminine, and tall is EVIL. I speak from the point of view of a tall (175cm) woman who is also a size 18 - buying clothes is an absolute nightmare. Most shops which list sizes as S M and L consider L a 12. A size 12 is not large.
All this considered, all these ways in society in which women are made to loathe themselves, in which women are given less opportunities than men, in which women are punished for a solitary chromosome, is feminism REALLY that abhorrent a concept?
I leave you with something to think about. The majority of women menstruate from the age of around 12 until they are in middle age. I spend a quarter of the year, on average, bleeding. This will work out to about nine years of my life - quite a substantial amount of time. Historically, this has been used as an excuse to call women feeble, incapable and inadequate. However, I think society has now reached a point where menstruation is no longer a vile symptom of feminine weakness.
So tell me, in our equal society, where women have no need to be feminist because everything is so wonderful, why are sanitary products taxed as a luxury?
And I am unequivocally feminist.
Women comprise about half the population of the world. Women come in all races, all sizes, all sexualities, all manner of gender identity. Women are all different - there is no overarching definition of womanhood. However, there are certain scions of society that believe women come in two types:
THE BLAZING RADICAL FEMINISTS vs
THE OTHERS
Now, regardless of your gender, you can probably appreciate that ideologies come in many different degrees. Nobody rational would say someone whose politics fall centre left is a Maoist. Nobody rational would say someone who supports the Conservative party are neo-Nazis. Nobody rational would say all Muslims are terrorists, or all Christians are Westboro Baptists. But plenty of usually rational people think feminism means extremism.
"Feminists don't want me to wear pink." "Feminists want me to be a hairy beast." "Feminists want me to suffer in childbirth." "Feminists hate men." "Feminist are all ugly lesbians." "Feminists abhor beauty."
Erm. No. Feminists want women to be on an equal standing as men. And that's not happened yet.
Radical feminism has been responsible, among other social factors, for revolutions in women's rights. It is difficult to fathom for young women now JUST HOW MUCH has changed in relatively recent years. Fifty years ago, the contraceptive pill was only available to married women. Abortion was illegal. Women were expected to give up work on marrying in order to have children. Thirty five years ago, illegitimacy made a young mother a social pariah. Twenty five years ago, marital rape was legal. Domestic violence against women was seen as a waste of police time well into the 1990s. Equal pay, despite being legislated for since 1970, is still widely ignored - indeed, Wimbledon didn't start paying equal prize money until 2007.
Women are regularly discriminated against, due to likelihood of pregnancy, by employers. This is becoming more of a problem as jobs demand increases. Personally, I was passed over for promotion to a salaried managerial role because I was engaged. Realising that work were unlikely to give me any job opportunities while I remained a pregnancy risk, I went ahead and had my children, with the rationale that when they were older, I'd still be young enough to establish a career. Five years on, I hope that's true.
In the UK, women are fortunate to have the reproductive rights they do, although many would argue that they are still too restrictive. In the US, supposedly the most developed country in the world, states deny women abortions. The same states also deny any sort of financial support to women raising these unwanted children. The lack of women's rights in less developed countries is highlighted as an action point by the US, while they simultaneously enact misogynist policies.
Look at our government. 508 male MPs, versus 147 female MPs. This is a country that considers women to be equal with men, yet they constitute just 22% of our government. We have a country that is so concerned that female doctors will outnumber male doctors in a few years that the DoH has recommended an emergency policy. And why is this a problem? Because despite this so-called equality, women are still expected to do the bulk of childcare, and when a child is sick, the childminder/nursery/school/nanny can't help. Despite this equality, women still do more housework than men, regardless of their working status. My marriage was not the finest in the world, and not a perfect example, but it was expected of me to do the majority of the housework, even when working full time, because I worked slightly less hours than my ex husband. Once my eldest was born, I was expected to do ALL the housework, ALL the childcare AND work part time. I mean, this was a man who cited my lack of doing the washing up as a reason for adultery, but I don't think his expectation of women is uncommon.
Then there is the aspect that seems to divide feminists and anti-feminists most deeply: makeup, hair dye, pink toys, youth.
The simple truth is that this is ACTUALLY a problem. Professor Mary Beard is a stunningly intelligent woman, a professor at a major university, with a real art for presenting history programmes. And people HATE her because she has the TEMERITY to turn up on TV screens with white hair. People threatened to kill her for daring to exist in a form she was comfortable with. Women, mainly those in the public eye, are expected to maintain their youth regardless of their actual age. When was the last time you saw a female presenter over 45 on your screens, that actually LOOKED her age? Ageism is a constant row in the media, but really it's a argument of sexism. Women are simply expected to remain young. If men don't, that's fine - they're silver foxes or distinguished. But a white haired woman on TV is worthy of death threats.
In the Early Learning Centre, which is normally pretty fair on gendering of toys, the doctor's kit comes in blue, but the nurse's kit comes in red or pink. The doctor's outfit is white and blue, but you can also have a pink nurse's outfit. The idea that men = doctors, women = nurses is so deeply ingrained in our collective consciousness (despite evidence to the contrary) that its pervading children's toys.
Some women wear makeup. Personally, I don't, for all kinds of reasons - chiefly, I shouldn't have to create a mirage image to be socially acceptable - but I'm not against people who DO. I'm very against the media message that women MUST wear makeup; that pimples or imperfections are crimes against humanity; that only the beautiful are capable of personal relationships. THAT is worth fighting against. I dye my hair because I like it red instead of dirty blonde, not because I'm FIGHTING THE SIGNS OF AGEING. My self worth is based around more than what I look like, but due to the media pushing perfection as standard, millions of women feel very differently. Men, however, just need Lynx to get women. Nothing oozes sex appeal like smelling of teenager-on-a-date.
The ideal size for women varies vastly with the fashion. A few years ago, the trend was for stick thin women, now it's for stick thin women with big boobs. Fifty years ago, curves were sexy. The fact that this is all a media illusion, and that personality will win out over looks 70% of the time, is irrelevant. Women suffer from body dysmorphia from a ridiculously young age, and again, it's because the media push perfection from childhood. Barbie may seem innocuous enough, but when her utterly unrealistic and anatomically impossible form becomes the target size of a young girl, things are seriously wrong. Fat is seen as universally Evil: unattractive, with connotations of sloth, of greed, ill health and poverty. Again, it is mainly women who suffer from this portrayal. Men don't usually struggle to buy clothes in larger sizes. Women are faced with dress racks in size 6-12, with a small 'fat' section at the back, for those in sizes 14+. Petite clothing far exceeds tall clothing, because small is feminine, and tall is EVIL. I speak from the point of view of a tall (175cm) woman who is also a size 18 - buying clothes is an absolute nightmare. Most shops which list sizes as S M and L consider L a 12. A size 12 is not large.
All this considered, all these ways in society in which women are made to loathe themselves, in which women are given less opportunities than men, in which women are punished for a solitary chromosome, is feminism REALLY that abhorrent a concept?
I leave you with something to think about. The majority of women menstruate from the age of around 12 until they are in middle age. I spend a quarter of the year, on average, bleeding. This will work out to about nine years of my life - quite a substantial amount of time. Historically, this has been used as an excuse to call women feeble, incapable and inadequate. However, I think society has now reached a point where menstruation is no longer a vile symptom of feminine weakness.
So tell me, in our equal society, where women have no need to be feminist because everything is so wonderful, why are sanitary products taxed as a luxury?
27 Nov 2013
A follow up post
Eleven months ago, I wrote this entry in response to Ian Watkins of Lostprophets fame being charged with numerous awful sex crimes.
I was concerned with the overwhelming response to the allegations, which was one of disbelief, because paedophiles are supposed to be hideous, obvious monsters. Someone good looking, and young could not have done this. I was concerned that this superficial interpretation of innocence can be very damaging. Ted Bundy was a good looking man. There is no portrait of a monster, and fame is no guarantee of good intentions.
Yesterday, he pleaded guilty to all 13 charges. The reports from the courtroom are horrendous, and I am deeply glad that the full gamut of evidence will never be heard in open court. No juror deserves that. What is more disgusting in many ways is that he persuaded his fans - young mothers - to abuse their own babies, and give them to him to abuse. This is no way exonerates them from guilt, but for him to manipulate his fame in such a deeply depraved way is horrific. It adds another layer to the unspeakable savagery.
Lostprophets are tainted forever. I doubt I will ever listen to their music again, and this isn't some sort of stand against his crime. I'm aware that it won't change anything, but it is borne of a genuine revulsion. There are depths we hope humanity won't plumb, taboos that we hope won't be broken, and he has broken them.
He will be sentenced on 18th December.
I was concerned with the overwhelming response to the allegations, which was one of disbelief, because paedophiles are supposed to be hideous, obvious monsters. Someone good looking, and young could not have done this. I was concerned that this superficial interpretation of innocence can be very damaging. Ted Bundy was a good looking man. There is no portrait of a monster, and fame is no guarantee of good intentions.
Yesterday, he pleaded guilty to all 13 charges. The reports from the courtroom are horrendous, and I am deeply glad that the full gamut of evidence will never be heard in open court. No juror deserves that. What is more disgusting in many ways is that he persuaded his fans - young mothers - to abuse their own babies, and give them to him to abuse. This is no way exonerates them from guilt, but for him to manipulate his fame in such a deeply depraved way is horrific. It adds another layer to the unspeakable savagery.
Lostprophets are tainted forever. I doubt I will ever listen to their music again, and this isn't some sort of stand against his crime. I'm aware that it won't change anything, but it is borne of a genuine revulsion. There are depths we hope humanity won't plumb, taboos that we hope won't be broken, and he has broken them.
He will be sentenced on 18th December.
12 Nov 2013
Milk Money
British women have a poor rate of breastfeeding, one of the lowest in Europe. Breastfeeding is generally a Good Thing, providing total nutrition and some immunity to small babies. However, we now live in a culture where women of reproductive age are often working and pressured by necessity to return to work after giving birth; where breasts are largely seen as obscene sex melons; and where formula feeding is marketed as a magical solution to a happy baby.
Breastfeeding is not easy to establish. Very few women are genuinely physically incapable of breastfeeding. However feeding through the early weeks where it hurts, where your baby may be latching wrong and before milk supply is fully established is bloody hard. And there is shockingly little support available to women who struggle. My sister in law had problems latching her first baby, due to flat nipples and a tiny baby mouth. The midwives could only suggest she continued to express and bottle feed her baby. However, my sister in law didn't give up, and managed (after about five days) to successfully feed her daughter. She has had no problems since, but many women feeling awful after giving birth, with very little support and with the constant Magic Cure of formula on offer would give up.
And who can blame them? Giving birth, especially for the first time, is a huge bodyshock, leaving women feeling vulnerable, sore and disjointed. Breastfeeding publicly can be a matter of some embarrassment, even in front of family members. Facebook deletes photos of breastfeeding mothers as obscene. Women don't remember seeing their own mothers breastfeed. Some women perceive breastfeedng as physically repulsive, and don't want to do it. That is the world we live in.
So, the government has come up with a great idea(!) Why not PAY women to breastfeed? Up to £200 in vouchers are available, if you feed til 6 months, in increments. They can't be used on formula, but other than that there's absolutely no way of checking the women in receipt of it are actually breastfeeding, except trusting to the word of a midwife. Midwives stop seeing most new mothers within two weeks of birth. How many of them are actually going to have time to confirm their client is still breastfeeding?
How about, instead of bribing women to breastfeed (or pretend to breastfeed), the money be invested in better support? The most support I got when establishing feeding with my eldest was a booklet from the NCT, which is a charity. The NHS provided support amounted to having my baby shoved head first onto the boob. It's not the midwives fault - they don't have the staffing to provide the time. Sometimes, all a new mother needs is someone to sit and watch them feed, offering reassurance, for an hour.
How about the money be invested in better education? Women are led to believe that breastfeeding is one constant arc of rainbows. There's no education about how to know whether the baby's getting enough, when latching is wrong, what cluster feeding is and how to work with it, how to ease sore boobs, when how to recognise mastitis. It's currently left to trial and error, or personal research, and not knowing makes a new mother feel abandoned, confused and failing.
How about investing in making breastfeeding culturally normal? No woman should feel like they have to go and hide in a toilet to feed their baby. No woman should panic-wean as returning to work looms around the corner. We see women give birth in screaming agony in soap operas, but there's no follow up of a woman weepily feeding a child in her pajamas three days later (unless she's got postnatal depression, or some other plot device). Feeding babies is culturally invisible, even though all babies need feeding at very frequent intervals, by some means.
A breastfeeding incentive amounts to large amount of spending, for very little reward. The money could be usefully invested in so many other places, with the aim of increasing breastfeeding rates. This is an excellent example of throwing money at a problem rather than treating the root of it. The only positive point I can see is that, if a midwife needs to continue her relationship with the mother for longer than normal to ensure the money is given correctly, women might actually start getting better postnatal support.
PS: This is not an attack on formula feeding, but on the way breastfeeding has become culturally marginalised, or at the extreme, reviled, and how it will take more than a cash incentive to fix that. You feed your baby how you see fit.
Breastfeeding is not easy to establish. Very few women are genuinely physically incapable of breastfeeding. However feeding through the early weeks where it hurts, where your baby may be latching wrong and before milk supply is fully established is bloody hard. And there is shockingly little support available to women who struggle. My sister in law had problems latching her first baby, due to flat nipples and a tiny baby mouth. The midwives could only suggest she continued to express and bottle feed her baby. However, my sister in law didn't give up, and managed (after about five days) to successfully feed her daughter. She has had no problems since, but many women feeling awful after giving birth, with very little support and with the constant Magic Cure of formula on offer would give up.
And who can blame them? Giving birth, especially for the first time, is a huge bodyshock, leaving women feeling vulnerable, sore and disjointed. Breastfeeding publicly can be a matter of some embarrassment, even in front of family members. Facebook deletes photos of breastfeeding mothers as obscene. Women don't remember seeing their own mothers breastfeed. Some women perceive breastfeedng as physically repulsive, and don't want to do it. That is the world we live in.
So, the government has come up with a great idea(!) Why not PAY women to breastfeed? Up to £200 in vouchers are available, if you feed til 6 months, in increments. They can't be used on formula, but other than that there's absolutely no way of checking the women in receipt of it are actually breastfeeding, except trusting to the word of a midwife. Midwives stop seeing most new mothers within two weeks of birth. How many of them are actually going to have time to confirm their client is still breastfeeding?
How about, instead of bribing women to breastfeed (or pretend to breastfeed), the money be invested in better support? The most support I got when establishing feeding with my eldest was a booklet from the NCT, which is a charity. The NHS provided support amounted to having my baby shoved head first onto the boob. It's not the midwives fault - they don't have the staffing to provide the time. Sometimes, all a new mother needs is someone to sit and watch them feed, offering reassurance, for an hour.
How about the money be invested in better education? Women are led to believe that breastfeeding is one constant arc of rainbows. There's no education about how to know whether the baby's getting enough, when latching is wrong, what cluster feeding is and how to work with it, how to ease sore boobs, when how to recognise mastitis. It's currently left to trial and error, or personal research, and not knowing makes a new mother feel abandoned, confused and failing.
How about investing in making breastfeeding culturally normal? No woman should feel like they have to go and hide in a toilet to feed their baby. No woman should panic-wean as returning to work looms around the corner. We see women give birth in screaming agony in soap operas, but there's no follow up of a woman weepily feeding a child in her pajamas three days later (unless she's got postnatal depression, or some other plot device). Feeding babies is culturally invisible, even though all babies need feeding at very frequent intervals, by some means.
A breastfeeding incentive amounts to large amount of spending, for very little reward. The money could be usefully invested in so many other places, with the aim of increasing breastfeeding rates. This is an excellent example of throwing money at a problem rather than treating the root of it. The only positive point I can see is that, if a midwife needs to continue her relationship with the mother for longer than normal to ensure the money is given correctly, women might actually start getting better postnatal support.
PS: This is not an attack on formula feeding, but on the way breastfeeding has become culturally marginalised, or at the extreme, reviled, and how it will take more than a cash incentive to fix that. You feed your baby how you see fit.
3 Nov 2013
The Juggler
So, I'm now a month into the year, and I've just submitted my first TMA of 9. NINE! My next one's due in three weeks, and then I've got another one due about ten days after that. Panic and flail.
The juggling of modules is harder than I expected. It would probably be easier if I'd done a science or arts module before. I'm so used to working within a social science framework, explaining theories and ideas, that to switch to either interpreting historical sources or working out how to condense scientific processes is quite a jump.
I tend to devote most of my time to the history module at the moment, as it's generally more work (60 creds, and lots of reading) and then do large blocks of science in one go. I find the biology easier to get my head round. Body systems are logical to me, whereas interpreting the body from Ancient Greek ideas is fascinating but deeply WRONG in my head. So far, I've learned the basics of medical practice in the 1500s, and cellular biology. They are quite different. Next up, the theory and practice of bloodletting and how cells use nutrition.
I think that when my eldest starts going to school full time (at some point, one day, no idea when), and I have a bit more quiet time, it'll get easier. I've been ill for two weeks, which dissuades me from studying, but I'm not particularly behind.
The juggling of modules is harder than I expected. It would probably be easier if I'd done a science or arts module before. I'm so used to working within a social science framework, explaining theories and ideas, that to switch to either interpreting historical sources or working out how to condense scientific processes is quite a jump.
I tend to devote most of my time to the history module at the moment, as it's generally more work (60 creds, and lots of reading) and then do large blocks of science in one go. I find the biology easier to get my head round. Body systems are logical to me, whereas interpreting the body from Ancient Greek ideas is fascinating but deeply WRONG in my head. So far, I've learned the basics of medical practice in the 1500s, and cellular biology. They are quite different. Next up, the theory and practice of bloodletting and how cells use nutrition.
I think that when my eldest starts going to school full time (at some point, one day, no idea when), and I have a bit more quiet time, it'll get easier. I've been ill for two weeks, which dissuades me from studying, but I'm not particularly behind.
22 Oct 2013
OU Module Groups on Facebook - a guide
OU forums are one thing - they are moderated by staff, who know how to keep people in line and steer debate gently away from DRAMAZ. However, Facebook OU groups are dens of iniquity.
Here are a few of the types you might find there, and just so you don't think I'm being evilly judgemental, I tend very much to be The Know-it-all, combined with The Joker.
1. The Know-it-all
Sometimes, The Know-it-all has been studying for years, and sometimes they assume their mantel from other sources, such as a former job, or a GCSE in a relevant subject. Wherever their knowledge is gleaned from, they will give it to you, frequently, and in great detail, even if the question you asked has already been answered.
2. The Angry Mod
In any moderated forum, there will be times when the mods and the users have a bit of a set-to. With a few rules, understanding and a sense of perspective, these can be dealt with quickly. However, these attributes are often missing on unofficial forums. Banning, deleting of posts, posts declaring STOP THE DRAMA, users leaving to start their own groups, the whole thing firing up again three days later when someone who's been offline gets caught up. The Angry Mod is a self righteous beast, and prone to overreaction.
3. The Sensitive Flower
This person will have been through many a hard time, and be constantly wafting around, all sad faces and looking for sympathy. Sensitive Flower doesn't know when to start, it's all so daunting. You've just handed in a TMA? Sensitive Flower hasn't started yet :( You're up to Unit 8? Sensitive Flower hasn't finished Unit 1 yet. Eventually, Sensitive Flower will erupt in a rage because someone points out that they COULD just go and do some work instead of being sad. Sensitive Flower will flounce off group at least once a month.
4. The Professor
Unlike The Know-it-all, the Professor gives advice as though they are a tutor. They post endless notes on how to get ahead with tutorials, on how to revise, on how to tackle the latest TMA. Then they fail the exam. True story.
5. The Cheat
It pains me to write this, and I haven't come across one in a while, but there can be people whose behaviour on the groups sails perilously close to the cheaty wind. It usually happens about two days before a TMA is due: a post will appear, asking for help. I once had someone PM me on facebook begging me to tell them what I'd written for a TMA. I judiciously ignored it.I strongly advise you to do the same.
6. The Joker
It's 6am on TMA submission day. Everyone is exhausted, testy and annoyed. Someone posts a jokey picture of a cat that looks like Hitler, with a smiley face. Everyone mentally tells them to do one.
7. The Skimmer
There is always someone who thinks they can do their module by only doing the reading for their TMA, and nothing else. Usually, the Skimmer will appear on a group a few days before submission day and ask what, exactly, they need to read before they write the TMA. This is a godawful idea to do every single time, as you NEED to know your module materials inside out to pass the exam/EMA.
8. The Boaster
The polar opposite of The Sensitive Flower, The Boaster will get hold of last year's module materials so they can start early, and then complain that the TMA system isn't up and running three days into the course. By which point they've finished the course. This can backfire spectacularly, if the course materials change a lot between one year and the next, or if The Boaster does last year's TMA questions.
9. The Giver-Up
Closely related to The Sensitive Flower, The Giver-Up regularly threatens to give up. This tends to result in a deluge of sympathy, hints, help and attention. The Giver-Up does not give up...until the next crisis.
10. The Procrasinators, or as I like to call them, Everyone
We all procrastinate to a degree, unless we have the self discipline of a ninja. Facebook OU groups may claim to be study groups, but after three days, there'll be a load of ""Look at all this food I'm eating instead of studying!" What colour highlighter do you use?" "What's your favourite biscuit?" "How are you all?" type posts, that take a good twenty minutes to read through...and then you want to add stuff, then you're pulled into checking threads for conversations about nothing more exciting than your cat.
Awful places.
But really, useful, often friendly and less formal than the OU forums. I have made some lovely friends on facebook OU groups. Enjoy, but try not to take it TOO seriously.
Here are a few of the types you might find there, and just so you don't think I'm being evilly judgemental, I tend very much to be The Know-it-all, combined with The Joker.
1. The Know-it-all
Sometimes, The Know-it-all has been studying for years, and sometimes they assume their mantel from other sources, such as a former job, or a GCSE in a relevant subject. Wherever their knowledge is gleaned from, they will give it to you, frequently, and in great detail, even if the question you asked has already been answered.
2. The Angry Mod
In any moderated forum, there will be times when the mods and the users have a bit of a set-to. With a few rules, understanding and a sense of perspective, these can be dealt with quickly. However, these attributes are often missing on unofficial forums. Banning, deleting of posts, posts declaring STOP THE DRAMA, users leaving to start their own groups, the whole thing firing up again three days later when someone who's been offline gets caught up. The Angry Mod is a self righteous beast, and prone to overreaction.
3. The Sensitive Flower
This person will have been through many a hard time, and be constantly wafting around, all sad faces and looking for sympathy. Sensitive Flower doesn't know when to start, it's all so daunting. You've just handed in a TMA? Sensitive Flower hasn't started yet :( You're up to Unit 8? Sensitive Flower hasn't finished Unit 1 yet. Eventually, Sensitive Flower will erupt in a rage because someone points out that they COULD just go and do some work instead of being sad. Sensitive Flower will flounce off group at least once a month.
4. The Professor
Unlike The Know-it-all, the Professor gives advice as though they are a tutor. They post endless notes on how to get ahead with tutorials, on how to revise, on how to tackle the latest TMA. Then they fail the exam. True story.
5. The Cheat
It pains me to write this, and I haven't come across one in a while, but there can be people whose behaviour on the groups sails perilously close to the cheaty wind. It usually happens about two days before a TMA is due: a post will appear, asking for help. I once had someone PM me on facebook begging me to tell them what I'd written for a TMA. I judiciously ignored it.I strongly advise you to do the same.
6. The Joker
It's 6am on TMA submission day. Everyone is exhausted, testy and annoyed. Someone posts a jokey picture of a cat that looks like Hitler, with a smiley face. Everyone mentally tells them to do one.
7. The Skimmer
There is always someone who thinks they can do their module by only doing the reading for their TMA, and nothing else. Usually, the Skimmer will appear on a group a few days before submission day and ask what, exactly, they need to read before they write the TMA. This is a godawful idea to do every single time, as you NEED to know your module materials inside out to pass the exam/EMA.
8. The Boaster
The polar opposite of The Sensitive Flower, The Boaster will get hold of last year's module materials so they can start early, and then complain that the TMA system isn't up and running three days into the course. By which point they've finished the course. This can backfire spectacularly, if the course materials change a lot between one year and the next, or if The Boaster does last year's TMA questions.
9. The Giver-Up
Closely related to The Sensitive Flower, The Giver-Up regularly threatens to give up. This tends to result in a deluge of sympathy, hints, help and attention. The Giver-Up does not give up...until the next crisis.
10. The Procrasinators, or as I like to call them, Everyone
We all procrastinate to a degree, unless we have the self discipline of a ninja. Facebook OU groups may claim to be study groups, but after three days, there'll be a load of ""Look at all this food I'm eating instead of studying!" What colour highlighter do you use?" "What's your favourite biscuit?" "How are you all?" type posts, that take a good twenty minutes to read through...and then you want to add stuff, then you're pulled into checking threads for conversations about nothing more exciting than your cat.
Awful places.
But really, useful, often friendly and less formal than the OU forums. I have made some lovely friends on facebook OU groups. Enjoy, but try not to take it TOO seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)