Despicable Heggie

Okay...so today is my 40th birthday (UGH!) and...where to begin?

So it all started with work, where there are helium balloons, and ever since I started there I wanted to buy Minions balloons for my birthday. And that is just what I did. A dozen Minion balloons just for me.

BUT I had never seen ANY of the films. I just thought the little Twinkie-looking critters were cute.

My eldest, Erin, got me a whole bunch of DVDs and I bet you can guess what (if you can't, I fear you).

We just watched Despicable Me and all I can say is as a film about my life it's not particularly accurate but...I LOVE IT!

I am Gru.

I acquired children, two girls not three unless I have miscounted, with somewhat misguided intentions. Not in the attempt of accomplishing the crime-of-the-century but in the attempt of keeping the man I was with. Not in the usual sense of entrapment (*glares at my mother meaningfully*) but because he claimed to want a family.

Yeah, right. That lasted all of about five minutes. He *ahem* off and I got screwed over, literally and figuratively. As a homeless 17 year old I didn't think I could cope and begged to put my poor elder beastie up for adoption. Fortunately no one listened.

Three years later, exact same scenario, exact same guy. Look. I never said I was smart. In fact, a high IQ has absolutely no correlation to common sense. I am / was / ever more shall be a complete dumbass. Got it?! 

I went from struggling to get by to absolutely shitting it. At one point, when my kids were 4 and 1, I actually dragged them to Social Services and BEGGED them to take my kids cos I couldn't cope. They ignored me. I was living hand-to-mouth with virtually no adult contact and my kids were *ahem* not the easiest of little cherubs. 

The point is, like Gru, I didn't think my [evil] plan through and ultimately I love my kids and am so glad I got to raise them. Being a single parent on welfare is SHIT. I got zero support. I had a health visitor who scared the bejeezus outta me talking about her psychiatrist. My parents...HMMMM...they felt that the best thing was to compel me to step up by means of their not helping me out. Not saying they were necessarily WRONG just that it was harsh and the fact the three of us are still alive to tell the tale is probably just sheer dumb luck.

That bit where Gru's girls are destroying EVERYTHING? Utterly relatable. If I'd had access to a freeze ray they'd still be defrosting! (*thinks about that time K poisoned the ketchup / curried her sister's shoes / painted herself blue / got drunk on sherry AGE 4 / salad-creamed her sister in bed etc*)

I wish I'd done better.

I wish I hadn't fucked up once...instead of the 57,73,888,947,465,635,434 times I actually did.

I wish I had possessed even ONE maternal instinct.

I wish it had only taken me the length of a kids' movie to accept the situation and step up.

I wish I'd got my kids all the fluffiest unicorns.

I wish I'd read all the bedtime stories. Even though Erni would've pitched seven fits and hurled all the books like an anti-literature poltergeist.

Why? Because now my kids are adults and I can't turn back time. Because now the hard times have passed it's hard even for me to understand why I was struggling so badly. Because I am so proud of the young women my daughters have become in spite of being burdened with a mum like me.

I am sorry, kids. I love you. I am proud of you. 

You did me good. I only wish I had been good for you, too.

DUI Zero Tolerance

Continuing the pattern of "I read this when I got up today and OMG it makes me so mad" and "humans are fucking stupid" and "have I mentioned how I am really big on personal accountability???" here's another blog.

British TV presenter and former actor / popstar Ant McPartlin was arrested yesterday for drink driving after a collision involving three vehicles.

This is not the initial story I read, and as such does not contain the reference to his mother mentioned later, but I provide it as a reference point for this blog: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43453525

I want to make it clear from the outset that this blog is referring to this tweet by @fransbeautyblog [below] and others who make excuses for people who drink and drive. Although that may include drink drivers themselves that is not currently the case in this instance. I very much hope Mr McPartlin will accept full responsibility for his actions.

I retweeted this with the following message of my own 

There's sympathy for someone with mental health and addiction issues...but that goes out of the window when they drunk drive and endanger lives beyond their own.

Zero sympathy for a man who put a child in hospital, regardless of any excuses.

...and then wrote three threads from it (I have only corrected my typos):

(1) I have repeatedly expressed sympathy for the driver who ran me over...but he was not drunk. The accident was not his fault or mine but a consequence of a 3rd party's action.

I have never had any sympathy for the motorcyclist who hopped a red light and missed [my daughter Kathleen] by an inch. I have no idea if he was drunk or sober cos he wasn't caught but regardless he made a 'mistake' that could have killed my kid. No excuses.

My great uncle had a heart attack and died at the wheel of his car. I am immensely grateful that he had the presence of mind (and the vital seconds of consciousness) to pull over and not risk anyone else's life.

My cousin died crashing his motorbike. His [adult] kids repost 'look for motorbikes' stuff [on social media]. But he was speeding at night and collided with a tractor going 8mph. Thank god no one else was hurt.

I don't drive and would probably be terrible if I did. Wheels are a privilege, not a right. Zero tolerance for being irresponsible.

(2) I'm not sure about blaming his mother...he's 42 ffs. Was she in the car with him? The account I read only speaks of her trying to calm him. Could have been on the phone, in one of the other cars involved or at the scene.

Besides... Did she know he'd been drinking? Failing a breathalyser is super easy so she may well have not been aware he was unfit to drive, especially if the booze had been in his blood for hours.

(3) The comments on this thread though... She's arguing sympathy and tolerance with people who point out that he can afford taxis, or a driver, and all the rehab he needs. He has a support network. There was zero excuse for this.

He's no average Joe battling his demons alone and reliant on the patchy to non existent mental health care available on the NHS.

I wonder if she'd have as much sympathy and understanding if it was her kid in hospital. I doubt it.

I hope Ant will hold his hands up and take responsibility for his actions. I'm not judging him harshly (yet) because we all make mistakes...I am judging harshly those excusing his behaviour.

My kids don't drive yet but I hope they will be responsible drivers, both in their actions and how they respond to any mistakes they make.

Some of the comments she was making back to people included:

Replying to @ixamxcaitlin who pointed out that "As a grown man he should have known better than to sit behind the wheel knowing he was intoxicated. Yes, I agree he needs help but he also doesn't deserve pity or sympathy. He made his choice and a 3 year old is suffering the consequence."

Francesca replied: “A grown man” has nothing to do with it - mental health and addiction affects your choices & your ability to make a reasoned decision. A real shame coming from someone who has experienced mental health issues.

Wow, really?! He's no naive child where mistakes and lack of reasoning might be more understandable. He's old enough to be a father or even a grandfather (when I am 42 my kids will be 24 and 21).

Similarly in a 'debate' with @jfduncan5 she argued: Well I’m glad your mental health andaddiction issue didn’t affect your mind to the same extent as this then. Unfortunately for some people, it does.

Individual idiosyncrasy MIGHT be a valid excuse in terms of unusual inter-reactions of medications where a consequence cannot be reasonably predicted. There have been cases like that, where someone is prosecuted but could not have known they were unsafe to drive. Meanwhile, McPartlin has had his issues for YEARS. He would KNOW by now if his judgement was impaired and if so then he CHOSE not to quit driving. EVERYONE knows that drinking and driving is illegal in this country and other people with mental illnesses and substance abuse problems can and do make the right call. 

Not only that, but her initial tweet says "Unless you have ever suffered with mental health, addiction, alcoholism, sit down & shut up talking about things you know nothing about." and yet over and over Francesca is trying to shut down people who are saying "I HAVE suffered mental health problems, I HAVE struggled with addiction, I HAVE been an alcoholic" because their testimonies don't tally with her world view. Over and over people are telling her that this is not a valid excuse; people who (at least claim to) 

• have experienced these issues first hand
• have qualifications in counselling or psychology
• work in related fields helping those in mental health crisis or substance abuse

and she's telling them their opinions are irrelevant because of what? Assumptions she's making and being hellbent on being 'sympathetic'.

@battink commented: "It's still not a valid excuse for what he's done. He's probably been given more opportunity than a lot of people who are seriously struggling."

Francesca's response to that: You’re saying probably because you have absolutely no idea - you’re assuming everything so best not to comment.

Well, Francesca...you're assuming everything too. Yes, Ant McPartlin has well publicised personal problems but that doesn't mean his 'issues' were accountable for yesterday's stupidity. He may just be a selfish arrogant bastard like so many other selfish arrogant bastards.

Francesca replied to @Jakep010923: Hi Jake, absolutely, he’s taken some dreadful actions today & should be punished. My tweet is aimed at the people throwing abuse at him because how does that help someone who is clearly in need of help?

How does this even equate? Putting lives in danger isn't a cry for help. Throwing abuse at people who put lives in danger is pretty darn reasonable. I don't feel the need to hurl abuse at him but nor do I have any sympathies - perhaps the people who are allegedly 'making threats' are people who've lost people to drunk drivers, who  have been carers to those seriously (and often permanently) injured in such incidents, who've had to put together their shattered lives. The people who are angriest about this may well be the ones in most need of help, support, sympathy and understanding.

Most of us have empathy for the people in the two other cars he smashed into and the kid he put in hospital. It's actually pretty difficult to feel empathy for the person who caused their suffering. Would she feel the same about any other person who committed a crime of violence - sympathy for the machete-wielder or the acid-attacker??? They could be suffering mental health issues too, or be out of their noggins on drink or drugs.

But 'best' of all is this illustration of Francesca's ignorance and then blocking the person who dared point it out:

Cleaner Controversy

This is an old news one but it popped up on Facebook again today and although I ranted about it elsewhere I decided a blog post was probably still called for.

The story in question surrounds a 'controversial' photograph of a female cleaner being 'made to' remove pro-International Women's Day graffiti from steps at Oxford University; and the university being 'forced' to apologise for their 'gaffe' (please pay attention to all the sarcastic quote marks here)

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-43335030

1) The cleaner's gender.

• Cleaners are stereotypically women as more women take part-time low-paid work. This is not a marker of social class, intelligence, capability or 
• Has anyone asked the cleaner what their gender identity is? I am biologically female and I am agender. I will use female pronouns in this blog to avoid confusion but this is an important point.
• The assumption that as a woman she would support International Women's Day and be offended by being 'made to' clean up the graffiti. Or perhaps conversely the assumption that a male cleaner would NOT support IWD and would not be offended by the task. personally I would have been 'offended' by the twat who wrote the graffiti that I then had to clean off.

2) Being made to clean up the graffiti.

• Literally complaining about her doing her job here. 
• I've seen comments assuming that she has no choice but to work as a cleaner - assuming she has no choice in her employment, assuming she has no qualifications or skills - that may indeed be the case, many cleaners ARE unskilled and most are not earning a decent wage BUT it's still a gross assumption. I earned a degree while working as a cleaner. I have known cleaners who do the job as 'pocket money' and a way to keep fit and active. Some are mums who just want something outside the home, some are older women just killing time before claiming their pensions, others have a well-paid spouse but still want independence.
• I've seen comments that a cleaner works INDOORS ONLY...obviously the commenter has never done cleaning work. I worked in a school and did tasks such as carrying classroom furniture into the playground to scrub it all down. There were also comments about it being one of the coldest days of the year which I find incredibly condescending - like women, by biology or gender identity, shouldn't be working outdoors in the cold; this is not equality.
• I've seen comments about it being 'the patriarchy' in action - men making a woman do a menial task. See above comments about the irrelevance of her gender in the argument. Also, we do not know whether she was told to clean it off or did so as part of her regular duties, we do not know the gender of any person telling her to clean the steps, we do not know the gender of the person who wrote the graffiti.

3) The acceptance of the graffiti.

• Apparently writing in chalk all over stuff is an 'Oxford tradition' and therefore acceptable. I thought Oxford was supposed to be a world's best educational institution so why are they legitimising childish and illegal graffitiing?! Next it'll be defending pub brawls as cultural property...
• Somehow being chalk rather than spray paint makes it acceptable.
  Yes, chalk is a better medium for drawing on a surface that isn't yours - for the very relevant point that it's EASIER TO CLEAN OFF - but mostly I think that if you want to make a political statement you should be doing it without defacing someone else's property. I REALLY don't like graffiti, can you tell?! I think it can be an amazing artform but unless it's done well and with consent I do not approve.
• The fact it's "Happy International Women's Day" rather than an expletive or a crude outline of a penis makes it acceptable. IWD is not a greetings card holiday which people go around saying this phrase to each other. I wonder if there would have been a similar outcry if it had been a black cleaner scrubbing off the phrase "Joyous Kwanzaa" or a Muslim cleaner removing "Eid Mubarak"?
• Being a political statement doesn't make it somehow better than other graffiti - "Loz woz ere" or whatever. I believe in equality but the presumption that women are somehow inevitably disadvantaged in a world of men is not something I either agree with and I think it is potentially very harmful. I literally just read this article* where a man is making light of his experiences as a domestic violence survivor and I can't help but think that's because of the way men are disadvantaged in our society. Men are frequently not taken seriously regards sexual assault and domestic violence, they are less likely to win custody of their children, they get less support during many scenarios such as when diagnosed with breast cancer. Inequality works both ways and cannot be resolved by feminism.
  *http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/girlfriend-sword-attack-scared-living-poop-article-1.3876246
• Mostly I think that you do not draw or write, in any medium, on something which is not yours. My dad is arguing against me painting a mural on the side of his shed despite the fact that it's an ugly breeze block wall which forms part of the boundary wall of my garden. I wouldn't dream of painting on his property (in the sense of (i) on the grounds of his property or (ii) off the grounds on a side that isn't mine - like the roadfront side of his garden wall) but I have doubts as to whether he can control what I do on my side of the line. It's HIS shed but it's also MY boundary. If I wanted to drill holes in it and put up trellis I'm reasonably sure I could... It'd be the same with painting your side of a garden fence on a boundary you do not own.

Nothing is beyond criticism...

Following the death of Stephen Hawking and Jeremy Corbin quoting him on the NHS at today's PMQs I have a few words / thoughts on the subject...

For reference purposes: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2018/03/why-getting-rid-penny-piece-good-move, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/14/stephen-hawking-campaigner-nhs

Universal Healthcare is undoubtedly a good idea but, as it stands, it has several fundamental flaws:

1. an ageing population unwilling to pay more for the services they demand
2. an ever-increasing range of services demanded, many of which are life-style rather than medical need e.g. weight loss, smoking cessation, IVF.
3. a total lack of accountability when things go wrong. It is virtually impossible to take on the NHS and if you do the process takes YEARS.

I am glad for Mr Hawking that he considers he received excellent care under the NHS. My dad is similarly all about praising the NHS but I have received hate on social media because I have and will criticise the system - I have had poor care, particularly regarding BOTH my kids' births (...and that time it took NINE YEARS to get a biopsy result); as has my mum, my late grandma, my stepdad, at least 2 of my cousins...so far none of us has died as a result* but TBH that's sheer dumb luck.
*one of my cousins did die but in all fairness almost certainly would have done even if their brain cancer treatment hadn't been delayed due to a medical balls up

I wouldn't want us to have a private healthcare system only BUT the advantage that it has over a state system is accountability. The NHS is set up so as to be virtually untouchable; we're conditioned to think of it as a gift rather than a service we're paying for. Just because it is 'free at the point of use' doesn't make it free.

I think it is a tad unfair that people such as who have had positive experiences of the NHS are often dismissive of those of us who're dissatisfied with the service we receive. People will undoubtedly see these things from an individual perspective, just as I see it in terms of the cockups that affected me personally, but it is important to remember other points of view exist. I am glad that others haven't suffered but it bugs me that those who haven't disbelieve those who have.

I think it is hugely problematic that people who complain about NHS treatment (or lack thereof) are dismissed as 'ungrateful'. It is not about gratitude, it is about a service this nation pays for and need and when it fails should be held accountable. If you've read any of my other blogs you may have gathered I am a biiiiig fan of accountability and taking responsibility.

I think it is also naive for people, such as Mr Hawking, to simplify the problems of the NHS down to funding. Yes, that is certainly an issue (point 1 above) but services also need to be streamlined to essentials (point 2 above) as well as a full scale overhaul to prevent funds being lost in bureaucracy, especially when it comes to lengthy litigation (point 3 above). 

In that last instance it would be infinitely better if the NHS accepted accountability far more quickly and offered compensation according to the harm done. I get that they're trying to protect the tax-payer's money but it also harms the NHS's public image. For example: a family with a child brain damaged due to birth injury takes almost 12 years on average to resolve (source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/17/tripling-in-nhs-legal-bills-for-catastrophic-childbirth-blunders/) - it's a public relations nightmare that engenders distrust! 

What's worse is that patients and families affected by medical negligence are often derogatorily labelled 'vultures' while terms like 'compensation culture' are bandied around. Over and over I see this put-up-and-shut-up attitude being repeated; doctors and nurses are put on some kind of pedestal while accusations of wrongdoing are met with scorn.

The problem is far more deep-rooted than mere funding and without addressing the issues throwing more money at the NHS will not resolve anything in the long run. Money helps but it really doesn't fix everything.

Edit:
After posting this blog I woke up the very next morning to this story about a mentally ill teenage girl: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-43227589

"In the 10 days that Sherry attempted to kill herself nine times,

she was seen by 18 different healthcare professionals,

ranging from staff from A&E to Camhs.

But none provided the help she needed to address the cause of her problems"

It's absolutely insane that a family have to go through so much before getting the help they clearly needed YEARS earlier. She was finally sectioned by a police officer but even that resulted in her spending time in an adult unit before being referred on to a childrens' one...160 miles from home.

"the teenager had landed in A&E, been patched up

and deemed well enough to be sent home with no further help.

Another time she'd taken all of her prescribed medication in one go

and ended up in critical care for two days.

But once the physical symptoms had been dealt with,

to her parent's despair, she was simply discharged and sent home"

Tell me, where the health 'care' is in this story? In what way were they not failed at every turn by health care professionals? Would more money have made the "unsympathetic security staff and receptionists who are openly exasperated" or the doctors who repeatedly discharged her do their jobs any better? I sincerely doubt it.

Free School Meals

Once again the Tories are under fire for voting in changes to limit eligibility for free school meals (source: https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2018/mar/13/one-million-children-hungry-new-plans-free-school-meals), here's my take.

I was on welfare for many years and my kids, at times, received free school meals. Obviously this was now some time ago and that is important for my POV.

In the Guardian article cited above there's a really important paragraph early on which reads:

While the rollout of universal credit has got underway,

the children of parents who receive it have been entitled to free school meals.

Were this to continue, it would have ensured almost all children

living in poverty, including those in low income working families,

would have received a guaranteed school lunch every day.

However, the government now intends to introduce a net household earnings threshold of £7,400 (£18,000 to £24,000 a year including benefits).

This tells us that the 'cuts' are actually a reintroduction of means testing which was temporarily suspended during the changeover to Universal Credit. Universal Credit is an umbrella benefit covering many top-ups that were NOT an eligibility for free school meals beforehand; when benefits were separate the entitlements varied, the introduction of Universal Credit has served to confuse this. This is a return to how things had been before, including during Labour's 1997-2010 leadership, and the people who are going to 'lose out' were not previously entitled.

It also tells us that household earnings can reach £7,400 p.a. before free school meals are withdrawn. Perhaps that threshold is 'too low' but the line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise you end up with a mockery of everyone who is paying their own way.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbin tweeted his position on the subject (https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/973645957773619201):

I would say that Northern Ireland as one of the most deprived areas of the UK is not unworthy of an exemption (parts of the UK already get stuff like free prescriptions) but "playing politics with the health of our children"??? Er...the health or 'our' children is gov't responsibility when it comes to access to healthcare and safeguarding children from abuse but day-to-day feeding them is surely not? The gov't is not responsible for you feeding your kid, or you changing their bum, or you teaching them right from wrong.

I HATED being a parent but this honestly makes me so mad. I know Corbin will never pass up a chance to attack May but this really is ridiculous. Why is it acceptable to pass the buck and not provide your own child basic care, expecting the tax-payer to do your duty?! Free school meals will continue to be available for families considered most in need and the cuts apply to those best able to shoulder their own responsibilities.

My situation was this: I was pushed (by a Labour gov't) into part time work in 2010 which meant I was no longer eligible for free school meals or Council Tax Benefit...despite the fact I was earning less than this new threshold. In fact, until I came off welfare completely in 2017 I only earned more in a year TWICE - £7476 in 2013 and £7472 in 2017.

Did I begrudge having to pay for my kids' food? No. I had already had to do this when home-schooling and when one of my kids attended a school where the free meals where wholly inadequate. Not only that but I accepted that feeding MY KIDS was entirely MY RESPONSIBILITY.

I resented the loss of Council Tax Benefit which was far more useful to me, and I resented the fact that my children's educational attainment no longer counted in the category they had been raised in - because that is assessed by entitlement to free school meals. My kids got GCSEs, A levels and went to university and I think that should be counted in the statistics for low-income families.

I also want to point out that benefits are, in most if not all of these circumstances, already calculated to cover the cost of feeding dependent children either within the benefit payment itself or from the parent/s earnings. You do not get any more money when your kid is out of school - for the holidays, under exclusion or if you are home-schooling. The buck stops with PARENTS not schools or local authorities or centralised government.

Over and over I see comments like "this may be the only meal that child gets" ...if that is true the parents should be prosecuted and the child removed from their care! If parents are so irresponsible to not feed their kids with their earnings / welfare cheque then that is their fault! 

"One mum told us that after she’d started work,

and lost free school meals for her son,

she sometimes had to send him to school

with just a bread roll for lunchtime."

I'm sorry but WHY?! That's just disgusting... If she's working part time she's most likely receiving benefits to top-up her wages. Where are her wages going?! Maybe there's a really good explanation  for this mum's finances but I can't begin to imagine although, as I say, I've been on welfare and am low income. My kids went without a lot of things but they were ALWAYS fed.

I do feel sorry for people who are low income and don't have an entitlement, especially those who are in much less fortunate situations, regards rent and other expenses, than I was, but at the same time, where do you draw the line???

There are people earning less than £18-24,000 a year who get NOTHING in benefits so why should those on welfare get more?! Why should families with far higher incomes get yet more help? I don't understand... It makes no sense that it's better to be on benefits than in work! This cap is there to level the playing field, to ensure those most in need get extra help.

I'm currently earning an estimated £8000 per year off welfare as my kids are now adults but I am still expected to support my at uni daughter to the tune of £3000 per year - if I had a school-age child I would be entitled to nothing. 

Dean & Daphne

Apparently there's a Supernatural / Scooby Doo crossover coming up and people are losing their shit cos Dean has a crush on Daphne.

The Dean Is Gay Argument

Dean is bisexual, OKAY?! You can ship him however you like but the evidence shows he likes men and women. Yes, bisexuality is a thing. I don't know why Americans especially are so dead against it. On Buffy The Vampire Slayer Willow Rosenberg had a long-standing thing for her (male) friend Xander Harris, she had a good relationship with (male) werewolf Oz but as soon as she met Tara it was

Bi erasure much??? You can be in opposite sex relationships only, same sex relationships only and still be bisexual okay?! Yes, of course you can change how you self identify and maybe Willow did feel that she was actually gay rather than bi but honestly...

And ranting of self identification Dean Winchester self identifies as straight. Yes, OBVIOUSLY he's not but no one, Cas and Crowley included, has the right to drag him out of the closet until he's damn well ready. Which could be never; he's allowed to live however he chooses.

The Daphne Is Sixteen Argument

1) She is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. There is no potential here for child abuse, grooming or statutory rape here.

2) She is a CARTOON CHARACTER...do cartoons even have legal rights???

3) Daphne Blake has been 16 since 1969. Do the maths.

4) Daphne has been portrayed as adult several times; and despite the fact the Scoobies are supposed to be high school juniors are they EVER in school?! Be more concerned about their truancy!

5) Sixteen is legal in a lot of US states - 31 out of 50 if I counted right

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States) and in the military...there's also an exemption for those MARRIED to people aged 12-15.

6) You're okay shipping Dean with a thousands of years old non-human wearing a dead man's meat suit but y'all have a bitch fit over a supposedly underage cartoon girl??? Americans are nuts.

"That's like saying you're vegan and..."

Although I know I've touched on the subject of elitist veganism before, today's thought piece comes from a tweet by @WeAreVeganuary:

The tweet links two articles:

The first is their own blog post on cosmetics - https://veganuary.com/blog/vegan-cosmetics/

the second is an article from the Metro on what it means to be a 'proper' vegan - http://metro.co.uk/2018/03/06/using-animal-tested-products-negate-vegan-credentials-7327907/?ito=cbshare (6th March 2018)

Just as a reminder, The Vegan Society's definition of veganism is:

"A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude

—as far as is possible and practicable—

all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals

for food, clothing or any other purpose;

and by extension, promotes the development and use

of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals

and the environment.

In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with

all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

(https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism)

Meanwhile elsewhere the word 'vegan' is either a noun meaning a person who does not eat or use animal products or an adjective for using or containing no animal products. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/vegan)

So I'll start with two points here - "possible and practicable" and "products". Despite my tendency to blog on the subject being vegan isn't my main thing in life...just with eating three meals a day it comes up a lot and with Veganuary, Februdairy and now #MeatyMarch it's something very much in the public eye. I am nothing if not an opinionated potato so I tend to share my thoughts. HOWEVER, I do not want to spent my whole life researching companies and products to assess their level of...veganness? Veganity?! To me, that is not "possible and practicable". Then there's products. To what extent should I (or any other vegan) care about products OTHER than the ones they're buying? There are, I hear, extreme vegans who will only shop at vegan stores so as to keep their economic footprint as far from the carnist footprint as possible. That *may* be an option if your community has that but it really is taking things too far.

Now OBVIOUSLY I am against animal testing, including in most circumstances for medical purposes (see my Cancer Vs Morality blog from 2016) BUT there are huge issues with cutting it out. Particularly THIS:

Companies that sell in China by law have to test their finished products on animals. So, if you’re buying from a company that operates there,

even if your product isn’t tested on animals,

some might think that you’re still indirectly contributing to the practice.

(from the Metro article link above)

Now, how many companies operate in China? How do you untangle the web of linked companies and their umbrella organisations and is that "possible and practicable" to find out??? Also, this is basically saying you can't be a vegan and live in China. Grossly unfair.

There's also the point that a product created using animal testing is, in most instances, the result of the society surrounding it. If most vegans consider medicines exempt from their ethical stance why are they so harsh about something most of us find almost equally hard to avoid?!

Here's my take.

The idea that you lose 'your vegan credentials' for not being up to someone else's standards is incredibly stupid. We all make mistakes - miss check a label, forget to ask at a restaurant, some micro-ingredient we don't know the origin of. I heard Guinness was going vegan...unfortunately I hadn't realised the change wasn't coming into effect for TWO YEARS! I was drinking the black stuff happily the whole time. When I realised my mistake a vegan twitter account kindly assured me that it was okay - my intentions had been good.

This is what it should be about IMHO. Intention. The possible and practicable bit again - doing what you can with what you have.

I buy some household cleaners vegan - all my spray cleaners are now from Method - but others are traditional, like toilet bleach and drain cleaner. That's mostly because (I find they work better and / or cost less. Some products seem nigh impossible to buy in an assured cruelty-free variant.

I buy vegan shampoos, conditioners and shower gels wherever possible (I get caught out from time to time - my handsoaps currently contain lanolin) but I use very little by way of cosmetics - I own one eyeshadow palette, one eyeliner and one powder and I maybe put some on once or twice a week at most; I don't use face creams etc. Also I am on a low income do that's a constraint too. It is simply not something that is a priority to me at this time to do the research and (probably) spend a lot of money replacing things I barely use anyway. If I used a lot of these things I'd probably feel differently.

The bit that causes me issues in the Metro article, and the reason for this whole blog, is this quote:

Plant-based chef Lauren Lovatt told Metro.co.uk,

‘You wouldn’t be vegan if using a product that was tested on animals

– its an all around lifestyle.

That’s like saying you are vegan and eating eggs.’

The idea that veganism is all or nothing, that you're not a vegan if you're doing your best, that you're not a vegan if certain products aren't available or affordable where you live, that you're not a vegan if you're not living up to someone else's standards is highly detrimental. It's elitist, it's divisive, it's judgemental. For a movement that's already got a rep for being

‘preachy’ or ‘holier than thou’

taking such a stance is entirely counterproductive. Take the issue to the companies, to the policymakers, rather than blaming consumers who have very little choice. Products are not even clearly marked for conscientious decision-making so blaming people who are TRYING to live more ethically...well, it's just nuts!

I do like the Metro article for this particular line

"there’s a need within the community to be mindful

of discounting people who aren’t perfect"

I think the vegan who attacks other vegan, vegetarians, flexitarians etc does more harm to the cause than the activist shouting "MEAT IS MURDER!!" in the supermarket - because they're alienating people who are already willing to make changes.

Education and encouragement, not criticism and condemnation.

PLEASE stop with the in-fighting. 😔

Not-So-Essentials

I may be a 'flaky vegan' but I'm not exactly an eco-freako flower child or whatever but there are a few supposed 'essentials' I have been happily doing without for years.

Laundry Detergent and Fabric Conditioner

Fabric Conditioner was an easy one. I ran out at some point 15+ years ago and simply didn't buy more. All that changed was my laundry lost its artificial smell (which I didn't like anyway); I didn't find my clothes rough or scratchy or anything so what was the point of wasting money?!

The Laundry Detergent was a tougher issue. My eldest daughter has mild eczema and is also allergic to biological washing powders so we were stuck on the non-bio stuff. She's an adult now and she uses non-bio for her laundry by the way.

My dad got me these eco washballs years ago and when they finally died I switched to soap nuts. I have been using them for about three years now and have had zero problems. Although I used to do laundry for my job though which was so nasty it got presoaked with nappy bleach tablets and washed with detergents that I didn't use for my own things.

[Edit: since becoming a full-time carer this has gone out of the window. We're back on non-bio as my daughter still lives at home and Dettol Laundry Cleanser has become my most favourite thing ever. I have to do more hot washes too which sucks. But unfortunately my mother's health & comfort is more important to me right now. I have no intention of continuing their use when she's gone and we don't have the need for *ahem* extra hygiene. I'm using washable wipes for her]

Tampons

No, I am not menopausal but I quit traditional sanitary supplies a couple of years back. I've only put tampons here because I do use pads occasionally as a back up if I'm out on a day trip or whatever - same as I used to when I was using tampons. I keep meaning to get a few washable pads for those occasions ***literally pops over to ebay to fix that*** right...where was I?

Oh yes...tampons. I had been using tampons since my 1st period age 12 and as I have a very heavy flow it cost me a small fortune. I saw a lot of hype about moon cups (or whatever brand it was) but , being me, instead of spending £20-£40 I went to ebay and ordered a 99p equivalent from China.

I have never looked back! Each cup lasts me about a year and my body is so much happier for it. I've had the odd placement mishap but overall I wish I'd switched sooner.
This is why I am not a fan of people who complain about the so-called 'tampon tax'. Modern sanitary products are just that: modern. Disposable sanitary pads date back to 1888 but my mum and her sister used washables in the 1950s and 60s; modern tampons date to the 1930s and carry a risk of Toxic Shock Syndrome (TSS) which can be FATAL. Women menstruated for centuries without disposable products which have a negative impact on the environment. Menstruation is natural not medical and disposables are luxuries, not essentials...unless you have no access to washing facilities - which almost everyone does.

I'm sure there was a third one...
I don't drive or own a bike. I use VERY little make up (more of that in my next blog)...and what the hell even is a skin care routine??? There are probably LOADS of things the average almost 40 year old white British female* would consider essential which I just don't. Either because I'm not interested or have been doing quite well all these years I haven't been able to afford such things.
[*not that I consider these things especially important but ethnicity, culture and biological sex do have an impact on how we all live our lives]
I am far from being a minimalist, I own a LOT of junk; I do not approach every potential purchase with thoughts about whether I really NEED it. What I do think about however, is whether I WANT it or not. A lot of things we're marketed to think we need when we don't, brainwashed into thinking something is 'essential' or we're 'deprived' if we don't have it.
That's kind of how my mum feels about ironing...she thought I was a terrible parent because I didn't iron my kids' school shirts but modern fabrics don't crease like they used to. Washing machines and tumble dryers leave most clothing ready to be put on a hanger and worn so, to me, ironing is not an essential.
So the next time you're shopping you might just want to give a thought...did you add that item to the cart out of need or want, habit or marketing ploys? Live how YOU choose to do, not how you think you HAVE to.