Sensitivity Costs Nothing

I just saw a YouTube video and I had to have a rant. Not about the video itself, but you can find it here if you want the full context:

'Being Pregnant In Germany - 10 Things I Hate" by DontTrustTheRabbit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7yJgwyIMF0

I was mildly annoyed that one of her peeves was that people weren't expressing what she felt was the proper amount of interest in her pregnancy. It seemed like a rather unrealistic expectation, but then again I don't understand humans in the slightest. The only pregnancies I'd be that level of interested in will be my children's - should they choose to reproduce.

My own pregnancies weren't greeted with joyful congratulations, people actually offered me their sympathies because being a young mum is seen as such a terrible thing! I was scrolling through the comments to see if someone had left a similar message to the one I was contemplating when I saw something far worse.

A woman had written to the expectant mother not to take to heart perceived indifference from other people about her pregnancy; that they might be dealing with their own pain - she was speaking from her own experience of infertility - she can be happy for someone but doesn't want to discuss it further. And this complete BASTARD comes back at her, and I quote: "Don't defend the behaviour, most women are not sterile" and "Because they are so rare, they can be the one to point out whether or not it affects them".

AND I AM SO FUCKING ANGRY ABOUT IT!!!

Note: I am not in any way dismissing male infertility or the pain of thwarted parenthood of men or trans people - I am talking about a specific instance of a man being unnecessarily harsh to a woman, wrongly calling her infertility 'rare' and being incredibly insensitive to that kind of pain; and also my own experiences as a female of the species having had a taste of some of these issues. 

This man's response to a woman's sterility was not only incredibly insensitive but also extremely ignorant. Statistically, infertility affects about 10% of women aged up to 44. It is not especially rare.

But that's ONLY the medically identified cases. The statistics apply ONLY to women who're in relationships, trying for a baby and go to see a doctor about it when it doesn't happen. Women can be infertile outside of those parameters. 

Other scenarios include:

• Women who have suffered an illness, injury or having had a diagnosis (such as endometriosis or polycystic ovary syndrome) undergone a surgery or been put on medications they already KNOW will have impacted their fertility so never bother going for 'investigations'
• Couples who fear doctors / hospitals
• Women whose partners fear the problem is with them and refuse to contemplate diagnosis / treatment
• Couples do not believe in interventions, perhaps for religious reasons
• Couples who else-wise just accept their lot, particularly in terms of secondary infertility (if a woman has had prior pregnancies but isn't conceiving) 

...if they never seek medical help and therefore never get included in the statistics. 

Then there are a whole list of other heartaches a woman may be experiencing around the subject of pregnancy:

Women may be unhappily childless because they cannot find a partner or because their partner does not want children. It's not always a choice and not everyone will contemplate deliberate single parenthood.

Or maybe they are unhappy because they would have liked to have had more children than they do - through a partner's choice, financial circumstances, secondary infertility etc. Just because someone has a child or two doesn't mean they don't ache for other children they wanted but never had.

Maybe they had losses - miscarriages (one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage, loss is very common), then there are terminations for abnormality (or other medical reasons), as well as stillbirths, neonatal deaths and loss of older children. Maybe they had an elective abortion at some point...I am emphatically pro-choice but regrets happen.

There are women who are unable to adopt or foster; because their circumstances do not make it an option or because they were rejected. Recently I encountered someone on Twitter who basically said I shouldn't validate my having had kids when I was young from my subsequent infertility (more of that in a minute) because I could have adopted instead. Like adoption is easy, or indeed to everyone's taste. It was a very infuriating situation and I ended up blocking the person.

There are many 100% VALID reasons why someone else becoming a mother might be a reason for a woman to experience personal sadness; and that sadness can't always be masked. You should honour your emotions and you should never feel like you have to explain these highly personal circumstances to anyone: 'Point out whether or not it affects them'?! Yeah, most people don't want to say "yeah, I was pregnant once but I lost the baby and after failed IVF I accepted I can never have a baby" especially in response to someone who just told you they're expecting.

This gets to me. For one thing, I follow a YouTuber who suffered a stillbirth after infertility - opening my eyes to a world of hurt which I, like so many others, had tried hard not to think about. She's amazingly candid about her experience but that doesn't mean all loss moms are going to want to talk about it to anyone, at any time, in any situation.

A number of these things apply to me:

• I was coerced into an abortion when I was 16 which left me an emotional wreck; then I had an early miscarriage of my 2nd pregnancy just 5 months later.
• I had my eldest child at 17 - my partner walked out on me, I was homeless and I had a very difficult, unsupported pregnancy. It was emphatically NOT a happy experience. I got a lot of hateful comments and judgement about my situation; I even felt 'slut-shamed' by medical staff.
• I had my youngest child at 20 - the same partner had AGAIN walked out on me. I was in a somewhat better personal situation but I had emergency surgery at 15 weeks and I went through that, and later going in to hospital to deliver, alone. A better experience but still far from ideal. This was when people offered me their sympathies on my pregnancy rather then congratulations.
• The surgery I had when I was 15 weeks pregnant left my left ovary damaged. Nine years later I had a recurrence - leaving both ovaries damaged. I was told I could go into menopause straight away and even if I didn't I would be contraindicated for fertility treatments. Basically this is what I was talking about above; if I hadn't had kids when I did I would never have been a mother. Being a teen mum isn't ideal but sometimes that's the only chance life is going to give you so don't judge when people take it.
• I never intended to be a single mother - it was just how things turned out...and since my kids' father last walked out on us when I was expecting our youngest I have been alone. I have never had another chance to try for another child. 

For years I had hoped I would meet someone new and I might have the pregnancy and childbirth experience with a partner I feel I missed out on. My second surgery seemingly put paid to that but although I did not go into menopause I remained single; I am now nearly 40 and sadly I realise my time is up. I am not going to be on any (secondary) infertility statistic but it's still something I live with. 

Even more confusingly, I had never even wanted kids...my ex was the one who wanted a family and he used the abortion against me as a kind of emotional blackmail. But I gave up my freedom, my hopes and dreams to raise my kids...and I would have rather have raised a half dozen than two. I feel giving up all those years of my life, all the opportunities missed, would have been more worthwhile if I had been raising more than two children. One child takes 18 years to raise, two with a three year age gap takes 21. Six kids with an average 2 years between them takes 28 years but seems like much better 'value' if you see what I mean. Maybe it sounds silly but I feel my life has been wasted - I have no career, no partner, no material achievements (house, car, holidays, pension fund etc) so I wish I had at least achieved more in terms of child-rearing.

I just feel a lot of sadness that I missed out on the magical experience motherhood is supposed to be. Literally nothing about it played out how I would have wanted. I don't mean this to be a 'poor me' post, more to show how I personally relate with the issues I'm talking about here... I know I have had it easy in comparison with others - I had one miscarriage not a dozen; I never had to deliver a dead child; I never had to go through the gruelling regime of IVF treatments without success.

It's a cultural norm, in the UK at least, that you avoid certain topics with pregnant women - foetal abnormality, pregnancy loss etc - because of the fear it can cause. Is it really so ridiculous to hope it will become a cultural norm that pregnant women maybe avoid gushing about their experience to people (particularly those they don't know, or don't know well) so as to avoid potentially hurting them?

Mind you, some people will still gush even when they should realise that they're hurting someone else...

Right around time time of my miscarriage a co-worker announced her pregnancy to the entire staff. I have never quite forgiven her because she KNEW what I was going through. We weren't close friends, I hadn't been there long, but she could have given me a little heads up or else not done it in my presence. I spent about an hour crying in the loo cos it felt like such a slap in the face. 

My ex bestie wanted to share her pregnancy with her adoptive mother as a 'gift' but was seemingly oblivious to the fact that all it did was tear open her mum's grief at never bearing a child of her own.

Sensitivity costs nothing, and I am uncomfortably aware I have not always been as sensitive to others as I could have been. But what the hell is wrong with a man who effectively tells a woman that her pain is her own problem? He can only have wanted to contradict her or to hurt her when there was no need to say anything at all. For this complete ARSEHOLE to wrongly dismiss sterility as 'rare', to seemingly have no concept of similarly painful experiences such as pregnancy loss or secondary infertility, to say a woman should have to say if she is hurting rather than expect anyone to exercise a little common sense, tact and caution around topics that are extremely sensitive absolutely makes my blood boil.

Gun Ownership Restrictions and Common Sense VS the NRA

All quotes: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/obama-to-gun-owners-im-not-looking-to-disarm-you/#

"Why don't we treat this like every other thing that we use? I just came from a meeting today in the Situation Room in which I got people who we know have been on ISIL Web sites, living here in the United States, U. S. citizens, and we're allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit these people from buying a gun." - President Barrack Obama

There were a whole bunch of responses to this statement, particularly of the "To restrict someone based off what they read is a dangerous course. I don't care if it's a book, a website or a letter, it is punishment without due process. Restricting the rights of a person without due process is the opposite of what we claim to be about." (Observations99) variety. Now obviously Americans take their civil liberties very seriously but what is the alternative? The same argument that is applied here - visiting a terrorist organisation's website does not make you a terrorist was previously used as a defence against child pornography websites, that looking at these things did not make you a paedophile...which is now understood to be nonsense. Websites generate revenue from hits - by visiting a criminal website you may be supporting that crime financially. It has been established that there is no legitimate reason to look at child pornography 'for research'; similarly there is no legitimate reason to be visiting an ISIL website. Waiting for a paedophile to physically hurt a child is irresponsible, waiting for a terrorist sympathiser to mount an attack is waiting too long. If someone is pointing a gun at a woman and her child do you wait for them to pull the trigger or do you call for help / attempt to intervene / cause a distraction BEFORE they get shot? Preemptive measures will always be unpopular and someone will inevitably suffer for it BUT is the right of the individual greater than that of the masses? I don't think so. I would rather be wrongly subjected to restrictions than have my children slaughtered because those restrictions couldn't be applied to someone who really deserved it. The idea that a person's travel can be restricted on suspicion but their ability to buy weaponry can't...totes illogical.

"Safety laws are applied to all individuals equally - both law abiding and non-law abiding.

The example Obama uses is that everyone must get a driver's license and pass a test to prove they can safely drive a vehicle. Even if you are a known felon, child molester, tax avoider, etc you can still get a license. Then everyone must register their vehicle regardless of how they acquired it. Again.. doesn't matter what laws you have broken (or not broken) in the past. I will also mention that a car is considered a deadly weapon depending on how it is used.

The only time special scrutiny is applied is after you have committed a crime directly related to driving (drunken driving, reckless driving, etc). Then your license and ability to drive be revoked or curtailed." - Sean

This statement raises some interesting points: the ownership restrictions on cars doesn't affect the majority and we don't question the existence of those restrictions anymore (once upon a time driving licences hadn't been invented and literally anyone could get behind the wheel without censure). Virtually anyone can own a car, virtually anyone (in America) can own a gun - but is that really such a good idea? And cars have to be registered, taxed, insured; the driver licenced...why isn't this applied to guns? Why are people free to buy multiple weapons without checks? Why aren't they required to purchase insurance against the use of those guns - to cover you if a bullet ricochets and hits someone or damages their property, for example? Procedures that would have minimal impact on the responsible but be something of a deterrent to others. A car has a valid, practical use...hunting is the only valid, practical use of a gun and that doesn't apply to most American gun owners.

"How does registering a car decrease crimes that utilize cars? When there are drinking and driving accidents who calls for stricter licensing, more training and bans of certain types of cars? Who calls for cars to be governed so they cannot exceed the speed limit? Nobody. Who calls for mandatory breathalyzers to be installed in every car (analogous to a background check for every gun purchase), Nobody. Who calls for restrictions on the amount of alcohol you can buy? Nobody, they call for stricter penalties on the perpetrators. Yet you demand analogous restrictions on all guns and their owners not just on criminals. Why is it different for guns? Because you want to take our guns, you have no interest in banning cars." - George Mason

Okay, this is gonna be fun...

• How does registering a car decrease crimes that utilize cars? - It's harder to commit a crime with a car that can be easily traced back to the owner. It's a deterrent and it means the gov't know you have that car...shouldn't the gov't know about that home arsenal you're putting together?!
• When there are drinking and driving accidents who calls for stricter licensing, more training and bans of certain types of cars? - not sure how alcohol and the crime committed by drunk drivers is linked here, but the sale of alcohol is licensed and restricted.
• Who calls for cars to be governed so they cannot exceed the speed limit? - plenty of people actually. The ability of cars to travel at well over the legal limit is contentious. The popular UK car Vauxhall Corsa has a top speed of 113 MPH; 43 MPH over the top speed limit in the country. Totally unnecessary to enable people to break the law.
• Who calls for mandatory breathalyzers to be installed in every car? - actually again plenty of people would like this to be a thing. Just imagine how many lives would be saved each year!
• Who calls for restrictions on the amount of alcohol you can buy? - again, this is actually a thing. It'd do a lot for public health too. And coming from the nation that came up with prohibition that's just funny.
• You demand analogous restrictions on all guns and their owners not just on criminals. Why is it different for guns? - because a car is a transport vehicle, because alcohol is an intoxicating substance but a gun is a WEAPON PURELY FOR KILLING. WHY ARE YOU TOO FUCKING DUMB TO SEE THAT???

Also, why are you so hung up on linking alcohol and driving? Car drivers can't use mobile phones, eat or drink while driving. Driving while on drugs, driving while tired...there are many factors in non-deliberate road deaths and I don't know about America but in the UK there are all sorts of rules and regulations aimed at preventing these things. A person receives points on their licence for infractions and at a certain point will lose their licence. A person who receives certain medical diagnoses can lose their licence as unfit to drive...why doesn't this apply to gun ownership? Infractions like improper storage and wrongfully discharging a firearm would incur penalty points; visiting terrorist websites and diagnoses such as psychotic illness would involve a revoking of a licence. No one can just go buy a car, they have to have a valid driver's licence...allowing any idiot to go buy a gun is all kinds of nuts. Only a true dumbfuck would put an individual's 'right' to own an offensive weapon over the rights of innocent people to not get slaughtered.

WET FLOOR

To me, this is a simple no-brainer of a very short blog but it has come to my attention that some people are amazingly rare in the common sense department and there is actually a need for this so, here goes:

WHAT TO DO WHEN A FLOOR IS WET / YOU SEE A WET FLOOR SIGN

1) *THINK* Do I need to walk this way?
If not - don't.
If yes, move on to point 2)

2) *THINK* Do I have everything I need?
Seriously, this drives me nuts. Someone walks across my nice clean floor, remembers something, walks back, then across again AND SOMETIMES REPEATS!

3) *LOOK* 
There really is no point walking across the wettest bit of the floor, through any swept up dirt or into the sodding mop bucket!

4) WALK CAREFULLY You have seen the floor is wet / the wet floor sign, whatever happens next is your responsibility, okay?!
FFS, what is wrong with people??? I have seen people RUN, HOP, SKIP AND JUMP - this does NOT reduce your leaving footprints on the floor and gives the cleaner palpitations. DON'T!!!

Then there are my personal rules:

5) DON'T ASK the cleaner if it's okay to walk on the floor. The cleaner is not in much of a position to say "The hell no, you keep off my floor! You wanna get to the other side you gotta FLY!" however much they may want to. Realistically all they can do is warn you to be careful in the hope that you don't sue if you slip.

6) DON'T APOLOGISE for walking. It gets really wearing after a while. The snarkier cleaner may not be able to bite back a "So you bloody well should be". Also, floors are to be walked on and if you didn't walk on the floor we would be out of our jobs cleaning them!

Instead, try saying 'hello' or something. Cleaners get ignored a lot, which is fine but acknowledging us is kinda nice too.

DO however apologise if you're making a mess on my nice clean floor. Not that this is a major thing. It happens. I remember one day, cleaning my castle before it opened to the public, and I'd just got the cafe area buffed up a treat...when a bunch of guys wheeled a scaffolding rig in. They apologised. I rolled my eyes, said "no problem" and walked away. There really is nothing else you can do. A cleaner who loses the plot is in the wrong job!

I hope this helps.