"[The introduction of Barbie dolls with wheelchairs / prosthetic legs] adheres to safe disability stereotypes, and reinforces the perception that disability means a visible mobility impairment."
Stumbled across this (https://themighty.com/2019/03/new-disabled-barbies-representation/) opinion piece by Erin Pritchard while reading a BBC story about a new Rosa Parks Barbie. And I'm just...gobsmacked to be frank.
Representation matters, visibility matters but precisely how specific do you expect a MASS PRODUCED TOY to be???? People come in an infinite variety - unless you have dolls custom made they're really not likely to look like anyone in particular. Does anyone really think it's feasible to make dolls in seven billion variations?! We're supposed to be cutting down on plastics for heaven's sake!
Barbie's are DOLLS, they are very much of the Caucasian persuasion with a lot of parents rightfully indignant that ethnic variants are hard to come by.
They do not have realistic body proportions, have been criticised for glamorising anorexia and certainly do not represent the obesity problems especially prevalent in the western world.
Dolls are for creative play...why are modern-era kids so incapable of making stuff up?! Or is just that adults can't imagine being creative? There's a comment following the article "Autistic Barbie doll with stim toys and noise cancelling headphones in case of sensory overload." ...in my youth a pipe-cleaner would be fashioned into headphones & other accessories improvised to achieve this. A bit of blu-tack for a hearing aid (Hearing Impaired Barbie), a lollipop stick or a roll of paper for a cane (Visual Impairment Barbie), we used to PRETEND. WHY do you need a special doll for that? Erin Pritchard (who has dwarfism) asks "What about a cousin for Barbie who has a more contested disability, such as dwarfism or vitiligo etc." So I ask, which of the myriad different forms of dwarfism do you feel they should represent? YOURS, I suppose... Also, do you want representational dolls for those who undergo limb-lengthening surgeries?! Vitiligo can be represented with a custom paint job if you're up for a bit of craft work. Improvising a wheelchair might be rather harder to achieve, not to mention the multitude of different disabilities that might require a person to use one. And whilst you can remove a doll's limb, creating a prosthetic could be tricky. Then there's the fact that many people have combined disabilities - a person with dwarfism AND vitiligo for example? You simply can't give everyone representation and as I've already stated, with a bit of imagination (optional glue, paint, scissors and sticky-back plastic) dolls can often be adequately customised anyway.
The author cites this WHO South-East Asia factsheet (http://www.searo.who.int/entity/ disabilities_injury_rehabilitation/wheelchair_factsheet.pdf) to show that (a) 10% of the world population have disabilities only 10% (i.e. 1% of the whole) require a wheelchair for mobility. However, many disabilities have no physical characteristics - in terms of Barbie, a person with a cognitive or intellectual impairment, developmental disorder or mental disability may look like any other Barbie. Even many conditions under the heading of physical disability might have no outward sign - chronic fatigue, epilepsy or fibromyalgia for example. I'd be interested to know what proportion of people with a visible disability use a wheelchair, because in terms of Barbies it's all about looks!
I'd also like to point out that one way or another most of us will be in a wheelchair at some point, even if temporarily - sprained ankles, broken bones, an expectant mother being wheeled down to delivery...a lot of older people, such as my stroke-survivor mum, might be wheelchair dependent without being 'registered' anywhere as being disabled and therefore not included in any statistics.
But most importantly, The Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ 2019/feb/25/disability-barbie-dolls-emojis) that the opinion piece is responding to - which is itself an opinion piece by Karl Knights (a writer with autism, ADHD & Cerebral Palsy) - states clearly that "Mattel commented that a wheelchair has been among the most frequently requested accessories for the doll." There is, quite clearly, a demand for this type of doll. I'm certainly not seeing anything in his piece to back up Ms Pritchard's assertion that Mattel are "reinforcing the problematic stereotype that all disabled people use a mobility aid, in particular a wheelchair" - she's reading an opinion piece by a man with a disability who is happy at a form of non-patronizing representation and interpreting into HIS words that Mattel are representing ALL disabled people? That's not even what Mr Knights is saying in that article! The closest thing I can see is "If I had even something as simple as an emoji representing myself as a kid, I wouldn’t have felt so isolated." - clearly using 'I', clearly not mentioning wheelchairs, just referencing the idea that acknowledging that disabled people exist is important with no caveat that it has to be the same kind or form of disability.
"If companies still choose to use a more “acceptable” impairment to indicate that they are inclusive and diverse, can they please not claim they are representing us all?" (1) who is to decide what is an "acceptable impairment"? The wheelchair is an internationally recognised symbol of disability - yes, it is enormously problematic and there are campaigns for awareness that non-wheelchair users can use disabled loos & parking spaces - but at the same time it is an inclusive and diverse symbol because it is used by people with such a wide variety of needs (2) they never did make that claim - it is your misinterpretation.
I for one am glad to see Mattel doing ANYTHING to improve diversity - more natural body shapes, more ethnic variety, any level of disability representation - these things are GOOD. For people who've read my blogs before you might be surprised at me, an agender potato, defending Barbie. Admittedly I LOATHE the pink but Barbie has long been a remarkable 'role-model' for girls with some impressive careers represented. For example she was first depicted as an astronaut in 1965, only 2 years after Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman in space - the US didn't have a female astronaut until 1983. She was also the first female POTUS in 2000 (tbh a lump of plastic is still a better candidate than Trump). She has been a business executive (in 1960, not a secretary until 2007), two forms of Olympian (1975), a pilot (1990), an army medic (1993), a paratrooper (2000), a surgeon (1973)...and a sign language teacher in 2001. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie%27s_careers). Barbie may be unashamedly feminine but it's a gender stereotype in itself to suppose that that is somehow innately negative.
Tuesday, 27 August 2019
Thursday, 15 August 2019
Still discovering my labels...
So my (adult) kids were trying to guess my sexuality... UGH! I only figured out I was agender a few years back (updated blog here: https://heggie31.blogspot.com/2018/01/agender-ex-cinderella-and-name-change.html) and given the plethora of sexualities available these days I so very much didn't want to go there. I have been happier to assume I'm straight than that I was cis so whatever.
But anyway, the topic came up last night and there are my twenty-somethings looking at me speculatively trying to figure out what I am when I have no damn clue myself.
So here I am, forty-one-and-a-bit, trying to work out where I fit using nothing but Google and Instagram hashtags to find something that seems to be 'me'.
And I *may* be wrong but I *think* I found it - Heteroromantic Demisexual.
I can't spell it, I'll certainly never remember it. Kill me.
So the official-ish definitions go like this:
A heteroromantic person is a person who is romantically attracted to a member of the opposite sex or gender. Heteroromantic asexuals seek romantic relationships for a variety of reasons, including companionship, affection, and intimacy, but they are not necessarily sexually attracted to their romantic partners. Most heterosexual people are also heteroromantic. (source: http://wiki.asexuality.org/Heteroromantic)
A demisexual person is someone who does not experience sexual attraction to another person unless or until they have formed an emotional connection with that person. It's more commonly seen in, but by no means confined, to romantic relationships.
When describing demisexuality as an orientation to sexuals, it is often mistaken as an admirable choice rather than an innate orientation. Demisexuals are not choosing to abstain; they simply lack sexual attraction until a close, emotional, relationship is formed.
Though factors such as looks and personality do not affect primary sexual attraction for demisexuals (since demisexuals do not experience primary sexual attraction), such factors may affect romantic attraction, as with any other orientation.
(source: http://wiki.asexuality.org/Demisexual)
RIGHT. So the way I'm interpreting this (and feel free to sort me out if I'm wrong)...
Heteroromantic (nearly forgot that 2nd RO again, dammit) - I'm agender but I'm still happy to identify with she/her pronouns as a biological female so the 'hetero' element doesn't feel problematic. When I look at a cute guy I may have soft squishy feels, not X-rated ones. Decidedly more "I hope they're a nice human, I'd kinda like a candlelit dinner with that one" than "Yes, I would totally boink that". In fact, I only just discovered 'normal' people look at people of their preferred gender (if applicable) and skip the 'I'd like to get to know you' for the '...biblically' bit. Weird.
I look at cute females and have rather different soft and squishy feels - decidedly more "Why can't I be like that instead of an agender potato?!" again, rather than "I would totally go there".
Not ruling out one-night-stands (or getting off with a female of the species) but these things don't seem at all likely. Not saying I'd have to be IN a relationship with someone either, more that I'd have to WANT to be in a relationship with them to contemplate the other. Does that make sense at all?
And that's where the Demisexual bit comes in - I don't get the primary sexual attraction thing like AT ALL. I haven't been single all these years by choice, obviously a huge element is because I'm a hideous potato person who no one looks at that way, but also I am not interested in seeking a meaningless encounter for the sake of getting my jollies.
Sure, sex is great but have you tried having self-esteem in the morning?!
Unlike some definitions of demisexual I have (I assume) a perfectly healthy sex drive (TMI? Definitely. Soz.) it's just not so...overwhelming? that I want to do the you-know-what without getting to know someone at least a little bit.
Looks and personality of course I have my preferences but even finding someone who ticks a lot of boxes by the time you KNOW they tick those boxes you've developed an attachment, y'know? Or at least that's how I work.
EXAMPLE) My most recent humungous crush of which many of you will be painfully aware went like this:
- *sees for 1st time* Who is he? Who is he? Who is he?
- Band member? Check. *looks up name of band* Singer? Obviously. Guitar? Bonus!
- *looks up photos* Damn he's cute in close-up... Hazel-green eyes? Why am I not surprised.
- *reads interviews / watches youtube clips* Smart? Check. Funny? Check. How tall is he? 6' 2", excellent! Pronounces 'scones' correctly? Meh, no one's perfect.
And it was about THEN what's left of my hormones kicked in. I'll happily call it 'love at first sight' but I wouldn't call the attraction 'sexual' per se.
To close, I really like this joke:
Obviously the crux of the joke is that their 'sexuality' is basically just straight (with a preference for smart people they're already bonded with) and I can see why people would be offended by the 'queer' label being applied. As I said at the start, I've spent the best part of four decades presuming I'm just hetero, it's only learning that 'primary sexual attraction' is a thing that has made me realise any differently. I certainly don't see myself as 'queer', not least as that term seems derogatory to me although I know a lot of people embrace it.
Also, 'sapiosexual' is a virtually 'joke' sexuality identifier that is an attraction to brains, quite aside from any zombie tendencies. But it's also kinda true: intelligence is attractive. A dumbass'd have to be hella attractive in other regards...passion for a pet interest can be sexy, for example. Depends on the pet interest though... Dude could be REALLY hot, but then he says or does something incredibly stupid and it's like a bucket of ice on the libido.
Do you ever look at a dumbass and wonder how the hell they came to have a partner / spouse / significant other?! Especially when said partner / spouse / significant other is of normal or higher intelligence.
EG I have no idea what X sees in Y, what he lacks in smarts he makes up for in nose hairs.
So yeah, I am a biological female interested in males romantically with a view to more. Basically straight but experiencing it slightly differently, so it would seem.
Wednesday, 24 July 2019
Book Review: Old Fourlegs by J L B Smith,1956
First a little background: Considered to have been extinct for 65 million years (due to absence of fossilised remains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4A1Sw3kSOY) the surprise recovery of a coelacanth carcass from a fishing trawler in 1938 is the stuff of fairytales - like stumbling across a living dinosaur. The key figures in the story are:
- Hendrik Goosen, captain of the trawler which caught the first specimen in in 1938 - he reported it to have been alive for some time after it was caught and, on returning to port, called Miss Courtenay-Latimer to take any sample she liked from his catch. b.c 1905 d. 1990
- Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer, curator of the East London (SA) Museum, who saved the original fish for science in 1938. Extant coelacanths Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis (discovered 1997) are named after her and give rise to the suborder Latimerioidei and family Latimeriidae which include fossil species. 1907-2004
- Professor JLB Smith (James Leonard Brierley), who identified and named the first fish (Latimeria chalumnae - after Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer and the River Chalumna to indicate the location of the discovery) and who devoted himself to finding a further specimen. Before concentrating on ichthyology he had been an associate professor of organic chemistry. I mostly call him JLB within the text in order to avoid any potential confusion with his wife. 1897-1968, suicide by cyanide.
- Eric Hunt, who found the 2nd coelacanth specimen in the Comoros in 1952 (initially named Malania anjouanae by JLB - for the Prime Minister of South Africa who had assisted it's recovery and the island of Anjouan in the Comoros, again the location of the discovery) believing it to be a distinct species due to missing fins - still often referred to as Malania to distinguish it from the first fish; JLB had proposed the name Latimeria Hunti in Eric's honour but he refused) b.c. 1924 lost at sea 1956
- Margaret Smith (nee Mary Margaret Macdonald), second wife of JLB (very little seems known of his first wife and it is Margaret who figures in the coelacanth story; they were married the same year Latimeria was caught), and after his death was the director of JLB Smith Institute of Ichthyology for 14 years. She was an author, ichthyologist and taught physics and chemistry. 1916-1987, apparently shortly after viewing the first footage of a live coelacanth filmed.
Of these key figures only JLB published an account of the discovery - Old Fourlegs (1956) - which covers the first and second specimens recovered. Actually, given that it was arguably the biggest zoological discovery of the 20th century, surprisingly little has been written about coelacanths - in comparison to say the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb which has been extensively covered in fact and fiction. I first read about the coelacanth in The Children's Book of Questions and Answers (1981 - ISBN-10: 0706406206 / ISBN-13: 978-0706406207) and then nothing else until Samantha Weinberg's glorious A Fish Caught In Time (1999 - ISBN-10: 1857029070 / ISBN-13: 978-1857029070) which I can't recommend highly enough.
Naturally enough, having been fascinated by the story from childhood, I wished to read JLB's version of events and so I bought myself a first edition via ebay.
* * * * *
In 1992 'A. Wheeler' reviewed "Remembering the coelacanth: a 50th anniversary retrospective. Interviews with Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer and Hendrik Goosen..." - an article appearing in The International Society of Cryptozoology Newsletter (Vol. 8, no. 1 - 1989).
This review includes the statement that "[the accounts] should be taken as a supplement to J.L.B. Smith's account in Old four-legs...(1956), a work as notable for the aggrandisement of its author as for its factual content"
'The aggrandisement of its author'...not what I took away from reading it. JLB's narrative might put him centre-stage of the story...but he WAS. Yes, he rather skims past the other key characters, including his wife who gets very little look in. Is this self-aggrandisement, misogyny, or simply writing HIS story? JLB writes exclusively from his own experience leaving aside speculation as to what the other people were doing / thinking / feeling but perhaps it would not be his place to speak for others.
While JLB almost exclusively refers to Margaret Smith, a highly accomplished woman, as 'my wife' and speaks little of her involvement I do not feel that this is particularly because he felt that, as a man, his involvement was more important, more that this is HIS story and hers was hers to write should she wish to. Perhaps that is merely my interpretation but this line makes me think he had proper respect for his wife's work:
While JLB almost exclusively refers to Margaret Smith, a highly accomplished woman, as 'my wife' and speaks little of her involvement I do not feel that this is particularly because he felt that, as a man, his involvement was more important, more that this is HIS story and hers was hers to write should she wish to. Perhaps that is merely my interpretation but this line makes me think he had proper respect for his wife's work:
"This elicited a widespread response from scientists all over the world,
and as a result my wife was able to publish a composite account
giving detailed instruction for the care and preservation of a coelacanth,
so as to enable the maximum to be obtained from investigations" pp. 188-9
Such a work - a manual in layman's terms, for preparing samples for all kinds of specialists to examine - must have been quite an undertaking even with numerous specialists providing their requirements. It also shows that, far from being JLB's mere helpmeet, Margaret was exceedingly capable and well versed in coelacanths long before taking over her husband's work.
Even clearer, although not specifically in relation to Margaret Smith's scientific work, is this line from Appendix E:
"I have great respect for my wife's judgement,
even when she slashes at my work I think good." p. 250
I found Old Fourlegs written in an easy style, accessible to those outside the field of ichthyology. I appreciate his keeping scientific matters to the basics - avoiding unnecessary detail and description while explaining clearly and concisely what the reader needs to know. The only difficulty I had was, at times, following the timeline.
JLB is perhaps disdainful of the wider scientific community who passed judgement on 'his' coelacanth - calling the coelacanth 'degenerate' when, like sharks, it has remained unchanged by evolution for millennia precisely because it is perfectly adapted; claiming the coelacanth had escaped the (then) inaccessible depths of the ocean...despite having no deep sea adaptations - basically European and American scientists treated him with disdain so he returned the favour. There is certainly an air of possessiveness although he makes it clear that he wants the knowledge for humanity rather than his own sake. A certain possessive attitude is not unreasonable; when a second species of coelacanth, Latimeria menadoensis, was discovered by Mark Erdmann in 1997 it was described to science and named by Laurent Pouyaud before Erdmann could complete his work - effectively stealing the discovery (and even submitting a faked photo to try to claim his team found the fish first). Such a theft, especially of such a rare and interesting creature, is devastating to a scientist; of course JLB wanted to save his contribution!
The most self-importance is indicated in this passage comparing the political careers of Smuts (PM 1939-48; a scientific man one might reasonably presume would have supported Smith's endeavours...but refused to even speak with him) and Malan (PM 1948-54; deeply religious and seemed a very unlikely potential source of help to Smith...but help he did):
The most self-importance is indicated in this passage comparing the political careers of Smuts (PM 1939-48; a scientific man one might reasonably presume would have supported Smith's endeavours...but refused to even speak with him) and Malan (PM 1948-54; deeply religious and seemed a very unlikely potential source of help to Smith...but help he did):
"It was even more fantastic that each of these two men had...
been himself treated by his own people almost exactly as he had treated me
- one spurned, the other supported.
One could not escape the conclusion that this indicated that the manner
in which each man had behaved in my case was symbolical
of the way he had treated his own people...every man reaps what he sows"
pp. 191-2
It would be quite a reach to say Smith felt Smuts lost his election for rejecting his pleas for help, or that the coelacanth aided Malan's career (although he was highly and rightly praised for his assistance in saving the 2nd specimen). This is a passage about karma as JLB saw it indicated through his specific interactions with two South African Prime Ministers; kindness rewarded and indifference punished...
It is important to specify that this is in regard to JLB Smith's particular interactions because Malan was the leader who brought in apartheid and it would be a leap too far to say that Smith in anyway condoned Malan's policies. Smith was deeply reluctant to approach Malan at all - partly due to the poor experience he'd had of Smuts, partly knowing Malan was a creationist, but possibly also if he disapproved of Malan's political stance. (More on the subject of race to follow)
Few, if any, people are all-good or all-wicked. That Malan did South Africa, black people and the world a great disservice with apartheid is undeniable but that does not mean he cannot have done a little good in other ways. Smith can acknowledge Malan's service to coelacanth knowledge without it meaning anything else. The praise is qualified and, at the time of writing, it was for a man still living and not without influence. To have understated or omitted Malan's involvement could have been disastrous.
It is a point many people struggle to understand that even in the current era not all people in all places are free to be as outspoken about politics as many of us take for granted. Regardless of the era JLB Smith's living came from government support. His research funds, his university professorship could have been withdrawn if he spoke out of turn; similarly his books could have been blocked from sale and his entire means of supporting his family lost. Some would find the moral stance worth the price, others would find the risk too great. Even so it is likely 1950s South Africa was not a politically outspoken time or place - indeed I feel UK politicians are criticised more openly now than they were in my youth. There are still places it would be extremely unwise to speak out openly and many of us fail to appreciate the freedom we have to speak our minds without fear of persecution.
It is important to specify that this is in regard to JLB Smith's particular interactions because Malan was the leader who brought in apartheid and it would be a leap too far to say that Smith in anyway condoned Malan's policies. Smith was deeply reluctant to approach Malan at all - partly due to the poor experience he'd had of Smuts, partly knowing Malan was a creationist, but possibly also if he disapproved of Malan's political stance. (More on the subject of race to follow)
Few, if any, people are all-good or all-wicked. That Malan did South Africa, black people and the world a great disservice with apartheid is undeniable but that does not mean he cannot have done a little good in other ways. Smith can acknowledge Malan's service to coelacanth knowledge without it meaning anything else. The praise is qualified and, at the time of writing, it was for a man still living and not without influence. To have understated or omitted Malan's involvement could have been disastrous.
It is a point many people struggle to understand that even in the current era not all people in all places are free to be as outspoken about politics as many of us take for granted. Regardless of the era JLB Smith's living came from government support. His research funds, his university professorship could have been withdrawn if he spoke out of turn; similarly his books could have been blocked from sale and his entire means of supporting his family lost. Some would find the moral stance worth the price, others would find the risk too great. Even so it is likely 1950s South Africa was not a politically outspoken time or place - indeed I feel UK politicians are criticised more openly now than they were in my youth. There are still places it would be extremely unwise to speak out openly and many of us fail to appreciate the freedom we have to speak our minds without fear of persecution.
There are some factual errors, indeed there is an annotated version by Mike Bruton (2017 - ISBN: 9781775844990) which addresses these. Incidentally, Bruton has also written a children's book on coelacanths and a biography of JLB and Margaret Smith called The Fishy Smiths (2018. ISBN: 978-1775846468).
The index of Old Fourlegs lists Hendrick Goosen as 'Goosen, Captain N.' which may be a simple typo, but on p. 148 calls the trawler the 'Aristea' when all other sources call it the 'Nerine'. I'd be inclined to generally believe Smith over other sources as his account is contemporaneous...although memory is clearly fallible too. Presumably Bruton, Weinberg and other authors have had access into family records, shipping archives and other sources not generally available for those looking into the story...
Descriptions the sheer brutality of fishing trawlers and of bombing for fish - including upon coral reefs - are deeply unsettling from a 21st century vegan's perspective! The concepts of animal cruelty and ecological harm were yet a long way off in the future - and there are still abhorrent practices out there.
"When the net is hauled up from the bottom...
the gas in the air-bladders of the fishes expands...
Often they are so much enlarged
as to stick out of the mouths of the fishes..." p. 92
"Then we went bombing [for fish] out among the coral heads
on the seaward side" p. 137
"It had long been my ambition to catch a coelacanth alive
so that the ordinary man could see it in an aquarium,
and be given the opportunity to look back to the kind of creature
that lived hundreds of millions of years ago" p. 194
This last point - one of mankind's slowest realisations - that animals are best kept and protected in their natural environments, is one we are still working on now. Indeed a rejection of zoos and aquariums is still in its infancy. It is a curious thing how the original trilogy of Jurassic Park movies (1993, 1997, 2001) had a message that 'life will find a way' and that human control is an illusion and yet when Jurassic World (2015) begins the initial response I felt to seeing the park finally open was awe...quickly replaced with disgust as I realised the horrors of captivity - especially in terms of the baby dinos in the petting zoo, some with saddles for kids to ride on. A very clever use of an animal rights message in mainstream cinema.
I cannot blame JLB for imagining a captive coelacanth as, for his time, that would have been seen as the ultimate achievement. In some small way I even appreciate that his interest was not limited to killing animals for dissection.
But most hard to stomach is the casual racism.
I cannot blame JLB for imagining a captive coelacanth as, for his time, that would have been seen as the ultimate achievement. In some small way I even appreciate that his interest was not limited to killing animals for dissection.
But most hard to stomach is the casual racism.
"It later became apparent that this surprisingly intelligent behaviour
on the part of the native was due to his being of a higher class,
a trained teacher" footnote, p. 157
"And now it appeared that malaria-soaked, worm-ridden,
bone-headed blacks of the Comores had been doing exactly that
for centuries past..." p. 162
It is important to remember that the author was a white South African, then aged 59, writing over half a century ago, during Apartheid (indeed, only a few years into that era: 1948 to the repeal of legislation in 1991). It would be oversimplifying the matter to call him racist - he was the product of his era and his nation.
Context is important and while I can empathise with people of colour who, quite rightly, find such books deeply offensive I do not agree with those who wish to ban or eradicate such things. Whether the fight is for racial equality, women's rights, gay rights or any other form of social justice removing the record of past injustices serves no good. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it - we need to look at the wrongs of the past in the cold light of day.
It is difficult to discern what JLB's own feelings on the matter were, not least as they cannot be separated from the society in which he was immersed, but this passage gives me cause to ponder:
It would seem that JLB felt whites were a superior race (probably as a learned belief) but there is a suggestion here that he believed this was transitory - that the 'backward ebony mind' was awakening, that colonialism was at an end and that whites were behaving badly. It is my interpretation that 'where will it all end?' is a premonition of conflict - the violence that was needed to end Apartheid - not distaste at the idea of black people gaining equal rights. It might even be that he feared there would NOT be equality in the future, that the 'condescending white superiority' might actually win the day. Presuming what he meant here is a risky undertaking; it would be even more foolish to presume his personal beliefs from his writing - it is perfectly possible to hide your true feelings in phrases couched to fit the sensibilities of the reader.
There is an awareness that rebellion is both inevitable and justified. I do not think he had a hatred or fear of black people, he was dismissive and condescending and used some appalling language but would he have been able to adapt to a modern inclusive society? I think so, rather more than many of his contemporaries, I suspect.
Another passage discusses being in Nairobi circa 1954 (during the Mau Mau uprising) where he talked to those who were 'informed' (presumably rather than relying on Eurocentric news) and walked "many miles through the streets, noticeably the only European to do so outside the central shopping area" and speculates what would happen if the same rebellion happened in his own nation:
The way I read this is that, especially in the repetition of 'one way or the other', he has no special confidence in the whites being victorious. It would have been easy enough to say that 'even if this happened in South Africa it would not drag on, we would end it quickly' and the fact that he doesn't is, in my opinion, very telling.
Again, perhaps this is only my interpretation, but I read here 'bestiality' as a judgement upon brutal actions rather than a term of racial denigration; also, a statement of admiration for their intelligence rather than condemnation for the theft of potatoes. While other Europeans of the era may have seen ethnic groups like the Kikuyu as little other than violent and primitive there is definitely the suggestion that JLB thought there was much to be learned from non-white peoples and cultures, and that their different expertise and skills could be valuable. I acknowledge that this speculation is my own; I would rather hope that (other evidence being absent) people of the past were doing the best they could in the cultures and society of their day and should, in general, not be judged too harshly by modern day idealists.
Was it truthful that they would 'accept no reward'? I hope it was offered and these really were generous young graduates who wished only to help.
A modern writer might not think to include the volunteers' race but perhaps it seemed relevant to JLB that much needed assistance came from that community, not his own. It may have seemed quite poignant that it was not his own Rhodes University ichthyology students or graduates who offered their services.
As this passage relates to processing samples of fish that had been all but forgotten in the chaos around Malania it might easily have been omitted - I think it says something (slightly) redeeming for JLB that it is included.
If we only read books that were in keeping with modern sensibilities, I do wonder what we'd be left with. Sadly racism, sexism, cultural elitism, religious intolerance etc etc are part of human history. erasure of things which we find distasteful serves us ill. Toxic masculinity is another key term of the current era; could it be argued Old Fourlegs provided examples of this? Perhaps...
JLB himself seems unfazed by having wept as part of a live radio broadcast (described on p. 166) but that his friends teased him and his own child (then aged 13 1/2) disapproved...although what teenager is not embarrassed by anything their parent does?!
A letter in response to this radio broadcast, signed 'from one of the many' said:
So it seems that, just like today, a man's tears are only disdained by a certain audience.
I add this just as a comment on the push against politically incorrect literature. If we censored material from our current perspective we would lose so much context of the past. So many prevalent attitudes of the past are incredibly harmful things but acknowledging their existence is necessary to combat them gaining support again.
Conclusion
I am glad to have read the only first-hand account of a story which has enthralled me from childhood and overall I enjoyed Smith's book.
I would still recommend that anyone interested in the story should read Samantha Weinberg's 'A Fish Caught In Time'...in all honesty I think it's a book you should read in order to become interested in fish! I suspect if you were new to the subject Smith's book is a little less gripping but still certainly very readable.
It is my feeling that the controversial content is an important aspect of 20th century social history and it would be unwise to despise the book on that account alone. However, I certainly acknowledge that it is uncomfortable reading in that regard.
It is difficult to discern what JLB's own feelings on the matter were, not least as they cannot be separated from the society in which he was immersed, but this passage gives me cause to ponder:
"...when the peoples for whom they labour
clearly do not appreciate this or desire their presence.
They are the last of this passing phase of 'Colonial' administration,
the condescending gesture of White superiority
that is arousing increasing resentment in the awakening consciousness of existence that is is stirring in the backward ebony mind.
Where will it all end?" p. 186
It would seem that JLB felt whites were a superior race (probably as a learned belief) but there is a suggestion here that he believed this was transitory - that the 'backward ebony mind' was awakening, that colonialism was at an end and that whites were behaving badly. It is my interpretation that 'where will it all end?' is a premonition of conflict - the violence that was needed to end Apartheid - not distaste at the idea of black people gaining equal rights. It might even be that he feared there would NOT be equality in the future, that the 'condescending white superiority' might actually win the day. Presuming what he meant here is a risky undertaking; it would be even more foolish to presume his personal beliefs from his writing - it is perfectly possible to hide your true feelings in phrases couched to fit the sensibilities of the reader.
There is an awareness that rebellion is both inevitable and justified. I do not think he had a hatred or fear of black people, he was dismissive and condescending and used some appalling language but would he have been able to adapt to a modern inclusive society? I think so, rather more than many of his contemporaries, I suspect.
Another passage discusses being in Nairobi circa 1954 (during the Mau Mau uprising) where he talked to those who were 'informed' (presumably rather than relying on Eurocentric news) and walked "many miles through the streets, noticeably the only European to do so outside the central shopping area" and speculates what would happen if the same rebellion happened in his own nation:
"I reflected somewhat grimly that even if this happened in South Africa,
we should not be prepared to endure its dragging on like this.
It would come to a quick end, one way or the other; yes, one way or the other" p. 225
The way I read this is that, especially in the repetition of 'one way or the other', he has no special confidence in the whites being victorious. It would have been easy enough to say that 'even if this happened in South Africa it would not drag on, we would end it quickly' and the fact that he doesn't is, in my opinion, very telling.
"The bestiality of the Kikuyu in their slashing murders is world news,
but I learnt many other things about them. One is typical.
At night they will go into a field of mature potatoes, and
working through the soil with cunning fingers
will remove most of the tubers without killing the plants
or leaving any trace" [ibid]
Again, perhaps this is only my interpretation, but I read here 'bestiality' as a judgement upon brutal actions rather than a term of racial denigration; also, a statement of admiration for their intelligence rather than condemnation for the theft of potatoes. While other Europeans of the era may have seen ethnic groups like the Kikuyu as little other than violent and primitive there is definitely the suggestion that JLB thought there was much to be learned from non-white peoples and cultures, and that their different expertise and skills could be valuable. I acknowledge that this speculation is my own; I would rather hope that (other evidence being absent) people of the past were doing the best they could in the cultures and society of their day and should, in general, not be judged too harshly by modern day idealists.
"A bright spot in that difficult time was the arrival of three young coloured men
at the laboratory [F. Backman, B.Sc., L. Backman, B.Sc, and N. Dennis, B.Sc.]
...graduates of Fort Hare, the non-European university College,
they had heard we needed assistance, they had taken Zoology
and could they help in any way?
...They laboured for many days and would accept no reward.
We remain grateful for their kind thoughtfulness and service" pp. 183-4
Was it truthful that they would 'accept no reward'? I hope it was offered and these really were generous young graduates who wished only to help.
A modern writer might not think to include the volunteers' race but perhaps it seemed relevant to JLB that much needed assistance came from that community, not his own. It may have seemed quite poignant that it was not his own Rhodes University ichthyology students or graduates who offered their services.
As this passage relates to processing samples of fish that had been all but forgotten in the chaos around Malania it might easily have been omitted - I think it says something (slightly) redeeming for JLB that it is included.
If we only read books that were in keeping with modern sensibilities, I do wonder what we'd be left with. Sadly racism, sexism, cultural elitism, religious intolerance etc etc are part of human history. erasure of things which we find distasteful serves us ill. Toxic masculinity is another key term of the current era; could it be argued Old Fourlegs provided examples of this? Perhaps...
"...my friends laughingly reproved me
for having made many others weep from my emotion.
My young son certainly disapproved of that part" p. 190
JLB himself seems unfazed by having wept as part of a live radio broadcast (described on p. 166) but that his friends teased him and his own child (then aged 13 1/2) disapproved...although what teenager is not embarrassed by anything their parent does?!
A letter in response to this radio broadcast, signed 'from one of the many' said:
"...with you we wept on the deck of a boat at the islands
which we shall probably never see" p. 254
So it seems that, just like today, a man's tears are only disdained by a certain audience.
I add this just as a comment on the push against politically incorrect literature. If we censored material from our current perspective we would lose so much context of the past. So many prevalent attitudes of the past are incredibly harmful things but acknowledging their existence is necessary to combat them gaining support again.
Conclusion
I am glad to have read the only first-hand account of a story which has enthralled me from childhood and overall I enjoyed Smith's book.
I would still recommend that anyone interested in the story should read Samantha Weinberg's 'A Fish Caught In Time'...in all honesty I think it's a book you should read in order to become interested in fish! I suspect if you were new to the subject Smith's book is a little less gripping but still certainly very readable.
It is my feeling that the controversial content is an important aspect of 20th century social history and it would be unwise to despise the book on that account alone. However, I certainly acknowledge that it is uncomfortable reading in that regard.
Friday, 21 June 2019
Home A Year
Obviously I've blogged about this before and, presumably, will do so again - so I'll put the next bit in blue so if you're familiar with the background story you can just skip ahead.
On Monday 16th April 2018 my mum (then 73) had a severe stroke. To us it was blatantly obvious, to trained medical 'professionals' it was a mystery; while she was in A&E they seemed to think she was there with a stomach bug of all things! A consultant in Acute Care the next day said it definitely wasn't a stroke...5 hours later they confirmed it was - as we recently discovered, the NHS can't even record a stroke as affecting both hemispheres of the brain cos their software just won't accept that as being a thing. The usual FAST symptoms don't apply, or at least not so clearly: no facial drooping, no one-sided weakness - because EVERYTHING is affected. My mum was in hospital for nine-and-a-half weeks; this blog marks one year since I brought her home.
There was never a question that my mum would come here after her stroke, it wasn't a 'decision', it wasn't 'considered', it was just how it was going to be. We got the call at 8pm and I stayed with mum until she was admitted to Acute Care a little after 4am. I walked the four miles home, mooching, catching Pokemon, trying to wrap my head around what we'd been through that night... getting in about half past six. Collapsed into bed and got up at 8am when my dad rang for a status update.
At that point we felt certain it was a stroke, but there was still a chance that the 'experts' knew what they were talking about and that whilst she seemed desperately unwell it might pass with little-to-no long-term consequences. It just never really crossed my mind that a day or two (even a week or two) in hospital and she'd be fine. Instinct said this was it: major life changing event.
HOWEVER, even at that point I was planning for my mum to come stay with me. Even if our hunch came down to nothing more than paranoia whatever the problem was she was bound to be weak and in need of some looking after. I had already started looking around the house thinking how best to tidy / rearrange furniture in order to make things more comfortable for her.
I did not however think about the long term. Partly cos I feared we didn't have one, partly cos my grandad lived to 91 after his big stroke SIXTEEN YEARS EARLIER. If my mum's future runs to those lines I'll be looking after her until I'm what 55?! And then where will I be? No savings, no pension, precious little chance of a job...
I was relieved she survived the first year past the stroke but as we then closed in on the anniversary of her homecoming (21st June) the weight of the future really started bearing down on me. A couple of weeks ago I hit a really low patch.
Y'all can think I'm selfish - I don't care. I had a miserable childhood; my parents were not nurturing / affectionate / supportive / whatever. I was bullied at school and my parents didn't want to know. I wonder if my grandad's stroke, when I was 6, may have been a significant factor in my parents' disintrest in all things Heggie-related. At 16 they forced me into an abortion. At 17 I was a single mother and still desperate to get as far away from them as I could manage - I laughed at people who said things like "you'll really need your mum now" like that was even a thing. I got as far as Somerset...where they bought a house for me to rent, ensuring I'd never escape their influence. Twenty-odd years later and my youngest has reached adulthood...and I moved back home-adjacent cos I was out of options after decades on welfare and minimum wage jobs while I raised my kids and earned my degree.
I might've had to come home but my kids were grown, I had my BA - SURELY this was my time??? I had hopes and dreams - I wanted a social life, to meet people, to pursue my interests, to travel. And here I am stuck at home again, drudging. I have no income.
I have been single since my kids' dad walked out...in 1998. And I mean SINGLE. No dates, no friends with benefits, NOTHING. Now I'll never meet anyone, let alone anything more. I kinda suspected after all these years alone that'd be how it went but foolishly I'd still hoped.
I'm grieving hard for the life I wanted, the life I'll now never have.
Cos even as and when my mum's gone I'm still responsible for my dad (who is an almighty asshat) and my 'stepdad' (who is less of an asshat but only came into my life in my late 20s). AND I DON'T WANNA!
Firstly, cos I have no inclination to 'caring' - being stuck at home with my kids was hell enough. I am agender and all this caring, cleaning, domestic drudgery shit is entirely too much of a feminine cliche for me to want to touch it with a barge pole.
Secondly, because I describe my familial feelings as Stockholm Syndrome-esque. It's about enforced proximity and bonding through trauma.
But mostly because I want to have MY life. Shit childhood, shit adulthood and everything has been about other people; my parents, grandparents, my kids...no one has ever put me first so why the hell shouldn't I? I just need the dratted opportunity!
I did not have a good relationship with either of my parents before this and the current situation has only made it worse cos we can't escape each other. I wish I was the sort of person who could dump annoying elderly relatives at the gates of a care home and walk away without a qualm. It would be so much easier.
I can't tell you how much I just want to ditch everything and GO...not that have anywhere to go, you understand. Or the resources to get there. To be honest though, just being able to leave the house would be something. Mum doesn't want to go out, she doesn't want people here. I am so bored.
This article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-48458760) is about new mums struggling with changes to their bodies after childbirth and linking it with more profound loss of identity - "I think it's really important in that transition between young woman to mother that people are actually allowed to grieve the loss of their old identity." Well, that's what I've been doing - grieving for the person I was finally becoming.
My midlife crisis was FABULOUS. So many hair colours, gigs, tattoos, piercings...getting out, meeting people (bless the Lost Hearts!), working on the self-confidence I hadn't lost...I'd never had any!
In the last couple of days I've had a glimmer of hope...The Broken Kings (the band 3/5 of my beloved Fearless Vampire Killers have since become) have announced their 1st ever live performance - supporting former LostAlone front man Steven Battelle. With the help of my younger beastie I AM GOING!!! Also the combined blessings that it's somewhere I can get to and from fairly easily from here (and won't cost the earth to do so), and the fact it's almost 2 weeks before her new semester begins. My adults can look after her (she also agreed to it, I hasten to add) for one evening so I can have a very special break.
So that's where I'm at. Glad my mum's doing okay, but generally fucking miserable because I'm not.
I did not however think about the long term. Partly cos I feared we didn't have one, partly cos my grandad lived to 91 after his big stroke SIXTEEN YEARS EARLIER. If my mum's future runs to those lines I'll be looking after her until I'm what 55?! And then where will I be? No savings, no pension, precious little chance of a job...
I was relieved she survived the first year past the stroke but as we then closed in on the anniversary of her homecoming (21st June) the weight of the future really started bearing down on me. A couple of weeks ago I hit a really low patch.
Y'all can think I'm selfish - I don't care. I had a miserable childhood; my parents were not nurturing / affectionate / supportive / whatever. I was bullied at school and my parents didn't want to know. I wonder if my grandad's stroke, when I was 6, may have been a significant factor in my parents' disintrest in all things Heggie-related. At 16 they forced me into an abortion. At 17 I was a single mother and still desperate to get as far away from them as I could manage - I laughed at people who said things like "you'll really need your mum now" like that was even a thing. I got as far as Somerset...where they bought a house for me to rent, ensuring I'd never escape their influence. Twenty-odd years later and my youngest has reached adulthood...and I moved back home-adjacent cos I was out of options after decades on welfare and minimum wage jobs while I raised my kids and earned my degree.
I might've had to come home but my kids were grown, I had my BA - SURELY this was my time??? I had hopes and dreams - I wanted a social life, to meet people, to pursue my interests, to travel. And here I am stuck at home again, drudging. I have no income.
I have been single since my kids' dad walked out...in 1998. And I mean SINGLE. No dates, no friends with benefits, NOTHING. Now I'll never meet anyone, let alone anything more. I kinda suspected after all these years alone that'd be how it went but foolishly I'd still hoped.
I'm grieving hard for the life I wanted, the life I'll now never have.
Cos even as and when my mum's gone I'm still responsible for my dad (who is an almighty asshat) and my 'stepdad' (who is less of an asshat but only came into my life in my late 20s). AND I DON'T WANNA!
Firstly, cos I have no inclination to 'caring' - being stuck at home with my kids was hell enough. I am agender and all this caring, cleaning, domestic drudgery shit is entirely too much of a feminine cliche for me to want to touch it with a barge pole.
Secondly, because I describe my familial feelings as Stockholm Syndrome-esque. It's about enforced proximity and bonding through trauma.
But mostly because I want to have MY life. Shit childhood, shit adulthood and everything has been about other people; my parents, grandparents, my kids...no one has ever put me first so why the hell shouldn't I? I just need the dratted opportunity!
I did not have a good relationship with either of my parents before this and the current situation has only made it worse cos we can't escape each other. I wish I was the sort of person who could dump annoying elderly relatives at the gates of a care home and walk away without a qualm. It would be so much easier.
I can't tell you how much I just want to ditch everything and GO...not that have anywhere to go, you understand. Or the resources to get there. To be honest though, just being able to leave the house would be something. Mum doesn't want to go out, she doesn't want people here. I am so bored.
This article (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-48458760) is about new mums struggling with changes to their bodies after childbirth and linking it with more profound loss of identity - "I think it's really important in that transition between young woman to mother that people are actually allowed to grieve the loss of their old identity." Well, that's what I've been doing - grieving for the person I was finally becoming.
My midlife crisis was FABULOUS. So many hair colours, gigs, tattoos, piercings...getting out, meeting people (bless the Lost Hearts!), working on the self-confidence I hadn't lost...I'd never had any!
In the last couple of days I've had a glimmer of hope...The Broken Kings (the band 3/5 of my beloved Fearless Vampire Killers have since become) have announced their 1st ever live performance - supporting former LostAlone front man Steven Battelle. With the help of my younger beastie I AM GOING!!! Also the combined blessings that it's somewhere I can get to and from fairly easily from here (and won't cost the earth to do so), and the fact it's almost 2 weeks before her new semester begins. My adults can look after her (she also agreed to it, I hasten to add) for one evening so I can have a very special break.
So that's where I'm at. Glad my mum's doing okay, but generally fucking miserable because I'm not.
Wednesday, 22 May 2019
Concerns of Consent and Bodily Autonomy
I dare say I've blogged about abortion before but I can't be arsed to look back through everything. Bodily autonomy and consent have been very much in the news lately, particularly with American states trying to pass laws that take women's control of their own bodies back to the dark ages.
For the most part my previous social media posts make my point well enough so I have just copied them up here - my comments in bold blue, other people's quotes in bold dark red. However, if you care to scroll down there are a few other examples of consent being
A thread I posted on Twitter on 15th May 2019:
I was pro-choice before my parents forced me into an abortion at 8.5 weeks when I was 16 - they had kicked me out, the father walked away and I probably had HG. I am still pro-choice, because no one's choice should be taken from them. #YouKnowMe
As for the idea of 'if you don't want an abortion, don't get one'... No one wants to be pregnant and homeless / broke / frightened / sick / abandoned / abused. No one wants their unborn child to be incompatible with life.
And I'm fairly sure no one particularly wants to be pregnant by rape or incest... Actually, I doubt anyone has ever really 'wanted' an abortion. It's on no-one's bucket list. It's a procedure to take you out of a situation you can't bear to be in.
Something I posted on Facebook 17th May 2019:
Just cos something has a heartbeat doesn't make it alive. Until it is capable of living separately from the mother it is nothing but a parasite. Let's give all the men who think this is a great idea intestinal worms and ban them from getting treatment! ... and ostracise them (like society often does to unmarried mothers) cos they're dirty and gross.
Something I posted on Facebook 18th May 2019:
People who think all pregnancies are blessings...
(a) have probably never been pregnant, have almost certainly never had complications. Trust me, 9 months of puking is no blessing.
(b) have probably not met many children, have almost certainly never spent an extended amount of time in their company.
(c) have probably never experienced social isolation or poverty, certainly can't imagine being pregnant without a supportive partner and / or family. Or homeless, or broke. Or all of the above.
(d) have very little idea of how unprepared some people are for the lifetime of responsibility. There's a lot more to having a child than giving birth.
(e) have zero perception that some people are pregnant with people they wouldn't want to be anywhere near them or a child - a manipulator, an abuser, a paedophile, a rapist...a relative.
(f) have zero understanding that some people don't actually like or want kids. Quit assuming everyone else wants the same things as you. Live your own bloody life and leave others to live theirs!A thread I posted on Twitter on 22nd May 2019:Men shouldn't have a say on abortion... but neither should 'women'! The ONLY person who should get a say is the individual who is pregnant. [Link to BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48262238]I don't see why there needs to be a law about what people do with their own bodies. Law can stay out of my choice to have or not have an abortion / a tattoo / a piercing / plastic surgery. Remember when suicide was a crime punishable by death?!I suppose the idea is that some people need to be protected from themselves... like that woman who got a boob job. You know who I mean, third boob woman. [although, thankfully, that turned out to be a hoax https://metro.co.uk/2015/01/27/that-woman-with-three-boobs-has-been-arrested-for-drink-driving-5038779/ sadly many other extremes are true] Mental competency tests before surgeries?!
Over and over I'm seeing posts of no-uterus no-opinion (like having a womb makes you a woman😠) and that men shouldn't have any say in what happens with women's bodies... but women shouldn't be passing laws on what other women can do with their bodies either; there are pro life women - presumably lacking in empathy or even a basic awareness of the dangers of pregnancy & childbirth. It's not a gender issue, it's a personal issue. Personal choice, personal control of your own body - there is nothing more important.
And for those who cry "but what of the child's body?" - the child has no life beyond its mother, it has no autonomy and no rights. Personhood begins at birth. I did some philosophy for my degree - ever looked at The Violinist thought experiment? Here it is considered a direct parallel to rape:
https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-ethics-of-abortion-and-violinist.html but in reality sex can be consensual but that doesn't equate to consensual pregnancy. The Cabin thought experiment in that article says the stranger needs 9 months of care - reality is being told, at the end of 9 months, that you now have to care for that stranger for LIFE. More on that in a moment.
There's also a logical fallacy in assuming the child would WANT to be born. My mother chose to have me... but she quickly realised her mistake. I failed to bring her closer to my father, I upset her neat and tidy world, I was entirely more problematic than she had bargained for. My dad did not choose to have me. I grew up feeling unwanted and it was not nice. Unfortunately I then went on to do this to my own kids as I was in no fit state (as a teenager on welfare, suffering depression etc) to look after myself let alone children (I don't even like kids, I have no maternal feeling) and I begged to place my kids for adoption... no one would listen to me.
If all pregnancies were forced to go to term what does society do with all the unwanted babies? America in particular has very little support for born children making their predominant pro-life stance very hypocritical. Almost every time the responsibility for that child falls to the mother, and that responsibility is 18+ years rather than 9 months; fathers often pay zero child support. All these unwanted children need to be clothed and fed and housed and educated... and state care or impoverished parents (even those currently able to amply provide would struggle if they were unable to control how many children they have). And then there's the child's mental wellbeing to consider - hard enough to be an unwanted child, a burden - but add to that being the product of rape or incest? That's a lot to assume a kid would want to bear.
Tweet from @AuthorKimberley 7th May 2019:
A man raped an 11-year-old and Ohio’s “heartbeat law” requires her to have his baby yet no law provides for the child's welfare once it’s born.
My response tweets, 9th May 2019:
Lots of offers in the comments to help get the girl to a state where abortion is more freely available... but no one seems to be querying what the girl wants.
Of course it's unlikely a girl wants to have a rapist's baby, it's unlikely an 11 year old wants to carry a child to term, some might argue she is too young to make such a choice but taking the choice from her is a violation too.
It's so easy to assume what someone wants but it's a dangerous way to look at things. Lets face it, anti abortion legislation exists because men fear their 'children' being aborted. They don't want abortion so no one can have it.
Women who support anti abortion legislation invariably seem to comment about their struggles to conceive. Their own desire for a baby blinding them to the desires of others. Or maybe they always lacked empathy. Who knows.
If you order pizza in a restaurant does that mean the family at the next table want pizza too?! Of course not. But over and over you see people arguing that abortion is wrong because they would never choose one. Illogical.
The inability to contemplate sexual violence *might* be from a deep rooted aversion to the topic but more likely it's just ignored by people with fixed ideas and no empathy for others.
Empathy. Freedom to make your own choices. Bodily autonomy. Pro choice must always mean pro CHOICE and not assuming what anyone wants, regardless of what we would do in their circumstances.
I hope this girl gets all the support she needs. I hope she is able to make the right choice for herself and not forced into ANYTHING by anyone, least of anyone the lawmakers of her state.
There are precious few scenarios where anyone should be making decisions about someone else's body, in any sense - in my opinion that power should only apply to non verbal children*, people in comas or the catastrophically disabled. When my parents did their Enduring Power of Attorney documents to put me in charge of things if they became incapacitated (as my mum has) they did not fill out the medical part so I have no control beyond regular next-of-kin rights to say what medical treatments they can or can't endure. In some ways that bothers me as I don't trust the medical profession to make those judgement calls.
What age, or what degree of competence does someone need? To my mind a child of 10 (or even younger) may be entirely able to understand the risks and benefits and be capable of making a decision so why should that choice be denied? Declaring someone incompetent because they have made a decision that doesn't sit well with their doctors or family is pretty darn gross too.
Parents naturally enough make decisions on behalf of their child - vaccinations, dental treatments etc - but where do you draw the line? For example I personally dislike cochlear implants. A permanent intrusion into a child's skull is apparently better than deafness. Okay, so I'm not deaf but is it REALLY so awful?! My parents consented to squint correction surgery on me when I was 3 years old, something I would not have consented to if it had been held off until I was old enough to have a say. I don't hugely resent that it was done to me but I would rather it had not been. Apparently, much as cleft lip repair is done for functional reasons as much as cosmetic, so too is squint correction - I could have lost my sight in my left eye...but if anyone had asked me they would have known my brain was already rejecting the signals from that eye. Years of deeply unpleasant patching followed surgery but didn't fix it. So basically, in my humble opinion, it was completely pointless other than for cosmetic reasons...and as I am a hideous potato-person that's pointless squared!
Then there are other procedures parents have done to their children; take a sadly routine operation often performed on baby boys for religious reasons or for dubious medical reasons (usually false claims of it being more hygienic or concerns about retraction later on): circumcision.
Here's a story of a young man who, having had a botched operation as an adult, took his own life: BBC 17 April 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47292307
And here's a follow up story of other men suffering: BBC 12 May 2019
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48057183
If adult men can suffer such terrible complications from an operation they chose to have should the procedure be banned entirely? Of course not! There is a world of difference between a person or their parent consenting to a 'necessary' operation and something that is done to a healthy child for archaic or invalid reasons. It is insane for parents to consent to such a procedure other than in the most pressing of medical necessities. If a man of age chooses freely to be circumcised (for aesthetic, or religious reason) then that is his freedom... but even so, how do you ensure that? A man may be under pressure to conform, to do so against his will - just as I was pushed into an abortion. That is no choice either.
Comment found on a YouTube video about birth control (due to concerns about menstrual discomfort) for a severely disabled child 20th May 2019 "I was born with a disability and at age 9 I had [a hysterectomy] done I am now 38 and still not in menopause" Assuming that statement is true... what kind of parents, what kind of DOCTORS do a hysterectomy on a 9 year old unless the kid is catastrophically disabled? A girl who is immobile & non verbal with no chance of improvement (such as the subject of the video) is one thing - she cannot communicate pain, consent to sex or raise the alarm about abuse - but to do that to someone who is capable of commenting on YouTube videos... that's got to be wrong. Even if her disability precluded motherhood, drastic surgery at such a young age is really extreme - who knows what medical advances might be made?
EDIT: Just saw this article which includes discussion of Nazi era forced sterilisation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-48273570 and felt it ought to be included here. Such 'treatments' need to only ever be used when it is in the best interests of the individual - either medically or if they irrevocably unable to consent to sexual activity.
Which brings me to my last example for today of consent and children:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-48311660
"About 1% of children have genes which put them at high risk, meaning they have a greater than 10% chance of developing type 1 diabetes." So with a 'greater than 10% chance' of developing an illness a five month old baby is going to be used as a guinea pig. What the actual hell?! I'm sure type 1 diabetes is no fun thing but using a (currently) healthy child's body in this way seems to me all kinds of unethical - what if their 'treatment' TRIGGERS the onset of the illness?! 'Greater than 10%' isn't even all that much, if it was greater than 80% or something there'd be a much better argument in favour of this being in that child's best interests.
Consent is the person concerned's right. If and only if they cannot consent should that right be put into the hands of another - a parent, a carer or a court appointed guardian - and THEN consent should be only for that person's best interests - religious circumcision and medical experiments definitely don't come under that heading.
The problem is that we all have very different ideas of what is best. The best person to decide what is best for X is X and if X can't decide, due to incapacitation or extreme youth, whoever acts for X has an incredible responsibility. How you protect X from the poor judgement of Y I have no idea but 'protecting' X from their own (supposedly) poor judgement is to invade their rights. We all have the right to make our own mistakes - we just have to accept responsibility for our actions and not blame others when we suffer regret.
For the most part my previous social media posts make my point well enough so I have just copied them up here - my comments in bold blue, other people's quotes in bold dark red. However, if you care to scroll down there are a few other examples of consent being
A thread I posted on Twitter on 15th May 2019:
I was pro-choice before my parents forced me into an abortion at 8.5 weeks when I was 16 - they had kicked me out, the father walked away and I probably had HG. I am still pro-choice, because no one's choice should be taken from them. #YouKnowMe
As for the idea of 'if you don't want an abortion, don't get one'... No one wants to be pregnant and homeless / broke / frightened / sick / abandoned / abused. No one wants their unborn child to be incompatible with life.
And I'm fairly sure no one particularly wants to be pregnant by rape or incest... Actually, I doubt anyone has ever really 'wanted' an abortion. It's on no-one's bucket list. It's a procedure to take you out of a situation you can't bear to be in.
Something I posted on Facebook 17th May 2019:
Just cos something has a heartbeat doesn't make it alive. Until it is capable of living separately from the mother it is nothing but a parasite. Let's give all the men who think this is a great idea intestinal worms and ban them from getting treatment! ... and ostracise them (like society often does to unmarried mothers) cos they're dirty and gross.
Something I posted on Facebook 18th May 2019:
People who think all pregnancies are blessings...
(a) have probably never been pregnant, have almost certainly never had complications. Trust me, 9 months of puking is no blessing.
(b) have probably not met many children, have almost certainly never spent an extended amount of time in their company.
(c) have probably never experienced social isolation or poverty, certainly can't imagine being pregnant without a supportive partner and / or family. Or homeless, or broke. Or all of the above.
(d) have very little idea of how unprepared some people are for the lifetime of responsibility. There's a lot more to having a child than giving birth.
(e) have zero perception that some people are pregnant with people they wouldn't want to be anywhere near them or a child - a manipulator, an abuser, a paedophile, a rapist...a relative.
(f) have zero understanding that some people don't actually like or want kids. Quit assuming everyone else wants the same things as you. Live your own bloody life and leave others to live theirs!A thread I posted on Twitter on 22nd May 2019:Men shouldn't have a say on abortion... but neither should 'women'! The ONLY person who should get a say is the individual who is pregnant. [Link to BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-48262238]I don't see why there needs to be a law about what people do with their own bodies. Law can stay out of my choice to have or not have an abortion / a tattoo / a piercing / plastic surgery. Remember when suicide was a crime punishable by death?!I suppose the idea is that some people need to be protected from themselves... like that woman who got a boob job. You know who I mean, third boob woman. [although, thankfully, that turned out to be a hoax https://metro.co.uk/2015/01/27/that-woman-with-three-boobs-has-been-arrested-for-drink-driving-5038779/ sadly many other extremes are true] Mental competency tests before surgeries?!
Over and over I'm seeing posts of no-uterus no-opinion (like having a womb makes you a woman😠) and that men shouldn't have any say in what happens with women's bodies... but women shouldn't be passing laws on what other women can do with their bodies either; there are pro life women - presumably lacking in empathy or even a basic awareness of the dangers of pregnancy & childbirth. It's not a gender issue, it's a personal issue. Personal choice, personal control of your own body - there is nothing more important.
And for those who cry "but what of the child's body?" - the child has no life beyond its mother, it has no autonomy and no rights. Personhood begins at birth. I did some philosophy for my degree - ever looked at The Violinist thought experiment? Here it is considered a direct parallel to rape:
https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-ethics-of-abortion-and-violinist.html but in reality sex can be consensual but that doesn't equate to consensual pregnancy. The Cabin thought experiment in that article says the stranger needs 9 months of care - reality is being told, at the end of 9 months, that you now have to care for that stranger for LIFE. More on that in a moment.
There's also a logical fallacy in assuming the child would WANT to be born. My mother chose to have me... but she quickly realised her mistake. I failed to bring her closer to my father, I upset her neat and tidy world, I was entirely more problematic than she had bargained for. My dad did not choose to have me. I grew up feeling unwanted and it was not nice. Unfortunately I then went on to do this to my own kids as I was in no fit state (as a teenager on welfare, suffering depression etc) to look after myself let alone children (I don't even like kids, I have no maternal feeling) and I begged to place my kids for adoption... no one would listen to me.
If all pregnancies were forced to go to term what does society do with all the unwanted babies? America in particular has very little support for born children making their predominant pro-life stance very hypocritical. Almost every time the responsibility for that child falls to the mother, and that responsibility is 18+ years rather than 9 months; fathers often pay zero child support. All these unwanted children need to be clothed and fed and housed and educated... and state care or impoverished parents (even those currently able to amply provide would struggle if they were unable to control how many children they have). And then there's the child's mental wellbeing to consider - hard enough to be an unwanted child, a burden - but add to that being the product of rape or incest? That's a lot to assume a kid would want to bear.
Tweet from @AuthorKimberley 7th May 2019:
A man raped an 11-year-old and Ohio’s “heartbeat law” requires her to have his baby yet no law provides for the child's welfare once it’s born.
My response tweets, 9th May 2019:
Lots of offers in the comments to help get the girl to a state where abortion is more freely available... but no one seems to be querying what the girl wants.
Of course it's unlikely a girl wants to have a rapist's baby, it's unlikely an 11 year old wants to carry a child to term, some might argue she is too young to make such a choice but taking the choice from her is a violation too.
It's so easy to assume what someone wants but it's a dangerous way to look at things. Lets face it, anti abortion legislation exists because men fear their 'children' being aborted. They don't want abortion so no one can have it.
Women who support anti abortion legislation invariably seem to comment about their struggles to conceive. Their own desire for a baby blinding them to the desires of others. Or maybe they always lacked empathy. Who knows.
If you order pizza in a restaurant does that mean the family at the next table want pizza too?! Of course not. But over and over you see people arguing that abortion is wrong because they would never choose one. Illogical.
The inability to contemplate sexual violence *might* be from a deep rooted aversion to the topic but more likely it's just ignored by people with fixed ideas and no empathy for others.
Empathy. Freedom to make your own choices. Bodily autonomy. Pro choice must always mean pro CHOICE and not assuming what anyone wants, regardless of what we would do in their circumstances.
I hope this girl gets all the support she needs. I hope she is able to make the right choice for herself and not forced into ANYTHING by anyone, least of anyone the lawmakers of her state.
There are precious few scenarios where anyone should be making decisions about someone else's body, in any sense - in my opinion that power should only apply to non verbal children*, people in comas or the catastrophically disabled. When my parents did their Enduring Power of Attorney documents to put me in charge of things if they became incapacitated (as my mum has) they did not fill out the medical part so I have no control beyond regular next-of-kin rights to say what medical treatments they can or can't endure. In some ways that bothers me as I don't trust the medical profession to make those judgement calls.
What age, or what degree of competence does someone need? To my mind a child of 10 (or even younger) may be entirely able to understand the risks and benefits and be capable of making a decision so why should that choice be denied? Declaring someone incompetent because they have made a decision that doesn't sit well with their doctors or family is pretty darn gross too.
Parents naturally enough make decisions on behalf of their child - vaccinations, dental treatments etc - but where do you draw the line? For example I personally dislike cochlear implants. A permanent intrusion into a child's skull is apparently better than deafness. Okay, so I'm not deaf but is it REALLY so awful?! My parents consented to squint correction surgery on me when I was 3 years old, something I would not have consented to if it had been held off until I was old enough to have a say. I don't hugely resent that it was done to me but I would rather it had not been. Apparently, much as cleft lip repair is done for functional reasons as much as cosmetic, so too is squint correction - I could have lost my sight in my left eye...but if anyone had asked me they would have known my brain was already rejecting the signals from that eye. Years of deeply unpleasant patching followed surgery but didn't fix it. So basically, in my humble opinion, it was completely pointless other than for cosmetic reasons...and as I am a hideous potato-person that's pointless squared!
Then there are other procedures parents have done to their children; take a sadly routine operation often performed on baby boys for religious reasons or for dubious medical reasons (usually false claims of it being more hygienic or concerns about retraction later on): circumcision.
Here's a story of a young man who, having had a botched operation as an adult, took his own life: BBC 17 April 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47292307
And here's a follow up story of other men suffering: BBC 12 May 2019
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-48057183
If adult men can suffer such terrible complications from an operation they chose to have should the procedure be banned entirely? Of course not! There is a world of difference between a person or their parent consenting to a 'necessary' operation and something that is done to a healthy child for archaic or invalid reasons. It is insane for parents to consent to such a procedure other than in the most pressing of medical necessities. If a man of age chooses freely to be circumcised (for aesthetic, or religious reason) then that is his freedom... but even so, how do you ensure that? A man may be under pressure to conform, to do so against his will - just as I was pushed into an abortion. That is no choice either.
Comment found on a YouTube video about birth control (due to concerns about menstrual discomfort) for a severely disabled child 20th May 2019 "I was born with a disability and at age 9 I had [a hysterectomy] done I am now 38 and still not in menopause" Assuming that statement is true... what kind of parents, what kind of DOCTORS do a hysterectomy on a 9 year old unless the kid is catastrophically disabled? A girl who is immobile & non verbal with no chance of improvement (such as the subject of the video) is one thing - she cannot communicate pain, consent to sex or raise the alarm about abuse - but to do that to someone who is capable of commenting on YouTube videos... that's got to be wrong. Even if her disability precluded motherhood, drastic surgery at such a young age is really extreme - who knows what medical advances might be made?
EDIT: Just saw this article which includes discussion of Nazi era forced sterilisation
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-48273570 and felt it ought to be included here. Such 'treatments' need to only ever be used when it is in the best interests of the individual - either medically or if they irrevocably unable to consent to sexual activity.
Which brings me to my last example for today of consent and children:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-48311660
"About 1% of children have genes which put them at high risk, meaning they have a greater than 10% chance of developing type 1 diabetes." So with a 'greater than 10% chance' of developing an illness a five month old baby is going to be used as a guinea pig. What the actual hell?! I'm sure type 1 diabetes is no fun thing but using a (currently) healthy child's body in this way seems to me all kinds of unethical - what if their 'treatment' TRIGGERS the onset of the illness?! 'Greater than 10%' isn't even all that much, if it was greater than 80% or something there'd be a much better argument in favour of this being in that child's best interests.
Consent is the person concerned's right. If and only if they cannot consent should that right be put into the hands of another - a parent, a carer or a court appointed guardian - and THEN consent should be only for that person's best interests - religious circumcision and medical experiments definitely don't come under that heading.
The problem is that we all have very different ideas of what is best. The best person to decide what is best for X is X and if X can't decide, due to incapacitation or extreme youth, whoever acts for X has an incredible responsibility. How you protect X from the poor judgement of Y I have no idea but 'protecting' X from their own (supposedly) poor judgement is to invade their rights. We all have the right to make our own mistakes - we just have to accept responsibility for our actions and not blame others when we suffer regret.
Sunday, 12 May 2019
Game of Thrones - Baby Names
Saw a trending tweet from the author of this NBC News article: 'Name of Thrones: parents are naming their kids after favorite 'GoT' characters' https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/tv/lil-joffrey-game-thrones-baby-names-n1004541
Only a pass is given for Arya as being a name used internationally. Now I'm no names expert but...
Only a pass is given for Arya as being a name used internationally. Now I'm no names expert but...
- Brienne is a variant of Brianna Celtic) or a place name (French)
- Ramsay is a surname
- Gregor is a perfectly ordinary name (of Dutch / Scots origin) as is Ghita (Greek) although it also resembles the Indian name Gita / Geeta.
- Sandor is a Hungarian variant of Alexander - no different to naming your kid Alex or Xander
- Shae, Myrcella, Catelyn, Myranda etc are simple spelling variants too. Most are based on real world names.
Joffrey, which doesn't make the list, is also the name of Meghan Duchess of Sussex's half uncle. Assuming names have been chosen DIRECTLY as a result of Game of Thrones (hereafter GoT) is a bit of a leap of logic. Naturally it is raising the profile of certain names but that means parents considering certain names like, Alexander or Miranda, might go for a less common variant 'inspired by' but not exactly 'because of' GoT.
Even names that seem to definitely belong to the GoT universe aren't always what they seem. Tyrion is listed as a variant of the Irish name Tyrone and while Cersei is considered a created name it's based on the Greek goddess Circe.
With the recent excitement over #BabySussex's name the BBC ran an article on how to choose a name for your baby (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48185728) and I was rather taken by this contribution by Richard Jones, a university lecturer from Salford, who with his wife:
"We were really keen to have a name that was unusual, but
not wacky.
We didn't want one that there was going to be a whole class full
of them.
We also didn't want to go for a made-up one.
The couple ruled out anything in the top 100 most popular names
list and,
because he is Scottish and his wife is Welsh,
wanted the name to originate from either of those places.
It needed to be easily shortened, both the short and long names
had to work
with both the single and double-barrelled versions of their
surname
and it couldn't start with the same initial as the mum or
dad.
But apart from that we didn't really think too much about
it."
Excellent advice all round! I have never understood why parents pick super common names unless they have a really meaningful reason for it - like naming your kid after your brother Jack who died when Jack has been a VERY popular name for years. For this reason I can see why GoT names are appealing for being a bit different but kind of familiar.
It's also worthwhile thinking how the first and last names go together...as well as checking that the initials don't spell out something unfortunate or match a problematic acronym.
Naming your child is probably the most important decision you will ever make but you aren't the person who will have to live with the worst of the consequences if it's a bad choice. All the same, parents DO regret the names they pick for their kids, quite frequently. Choosing a name from a current pop-culture source can be regretted when you move on to the next trend but also uncomfortably obvious (so many boys named Jensen! Guess who mom has a crush on...), dated in a few years (which affects unusual names more because they stand out), embarrassing (fancy being named after Kylie Minogue and forever being associated with Kylie Jenner!) etc etc
It's also worthwhile thinking how the first and last names go together...as well as checking that the initials don't spell out something unfortunate or match a problematic acronym.
Naming your child is probably the most important decision you will ever make but you aren't the person who will have to live with the worst of the consequences if it's a bad choice. All the same, parents DO regret the names they pick for their kids, quite frequently. Choosing a name from a current pop-culture source can be regretted when you move on to the next trend but also uncomfortably obvious (so many boys named Jensen! Guess who mom has a crush on...), dated in a few years (which affects unusual names more because they stand out), embarrassing (fancy being named after Kylie Minogue and forever being associated with Kylie Jenner!) etc etc
There are also some pretty good motives for naming your child after a fictional character you admire - it's not much different than naming your child after anyone else. In some ways it's safer than naming them after a celebrity or other living person who may yet go on to do something you find abhorrent. HOWEVER, when naming your child after a fictional character it is a good idea to let their story come to completion before doing so. GoT is currently airing its final season but there are apparently books yet to come.
Like with any name it is worthwhile to do your homework and be sure what it means...and to consider what it will mean to the child. My elder daughter tells me there are significant differences between the books and TV show - the TV show is likely to be the one most present in people's minds when they consider your kid's name... the kid is also likely to want to see it themselves. Given the nature of GoT and the events that happen to various characters...is that REALLY a good idea?!
Fairly sure that any of the 14 kids named 'Theon' will be scarred for life as and when they find out what happens to their namesake... shortening the name to Theo for everyday use might help but in the US your legal name is harder to change and follows you around.
One thing I like about GoT characters is how they all have good and bad sides - Tyrion is bloody brilliant in many ways but he's also a womanising alcoholic capable of some really dubious stuff. As a parent you really ought to consider all the angles - will your child and their peers see Arya as a powerful heroine or will they see her as a cold-hearted assassin?
My favourite GoT characters are probably Tyrion Lannister, Brienne of Tarth, Sandor Clegane, Olenna Tyrell and Samwell Tarly (whom I affectionately refer to as 'stupid fat Hobbit' due to the similarities of character and name to Samwise Gamgee of LOTR). Brienne and Sandor are fine as names, not so sure about the others...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)