Februdairy Roundup

For each day of February I have posted to Instagram (and linked to Twitter and Facebook) a picture of an alternative-to-dairy food. The one exception was day 4 where I shared a Metro article quoting farmer James Robinson "to show what actually happens on dairy farms and not give way to militant vegan propaganda"...nah mate, vegans and animal rights activists are showing what actually happens on dairy farms countering decades of carnist, speciesist propaganda.

As I accidentally posted my MeatyMarch blog earlier than intended I wanted to sum up here what my anti-#Februdairy posts included. I am putting brands in bold for their first mention only, products I hadn't tried before are in bold red.

I kicked off the month with four cartons of plant milks, representing the stash I keep in. Unsweetened Almond for everyday use, Cashew for milkshakes, Oat for lattes and Chocolate Oat for my dad.

There are lots of different plant milks on the market and many different brands and I wanted to show a range. These were Oatly and Alpro milks; on day 6 I shared Alpro chocolate and strawberry lunch box size cartons and on day 24 it was Rude Health's Tiger Nut milk.

But obviously the dairy industry is a whole lot more than JUST milk. For me the hardest part of going vegan was giving up cheese so it made quite a few appearances during the month.

On day 2 it was vegan pizza with Tesco's mozzarella-style. The mozzarella-style appeared again on day 13 with nachos...and also featuring an Asda soured cream topping. Another serving suggestion appeared on day 5 - Tesco's peppercorn style with kale as a toasted sandwich.

Yet another Tesco's cheese alternative featured on day 12; their chili jalapeno cheese has to be my favourite. Violife slices were day 23's offering.

Then there are other basics. Many margarines are actually dairy free but rather than scanning the ingredients I tend to go for Vitalite (day 19) because it is clearly marked vegan. Flora's new Avocado Lime spread was a product I tried for the first time this month (day 10).

Oatly and Alpro custards shared the spotlight on day 9 and Alpro long-life creamy desserts were featured on day 27.

Alpro blueberry yoghurt was my offering on day 17, Rebel Kitchen's coconut vanilla yoghurt appeared on day 22 and Tesco's Fromage Frais were featured on day 3.

There's a false idea that veganism has to be healthy but junk food vegans are definitely a thing and treats featured regularly throughout the month. 

Swedish Glace is a great everyday ice cream (day 18) whereas Ben and Jerry's is an all-out indulgence (day 7).

Sainsbury's chocolate soothed me on St Valentine's Day (day 14), Vego was a treat on a difficult day at work (day 25) and my final post of the month was my Choices Easter Egg (day 28).

Eve's Tree fudge (day 15) is a newer product to the dairy-free market but like I showed in a Throwback Thursday post you can always MAKE whatever you're missing - day 8 was homemade toffee apples made with coconut cream.

Making things without dairy isn't especially arduous and I also included ingredients for doing just that: Nature's Charm coconut condensed milk (day 21) and Oatly single cream (day 26).

Obviously making your own, especially using plant-milks for coffee, is the easiest option most of the time but obviously you're not always in a position to do so. Hence day 11's Costa coffee - coconut vanilla latte - and a convenience ice coffee from Califa Farms - Cold Brew Cocoa Noir - on day 16.

Favourite for the whole month though had to be day 20's Honey Mustard Dressing from Follow Your Heart. Yes, that's a VEGAN product emulating a honey flavour creamy dressing.

Seriously, answers on a postcard (or in the comments) on what people are 'missing out' from being on a vegan / dairy free diet. DO NOT GO THERE WITH THE CALCIUM ARGUMENT - look up kale and other leafy greens!

Admittedly, even in my 2.5 years veganism has become a whole lot easier. As veganism becomes more mainstream life as a vegan or lactose intolerant person is only going to get more straightforward. Get onboard now and help us all along! ;)

Hashtag MeatyMarch

Obviously I have blogged about my veganism before and this'll probably cover a lot of old ground but, if you know me, you'll know I love to give my opinions...repeatedly.

Personal backstory for those of you new here:

I was ill for YEARS. My symptoms probably started around 1997 and I was diagnosed* with IBS but as a stay-at-home mom the idea of my gut problems being stress-induced never seemed right. Symptoms hit when I was calm and relaxed; I'd be stressed out of my gourd and NADA. On top of that none of the medications I was given did me any good.

*Diagnosis of IBS is basically made if you have a number of a set of symptoms. There is no diagnostic testing. I was not comprehensively tested to rule out other conditions. I never saw a dietitian or nutritionist despite serious weight issues alongside my life-impairing diarrhoea and constipation.

One day in 2012 I was at the GP...about my knee, I think, and I overheard two mums talking. One was detailing her kid's symptoms. I thought "he's got IBS like me" but instead the other mum said "I bet he's lactose intolerant like my kid". AND IN THAT MOMENT MY WORLD CHANGED.

I went into my appointment, I presume. But even at the time I could remember nothing from it. I went home, cleared out the kitchen cupboards and started an experiment. It took time - my bowels were a terrible mess after 15 years - but four months later I was symptom free. My GP still refused to have me tested or amend my records. They REALLY don't like admitting they're wrong.

The next problem was my willpower. I don't have any. I knew I SHOULDN'T eat dairy but I kept giving in to temptation. By late 2015 the solution was obvious: I had to go vegan. I was already vegetarian and my mum is allergic to eggs so it made perfect sense to me. Life has been far easier ever since (although I admit eating out can be a bloody nightmare!)
This is why veganism was the right choice for ME, not gonna assume it is right for anyone else but I strongly recommend trying it...not least cos it's easier than you think. I wish I had done it 'for the animals' but I didn't. I need to be honest about that.

Context backstory for this blog:

I wrote a blog last month called 'Veganuary Validity' which explains a lot of it but for those of you living under a rock... The Veganuary campaign is a year-round campaign but its main focus is to encourage people to try veganism as a new years' resolution for the month of January - to raise awareness and encourage people to at least reduce their animal-product consumption.

It is doing well and is helping veganism to become an increasingly mainstream lifestyle choice.

This, of course, pisses of the industries that produce animal-based products.

The dairy industry attempted to fight back with 'Februdairy' - cute pics of cows in fields etc...naturally, we countered this with tangible facts or as they chose to put it "extremist vegan propaganda". My personal thing was to post to Instagram (linked to Twitter and Facebook) one vegan dairy substitute product per day for the entire month. Fell out with my kids' grandfather over it and had to unfriend him. If he thought *I* was being extreme god knows what he'd make of rape racks and slaughtered newborn calves!

...Now the meat industry are trying their own hashtag campaign - MeatyMarch. I swear, this is so stupid you can't make it up. Our culture has carnism so ingrained that I can't imagine why they think more propaganda would convert us back to meat-eating. 
*Carnism - "the prevailing ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products, especially meat" (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism) usually involving the false belief that humans NEED milk and dairy in their diet, and speciesism - believing that humans have innate rights to use animals as a resource.

This blog is to accompany my own anti-MeatyMarch 'campaign'. 

Just like with Februdairy I'm not going to push veganism as such, I am not going to post graphic images from slaughterhouses; there are loads of people / organisations posting those things. I'm just gonna share a bunch of alternatives to meat.

Y'all don't have to quit meat, y'all don't have to be offended by my veggie burgers - I'm just showing what I eat and trying a few new products along the way. For me, this is about AWARENESS; if I can inspire anyone to try meat-reducing that's just a bonus.

Now for the important point: 

Veganism doesn't HAVE to involve mock meats. There are a whole load of *ahem* certain vegans who say you're not even vegan if you eat mock meats. There are also a whole load of people who give you hassle if you eat these things because they're not super healthy.

Let me make this perfectly clear: the principle of veganism is about eliminating cruelty to animals. Mock meats are not hurting animals ergo mock meats are vegan. You can be a raw food vegan or a junk food vegan - IT DOESN'T MATTER. Or at least not to anyone but yourself.

I eat quite a lot of products intended to replace meat in a meal. Partly because that is what I am used to and partly because I enjoy them. I am not 'promoting' the use of mock meats as such...just showing that just cos you go vegan doesn't mean you can't have a Christmas Feast or a Burns' Night Haggis or whatever. Most carnists are all "I couldn't live without bacon" or something equally inane so naturally enough I have chosen to show that yes, we too have bacon.

I do actually want to cut down my dependence on comparatively expensive, processed, premade vegan foods including mock meats but I don't anticipate ever giving them up. I enjoy food and I don't subscribe to the idea that veganism is about going without. That was the whole point with my Februdairy posts...it  was all about saying "Look! I have milk, cheese, yoghurt, Ben and Jerrys, chocolate, custard, fudge, ranch dressing and EVERYTHING! Veganism ISN'T all raw carrots and tasteless cardboardy shit and self-denial" and that's the attitude I'm taking into MeatyMarch.

If people want to eat fully raw, raw till 4, wholefoods whatever that's entirely their choice and I don't have a problem with that but I will never be okay with those people hassling junk food vegans or saying sh*t like eating something that looks like meat is as bad as killing a cow. It literally makes no sense and makes all vegans look like psychos.

The infighting between vegans is really concerning. Everyone has their own way of doing things - their own preferences and lifestyles. For someone who can spend a couple of hours preparing a meal from scratch to criticise someone who lives a busy commuter lifestyle is grossly unfair. As someone with an eating disorder the idea of complete strangers feeling they have the right to tell me if they feel my dietary choices are healthy or not is terrifying. 'Live and let live' should be for other humans as well as farmed animals.

Oh yeah, and if you don't think there are vegans who are a problem in and of themselves there are videos such as this explaining just why it's an issue:
"The Problem With Crazy Vegans" by What Mia Did Next
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkfRKHPJwhY
...and I quote: "militant, insulting, offensive vegans". Alienating potential vegans is just such an incredibly dumb tactic. I may not know marketing, and TBH I don't care, that's not what I'm here for. I'm into the leading by example thing: 'if I can do it you can too, if you want to' and...'this is what I eat, feel free to give it a try'.

Postscript
Another thing I want to touch on here is veganism and pet ownership. There's the PETA type lot who think that having a pet is tantamount to slave ownership; and there's the ethical vegan lot who think that you simply can't have a pet (like a cat) which is an obligate carnivore and buy meat for their consumption.
Meat is necessary for a cat; it's not for a human. That shouldn't mean a human who eschews meat can't have a cat.
Here's my take: pet ownership can be cruel. Keeping one animal in isolation is TERRIBLE. Animals have rights. END OF, okay?! But...I have a cat. He has his personal freedom. Yes, he is neutered but as the 'owner' of a male cat I feel that is a responsible decision. I wish there was another option but...you know, if I'm not the owner of the momma cat I can't take responsibility for that.
I buy my cat meat because he needs it, biologically. I don't buy meat for myself and my homo sapiens family because we don't. We get an ethical choice; he doesn't. I love my fur-baby; I am confident he has a good life; he was adopted, not bought from a breeder. I feel ZERO guilt here.
Of course NOT having a cat and NOT buying meat would be better but I LOVE my cat...it feels to me kind of like my 'choice' to be a teen mom. It was a choice in a sense but in another it wasn't...like, this cat would have been born if it wasn't for me so I feel no guilt giving him the best life I can; my kids have a life because of me and I do my best by them, even if 'society' disapproves.. All I do is look after him the best I can. Just as my kids were a choice of sorts and I stepped up to do the best I could by them. Saying the world would be better if my kids weren't here is just as much bullshit as to say the same of not adopting a fur-baby. Does that even make sense??? Do the best by any lives which depend on you.
An animal lover who won't offer food and shelter to a living creature is a strange contradiction to me. Love your pets, treat them well, don't deny them what THEY need.

CLICKBAIT!

Just gonna have a short rant about YouTubers and clickbait.

My own YT channel is really low quality clips and one takes cos I wouldn't have a clue how to edit or anything and I don't care cos it's just like where I put my video diary stuff. But even as an absolute nobody with just 15 subscribers I would never use clickbait titles.

By clickbait I mean titles / title cards that are irrelevant to the video. In other words LIES. 

It's one thing to title a video "I might have cancer" if you're sick and getting tests run. Although, in my mind, it's another thing entirely if you're just going for your regular pap smear and there's no reason to suspect you might get an abnormal result. Even if the testing isn't specifically FOR cancer it's not entirely unreasonable in many scenarios to FEAR having cancer...when I supposedly had IBS (but actually my symptoms were lactose intolerance) I feared it was bowel cancer due to family history. It's worse still if at no point whatsoever do you mention illness, testing, cancer in that video. THAT is what I mean by 'clickbait'.

It harms the audience who sat through your video (that was maybe about going grocery shopping or something just as irrelevant) only to realise it was bullshit; worse, it harms other YouTubers who make genuine videos and won't get the clicks because people assume they're lying too.

Today I stumbled across this video from November 2016:

"LAST DAY WITH BOOBS" by Channon Rose Vlogs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxAv_HwYZb0&t=406s

A viewer commented "I thought you were getting a mastectomy or something" and another viewer replied with the single word "Clickbait". But it wasn't!

The video is a vlog made the day before she went for breast reduction surgery. That's not clickbait. Just because viewers misinterpreted the title and ASSUMED what surgery she was getting isn't her fault. Also, the fact that the video isn't entirely about her upcoming surgery doesn't make it clickbait either. In fact, she didn't actually need to mention her surgery at all because the title firmly asserts the subject matter to be about what she was doing the day before.

Then there's this video from yesterday:

"ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED ON TWITTER..." by WatersWife Vlogs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS6PfWo2Lm8

It's a live-stream of over an hour and I haven't watched the whole thing yet but there's a hugely relevant bit within the first ten minutes. She'd called out another vlogging family via Twitter (hence HER video's title) for their repeated use of clickbait, especially misleading references to adoption. I am utterly baffled as to how people can defend that family - especially the mother of the baby they've falsely claimed to be adopting. I don't have a maternal instinct to my name but no way in hell is ANYONE going to use my child like that!

By the way, when Aimee says that some of her video titles are "a little clickbaity" she's just using the most eye-catching element of her video, even if it's a minor element of that video. I've watched most of her videos and I haven't seen one that was misleading, deliberately or otherwise. There's nothing wrong with trying to grab people's attention...unless you're crying wolf to do so. And we all know how that story ended up!

I am just saddened that people don't have a better sense of ethics. Either for their own behaviour or their expectations of others. One thing I really love about Aimee Waters and her channel is how genuine she seems to be. Her opinions are carefully considered, her arguments are well balanced and she has great integrity.

Of course perception comes into it. People have even accused Aimee of using her son's death for views which I believe is harshly unfair. She went through a terrible experience and chose to share it for awareness. By sharing Beckett's story she is helping people suffering similar losses.

Anyway, that's my two-cents' worth.

Just say no to clickbait.

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.

Pyeongchang 2018: Flying The Flag

I couldn't sleep... Browsing through the BBC News website I stumbled across this story which left a poor impression, so I decided to have a closer look at it in this blog.

"Winter Olympics: Shani Davis says Team USA

have been 'dishonourable' with coin toss"

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/winter-olympics/42992814)

Who is Shani Davis?

At the time of writing Shani is a 35 year old black American speedskater noted for being the first black athlete to win a Winter Olympics gold in an individual event. 

He is not unfamiliar with controversy: in 2002 his qualification for the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was investigated as a team-mate was under suspicion of throwing the race in Davis' favour. Despite being Shani's first Winter Olympics "after the opening day ceremonies, he decided to leave the Games early". Pyeongchang is his fifth Winter Olympic Games, if you count Salt Lake which his Team USA profile does not.

At the Turin 2006 Games he was unfairly vilified in a cock-up over a new team pursuit event. He won a gold and silver at Turin and again at Vancouver in 2010. 

He has also held a number of world records. (sources: Wikipedia. Yeah, yeah, I know but I'm not a student anymore and this is not an academic article. Also, https://www.teamusa.org/us-speedskating/athletes/Shani-Davis)

Who is Erin Hamlin?

Erin is a 31 year old white American luger noted for being the first female American luger to win a Olympic medal and the first American to gain a medal in singles competition - this was a Bronze at the 2014 Sochi games.

The BBC article claims Pyeongchang is her "fifth and final games" having announced her intention to retire. However, her team USA profile confirms it is in fact her fourth. (Sources: Wikipedia and https://www.teamusa.org/usa-luge/athletes/Erin-Hamlin)

What happened?

Shani Davis was one of eight nominees to be flag-bearer for team USA at the Pyeongchang 2018 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony. The vote was tied between Shani Davis and Erin Hamlin so it was settled (as prearranged) by the toss of a coin - a time-honoured method. Erin Hamlin won. So far, so simple.

In consequence, Davis posted the following tweet:

I am an American and when I won the 1000m in 2010

I became the first American to 2-peat in that event.

@TeamUSA dishonourably tossed a coin to decide its 2018 flag bearer. No problem. I can wait until 2022.

#BlackHistoryMonth2018 #PyeongChang2018

At best it reads as unsporting. Summer Britcher, a 23 year old luger on Team USA responded:

Wow.

Very happy a #soreloser like this is not representing us tomorrow.

Good luck in your events,

good thing character doesn't play a part in your results.

BURN!!!

To succeed in sports requires a fair amount of ego; confidence and self-belief but being a sore loser is very much frowned upon. Being able to deal with the inevitable disappointments is a crucial skill; not celebrating the successes of others is shabby behaviour in a team.

The word 'dishonourably' is confusing. What is dishonourable about a coin-toss? It's settling a tie with a game of chance. Did he think he should have been awarded the honour without being put to a democratic vote with other nominees? I don't know the credentials of the other candidates but Davis and Hamlin are both medallists and veterans of multiple Games. It is a big honour, often reserved for a team member of particular merit but should it come down to how many medals you've previously won, or the colour of them?

And why bring skin colour into it?! His tweet strongly implies he had been passed over for the honour due to race...but if it was a coin toss, how can the decision have been made on racial grounds? It just doesn't make sense to me.

My feeling is that the hashtag was intended to refer to his own place in history as a successful black athlete. But that explanation is kind of clunky. Surely Black History Month is not just an excuse to laud your own achievements? 

If the tweet had been structured differently it could have a different effect. With the hashtag next to his achievement rather than the perceived slight:

@TeamUSA dishonourably tossed a coin to decide its 2018 flag bearer. No problem. I can wait until 2022. #PyeongChang2018

I am an American and when I won the 1000m in 2010

I became the first American to 2-peat in that event. #BlackHistoryMonth2018

Better still would have been to split it as two different tweets; one for his disappointment (which may still have sounded bitter and unsporting) and another for his prior achievements. 

Also, if he had used the undated hashtag (#BlackHistoryMonth) it *might* have read more to do with his achievements and less to do with the current event he was tweeting about. Using the date version it reads far more as "...and this is how black athletes get treated in 2018". Of course, this is very much a matter of interpretation.

My opinion is...

Was the whole mess a matter of bad tweeting? I'd like to think so but I'm really not sure.

There seem to me three basic options: (i) apologise and delete, (ii) clarify what you meant - either acknowledging you phrased it poorly or claiming you've been misinterpreted, (iii) stand by it. What Shani Davis has done (so far, it has been roughly 48 hours at this point) is to lock his twitter account. Emphatically not an apology or a clarification.

The flag-bearer represents the whole nation's team. Davis' tweet reads that he thinks that he's better than the rest. Or at least better than Hamlin...I find myself wondering if 'losing out' to a woman is a factor here too.

At best Davis appears to be a sore loser and a lousy team-mate. At worst he's playing the race card (because there seems no way it can have been a factor) and possibly misogynistic.

Any which way you look at it he's going to find it hard to move on from this. Pissing off your team-mates is one thing, painting yourself as a diva when you rely on media attention and sponsorship deals for your livelihood is another.

Veganuary Validity

I was packing up my vintage Pyrex - yes, I know I just moved in but my dad has decided to construct a kind of built-in sideboard for me - and an article in one of the old newspapers I was using caught my eye. My dad is a Daily Mail (AKA The Daily Fail) reader but you can't choose your family *sigh*. This particular article was about the Veganuary campaign and missed the point by such a large margin I laid it aside to rant about later.

Unfortunately, being me, I can't find the ruddy thing now. However, after much googling (the keywords are so damn common lol) I found it online here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5240825/DR-MAX-MIND-DOCTOR.html - quoted red in this blog.

This is gonna be a long one so grab a coffee and a snack and make yourself comfy...

INITIAL STATEMENT: This is a rant about bad journalism and an attack on a group of people just trying to make a positive difference. This is not about saying that vegans are better than other people or that you should participate in Veganuary. I don't care about your choices half as much as I do about you using false logic to justify them. Just say that you really like bacon and you don't care about the pigs that died for the benefit of your taste-buds.

WHAT IS VEGANUARY?

'Veganuary' is the name of a registered charity (1168566) which promotes veganism. Veganuary acknowledges that people choose veganism for a variety of valid reasons such as concern for animal welfare, environmentalism and health:

"Veganism is one of the most effective choices a person can make

to reduce the suffering of animals, help the planet

and improve personal health"

https://veganuary.com/about/

Veganuary promotes eating vegan* for the month of January. It is a time of year when, after the overindulgences of the festive period, people commonly make (often short-lived) resolutions to improve their lifestyle and diet, fitness and general health. 

*Veganism is so much more than diet but dietary changes are easy to implement and carry the most impact. See my waffling about veganism here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ-Wh56MqNg

People often think that eating vegan is difficult, expensive, arduous, problematic...Veganuary aims to dispel these and other concerns; the hope being that after a month people will want to continue being vegan or at very least cut down their animal-based consumption long-term. Unlike a lot of pro-vegan groups (which tend to be all or nothing, even to the point of hating on vegetarians cos they're not doing 'enough') they take a gentler stance that any changes from carnist / omnivore to a more ethical lifestyle is a good move.

After the month is up Veganuary continues to support and encourage people to continue living vegan year round. 

DO I DO VEGANUARY?

No. An overheard conversation (in early 2012?) led me to believe I may be lactose intolerant. I had been ill for over a decade, medicated for IBS which did nothing to help - and have been refused testing for lactose intolerance by several GPs - but cutting out dairy WORKED so I'm gonna say that's what was wrong with me all those years. Then I went vegetarian (again) at the start of 2013 because I just felt 'fed up' with meat. 

Unfortunately many vegetarian foods contain dairy so after several years of struggling with that (and my total lack of willpower to binge on Ben and Jerry's...I also have an eating disorder) and also with concerns that I might become allergic to eggs like my mother I transitioned to vegan in the second half of 2015. 

So as I am already vegan year round I do not 'take the challenge' of eating vegan for a month. I do however follow Veganuary on social media.

SO WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE DAILY FAIL ARTICLE I STARTED OFF THIS BLOG POST TALKING ABOUT?

Right...titled "There's no need to be smug about your vegan 'detox'" it was written by Max Pemberton and published 6th January 2018.

First off, where has Pemberton got this idea that veganism, or more specifically Veganuary, is a 'detox'? Over and over "The idea is that by going animal-free for a month, you 'cleanse' your body" ...er, no it really isn't. The idea is that people will become vegan or at least eat less meat or dairy after trying it out for a month. It's like companies fishing for business offering free trials or reduced rates for an 'introductory period'. Going vegan permanently might feel huge but a month is an easier commitment.

"Veganuary, like any detox programme, is appealing because it's designed to be broken" ...no, it's really not. I repeat: it's not a detox, and whilst you might be "free to eat as many kebabs as you want" come February the idea is definitely that by then you won't want to.

Secondly, where has he got these ideas about detoxes? Admittedly most are faddy but the principle of 'clean eating' to allow your body to remove impurities is straightforward enough and backed up by science. And again stressing that veganism is not a detox veganism also doesn't equate to 'clean eating' - you can easily be a junk food vegan. 

Pemberton claims "we ingest and produce toxins all the time but our body is perfectly adapted to remove them itself" which is fair but not accurate. We are not perfectly adapted; our bodies are fighting an endless battle to keep balance against encroaching toxicity. He claims that we "go a bit bonkers and throw our biology textbooks out of the window" yet any number of campaigns have been run for people to cut out drugs, drinking, smoking, fats, sugars etc claiming that your body will naturally purge these "sins of yesterday" allowing the body to heal. That's not to say that the damage is fully reversible or that you can live however you want so long as you 'detox' occasionally. Who would quit smoking for example if there wasn't the incentive to undo a proportion of the damage? 

"I say this as a former vegan myself: it's incredibly, mind-numbingly dull." Dude, I have no idea what you were doing but you were definitely doing it wrong. Yes, checking labels is tedious as hell but  it's not EVERYTHING, and obviously the more you cook from scratch with unprocessed ingredients the less that's an issue. Does he mean the food is dull? No way. I've always been a bit...experimental in cooking but I have tried so many more new things since going vegan, especially in terms of world cuisine. There'll be more on this point later on.

What does Penberton mean that "basically every food that is nice has been near an animal in some way or another"? He can't possibly be arguing that potatoes, pineapples or peanuts are 'not nice' because, at some point while they were growing, an animal has been in PHYSICAL PROXIMITY to them?! According to the Vegan Society (https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicible, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose" there's nothing in that about food's nearness to an animal. One assumes that what he ACTUALLY means is that the foods he personally likes have animal products in them. But that's still nonsensical because pretty much whatever it is you enjoy eating there's a vegan version available. Pizza Hut do a splendid vegan pizza, Fry's meat replacement products are great, the vegan version of Ben and Jerry's is divine. Veganism isn't ALL about raw veggies and no fun, or at least it doesn't have to be. If he was bored being vegan it's got to be because he ate too fussily or didn't make the effort.

How about the claim that vegan diets are "incredibly restrictive - and in many ways reminiscent of an eating disorder"...oh, I am gonna have fun with this one...carnists and general anti-vegans do love to compare the lifestyle with eating disorders, often drawing your attention to statistics which link the two. However, there is an important chicken-and-egg* issue here. People may go vegan because they are pre-disposed to food issues OR they might adopt veganism as a method of recovery.

*The egg came first. Eggs existed before chickens. The first chicken would have hatched from a chicken egg that was laid by a proto-chicken -an animal very like a chicken itself but not quite. That's how evolution (and selective breeding) works.

"Veganism does not cause eating disorders. Poor mental health causes disordered eating" 

http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/07/why-do-so-many-eating-disorder-survivors-turn-to-veganism-as-part-of-their-recoveries-6910356/

The idea of a link between veganism and eating disorders is especially ludicrous if you consider it the other way around. Many people with eating disorders lean toward veganism, especially during recovery, but the vast majority of sufferers are or were omnivores but no one suggests eating meat or dairy causes these problems! There is also absolutely nothing to correlate an omnivore diet with a better prospect for recovery.

The appeal of veganism to people like me who suffer from eating disorders is the control it allows us by automatically cutting out a load of things which are decidedly problematic. Most animal-based foods are high calorie, cheese and butter are just fat, red and processed meats are linked to cancer, eggs contain loads of cholesterol.

The above cited Metro article quotes Dr Julia Coates, a clinical psychologist, also as saying veganism is restrictive...BUT IS IT? In and of itself, I would say not really. Obviously the principle is that you can't eat a whole bunch of animal products but that leaves EVERYTHING ELSE: fruit, vegetables, seeds, nuts, grains, pulses and a whole bunch of processed products from vegan cheeses to Oreos! There is waaay more that I can eat than I can't. 

'Restrictive'...my kitchen is full of food, I used to have hardly anything in the fridge to the point I even doubted it was worth having one but now I struggle to find space in it.

"A whole new world of food and a new way of cooking are opened up to you.

You start experimenting with ingredients you've never used before,

or sometimes never heard of, like nooch or seitan" 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/26/vegan-diet-lifestyle-health-animals

My eating disorder involves bingeing and purging which leads me towards the junk-food vegan side whereas an anorexic might lean toward raw veganism, that being far more restrictive obviously. Then there are personal preferences and I eat damn near everything, being a fussy eater would make it a whole lot harder. It comes down entirely to how you're living as a vegan - it's the personal choices which matter, not the principle.

Pemberton compounds this idea of a restricted diet with the statement that "the healthiest diet includes a little bit of everything" but what is a well balanced vegan diet missing out on? Contrary to beliefs expressed on social media bacon is not a food group! We get plenty of protein, vitamins, fats, sugars etc. and also more fibre on average than omnivores. That IS a little bit of everything.

What about the 'smugness' referenced in the article's title or "being a vegan at least allows us to demand special attention" or "this 'I am special' mentality"? GAH! No. all the no. Yes I do talk about being vegan a fair bit but that's because we eat three meals a day plus drinks and snacks (on top of the other impacts, but how often do carnists buy leather goods or whatever?) so it's quite a 'present' thing in my day-to-day life. If veganism was a cultural norm it wouldn't be such an issue.

Do I feel 'smug' about being vegan? No. I feel good about myself cos I know it's good for me and the planet and that I am no longer causing suffering to animals but not 'smug'. If anything I feel a little guilty I didn't do it sooner and that I'm doing it from a position of lactose intolerance and personal preference rather than from the ethical standpoint. Do I feel 'special'? No. Do I 'demand special attention'? HELL NO! I'll ask about vegan options or whatever but it makes me really uncomfortable to bring attention to myself in any way at all. I have a lot of social anxiety and that's a thing I absolutely do not want.

Every few months I go for a meal with my extended family and we eat at a Toby Carvery which is great as they have vegan options for me. The last time however it was closed because of unforeseen circumstances so we moved the party to another restaurant. The restaurant was super nice and accommodating and the chef offered to cook me something especially but that kind of 'special attention' was more than I could cope with and I'm ashamed to say I pretty much ran away cos I was verging on a panic attack. Obviously SOME vegans will think themselves special snowflakes and enjoy being the centre of attention, causing a fuss, making people accommodate their needs etc but I am not one of them.

"With veganism there are the arguments about animal welfare and the environment. But you can care about both without going to such extremes" but HOW? How can you profess to care about animals AND condone their slaughter for your food? Even if you are vegetarian rather than vegan you're condoning the forced imprgnation of cows and the resulting slaughter of their calves and the crushing of male chicks which are of no use to the egg industry. How can you care about the environment when the resources used in meat production just don't make sense? The land use - to keep animals on and to grow plant food for their consumption - pollution, emissions of greenhouse gases and the incredible amount of fossil fuels and water it takes to produce relatively little food (both in terms of physical volume and calorific values).

And how is veganism "going to extremes" anyway? As I set out before, the whole point of Veganuary is to show people that it isn't extreme or difficult. It's all a matter of perspective anyway. Different time periods and different cultures would view a modern British omnivore diet as extreme. A huge chunk of the 'obesity problem' (which I think has a LOT to do with eating disorders) is easy access to cheap calories we eat to excess - a single fast food meal that is more than a day's calorie allowance - now that's extreme surely?!

Which leads me to my final point...

EXTREME VEGANISM

There are always people who will take a thing too far and they should not be taken especially seriously.

I have heard so-called-vegans say you're not a real vegan if you eat sugar (some countries filter sugar with bone char, the UK does not), if you drink coffee or alcohol (cos mind altering substances are animals???), if you don't eat all organic (because natural and no pesticides - unattainable but makes some sense) but also if you eat anything organic (because organic food is grown with animal fertilisers...yeah, that's not...please stop) and so on and so forth. it's pretty insane.

"When you're being called murderers and rapists,

that is overstepping the mark, for fairly obvious reasons"

- Alison Waugh, trainee farmer

Source for all purple quotes in this section:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42833132

Hello??? This is taken as a statement of extreme veganism but lets look at it shall we? Murder is only considered a crime when applied to humans but that is not particularly logical:

• Humans are sentient creatures capable of experiencing pain and distress.
• Farm animals are sentient creatures capable of experiencing pain and distress.
• And whilst we're at it, fish in the sea are sentient creatures capable of experiencing pain and distress.

Taking the life of a sentient creature causing it pain and distress 

Similarly, rape is only considered a crime when applied to humans but violating an animal sexually - not forgetting sperm retrieval as well as forced insemination, many vegans describe the movement as feminist as they rarely acknowledge the violation of males in farming - is just plain WRONG.

I am personally not interested in being a 'vegan activist' because I feel that can be particularly off-putting to people who might otherwise be open to the idea. 

"activists hold vigils outside abattoirs and aim to turn the world vegan

by sharing images on social media of the animals' treatment"

and

"cases of activists standing in the meat aisles of supermarkets

with graphic images and noises of animals being slaughtered"

Are these extreme vegans? It might not be my choice but I can't argue against the point they're making. People consume meat and dairy without facing the reality of the suffering their consumption causes.

Joey Carbstron of Save Movement "denies being an extremist,

saying that people have to understand that what is happening to animals is extreme"

People may not want to be educated on these matters but it's like not wanting to see graphic images on the news or bear witness to human suffering. It's not about what you want; I've seen people object to being educated about war, famine, slavery, the holocaust, all sorts of things that they don't want to hear about because they find them distressing. However, the consensus is that people need to know about those things anyway. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Santayana)

"I don't think they can understand, or differentiate between the fact that

different animals have different purposes.

We have these companion animals and we have our livestock

and there is a line drawn there" - Alison Waugh

WHAT EVEN???

1. Animals may be bred for specific reasons - to be eaten or to be pets - but they do not exist for those purposes. It is just how we choose to use them! This is the sort of non-logic used to validate slavery; that black people existed to be subservient to whites.

2. The different animals, the 'line drawn'...this a social construct. Westerners who will happily eat pigs are appalled by China's consumption of dog meat for example. Dogs and pigs are both intelligent animals which make good companions. There is literally no difference except what is culturally deemed as 'normal' and 'abhorrent'. Again, the division of how animals are to be treated down the lines of species smacks of racial segregation or the holocaust; one variety of human being worth less than another. If that is false logic how can we use the same argument for animals? Even if we try to say our need is greater that's pretty much bullshit cos plants feed humans a damn sight better than animal carcasses do! The only real 'need' is in terms of bottlefed babies and tube-fed individuals where dairy is kind of necessary. Other formulas exist but are not without drawbacks.

She's literally justifying her position using the argument that other people think it's okay. Yeah...that's not really how it works. 

FURTHER READING
Blog on the Daily Fail's ongoing campaign against vegans:
https://thecrumbyvegan.com/2017/01/30/what-did-vegans-ever-do-to-the-daily-mail/
Channel 4 offends vegans by branding Veganuary participants as 'asswipes': http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/channel-4-veganuary-post-instagram_uk_5a65950ee4b002283004287a

Family is just a state of mind

Families are bloody weird things, aren't they? Along with all the other aspects of being human I just don't get 'family' seems a very peculiar concept.
That we require parents to be born and to survive early childhood seems fairly straightforward as does the idea that most people will remain in contact with these caregivers and any siblings. I have often likened this bond to Stockholm Syndrome: affection caused by close proximity and shared trauma. You may deduce that I have some difficult familial issues.

I was the only child of unmarried but cohabiting on not-the-friendliest-of-terms parents; I was a fully single* mother of two (*by which I mean zero contact with their father, zero child support, no boyfriends or other co-parenting type person - regardless of time-frame - from the time I was expecting my youngest until they reached adulthood). This means my immediate family consists of my mother and her partner of the last 11 years, my father and my two adult children. So far, so ordinary.

I have quite a large extended family - eight cousins on my mum's side, (who had 20 kids between them and now have 9 grandkids too) two on my dad's side (and another 4 kids there). However, between geography, my parents' relationships with their siblings and a significant age gap between me and most of my cousins there was no relationship there while I was growing up.
The only reason we connected more recently was when my cousin S died in a motorcycle crash back in 2014. I am immensely grateful that we did reconnect as we lost S's brother A to cancer only 18 months later.

Yesterday I went to a funeral for a great aunt on my dad's side of the family. He is not close to his family although he has three brothers. I changed my name at 15...no one on that side had got the memo although I had only met three people in the room before, four if you count the deceased. I'm nearly forty FFS! I'd met the deceased but none of her three daughters nor anyone else in the extended family. I hadn't seen anyone in the room since I was about 13 (I *thought* I'd seen my uncle P when my daughter was a baby but he insisted he'd never met her so I guess not).
My dad is interested in family history and although he tried to engage in conversation and ask questions none of them seemed at all bothered. I feel bad for him that he's trying and getting nowhere. There were the usual niceties of "why do we only meet at funerals?" and "we must meet up more often"...not a note of sincerity behind the words. For my maternal cousins the reminder of mortality was a trigger to get us to know each other better; on my dad's side I guess it's not happening.

It just makes me wonder... Why do some families do the tight-knit thing the media tells us is normal while others just don't? It's not always a matter of falling out, sometimes it's just a case of utter disinterest. I get it though. Why should you have a connection with people you don't really know, who all you have in common is a similarity of DNA? It just really sucks when you would have liked to have a more meaningful relationship.