In Defence of Peter Quint (The Haunting of Bly Manor)

I dunno, maybe this defence / rant isn't necessary on any level but having just finished watching 'The Haunting of Bly Manor' (the non-sequel to 'The Haunting of Hill House') on Netflix with my elder beastie I feel like viewers will probably see the character Peter Quint as a villain... and imho that's a tad unfair. 

WARNING: THIS WILL NOT BE A SPOILER FREE ZONE 

First up is the inevitable context argument. In 1980s Britain domestic violence was barely acknowledged. A man could LEGALLY rape his wife (that was true until Regina v. R (1991)) and date rape wasn't taken seriously either. Workplace sexism and sexual harassment was normalised. Sure, Peter Quint is a bit of a problematic git by modern standards but he's hardly even a blip for his era.
I'm still not even 100% sure if he'd stolen all the money he was accused of - Henry Wingrave was so far out of his gourd who's to say he didn't lose the funds or give Quint the necessary permissions?!

See also: https://www.elle.com/culture/movies-tv/a34348004/haunting-of-bly-manor-oliver-jackson-cohen-interview/

Instead I would argue that Viola Willoughby is the absolute villain of the piece. Not to deny she had a rough go of it but she was a damned nasty piece of work well before she morphed into the monster of the piece:

• Viola sweeps Arthur, the man her sister Perdita is interested in, off his feet; Perdita is then dependent on her brother-in-law and has no other marriage prospects.
• Viola has a child, Isabel, who supplants Perdita in her affections.
• Viola gets sick with (presumably) tuberculosis. She does not respect the enforced separation from her daughter - she's so selfish that she literally doesn't care if Isabel catches her disease.
• Perdita nurses her faithfully but Viola lashes out viciously - fuelled by anger, jealousy, and resentment. Perdita begs Viola to accept her fate, even if only so Isabel may have better memories of her mother. Viola doesn't care.
• Perdita, having borne all these things with good grace, eventually suffocates Viola - she tries to think of it as a mercy but (according to the narrator) she has 'had enough'. Like that isn't valid. Enough of Viola's suffering (having now far outlived all expectations) and enough of her cruelty. Everyone has a limit and that was Perdita's.

By the time Viola finally dies and Arthur marries Perdita it is seemingly too late for Perdita to have children of her own. Isabel resents her for usurping her mother, Arthur has lost the family wealth and treats his wife as something of a consolation prize, so Perdita still has nothing.

This article posits that Viola isn't a real villain but just as trapped as the other spirits:
https://www.oprahmag.com/entertainment/a34225149/haunting-of-bly-manor-lady-in-the-lake/
I disagree. She may not have trapped herself intentionally and she couldn't have foreseen the consequences her refusal to accept her fate would have but there's no denying she caused the whole damn mess through sheer bloody-mindedness! If she had been a kinder person, if she had put her daughter's needs first, if she had considered her sister AT ALL, none of it would have happened.

But this is supposed to be a rant in defence of Peter Quint, right? So let's bring it back to him.

The really unconscionable thing Quint does is kill his lover, Rebecca 'Bex' Jessel. But being me I have a counterpoint to that too.

Okay, I lied about being back to Quint. ANOTHER tangent: when Hannah Grose is coming to terms with the fact she's dead she's working through her emotions by projecting the object of her affections - Owen Sharma - so when he asks her to warn him of the danger it's her own mind telling her to save the man she loves.
So we judge Peter Quint for taking the life of his lover instead of saving her. But Hannah and Peter being very different people doesn't make Quint an  inherently bad guy, just not as good as Hannah. People are varied, not just good and bad. As it is, when the danger is pressing upon them Hannah tells Owen only "they need you at the lake" sending him straight into harm's way with no warning of what lay ahead!

The fact Peter reveals himself as a ghost to Bex should warn her - but somehow it doesn't. Her own reaction is, in my humble opinion, 'off': she should surely want to discover Quint's body and have his name cleared when everyone believes him an absconding thief? Instead she falls in with his plans to find a way for them to stay together forever... for a wannabe barrister she's exceptionally slow on the uptake of what that must inevitably entail. Nor does she seem to be over-burdened with guilt for the 'help' they demand of Miles and Flora, the children she was responsible for.
Yeah, Peter's not a 'good' guy but then Bex wasn't so sweet and innocent... she was totally using the kids as a way to get to Henry Wingrave, using the kids to see Peter - even AFTER he killed her. And lets not forget that she STILL didn't tell him 'no' when she pretended to go along with possessing Flora permanently: Bex was complicit in Peter's attempt to eradicate Miles even as she tried to 'save' Flora.

So let's address THAT. Peter loves Bex. Hannah loves Owen. Hannah wants Owen SAVED. Peter wants Bex dead? Is it really so simple or cruel? I'm not so sure. Peter wanted to be WITH Bex and the only way he could see that happening was if she died too. It's almost the exact same thing as Viola trying to fetch Isabel every night in her madness... and I wonder if that's where he got it from? He's not so far gone as Viola but her loss, her madness infects all the spirits she traps at Bly. The other ghosts aren't hell-bent on dragging their loved ones off to a watery grave because (so it seems) none of them was possessed by that destructive, possessive kind of love in life. Or at least not with the object of that 'affection' within the boundaries.
Perhaps if Perdita's ghost had risen at her death (rather than waiting for Viola's chest to rot down in the lake) she'd have harmed Arthur or Isabel... but I think not. Life had not been kind to Perdita but she was fundamentally an unselfish person: she had stood back to allow Arthur to be happy with Viola; even before her post-death insanity Viola wouldn't step back even for the sake of Isabel's life.
As Viola kept selfishly trying to bring Isabel to her so too did Peter try to keep Bex with him. Perhaps Viola is excused because she was too far gone to realise what she was doing? But I'm still of the mind that he thought Bex realised what the goal was - he didn't tell her the plan and tucked her away in a memory to cause her less fear and suffering, not as a deliberate deception.
But my theory is that, given time, Hannah might have tried to induce Owen - by whatever means she could - to stay at Bly with her. Whether that would be from a normal human fear of loneliness or the warped influence of Viola who could tell? Maybe Hannah loved Owen enough to let him go... but as it turned out he didn't let her go - he took her memory with him. If he'd had the chance I fear he'd have jumped at the chance to stay with her at Bly forever.

As you may know I have been alone just this side of forever. I refer to finding my fictional future spouse as finding a willing victim. Y'all think I'd let a little thing like death get in my way if I finally met the right someone?! "Till death us do part" is kinda short term... So yeah, I'm not gonna condemn Peter Quint for 'keeping' Bex, especially if he thought she was willing.
He was afraid. Lonely, afraid, and desperate. The memory he kept slipping back to, unlike Bex and Hannah's happy moments, was being manipulated by his abusive mother. A damaged man, human enough to make some terrible mistakes, and yet still capable of love.

Did Peter Quint redeem himself? It's a tough one. I believed his apology to Miles was heartfelt but it is it enough to say "I'm sorry I tried to kill you kid"? I'm not sure. But hey, Miles lived and completely forgot his childhood trauma. What kind of 'peace' Quint went to when Viola's spell was broken is, like everything about the hereafter, unknowable.
Did Rebecca Jessel redeem herself? Also kind of tough. She was willing to sacrifice Miles to save Flora. She was willing to suffer Flora's drowning so the child didn't have to. It's not because she's a woman that I find her more problematic than Quint - Quint made a decision to permanently possess the children, a terrible thing to do indeed... but an open and 'honest' decision. Bex, for a grown and supposedly highly educated woman, shows herself to be horribly suggestible at best. It's like she's supposed to be the victim of a manipulative boyfriend and sure, even smart women do stupid shit for men but I'm not buying it.
If she'd CHOSEN to hurt those kids for her own ends I'd understand it more than this... stupidity. I've often said that if I kill someone I want it to be because I MEANT TO. Killing someone by accident or ignorance or neglect or stupidity is, to me somehow worse than deliberate murder because you just didn't care if someone got hurt. If someone kills me I want it to be because they wanted me dead, not because I was convenient, or there.

Viola definitely didn't redeem herself and I'm still baffled by the conclusion... why did she bide her time within Dani? Why did she re-assert herself after such a long time? Is it supposed to be a metaphor for things like HIV that once contracted will get you in the end???
Although Perdita killed Viola she's the one I feel for. She bore her misfortunes with grace and suffered a great deal, getting a raw deal from Arthur, Isabel and Viola. I also felt her ghost was of little significance in the haunting. Rather a sad afterlife.

Two And A Half Years On

Obligatory recap:
When my mum first came here - at the end of June 2018 - after a nine and a half week stay in hospital I very much thought she was coming here to die. In all honesty we hadn't been at all convinced she would even get out of hospital.

Before her stroke my mum, then 73, was getting visibly frailer. She was greyer, more wrinkled, shrinking. The day before I had actually sobbed on my daughter's shoulder that I didn't think we'd have her for much longer. 

That said, she was still living independently, driving considerable distances although she spent more of her time at her partner's house than her own flat for sheer convenience.

Her stroke was described as 'severe'. There's no classification system like stages of cancer that allow you to understand where your loved one is on a broad spectrum that ranges from quick recovery at one end to things such as permanent paralysis, coma and death at the other.

My mum went from moderately healthy and active (type 2 diabetes and advancing age) to completely dependent. And it was a massive shock to us.

Her father had suffered a large stroke when I was a kid. We all agreed his quality of life had been crap yet somehow he lived another 16 or so years. Mum's situation was so much worse it was no wonder we expected her to go imminently.

Anyway, that first year she was home I felt like I was on tenterhooks. Every time she nodded off in front of the TV I'd check she was still breathing. If I woke up before her I'd be terrified she'd died in the night. NOT, I might add, because I am *scared* of her dying so much as it's a new experience I know will be very unpleasant.

I know I've blogged about all this before so I've tried to be concise.

We've recently passed the 2.5 years mark since her stroke and we're also just past the 2 years 4 months since she came to live out her days in the care of her only child - muggins here. And the pressing thing is... how wrong I was back then.

Not only did was she clearly NOT on her last legs, as evidenced by her continued survival, but - and this is the bit I'm especially struggling with - SHE WASN'T ACTUALLY THAT BAD.

Badness is a thing you can only appreciate by contrast. Mid 2018 was BAD. I did not make a bad call in declaring it bad. It was absolutely the most horrific experience... until you experience WORSE.

Worse is decidedly where we are now and I have an uncomfortable awareness that further degrees of badness are both possible and probable.

When my mum first came here she was so catastrophically not the person she had been that it was difficult to see the blessings. With hindsight, and loss, they're clearer. That's where I'm at now - realising how much more of her we've lost, especially since what was probably another big stroke right at the start of lockdown.

Memory - she remembered lots of past things although she had an unfortunate mental block on her partner's name.
Her memory is far worse now. She blanks lots of things, and far more names. She rarely reminisces.

Personality - back then she was still pretty much herself.
Now her principal remaining characteristic is a stubborn streak a mile wide.

Intelligence - my mum's never had an IQ test and her parents made her leave school at 16 but she's a seriously smart lady. There's something kind of hilarious about a stroke survivor who can't remember the name of her partner but can spell obscure words, correct grammar and yell abuse at someone misusing French on TV.
Some of it's still in there but we see less and less of it. She still uses some rather impressive words at times.

Speech - we adjusted to the new sound of her voice quite slowly.
She just passed her 76th birthday (whodathunkit?!) and she had three phone calls - each person said how good her speech was... yeah, it's not like that real world. Her speech is very difficult to understand now, even though I'm with her full-time I struggle. I've started her on drink thickener too which is indicative of deterioration. Gotta try to persuade our not-so-with-it GP to put it on her prescription next.

Mobility - it didn't bother me seeing my mum using a walking frame. I was all in favour for the stability, as was she. The hospital physios had wanted her to try for sticks but my mum has ALWAYS been pro-frame. She first used one in her 50s when she suffered a broken ankle & DVT. Safety was always a higher priority to her than appearances. She would walk to the loo on her own... from the living room. She would get up to the loo on her own in the night.
She can't get up from a chair without assistance now, let alone out of bed. It must be a good year and a half since she went to the loo on her own and forget walking the length of the house! These days she never moves anywhere without at least one person HANDS ON.

She used to come and sit in the living room to watch TV although it drove me nuts that I was expected to watch endless Midsummer Murders repeats when I don't even enjoy watching TV; now she hardly leaves her room... which at least means I can get stuff done from time to time. She sleeps a LOT more.

Old age is not beautiful. It is grim.

My name is Heggie and I am an addict

First up, this is not a paid ad. I am just really enthused for this. Other similar schemes exist.

Secondly, I need to say that as I am bulimic there is a chance that this addiction is not as healthy as it may appear.

I have become addicted to The Conqueror / My Virtual Missions:

https://www.theconqueror.events/

Starting in 2013 I lost a LOT of weight - I was on the Vi Challenge shakes (which as I am now full vegan I cannot go back to) and very active. I got into the best shape of my life by quite a large margin (roughly 7 stone).

2012 vs 2014

Since my mum's stroke (April 2018) EVERYTHING has gone to hell. Being trapped at home has done unspeakable damage to my weight, fitness, mental health, physical health... my bulimia is an ever-present issue as is insipient alcoholism. The only thing I have to look forward to, other than death, is a long overdue mental breakdown.

Covid-19 had not helped.

Back in May I gave in to months of Facebook ads...

It started here with the Inca Trail (Peru) - beautiful medal, super achievable walking distance (done in a fortnight c/o PokemonGO)

I bought a 2nd entry code which I used for The Grand Canyon (USA):

As I happened to have a rowing machine about my person this seemed like a super apt challenge to do. Ye gods I feel like I earned that medal!

Then they released Camino de Santiago (France & Spain). How beautiful is this medal?!

I have 50+ km left to complete this one (walking via PokemonGO again) but I should complete it within a couple of weeks and I am super excited to add this medal to my collection.

Although I was by now halfway through the year I decided to add on the 2020 challenge. I need a medal for getting through this fucking shitstorm of a year!

I started of with a target of 1000 miles... then I upped it to 2020 km... this morning I changed it to 2020 miles. This is mostly the kilometres of the other challenges (I'm treating this as the sum of the year, the challenge is to do MORE this year) but does include some separate distances.

THEN they released Ring of Kerry (Ireland):

I have to admit this medal doesn't float my boat but I am a small % Irish (my mother was a Keating; my kids are named Erin & Kathleen) and I appreciate the Ogham. I did this one on a newly acquired recumbent exercise bike (1st equipment purchase from this addiction).

With Camino I purchased an extra code which I used to register for Alps To Ocean (New Zealand):

This was also done on the recumbent exercise bike.
With 2020 I ALSO purchased an extra code which I used to register for Great Ocean Road (Australia):

I have 6.3 km left to row to complete this challenge.

They just announced TWO new challenges! I am gonna register for The Cabot Trail (Canada) and do that on the recumbent exercise bike this year. How cute is this medal?! Love the puffins!

So that will be EIGHT Medals for the year: 2020, Inca, Canyon, RoK, GOR, A2O, CdeS & Cabot.

I am also gonna purchase a code for Ring Road (Iceland) but to start next year:

My maternal grandfather was eating ice cream with the yanks in Iceland during WWII and I believe it is the origin of the family rock. I will be doing this one on the recumbent exercise bike.

2021 is going to be ALL about the long challenges as I want to complete certain things within a calendar year. Such as LEJOG (UK) which I will be walking:

I honestly thought LEJOG was between Le Walk and Le Run for AGES but of course it's Land's End to John O'Groats (AKA the length of Britain).

Then there's The Appalachian Trail (USA):

This medal also doth not improve the buoyancy of my dinghy but I already bought the Grandma Gatewood book to accompany the challenge so I really had better do it. As local walks are not nearly challenging enough I plan to do this mixed walking with rowing and my climbing machine (2nd equipment purchase) in order to emulate the difficulty level.

The currently available remaining challenges are - English Channel (UK / France) which I DEFINITELY want to do, but only when I can swim it:

Hadrian's Wall (UK) which is arguably the most popular medal / challenge but does nothing for me:

And Route 66 (USA) but I am feeling pretty lousy about America since Drump, the anti BLM violence, promoting fascism and white supremacy issues...

During 2021 they're supposed to be launching new challenges bi-monthly and I am definitely hoping for Africa / Asia challenges so as to get a world tour going ;) 

I have to admit that so far I haven't lost ANY weight despite also using Huel for that purpose, but I must be fitter and healthier than I was. Also, I'm not sure it's helping my mental health beyond motivating me to get outside and to feel as if I am achieving something. I miss Open University and the dream that I was working toward a better future.

I miss hope.

Ranting For Redmayne (not Rowling)

Today I am feeling pissed off about the whole Eddie Redmayne / J K Rowling controversy.

Backstory: J K Rowling has been saying stuff and written a book perceived as transphobic which I have commented on before. Personally I see this as slightly problematic on two grounds
(i) personally I think she is less transphobic and more feminist: women are being erased from the women's rights they fought to gain by a movement to avoid trans exclusion
(ii) people are failing to differentiate between trans people and bog-standard liars who are using gender identity as a screen for their wrongdoing (and as this blog is largely about acting just Google the number of films this is an element of - eg Mulan, Mrs Doubtfire, LotR). Yes, it is an unfortunate stereotype but everyone who writes of predatory males and / or nurturing females is perpetuating gender stereotypes but when we try to dictate what stories can or should be told we're on very shaky ground.
Eddie Redmayne played Lili Elbe in the 2015 film The Danish Girl - a role he was vilified for as Lili was a trans or intersex woman at the time of her death. He is now playing Newt Scarmander in the J K Rowling spin-off Fantastic Beasts series. Redmayne has also been criticised as abelist for playing Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything (2014) which has been brought up repeatedly in this latest controversy.

Disclaimer: I am agender (biological female) and, in amongst everything else, I am pissed off that there is a new binary here - trans or cis. There is NOTHING in the narrative for agender, non-binary, genderfluid, non-conforming segment of society. These are my opinions from my point of view and I mean no disrespect to others who disagree.

First off...
The interview that's got everyone's knickers in a twist has been grossly misrepresented as Redmayne defending Rowling, as if he were supporting her comments. No, he said categorically that her comments were absolutely out of line; what he also said was that death and rape threats are totally unacceptable, whatever 'provocation' people may perceive. People might try reading the story, not just the deliberately provocative headlines.
I have seen comments not only saying that Rowling deserves death and rape threats because she's a 'public figure' but that she's a valid target because she's rich and white. I am with Redmayne on this: no matter how awful a person may be threatening violence is VILE. Just because a person is 'privileged' doesn't protect them from fear, being able to afford security doesn't guarantee protection from violence. The fact that trans people are frequently victims of violence does not make this okay either.

The criticisms against Redmayne for The Danish Girl...
CASTING
Once upon a time I went for a job as a sales assistant. I had no experience. My mental arithmetic is shaky. I have social anxiety. Did I turn down the job offer saying 'there's probably a better candidate out there'? Of course I didn't! I took the job and by the time I left (to care for my mum) 9 months later I was acting deputy manager!
Sure, actors get paid A LOT more than a sales assistant earns but if they're offered a job expecting them to refuse if kinda loopy. As it is director Tom Hooper claims he ONLY considered Redmayne for the part. Presumably he was chosen for his acting skill and resemblance (although I don't see it); presumably he accepted because he wanted to take on the challenge. 
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/real-reason-eddie-redmayne-was-cast-trans-woman-danish-girl-10480658.html
In a weird parallel I suppose Alan Rickman 'should have' rejected the role of Severus Snape in Harry Potter as he was way too old - but J K wanted Rickman. So they made an entire generation of characters older to match and created a bunch of timeline issues instead. Over the years I have seen some very odd casting decisions but film makers quite often know what they're doing. I am still amused that English actor Colin Firth revealed with some awe that Australian actor Guy Pearce (who I remember best from his days on Neighbours) did a better English accent than him in The King's Speech (2010).
Endlessly bitching about actors 'stealing' a role from another actor is ludicrous. Maybe some people ought to have thought twice before auditioning but a director / producer / casting agent made the most important call.

ACTING
I am really baffled by this attitude that only a trans person should play a trans character. This logic doesn't follow to other criteria. Childless people play parents, vegans play omnivores (see the fake Twinkies poor Woody Harrelson had to eat for Zombieland), innocent people play serial killers... unless Keanu reeves really is a vampire there's a serious lack of creature-of-the-night representation. Sorry, I know that's being stupid but acting is all about pretending to be someone you're not, right?! There shouldn't really be any expectation that an actor is (in any way, shape or form) the character they're playing. Probably because of being agender myself I don't read a character's gender as a defining characteristic unless it is written / played that way.
The only time I see an actor's reality being significant is when it's regarding race as whitewashing / black-face / yellow-face etc need to be things of the past. However, racial ambiguity is also a thing and if someone looks right for the part (especially in biopics) surely that is 'enough'? Colourism and racism within ethnic groups are equally problematic as the more commonly thought-of form.

DANGER OF HARM TO ACTORS
A big cause of a trans-gender person's dysphoria is the expectation that they play a certain role society has assigned to them and this can be the root of deep and lasting trauma.
I saw several comments querying what danger it would pose to a trans-woman actor to be obliged to present as male, to relive their transition process. Certainly there are actors who'd be up to the task but even so it shouldn't be taken lightly. One douchebag person on set could make it horrific; and for that actor to have their former gender onscreen, online, made into GIFs and memes... that's a helluva Pandora's Box to open.
OBVIOUSLY that should be a trans-actor's choice but I feel that the public 'demanding' a trans-actor put themselves through that is a bit much. Different if the vocal opponents are themselves trans-actors who feel they should have been cast. Meanwhile, critics are saying a cis actor (who is at near zero risk from harm in the role) is unable to understand or explore gender identity? That's pretty insulting - do you really expect an actor who plays a rocket scientist, a politician, a doctor or a lawyer to understand those roles? Probably not. Can an actor understand those roles? Quite possibly, actually. People can have a great capacity for empathy and comprehension.

ASSUMPTION OF GENDER IDENTITY
I can't find anything where Redmayne confirms his gender identity as cis/male...or cis/het for that matter. This bothers me because the Twitterati are out baying for his blood because 'as a cis/het male' he should never have 'stolen the role' from a trans-actor to play a trans-woman. He never 'stole' anything - he was given it, and assuming his gender (and sexuality) seems off to me. He could easily be non-binary or genderfluid. Why do the general public feel so comfortable in assuming who he is?!
Eddie Redmayne is 38 years old... I was about that age when I realised I was agender, which tbh I didn't know was a thing until people started on about being cis-gendered. Lots of people 'come out' far later in life, or never. Just because someone is famous doesn't mean we're entitled to know how they identify. Using a masculine name and pronouns doesn't actually mean anything about how a person FEELS. Please stop assuming someone is cis/het 'just because' they're not out 'out' as anything else. they don't have to be. And NEVER 'out' anyone - maybe they haven't figured themselves out yet.

TRANS vs CIS
Over and over I've seen the comment that trans actors ONLY should play trans characters, while cis actors should stick to cis characters.
First up, why should any actor be limited to roles conforming to their gender identity, and once a person has transitioned why should they be pigeon-holed and type-cast as a trans-actor? They should just be an actor, as any other - right?! 
Secondly, if an actor such as Redmayne were genderfluid / non-binary / whatever where would that fit in?! Not to say a non-binary person could do it any better than a cis person.
Thirdly, if gender is not binary (male / female) then it follows that gender identity is not binary either (cis / trans). So who can non-binary actors play??? Who can play a non-binary character?! If I were an actor it'd be nice to think I could 'do' a cis woman. Maybe I'm deluded (I'm certainly no actor) but it *should* be possible.
In my humble opinion the depictions that should be condemned are the humiliating, derogatory ones where a trans or ambiguously gendered character has been used and often abused 'for a laugh'. How the role is portrayed ought, imho, be more important than who played it.

As for criticisms of ableism against Redmayne...
The Theory of Everything covers Hawking's early development of Motor Neurone Disease. Exactly how are you going to find an actor with the right type and level of disability to portray a character before and at the onset of their symptoms?
I should like to see greater representation for disabled actors but I can't deny that there are logistical problems here, especially for a progressive and incurable condition. There are also psychological considerations - how does such an actor cope mentally with 'acting' their real-world traumas?
In a story like Hawking's where he was well known there is also an importance of having an actor play him who can 'pass' as him. Assuming you find a disabled actor who is physically and mentally able to take the role what are the chances of them looking like a particular celebrity?!

TERFS vs Womanhood

Before I begin I want to clarify a couple of things...

First, I am not a feminist of any kind. I am an egalitarian.
People are people and NO ONE should have more rights than another. [all people are equally bloody awful]
I have a bunch of issues with a lot of forms of feminism, most notably the concept of a patriarchy that oppresses women at every turn. OBVIOUSLY there are communities & cultures that applies to but hearing privileged white western females complaining how hard done by they are (while advocating a feminism that has no place for people like me*) sticks in the craw.
I grew up in the UK - born in 1978 my youth was shaped by a very female led society:

• Queen Elizabeth II
• Margaret Thatcher
• Female teachers (out of 4 schools I recall less than 10 male staff)
• Female GPs, ophthalmologists & hospital staff (I had lots of eye appointments in my youth)... fairly sure the only male medical pros I encountered were dentists.

Moira Stewart reading the news, Gloria Hunniford on the radio, Madonna was the queen of pop, women were going into space, I could name more female 80s sportspersons than male (Fatima Whitbread, Tessa Sanderson, Jane Torvill) - it literally never crossed my mind that being 'a girl' was in any way shape or form a barrier to doing ANYTHING.
Yes, I know that's not everyone's experience but why precisely would I have thought men were in charge of anything?!

The second point is that I am AGENDER* (https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/5145961804380033180
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/2373217817352024212) - I am biologically female and have birthed offspring from my own unmentionables - but I absolutely DO NOT ascribe to this concept of womanhood, sisterhood, female solidarity. My experiences are my own and not dictated by my genitalia.
The idea that because I have no Y chromosome / am possessed of a uterus / have a tendency to wear bras (or any other criterion for femaleness you might come up with) should have ANY impact on my world view or life experience seems ludicrous.

So what is it that I want to say about TERFs you ask?
Well, obviously I do not identify as a Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist but that is not to say I don't have an issue with the contentious Gender Recognition Act.

First up I absolutely support Trans rights. EVERYONE should be able to live their life free of oppression, hatred and disenfranchisement.
Secondly I absolutely support the concept of gender recognition being de-medicalised. The current system is INSANE.

Personally, I would like to see gender recognition done via a solicitor in the same way as a Deed Poll document changes a person's name for all official purposes. I changed my name age 15 by common usage in 1993 and by Deed Poll circa 1999 for a passport.
Three gender options: male, female, non-binary. Can only be changed every six months or so. Great solution!
This would be suitably easy yet official, and would rule out the principal objections to 'self identification' that a good number of 'women' (who are promptly ostracised from the debate as TERFs) not unreasonably have (more about that in a sec).
What a lot of TERFs / cis people at least CLAIM to fear is that predators will hide behind legislation which is genuinely needed to protect trans people. It is the FORM this legislation takes that needs some proper thinking about. And successive gov'ts have not shown themselves to be any good with the joined-up-thinking. For example, civil partnerships were introduced in the UK without a procedure in place to dissolve the union. 

These objections are founded in fear and habit.
Females of the species (NOT just CIS women) have for generations experienced certain 'special treatments' - women are routinely given lighter jail sentences, women's prisons frequently have far better living conditions than male jails, women are given preferential treatment in domestic violence cases and child custody hearings. THIS IS SEXISM. Even though I or my female offspring could benefit I DO NOT APPROVE.
I have blogged before about this:
(https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/preview/4204385888142636354/2393350157861380543)

HOWEVER, some 'perks' of womanhood exist for solid reasons, such as:

• sex segregated toilets
• sex segregated changing rooms
• sex segregated hospital wards
• refuges

I have no objection whatsoever with an 'actual' trans person using any of these spaces and I abhor people who do have a problem with that. Women can be assaulted by women, men can be assaulted by men. What nobody should want is a scared mum being charged for gender discrimination for challenging the person who only chooses to identify as a woman to perv over kids in the swimming pool changing room. I personally think it is that loophole of self-identification that worries people.
You notice I specify 'sex segregated' here? As an agender person I take no offence at using the facility assigned to my biological gender both for my own protection and for the security of those around me. I do realise that others experience this differently but the point that it is not just for your own comfort or safety is, I feel, important.
I have experienced some odd gender moments - being challenged by a man as to why I was 'following' him (I was walking to work the same route), having a man be extremely embarrassed when I walked in on him in the loo (I was a cleaned, doing my job) - the idea that men feel no embarrassment or vulnerability is frankly ludicrous; they often treasure their single sex spaces as much as women do. Men want to feel some protection from bogus allegations of assault and to feel safe when they pee.

Over and over I hear that 'trans people aren't a threat' and it's certainly true that a trans person is far more likely to be a victim of violence. However, being trans is not, in itself, proof of goodness or innocence.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-sex-attacks-in-womens-jails-by-transgender-convicts-cx9m8zqpg
Saying 'a trans person wouldn't rape' is as dumb as claiming female paedophiles don't exist or that children can't kill. I believe that ALL people need their rights and safety protected as far as is feasible. 

Another issue I have is the erasure of womanhood - even though I don't buy into it myself.
Not so long ago women had to fight to be able to buy sanitary products freely (you used to have to ask in the chemist and be handed a plain brown papered package because menstruation was shameful). I am all for the erasure of the insidious PINK of 'feminine' products (I mean WTF with the pink OUIJA BOARD?! (https://dangerousminds.net/comments/hasbros_new_ouija_board_for_girls) 
Now it's all 'people who menstruate' and 'we're pregnant' and IVF being taught in gender neutral terminology. 
I am all for inclusivity BUT when we're talking about things which are exclusive to biological females being stripped of that recognition is very discomforting.
When I was pregnant *I* was pregnant, not the man whose (ahem) contribution was over in 5 minutes. I've heard IVF dads rant against that use of 'we' when they're not going through all those invasive tests, procedures, hundreds of injections... Obviously there is no simple solution to the terminology but I can see why feminists are pissy.

Women fought for generations for recognition and now they're being erased from the narrative. Cis women are the bulk of female identifying people and now they're being just as 'misgendered' as the small number of disenfranchised trans / non-binary / agender / gender fluid etc people under the previous system. How is that right or fair?!

Can ye believe it?

Once again, The Heggie Zone is kinda embarrassed to present and expanded & explained Twitter rant.
This one is on the linked article, entitled "Kanye West Is Publicly Struggling. We Need To Give Him Grace"
(source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/elaminabdelmahmoud/kanye-west-mental-health-dangerous-media-narratives?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc)

A quote from Craig Jenkins included within reads

“The lack of context regarding his [bipolar] diagnosis...in coverage...

which questions the viability of the presidential bid

but never entertains the possibility that the man giving all the

outlandish pull quotes might not be doing so well right now,

illuminate our inability to step back and ponder the ethics

of the internet content mill…”

But is this even TRUE? How is there a lack of context?! I'm not American, I have never heard anything he's done BUT I know he's bipolar and super irresponsible about it.
West's struggles with Bipolar Disorder have been widely reported and discussed. It'd be like adding context that Stevie Wonder is blind - it is a really well-known factor. We all KNOW he's 'not doing so well' but he is deliberately putting himself out there to be seen.
He is also putting himself out there to be ELECTED. The press' ethics must be first and foremost concerned with protecting the public more than Kanye West.

My tweets in bold, copied directly from my feed 29/07/2020.

It's a challenging read but I can't say I fully agree with it. Mercy & compassion have their place but Kanye & HIS ENTIRE TEAM are guilty here of some f*ck*d up sh*t that negatively impacts anyone living with mental health issues.
Kanye West is not an individual, he is a person with EXTENSIVE management and a very famous family of in-laws. It seems that not one of them, let alone all in a unified action, is capable of 'controlling' the situation. Not that I blame Kim for example - but she's begging for understanding after the fact each time. I can understand she loves him... okay, I can't but I get her commitment to her marriage, but I don't understand why she is 'letting him do this' to himself, her, and their children. It's ultimatum time, dearie. Get help, step away from the limelight, or I take the kids and leave.
Most of us would be subjected to an intervention - and probably sectioning under the mental health act. If you had a meltdown at work your boss would (hopefully) send you home cos no way can you be doing this sh*t in front of customers / clients / members of the public / co-workers. But more than this, every negative bit of press Kanye-and-team whip up affects EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL WITH A MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER. He is perpetuating all the negative stereotypes of mental illness.

I feel it is wrong to blame the media for the media hungry Ye machine. They don't seem to be inaccurately, cruelly, or especially unkindly representing him. And plenty of similar speculation has been applied to Trump's incoherent ramblings. It's par for the presidential course.
The press aren't hunting out these stories - they're attending 'campaign rallies' and interviewing him (probably at invitation) to promote the albums he endlessly fails to deliver.
I have seen lots of articles questioning Trump's sanity, his 'fitness to lead', and speculating as to whether he's had a stroke. Now, whether or not Trump has a diagnosable disorder he is clearly several sandwiches short of a picnic. I am bothered by the stroke speculation as a brain injury does not necessarily make him 'unfit' although if it was covered up in his medical that's a pretty serious business.
Kanye cannot possibly expected to run for POTUS without speculation, analysis and criticism. Saying he should be exempted from such scrutiny on grounds of his well-publicised mental health problems is a really irresponsible stance that could theoretically help him into the White House!
It takes a lot for me to defend the press. But here they are not being intrusive, sensationalist, dishonest, manipulative... which is quite remarkable in and of itself. What they are is standing back and letting West rip himself apart. If you're asking "but should they?" how do you think journalism works?! Reporters don't start or end wars, they write up what is going on. Criticism is fair when they are unfair... but West's rants are his own.
And now he's running (however implausibly) for POTUS his instability becomes a matter of American National Security and needs to be reported as such.

IMHO Kanye risks making people believe that all bipolar people are... wildly unstable, incapable of holding responsibility etc. and that is TERRIBLE. The stigma of mental illness is bad enough without him taking it back DECADES.
The article keeps going on about Kanye's pain and trauma. We all have pain, we all have trauma, not all of us are bipolar but even those who are don't all act out so badly.
Mental health has long been taboo but headway has been made in recent years - so why is Kanye being encouraged / enabled / excused from f*ck*ng over every other person battling their demons?!
I am 'only' struggling with 30 years of depression but this angers me so much. People are mistreated, outcast, shunned, denied housing, denied work - and West, a bloody billionaire, is making their lives harder and causing people to be afraid of people with mental health problems.

What I think Kanye / his team *should* have done is take him down a Kate Bush style path - all the creativity, minimal public appearances. Let him have dignity in mystique. Especially after the first few meltdowns. NOT about hiding but saving him from himself.
At a time when Black Lives Matter is a major headline West is accusing Harriet Tubman of selling out black people, he has previously called slavery a choice. If he were anything but a Black person himself he would have been 'cancelled' by now! He says the most appalling things and is given a pass, time and time again, because of his diagnosis... but is it right to do so? Oddly enough you can be an asshole AND bipolar; the one does not necessarily stem from the other.
Being a creator does not mean you have to be constantly on stage, giving interviews, etc. You can release albums, even play concerts, but you don't need to keep talking shit. If this was his first major incident I would be more forgiving but at this point there have been MANY. You would think that the prior experiences would keep him on his medications and off his soap-box...

How can you treat Kanye as multiple people? Even if he had multiple personality disorder the 'man who knows what he's doing' is the same being who is saying these outrageous things. The same person who admits not taking his meds is running for POTUS. That CANNOT BE IGNORED.
This comment is particularly aimed at the following quote:

"The truth is you have to be rather callous to laugh at the unwell person

in front of you. But you don’t need that callousness

when you imagine it’s the West who knows what he’s doing,

the West who is immensely capable of processing his pain."

Can you actually run for POTUS without knowing what you are doing?! He knows he needs his meds, he knows what happens when he is off them, he knows he has embarrassed himself, humiliated his wife and offended his entire race several times before now... More to the point his extensive support team - managers, agents, assistants of every kind - know what he's doing and they are LETTING HIM. It is the moral equivalent of watching someone neck a bottle of vodka and then take their truck for a drive. THAT IS NOT ON THE PRESS.

Should the media be *accountable* in the articles they write about a misician [sic] having a spectacular and uninhibited public brain fart or should they be responsible and accurately represent a man who is running for the ultimate public office? Literally can't be both.
IF West was JUST promoting another undelivered album... no, even then - cos he's consciously, deliberately seeking promotion. This is not press intruding into Harvey Price's hospital room, unresearched speculation on royal doings, or any other number of invasive examples of sensationalist journalism.

If Kanye was a private individual, or an involuntary public figure like a royal or a WAG, I would totally agree that the media needs to step back... but there's a world of difference when the person you're writing about is actively courting publicity.
As I put a moment ago - royalty never asked for publicity, children and spouses (or other relatives) of celebrities shouldn't be hounded, used or abused for the sake of a story. But Kanye isn't an involuntary celebrity, he's not even a private celebrity - he is a courting publicity, letting it all hang out as publicly as possible celebrity. Even then, if he was a recording artist having a mental breakdown there'd be an argument that they should back off* but he's RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

*In the UK right now Johnny Depp is suing the press for calling him a wife-beater and Prince Harry & Meghan, Duchess of Sussex are also suing the press for unwarranted breaches of privacy. The press, as a whole, are SHIT. They don't back off, they hound people until they break. Then they make a big deal out of the obituaries. Kanye West is not being hounded - he is feeding them.

How exactly is the press supposed to address the negative depiction of someone battling mental illness when this is what they're handed on a plate? I dare say there are lots of positive stories they could write for balance but a lot of people don't want their diagnosis 'outted' [sic].
Again, as I said before, this negatively impacts a lot of people. Lots of people with bipolar disorder and other mental health diagnoses are out there, doing good, being responsible, getting on with their lives but they shouldn't have to put their stories out there JUST to counterbalance West's breakdowns so the public can get a more nuanced view of mental health issues.

I have nothing against Kanye West as a human being. I hope he gets the help he needs. I just have a problem with blaming others for the harm he is doing.

Wedding Gown Addendum

I wrote a blog entitled "On the subject of Royal wedding gowns" in response to the marriage of Harry and Meghan (pub. 22 May 2018) it seems only fitting that following the marriage of Beatrice and Count Eduardo Mappeli Mozzi I do a bit of an update.

First we need to go back to the wedding of Prince Andrew and Sarah Fergusson in 1986.
I make no apologies for my love of this couple. They were the royal pairing of my childhood and I still think they're adorable. I will be devastated if the allegations against Andrew are proven; I think the allegations are most likely founded in a desire for notoriety or to deflect public interest away from Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's numerous other high profile contacts...
Anyway, the point is this was the royal wedding that had the greatest impact on me and it's only right to reference it in a blog about their daughters.
Sarah's wedding gown was waaay better than Diana's "heap of crumpled hankies" look while being very eighties. It was also embellished with lots of symbolism which is a thing I really like.

Maybe I just have a thing for younger sons because I won't book much criticism of Harry and Meghan either, HOWEVER, using Princess Eugenie's wedding as an opportunity to announce their pregnancy with Archie was a major faux pas.
Princess Eugenie, Andrew and Sarah's younger daughter, married Jack Brooksbank (a British wine merchant) on October 12th, 2018.

The particularly noteworthy detail about Princess Eugenie's gown was the open back / lack of veil combination. Princess Eugenie had spinal surgery for scoliosis as a child and wanted her scar visible to empower others.

I thought Princess Eugenie's choice of gown was superb - classic, elegant, and meaningful.

I must confess that I feel... 'dubious' of Princess Beatrice's new husband, Eduardo Mapelli Mozzi, but I wish her every happiness. I feel intensely for Princess Beatrice too as she had to postpone her wedding due to the chaos of Covid-19.

Princess Beatrice finally wed her 'Count' on 17th July 2020 and officially became the first royal-born step-mama of the modern era as Eduardo has a son Christopher "Woolfie" (b. 2016) with his former partner. The first photos released make me think how much she looks like her mum and I love the eighties vibe she's got going on with her gown. As much as anything I think it's nice to see sisters do it their own ways; no indication of trying to 'out do' each other... and sadly there was a lot of speculation of that kind as the younger sister married first. Ye gods I loathe the way the press treats the royal family!
As yet there is little to go upon as to why Princess Beatrice chose the gown she did but I love it... from the beading reminiscent of the 1920s, the poofy 80s sleeves, the deep contrast hem which screams 70s at me for no adequately explained reason... But most of all I love her smile. Her big day may not have been as big as she'd planned and dreamed of but I truly hope it was everything she wanted it to be.

EDIT
Well, I missed my guess three times over with the dress (mostly) dating to 1961! Honestly, three whole decades guessed and still wrong LOL.
Here it is, being worn - sans sleeves - by her grandmother, HM Queen Elizabeth II:

And another photo from Beatrice's wedding: