Why children are so exhausting.

The terrible two.

My life is so much improved by having had a child.  I am the sort of person that always needed someone else to worry about in order to be content.  I wasn't very good at looking after myself for myself.  But for him; he's worth it.  I have to look after myself now because he needs me. Plus it's just great fun and the overwhelming love is as amazing as you've heard.  Now here comes the but...

BUT

That doesn't mean that it isn't the most exhausting lifestyle choice you can make.

I hated my job and it caused me endless stress and issues so I am glad to be away from it.  I now work in the evenings and at weekends to help pay the bills but I most definitely would not work at all if not entirely necessary.  This is because childcare is exhausting.  

I guess to some who have not done it that child care may seem like a lovely lifestyle.  Coffee mornings and play groups, singing nursery rhymes and doing some housework during nap time.  No job-related stress and demands from a boss.  Just spending time with your bundle of joy; watching them grow and develop - how exciting!  And all those things are great.

The 'but' comes in when you consider this.  

Having a child is like having an extra body that you cannot control; another set of arms, legs, another stomach, and another bum to worry about. Even though you are so intimately connected to this little person that you feel they are as important, if not more important than your own body parts, you have no idea what the brain is doing.  No idea what this little extension of you wants or needs; most of the time it's just a guess.  It get easier. Of course it does. But the seemingly simple task of taking care of children is a minefield of trial and error. 

Then there's all the guilt. Such a massive drain in itself. Should I feed him more? Should I feed him real food or jars, because that's all he'll eat? Is he too hot or too cold? Is he comfortable sitting there?  Has he just eaten something dangerous?  Choking.  Falling.  Hitting. Grabbing. Cutting.  They are a whirlwind of danger to themselves. They are like happy little suicidal drunks.  Children can't control their limbs properly but they are determined to use them with gusto. They are attracted to danger over and over and they think being told off is hilarious fun. 'No' 'hot' 'dirty' don't mean a thing to them for quite some time. They cannot walk but are determined to try no matter how many times they fall over and bash their heads.

When they do fall over there is the possibility of crying.  Oh the crying.  They can go from laughing to crying faster than a drunken single bridesmaid at her best mate's wedding.  For the parent of a crying child, it is torture.  And they don't just do it when they're in need of something life-sustaining.  For quite a while, they do it for EVERYTHING.  If they're bored.  If they want your crisps.  If they want a toy turned on.  If they've thrown their own dummy on the floor and they can't sleep without it so you have to go and pick it up for the FIFTIETH time.  And every time they are upset you feel that inside, even if you know there's nothing 'wrong' with them.  That in itself is so draining you just want to have a nap after a particularly whiny dinner time. 

Me?  Exhausting? 

All of these things make them joyous and exhausting in equal measure.  I realise that this is nothing new that hasn't been written about before but I just needed to share my version of it. Because even being in a room with my son is exhausting, let alone having to work, clean or cook.  And he hasn't even started walking yet.  And I have my eyes on 4 kids... 

We'll see how crazy two makes me and go from there... 

So, in short, children are exhausting because you're so damn fond of them.  If you didn't care as much about them they would probably still survive, but you'd be more relaxed.  But I wouldn't change it for the world; there would be no point having them if you didn't love them so much you go a little bit insane

.  There is some fun involved...

Is it Feminist to...Call Yourself Fat?

You’re fat. You’re ugly, disgusting, gross, inhuman, unattractive, vile, unshagable, a
paper-bag-job.  Apologies for the seemingly abusive start but, are all of these synonyms for ‘fat’?  What does it mean to you?  If someone calls you 'fat' or you refer to yourself in that way, in your mind or out loud, what does it really mean?

According to the magic internet dictionary this is what it means-

fat

adjective, fat·ter, fat·test.

1.  having too much flabby tissue; corpulent; obese: a fat person.

2.  plump; well-fed: a good, fat chicken.

3.  consisting of or containing fat; greasy; oily: fat gravy; fat meat.

4.  profitable, as an office: a fat job on the city commission.

5.  affording good opportunities, especially for gain: a fat business contract.

I’m talking about its use as an adjective, rather than a noun, as that is where the problem lies, the description of females as 'fat'.  So number 1 states that 'fat' is having “too much flabby tissue”.  What is too much?  If you are an average woman you will have more than an average man, is that too much?  If you have naturally large breasts and hips you will have more than someone who does not have such sizable body parts – is that too much?  Who is anyone to judge whether another person has too much or little of any given substance in their body?  Too much for what?  Too much to fit in a size 8 (which is arbitrary as there is no regulation amongst retailers in the UK)?  Too much to fit through that doorway?  Too much to be a dancer or gymnast?  Too much to be a human being??

Proof that we come in all shapes and sizes and all are healthy and beautiful.

In our culture calling someone ‘fat’ is not a compliment, it is an insult (unless they are part of fetish culture but then that’s a whole other issue).  The connotations of that insult are that the person you are referring to has too much fat to be considered attractive.  You might mean that they are overweight (which is a very contentious issue as some athletes are considered obese according to their BMI)  e.g. unhealthy which also indicates unattractiveness as we are inherently attracted to people who we think we can reproduce with, and reproduction is tougher if you are unhealthy in any way.  But people that are unhealthy in a variety of ways fall in love and have children every day; there's no insult for someone with poly-cystic ovaries, for example.  It is vital that we have language to describe people's health relating to their weight as we can't shy away from these issues altogether.  But I would argue that 'underweight' and 'overweight' are perfectly servicable and the words 'fat' and even 'skinny' can be discarded for their emotive and offensive connotations.  They both imply something more than just factual information about someone's body shape.  They imply 'too much' or 'too little' and can make people feel bad about themselves unnecessarily. 

Now we all know that it is how you feel that is important; how you feel inside, physically and about your appearance.  We know that we should worship and love and take care of our bodies and that how we look is not really that important.  But the world around us is conveying a different message; any woman that is not a size 8-10 is not really represented in fashion, television, and the media at large which can make even the most secure person start to feel like they are not ‘normal’, that they are not ‘right’, that they are ‘other’; compared to people who are that size most of us are ‘fat’.  Most of us have ‘too much’ if we measure ourselves using that standard.

All of these women are 'real women' and all are beautiful to someone.

The word ‘fat’ is a tool of the media to describe (mostly) women in a sensationalised way in order to sell more magazines and newspapers, and in turn this makes us as readers/observers feel like we need to change to fit in.  That change, strangely enough, involves diet books, gyms, exercise classes, diet meals and membership fees to diet clubs.  Funny that.  It is no coincidence that making you feel shit about yourself leads to them making money.  Women's weight is not the only insecurity created in order to make money...hair removal products, I'm looking at you.  It also ties in to the idea that women are more valued for their looks than their thoughts and what they have to say.  If we are not hairless from the neck down, and acceptably slim we are invisible.  Features such as 'the ring of shame' and criticism of female celebrities loss or gain in weight only serves to focus our attention on our own bodies and perceived 'imperfections' linked to being 'fat' like cellulite, stretch-marks and 'muffin-tops', all of which are natural and acceptable features of a human body.

An 'up-yours' to those who criticise your body is the only way.

So next time you think you need to diet (despite being perfectly healthy) or do exercise you don’t enjoy, next time you shy away from wearing something or doing something because you are worried about being too ‘fat’, think this instead; I am a human, with a body and I don’t give a shit what anyone else thinks of it (unless they are being nice).  If you are uncomfortable because you know that your weight is affecting your health then change your lifestyle to fit in more movement (that you enjoy) and change your eating habits.  But don’t call yourself ‘fat’.  Your partner, your friends, your family, and anyone who respects you as a human being would not refer to you using that word, so you shouldn’t either.

As Feminists we need to think carefully about the words we use to describe each other, but also the ones we use to describe ourselves.  Don't use these words that have been invented or bastardised by others to provide hurt and insult and make women feel like they are less.  Self-deprecation is a standard human activity but women have many more ways to hate themselves than men; stop the word 'fat' (and 'skinny') from being one of them.

What's the deal with Ruby Rose?

For the time being, let's ignore the fact that I haven't posted on here for over a year due to keeping a small person alive (this is a very time-consuming activity; in case you hadn't heard), and instead, let's talk about what everyone else is talking about.

For this post I'm not aiming for originality - I realise that everyone and his dog is writing about this woman - but it's just been the first topic I've been compelled to write about since birthing the boy.

The inspiration came from watching a short film entitled 'Break Free', that the woman of the hour made herself; it shows her transformation from a very stereotypical version of a female model to a truer, some might say more 'masculine', version of herself, and the one that more closely resembles her character in hit show 'Orange is the New Black'.  This transformation perfectly encapsulates why she is attractive to so many different people.  She is undeniably attractive; even if you weren't attracted to her, you could not say that she was ugly.  She has a very symmetrical face, large eyes, full lips and a slender and healthy-looking physique.  But that's not it.  That's not what has prompted tweets, Facebook statuses and even articles that men and women who consider themselves to be straight or gay have written saying 'I would'.  (Lucky her!  What an honour that many random strangers would do you given half the chance...)

Being married to a man, in a definitively monogamous relationship, means that I 'wouldn't' (shag her, just in case you hadn't caught on).  But after watching her performance in OITNB I definitely feel myself being attracted to her in a way that I am not usually to women.  Obviously there are many women who I consider to look attractive but that's not the same.  As with most people, I'm not just attracted to someone because of what their mumma and daddy gave them.  Genes can only get you so far.  It's a combination of so many things including sense of humour, attitude to life, values, the way someone moves, speaks and how they present themselves.  The way that Ruby Rose presents herself is very much appealing to many people.  She is the perfect storm: beautiful but edgy;  tattooed and stylish; short hair, but not devoid of hair (on her head, I mean...there is a scene of her naked in the show but I wasn't really focused on the state of her body hair).  She does not conform to the pressures that many beautiful women feel to have long hair, fake tits, wear loads of make-up and wear dresses and high heels - be 'feminine'.

She is the perfect combination of things that both people who are attracted to men and women find attractive.  Plus she just comes across (as her character and in real life) as mysterious and interesting and what's not sexy about that?  It's brilliant because it's making people realise how little the labels imposed on us matter.  Female/male. Gay/straight. Masculine/feminine.  Even though none of these are inherently offensive words (unlike some other labels people like to throw at gender-fluid people) they can be incredibly limiting in society today.  The body you have under your clothes doesn't matter.  It's who you are and how you present yourself that matters and it's clear that Ruby Rose is damn cool and very alluring.  I don't think nearly as many people would think she was so stunning without her tattoos and with the long blonde hair that she sports in wig-form at the beginning of her short film.  It's how she presents her personality via the way she looks that makes her more beautiful and interesting.

It is sad that it took this long for some people to realise that gender-fluidity is beautiful, interesting and acceptable and it's a shame that it took someone who is quite so beautiful to be the poster child for it (us humans are the most shallow animals), but we just need it to happen, however that may be.  Hopefully it is a step towards gender-fluidity being more accepted or even celebrated; men wearing dresses or make-up and not being treated like freaks, women having short hair and never wearing heels or make-up and still being deemed attractive and respected within society - or even just not being asked if they're ill...come on, people.


I'm sure it feels like a massive amount of pressure on someone who has only just come into the limelight in such a big way; she is bound to be a role model for many young people struggling with gender identity and identity in general, but so far, she seems to be handling it with panache.



Have you experienced gender-fluidity yourself?  What do you think of Ruby Rose?  What do you think of the new season of OITNB?  (No spoilers!!)

Tell me below or here @myfeministlife or here myfeministlife@gmail.com

Mothers Lost in Time: Women Shunned from Marriage Certificates in England and Wales

I was outraged to discover recently that only your father is included on your marriage certificate.  In 2014!!  Listening to the Woman's Hour podcast (not exactly Feminist but has some interesting stuff on it) they had a family historian and record specialist Audrey Collins explaining the law, and Caroline Criado-Perez explaining why it needs to change.  

Since 1836 when marriage certificates were developed women were the property of men; when you got married you went from being the property of your father to being the property of your husband.  This piece of paper represents the exchange of a woman from man to man as if she is an object.  Is that a symbol you want in your life anywhere?  If you feel like you are equal to your other half in every other way, why is it that in the symbol of your union it is fine to still have this archaic symbol?  What if you were brought up only by your mother(s)?  What if your father is dead, absent, or you don't have any kind of decent relationship with him?  

The statement from the Home Office is that it is too expensive to replace the bits of paper in the churches and registry offices; when I spoke to my other half about this he told me that if you work in the council and you have any kind of relationship (including a drunken snog) with one of your colleagues, you now have to fill in a form reporting this.  Now I wonder how much it cost to print out all of those ridiculous forms??

 

If you don't think that women should be wiped from history via marriage certificates, if you think that women are equal to men, or if you think that you will be pretty pissed off to be excluded from your child's marriage certificate in the future then go and sign the petition.  It's free and it takes 2 minutes at the most.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/mothers-names-should-be-on-marriage-certificates

I know that I for one will not be getting married until this is changed; most people don't realise until the day of their own wedding, when it is too late, so I am glad to have found out in time.  Those of you who are friends and family reading this - you may be getting a little holiday in Scotland!

Film Friday: Feminist Foughts

Yesterday I watched 3 films whilst lounging on my sofa wearing my ‘Vote for Pedro’ t-shirt with one shiny swollen hand in some cold water and sweating like it was actually desert hot.  Pregnancy is aalllll glamour.  Anyway, maternity leave is some valuable time in which to watch films because, as far as I understand from others in the know, I won’t be able to do this again, ever.  I enjoyed all 3 in different ways and I thought I would share my feminist/gender issue type thoughts with you.

Frances Ha(2012)

I had wanted to see this for a while, ever since I heard Mark Kermode of 5 live review it when it came out.  Kermode is my favourite film reviewer (as well as one of my favourite people, I even have his books) and the weekly podcast released on a Friday is something I very much look forward to absorbing.  Not that he loved the film mind you; but I liked the sound of it from what he did say.  It is about a woman called Frances who is trying to make it as a professional dancer in NYC and is set in the present day.  It was all shot in black and white which would usually put a philistine such as me off watching, but I didn’t even notice there was no colour; the plot and characters were so engaging it made no difference.  

From a feminist point of view this film gets a big thumbs up because the lead actor Greta Girwig wrote and assistant-produced, as well as starring the in the film.  Also, the film is all about her character (not a male lead) and she carries that lead role brilliantly; I found her struggles to be cringe-inducing, endearing, realistic and relatable as a woman of the same age trying to figure out myself and the world.  It also has a brilliant ending that is positive, but in no way reliant on her finding a man; this is a film more about female friendship than romantic relationships.  Definitely passes the Bechdel test (a film that has two women having a conversation that is not about a man) and has my seal of approval.

Clueless(1995)

The other end of the spectrum when it comes to films with female lead roles; or so it would seem.  I’m sure far more of you have seen or are aware of this film as it is a lot older and very popular.  It is still about a female figuring out herself and the world, but in a very different world and at a different stage, because she is still in high school.  There are some obvious feminist issues with this film due to how shallow the characters are and that one of the main plot points is the need to make-over a fellow student in order for her to ‘fit in’ at school.  The good bit does come later though when Cher (Alicia Silverstone) realises that she has ‘created a monster’ by changing this girl’s appearance and attitude and by the end of the film Tai (the made-over girl) goes back to her original taste in fashion and men, and all is good, proving that being yourself is much better than changing in order to fit in.  

Therein lies the other issue with Clueless; it is all about the pursuit of a man and the big happy moment at the end is Cher realising who she really is in love with.  But again there is a flip-side to this tired old plot point; previous to this Cher is not really interested in getting a boyfriend and is happy to be a virgin and wants to wait for the right person to do the horizontal dance with.  This is a pretty positive message to be portraying for teenage girls who might feel pressurised into having sex before they are ready.  Also, the man she realises she likes is not in any way who she thought she would fall for and she likes him for who he is, rather than his appearance or money.  For a girl from Beverley Hills in this exaggerated version of real life, that is an achievement.  Obviously there is a lot of emphasis on how the girls in the film look and they are all of one body type and conventionally attractive; but we forgive the film for being so much fun and a reminder of how hormonal and dramatic I’m sure a lot of us were as teenage girls.

The Grey(2011)

This is an entirely different film as females barely make an appearance; Liam Neeson plays a wolf-hunter who gets stranded with a group of men in a snowy wasteland, fighting for survival against a pack of wolves.  The only time we see women are in flashbacks and in the shape of a flight-attendant (a well-worn trope used in many films time and again).  In the flashbacks the women are idealised characters used as motivation to survive, which is quite nice, but they are not real or rounded characters with actual personalities, they’re just symbols.  Would it have been appropriate to include women in the gang of men stranded in the woods?  The flight-attendant could have survived and proved to be way tougher and braver than any of the men, but would that have felt too shoe-horned in?  Maybe.  Anyway, that didn’t happen and this definitely comes no-where near passing the Bechdel test, but I enjoyed the wolf-punching action none-the-less (Bechdel is not a test of good films after all).  There are a couple of things that the film had to say about masculinity though.  

Firstly, there is a point when the characters are talking about whether they are scared or not and one character, who is a particularly stereotypical tough-guy, says he is not scared and Liam quite rightly calls him out on that bullshit.  Good start; fear is a natural physical response to a vicious pack of wolves chasing you in the wilderness and anyone who says they are not scared is lying to maintain some sort of gender-based societal demand.  The next point on the pressures of being a man is made near the end of the film is when the same tough-guy character has softened from the trauma.  In a touching moment he finally introduces himself to the other characters using his first name.   Now we are all familiar with the mainly male tradition of bonding via humour and using surnames or nick-names rather than first names; this moment highlights that rather than creating a bond this tradition mainly serves to distance men from each other.  It is only when this man realises he might not be long for this world that he shows affection and gratitude to the men he has shared the difficult journey with and he does this by telling them his first name.  This creates a bond and some affection between them as they shake hands and share the names their families would use.  A nice moment and proof that male camaraderie can be alienating bollocks.

Have you seen these films?  What were your thoughts on the points I have made? 

Did you enjoy this feminist take on films?  Is it something you’d want to see regularly?  This was supposed to be brief as it was about 3 films in one post but more in-depth analysis of single movies would be the aim in future.

The main reason I wrote this is because feminist criticism on films is something I would like to see but if no-one else is interested then I’ll keep it to myself! 

Twitter: @MyFeministLife              

Email: myfeministlife@gmail.com

That Name Business: Part 2

Equal in every way...

So you know when I wrote all about taking your man’s name and it seemed like I had that sorted...not so much. 

Since then I have been contemplating the whole thing some more and come up with a final plan.  Buster (our unborn child – don’t worry, nickname only!) will have both of our names in a double-barrelled fashion, and, for now at least, me and my partner will keep our own names.  I like the idea of us all having that double-barralled family name but won’t be faffing around changing mine until he agrees to change his too.  I am not being difficult or having a tantrum, or even trying to make a point ‘for the sake of it’; I just want us to be totally equal, and the name of our child to reflect that.  I came to that conclusion because of how strongly I feel about equality in society at large; I just couldn’t choose a surname for our little boy that didn’t reflect my values and beliefs about equality.  It just didn’t sit right with me.  And my partner is fine with that.

In some ways it was my his determination not to change his own name that inspired me.  He just doesn’t feel right about changing his name, so he won’t.  Too often I feel that women are pressurised, mostly subconsciously, subtly and unintentionally, into things purely because that is how everyone else does it and they don’t want to stand out or be seen as 'difficult'.  Historically, attractive qualities in women are not those of assertiveness or being opinionated; and unfortunately this still affects how we behave today.  We are too often persuaded to bend to other people’s convictions instead of having, and sticking to, our own.  This is not to say that if you change(d) your name I think any less of you because I do believe firmly in freedom of choice.  Although, in saying that I also can’t deny that I wish that a wider variety of choices were made regarding this issue...

Anywho, thought I’d update you as this seems to be my most popular post to date.  At least a handful of people were vaguely interested/bored enough to click and possibly read!

As always I welcome your thoughts on this topic and the ideas I have expressed.

Comment below, tweet me @MyFeministLife or email me at myfeministlife@gmail.com 

Blurred Lines: Is Misogyny Real?

Finally, a documentary that directly discusses issues of sexism and misogyny being aired on mainstream television.   Blurred Lines: The New Battle of the Sexes was on BBC 2 last night (Thursday 8th April at 21:30; I watched it at half 5 this morning (my body is getting me ready for those sleepless nights with baby!), thanks to a friend who alerted me to its existence.  The good thing about this documentary, compared to others I have written about lately, is that it seemed to follow a much more logical line to the actual relevant issues than anything else I have seen thus far (a part from a series on BBC1 a few years ago that I never remember the name of so cannot find – at least part of it was about how women function in the home and that they still do all the childcare and housework as well as having stressful full time jobs, something like ‘Can Women Really Have it All?’; if anyone knows of it, let me know!). 

Obviously, in the one hour slot provided by BBC 2, the presenter Kirsty Wark did not cover everything relevant to the topic, but she got in a lot of the relevant  issues and recent events that highlight these issues.  This means that even though they have been well publicised events such as Steubenville and the controversy surrounding the song the name of the documentary is named after, most people would only be aware of these things as separate isolated elements, rather than all part of the same insidious societal problem. 

And that’s the main thing I wanted to say about this documentary.  I have known, followed on twitter, and been aware of the work of some of the activists interviewed in the programme for over a year now and when I went to see how they felt about the programme on twitter, I was not surprised.  The girls interviewed in the programme were pleased with their involvement, as they should be, they are doing amazing work and this publicity is much needed.  However, there did also seem to be a sense of dissatisfaction with the programme from other people in the community, as I suspected there would be. 

I believe their issues come from the fact that what the programme was pointing out to its viewers was obvious; as Kirsty Wark said in the programme there is a wealth of feminist activism to be found on the internet.  But they are only obvious to us.  By us I mean those that are aware of, have researched and been involved in the feminist movement already in recent times.  To us who live and breath these issues, they were pointing out nothing new.  To most other people in the general public this was a very good introduction to those issues.  Compared to Jameela Jamil’s offering about the dangers of porn for young people on BBC 3 a couple of weeks ago, this was new information for a lot of the public.

We, as active feminists, need to accept, as I wrote in my last blog, that many people are ignorant to these issues, or at least don’t see them as a major problem in their own lives; until it is pointed out to them in a certain way.  I’m sure that seems very patronising; it isn’t meant to be.  There are many awful issues with the world that don’t catch my interest and therefore I am completely ignorant about them; race relations, drug trafficking, the environment being destroyed.  The difference with sexism and misogyny is that it definitely affects us all.  Women are half the population of the world so these problems are relevant everywhere and for everyone.   As *** says at the end of the documentary “If we think about sexism and misogyny as air pollution; we're all breathing it in...regardless of much we're contributing to that air pollution, we all have a responsibility to fix it”.  Even if it is not something that naturally catches your interest, as it does for me, and even if it's not something that you would spend lots of time campaigning, reading and writing about, you are still involved in it, every day.  We need to change the way that we behave, speak, and bring up our children in order to improve life for everyone, not just women.

Did you watch this programme?  Are you intending to?  What did you think of it?  Did you learn anything you didn’t already know?

Comment below, tweet me @MyFeministLife or email me at myfeministlife@gmail.com