About me? Mad, disabled, in debt, feminist, radical, angry, pacifist, warrior, radio 4 listener, geek, flower-power chick...
About Hippie blog? Ramblings, photos, fury, giggles and musings about love, peace, friendship, madness, happiness, the state of the world, my life, cool pics, my health and general ranting...
I love writing letters and cards, and I have phases of doing lots, then not doing any for ages.
The 52 Weeks, 52 Letters challenge for 2011 has inspired me. I aim to write a letter or card each week this year.
What a lovely challenge! There's nothing quite like receiving a hand-written, personal note from a friend through the door, and I hope I can bring 52 smiles to others throughout the year.
I am struggling to see their logic. Is it aimed at women who they believe were somehow planning to be abused, yet on seeing the poster they will see the error of their ways, and decide against it? How else can it be understood?
Raising awareness of domestic abuse is very important. The quote provided makes good points: “Christmas is meant to be a happy time for families but for many living in our districts it will be a time of fear and pain,” said Sarah Hill, Director of Independent Domestic Abuse Services.
“The pressure builds up as people spend more time together than normal - which can often be a flash point for abuse. But we are here and ready to help – to listen or to provide some shelter.”
But how does this equate to the victim blaming, completely missing-the-point poster.
If anyone is going to urge anyone to do anything, we need to urge abusers not to abuse. It is so screamingly obvious that it frustrates me immensely that we have to write about this again and again and again.
Nobody wants to be abused. A woman seeing a poster telling her not to 'be on the receiving end' does not stop her partner 'being on the giving end'. It may just make her feel even more powerless and vulnerable.
Provide helpline numbers, sure. Provide advice and support, absolutely. But point the advice in a way that does not make it her fault. In a way that does not put the onus on her to not be punched or kicked or raped.
Because believe me, she already does not want to be on the receiving end. She does not need a patronising poster campaign to tell her that.
If you are experiencing domestic abuse, please call the National Domestic Violence Helpline on 0808 2000 247, or find a service local to you through the Women's Aid website.
And remember, it is not your fault. Ever.
I wish we did not have to keep saying this, but as long as people keep putting out information like that, we will.
Companies like A4e, who are paid by the government to get benefit claimants into work, are treated with at best suspicion, and at worst fear and loathing, by many disabled people, especially following TV programmes such as Benefit Busters.
The DWP currently have a shortlist for other companies who are bidding for contracts to carry out government compulsory back-to-work schemes, and worryingly one of the shortlisted companies is the dreaded ATOS, who carry out the ESA medicals, and G4S (formerly Group 4 Security).
However, apparently also on the shortlist, according to benefitsandwork.co.uk, is a consortium consisting of a group of 7 charities, who have called themselves Disability Works UK.
Disability Works UK is a collaboration of national third sector disability organisations including Leonard Cheshire, Mencap, Scope, Mind, Action for Blind People, United Response, Pure Innovations, Advance UK and Pluss.
They boast about their £654.4 million turnover, and cash surplus of £15.6 million, which makes me feel a little queasy. As someone who has donated to more than one of these charities in the past, I will certainly never do so again if that is going to be used in a bid for them to gain their place in what is one of the most oppressive parts of the government's new benefit regime.
For charities and voluntary sector organisations who have done some campaigning against the punitive measures put in place within the benefit system, to now want to play an active part in that system, is disturbing. For them to use money donated by people in good faith as part of that, sickening.
And where does it leave our chances of major disability charities campaigning on our behalf against punitive benefit reforms? If they are hoping to profit from the legislation, I cannot see how we can expect adequate support or representation from them.
If Mind, Scope, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire et al win these contracts, will these charities, who are seen by many as the voice of disabled people, be playing a part in benefit sanctions? Will they be working with ATOS as colleagues? Will we ever trust them again?
Other disability blogs and websites have already done some great posts on this subject, and I wanted to draw attention to some of what is being said around the interwebz on the reform proposals.
I don't know whether I'll be able to make my way through reading the consultation document myself without breaking things and / or having a complete meltdown, but if I do I will try to summarise it in a blog post when I have.
For those readers on qualifying benefits, you can check whether or not you are yet eligible for any Cold Weather Payments on this direct gov website.
Payments are made when the average temperature for where you live is recorded as, or forecast to be, zero degrees Celsius or below over seven consecutive days.
Also from direct.gov, who qualifies for Cold Weather Payments:
If you are in receipt of Pension Credit, Income Support, Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance or Income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), you may also be able to get Cold Weather Payments.
You get £25 for each seven day period of very cold weather between 1 November and 31 March and it is paid automatically, you do not need to apply for it.
So, if you want to check whether you are due to receive one, you can do so here.
There are plenty of must-read articles and blog posts which I haven't had the time or the spoons to cover. All of the following are well worth a look.
Scope are running a survey about the real costs of being disabled, which you can fill in here.
"On the Shoulders of the Vulnerable", an article from Morning Star with information about ATOS and how ESA medicals are failing disabled people, especially those of us with mental health problems.
Laurie Penny in the New Statesman writes Strictly Come Scrounging, Anyone?, about The X Factor vision of society [which] blames the poor for their predicament.
Hopi Sen and Left Futures point out the contradiction in David Cameron criticising those claiming over £20,000 in housing benefits, compared to his own expenses claims for his second home.
Crisis, a national charity for single homeless people, have created a comprehensive, myth-busting press release full of information on how the government are 'peddling myths' to sell the Housing Benefit cuts.
The same article is looked at on This Is My Blog, who looks in depth at 'abandoned claims' and why they might really happen.
Susannah posts a plea for help, describing how the removal of the Mobility Component of DLA from people in residential care will directly affect her brother.
I am touched and moved that so many people have contacted me, and commented, in such a supportive way. It was a very scary thing to do, but it also felt very important. Thank you everyone.
The last few days I've watched the videos from BendyGirl at Benefit Scrounging Scum, and I loved them, I thought they were brilliant. But I never thought it was something I could do, until in her second video she pointed out how important it is for everyone to speak out.
Like many, many people I am frightened by the proposed changes, the cuts, to disability benefits, and what's going to happen to services and the third sector.
The thought of withdrawing mobility rate... the thought of withdrawing the mobility section of DLA for people in care homes is disgusting. The thought that just because somebody was living in a care home, they no longer need to go anywhere, they no longer need mobility equipment, is just obscene.
The changes in housing benefit rules so that people under 35 in private rented accommodation can't get full housing benefit if they live on their own is disgusting.
And limiting ESA to one year, when so many people were fighting against the very principle of ESA at all, and now to have to change that fight to at least, it was perhaps better than nothing, and if people are going to be put on it because they are considered fit to work, even though we know that many, many people who are not fit for work are being put on ESA, the fact that that's now limited to one year, and nobody seems to know what would happen after that.
When we are in a recession, and people – everybody who isn't working is finding it difficult to find jobs, and the strange assumption that the few jobs that there are will go to disabled people, is just not unfortunately how this society works. Disablism means that disabled people are discriminated against every day, and that includes the disabled person who is well enough to work can find it more difficult to find that job because employers are frightened, or don't want to make changes, or don't know what it means.
I'm frightened. And I'm also, like many other people, very confused. I watched the budget on Wednesday, and I was thankfully using twitter at the same time because there were many aspects that I didn't understand, or that I thought I must have misheard. And that there was a group of us all watching and using twitter at the same time made it more accessible to me, I guess.
But there are many unanswered questions. I've heard of people ringing the DWP to say, 'What's this about ESA being stopped after a year?' and the DWP not being able to answer, because they don't know.
The Housing Benefit cuts, I've heard so many different stories about who it's being cut for. So it's not just that the changes are frightening, it's that they're very unclear, and people don't know where they stand.
When I first became ill and went on benefits, I just got Income Support, and it was a horrible time. With paying part of my rent out of that, and with making debt repayments out of that, I had £15 a week for food, and electricity, and transport. For months I lived on... I used to buy these tins of Irish Stew from Kwik Save, and they were disgusting, but they were really cheap, and I figured it was as close to a balanced diet as I could get because it had meat and potatoes in it. And for months, every day, I had one meal a day, and that consisted of Kwik Save Irish Stew and as much bread as I could eat. Every day. For months. I couldn't afford sanitary towels, I couldn't afford shampoo.
I didn't know about other benefits. And someone told me about DLA and I applied for it, and I eventually got it, and it was one of the key... it was key for me, it was vital. Because my health was bad enough anyway, it was vital for me because I could afford to eat more than Irish Stew. I could afford to go to places on the bus. And I'm talking medical appointments. Before that I was missing medical appointments because I couldn't afford to get there. I could get taxis. I could get ready meals when I wasn't well enough to cook.
Getting DLA literally changed everything for me. And makes, still makes, such a difference. It means that I can afford the extra things I need because I'm disabled. Like taxis. Like ready meals when I can't cook. Like mobility aids, and other aids I use. DLA, along with everything, is being threatened. With ATOS taking over the medicals. And after what they've done with the ESA medicals that's frightening, and many people who need DLA are going to lose it.
Everything that is happening since the new government came in is frightening to disabled people. And I'm not a Labour supporter. I know that various important Labour politicians have come out and said that they would be doing what the Conservatives are doing with regard to disability benefits. So I'm not falling into the trap of saying, 'the coalition government is awful, Labour is the answer', because they are... although they are fighting some aspects of the budget, they are supporting the disability benefit cuts.
I feel like I'm being punished for being disabled. The press and the government are doing a really good job at the moment of whipping up hatred, whipping up this image of disabled people being scroungers, of disabled people not really being disabled, and being workshy and lazy. The government and certain parts of the press are promoting this strongly and I can feel, in the atmosphere, that this is affecting people's views. And with the further cuts, this gets worse and worse.
What depresses me is not my illness. What depresses me is not my impairment. What depresses me is how I am treated because of it. That's what makes everything so much harder. We do need to speak out. Because disabled people are being scapegoated and it's horrible. And for non-disabled people, you don't know what's round the corner. I became disabled. Many people become disabled. It could be you in a few years, with no care packages, with no benefits, with no support. With people thinking... with people thinking you're lazy or can't be bothered, or exaggerating. Nobody's immune from disability. And there are some people in the government, the Prime Minister included, who really should know that through their own lives. I am so... I'm frightened, and I want to give a message of hope, but at the moment it's hard to find one.
So I'll agree with BendyGirl that the hope... maybe we have to get hope from each other... from knowing it's not just us, it's not just me that's frightened, it's not just me that's confused, who doesn't know what's happening and what's going to happen.
Scope are running a campaign to email your MP to ask them to take action immediately to oppose the cuts to the public services and benefits that many disabled people in the UK use and rely on.
All you have to do is fill in your contact details, then your MP's email address is automatically found and you can read and alter the proposed message before you confirm that you would like it to be sent.
It's impossible to overstate how terrified some disabled people are, in Britain right now.
The fear of benefit cuts is so high, and so real, and attitudes like those of Nadine Dorries add to the climate of terror.
Already people are scared to leave their house for fear of being reported to the DWP for faking their illness, now those who find networks like twitter to be a lifeline are becoming frightened to post.
If you are stuck in bed, and you've found a way to use your laptop lying down, or you can use a phone or iPad, sites like twitter are perhaps the only way for many to actually communicate with others. It may be the only conversation someone has for a week.
One purpose that these threats serve is, I suspect, to keep us all quiet. We can't complain about the process of reapplying for DLA, or of the ATOS assessments, if the very complaints we type will be used as an additional stick to beat us with. Even if typing those 140 characters used up so much energy that we then had to sleep for an hour to recover. Or hurt our eyes so much that we have a migraine for 3 days.
On days that I can't leave the house, and can't use the phone, the internet is the only tool I have to communicate with the outside world. I don't want to lose that. But the fear affects me as much as anyone, and right now so many of my outlets feel threatening.
This is what the threats to disability benefits are doing to me. It is worsening my madness significantly, which, ironically, will make me less and less able to work, not more.
Balding said the word "dyke" was "too often used as a pejorative and insulting term". She said her sexuality was irrelevant to the programme and the hurt had been compounded by the columnist's mock apology for previously saying that she looked "like a big lesbian".
As you might expect, Stonewall has released a press release on the judgement, however it has used offensive and racist language in that press release to make its point.
Using racist language, to highlight how bad homophobic language is, is never the way forward. Holly's post on Oppression Olympics explains this clearly, and insulting Meera Syal and Vanessa Feltz's ethnicities is as offensive as the original AA Gill comment. Doing this in the guise of supporting a decision against offensive language is ridiculous.
I don't want to directly quote the language they used, but the screenshot above of the press release will show you what they said. The 'P' word in particular is one which makes me feel sick. Using it as an example of what The Sunday Times would never have said is misguided at best, and I do wonder what Ben Summerskill was thinking when he thought this was appropriate.
I've lately started getting a lot of spam comments on my old posts, so I've been deleting them as they come in (Hint to spammers, don't bother writing a convincing looking comment for the context when your username is GenericViagra).
But as the problem is getting worse by the week I have now changed my settings so that comments left after a post has been up for 14 days will have to be moderated. Hopefully this won't be too annoying for regular or legitimate commenters, and it will save me time and energy I could better spend, I dunno, pissing about.
It makes for very depressing reading, and while it does not look specifically at disability benefits, it reports on the reductions and changes in Housing Benefit, JSA and tax credits, all of which are claimed by many disabled people. For instance,
From 2013/14 any claimant on JSA for more than 12 months will have their HB entitlement cut by 10 per cent. This will continue until they have “left the benefit system and been in work for a while”. This seems a crude measure as it appears that it will apply even where the tenant is fully complying with their JSA requirements to actively seek work. The cut will fall hardest on those who face disadvantage in the labour market, such as people in poor health or with a disability who have failed the harsher medical tests for incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance, and have therefore been moved onto JSA.
It also explains why changing benefit levels from rising in line with the Retail Prices Index, to the Consumer Prices Index, will result in a reduction in the value of benefits and tax credits.
At the end of the study the report highlights scenarios illustrating the impact of the cuts on specific households, and several of the case studies include the issues of people who are ill or disabled. For instance,
A 50 year old man with mild learning disabilities and literacy issues has done manual work all his life until arthritis in his knees, hips and shoulder forced him to stop work. He has worked and paid contributions all his life until that point. He pays rent of £110/week and council tax of £18/week. He claimed ESA but was found fit for work, so is now claiming JSA. The number of jobs he will be able to do is severely limited. He also has no access to his own transport and finds public transport very difficult because of the arthritis. His Jobcentre Plus personal adviser finds it difficult to suggest jobs for him. He has been out of work since his arthritis made it impossible to continue in his job two years ago and he has been claiming JSA for a year. After housing costs he has a disposable income of £65.45 a week (his JSA). After a year as a result of changes in up-rating of JSA and also the LHA rates, his disposable income is likely to drop in real terms to about £64. However he may well also lose a further £8 off his HB as the 30th percentile rate is used to calculate the LHA rate. If he is unable to find a job after a year he will lose a further £10 a week of his HB. If he can not find somewhere cheaper to live he will have a disposable income after housing costs of about £46, a 30% reduction. Even if he can find somewhere cheaper to live, his disposable income will drop to £54, a 17.5% reduction. If he had been allocated to the work-related activity group for ESA, his income would be £91.30 a week.
1. Making an unwelcome manifestation with disruptive or adverse effect.
2. (of a person) Disturbing another by one's uninvited or unwelcome presence.
Intrusive comments from strangers about my breasts began pretty much as soon as they grew. Intrusive 'are you anorexic?' questions happened when I was slim (and yes, some of that time, I was. Did you really want that answer?). Intrusive comments about my weight are different now, but still intrusive and rude.
But lately, the subject of the vast majority of intrusive questions I get asked are related to being disabled.
Practically every time I go out, someone asks me, "So, what've you done then?" and nods to the crutch. This happens disproportionately in the bus queue, oddly. But can happen anywhere - last week by the guy serving me in Subway, and he didn't even stop there.
I am never quite sure how to answer. In my head I come up with clever and funny stories to answer this question, involving shark attacks and being trampled by donkeys, but in reality these rarely come out of my mouth. I sometimes say, "I had an operation on my leg" which, while true, isn't entirely relevant. For what it's worth, regarding that actual question, I haven't done anything.
I could tell the truth of course, but it's a long, complicated and in depth story, and people wouldn't actually want to hear the whole thing. Not that I'd do this, because it's none of their business. If you are a complete stranger, you are not entitled to my medical history.
Some, like the Subway guy, go further. "What was the operation for?" "What does it feel like?"
Then there's the unsolicited advice that so frequently follows: "My mate had something like that and when he stopped eating *insert random food group here* it got better"; "Have you tried *insert unproven alternative treatment here*?"; "You want to be careful using that stick, you don't want to get reliant on it".
Look, I have a consultant on the case, and she knows a lot about this stuff. You don't. Just drop it.
Think about it this way, if you were waiting in your GP's surgery waiting room, and someone asked you what you were seeing the doctor for, you'd feel that that was an inappropriate and overly intrusive question. It's the same - perhaps worse - at a bus stop, or a sandwich shop, or in the park.
Just like telling me I have big boobs (as if I didn't know) is inappropriate, and telling me to eat less is inappropriate, and telling a slim woman to eat more is inappropriate, so asking a complete stranger about their impairment is also inappropriate.
Sometimes young kids ask me questions, and I don't mind that as much. They mainly want to know if it hurts. Then they get on with whatever they were doing before. Actual friends asking me questions is fine, and actual friends offering me advice based on something they've read can be helpful, because they know what I've already tried and what I'm likely to want to try.
But the man at the sandwich shop and the woman at the bus stop and every other stranger who feels entitled to know, it's not fine. My body is mine, in all its weirdnesses and failings and successes. Some of its details are visible to you, but it's still not ok to just tell me what you think because you can see that I have breasts, a big tummy, a limp, scars or a mobility aid.
The Guardian reports on attacks on people who have been on disability benefits for 10 years or more.
Employment Minister Chris Grayling described the figures as "outrageous" and promised action to get people off benefits and back into work.
There is a shocking lack of acknowledgement or awareness that if someone has been on disability benefits for 10 years are probably pretty ill, have significant impairments, or face massive barriers.
"Thousands of people who have simply been cast aside by a welfare system that does nothing but put them in a queue for benefits and then forgets about them.
"Well those days are over. We will no longer accept a system which writes people off at a drop of the hat and expects the taxpayer to foot the bill."
With statements like that, they appear to be trying to cloak their attacks in the guise of concern for the benefit recipients, but it is a thinly disguised threat where the biggest concern is clearly the 'taxpayers footing the bill'.
It shows a complete lack of comprehension of the reality of the day to day lives of those who have been on long-term sickness benefits, and of why people are in this situation. There are many things the government could do to improve disabled people's lives and, yes, their chances of eventually getting back to work, but cutting off benefits helps no-one.
Many disabled people are currently terrified of the threats to their benefits, and those with mental health problems are especially scared. The benefit system has always been more geared up towards assessing physical impairment, and the new ESA assessments appear to have reinforced rather than reduced the discrepancy.
Meridian Tonight has reported on the case of Nicola Hobbs, who after years of anorexia applied for a job. However, she failed the health test and so was not given employment. As a result of this she applied for benefit and in this case was found fit for work.
A very confusing situation - judged too ill to work when applying for a job, yet fit for work when applying for benefit. But to add insult to injury, these two opposing judgements were made by the same company - ATOS Healthcare, who do the ESA assessments for the government.
Meridian Tonight has a two minute video covering the story on their website. Worryingly, it is not the first time I have heard of cases exactly like this, with ATOS declaring the same person unfit for work when doing an employment health review, yet fit for work when doing a benefit assessment.
One of the reasons I stopped reading women's magazines was due to the way they helped to create a mindset within me of judging other women's appearances. And in turn, my own.
All those pap shots, or red carpet shots, with captions such as "OMG, Celebrity A wore item X with item Y. The shame!" always made me start thinking "oh, I'm not supposed to wear X with Y? Since when? What else do I not know? Do I look stupid?"
And "OMG, Celebrity B's appalling outfit just draws attention to her problem areas, not flattering at all!" made me start seeing women's bodies in terms of 'problem areas' and how we must disguise them at all costs.
For what it's worth, I don't even consider the parts of my body that don't work so well as problem areas, so I hated applying that destructive judgement to my bits that are simply more bulgy than others.
But reading those hateful comments made me see similar 'sins' in real life, and the language of body fascism started to invade my consciousness. I was making snap judgements about other women's appearances. As soon as I clocked each thought, I'd immediately challenge it and reassure myself that I didn't think that really, but I hated that the snap judgements were happening at all.
And the more I judged others, the more those judgements affected my own self-esteem. If I could judge Celebrity C, even momentarily, for an unflattering top, when she is frankly at most 1/3 of my size and is conventionally beautiful, then really, what did I look like? And if the women who wrote these magazines, and other women who read them, judged conventionally beautiful and improbably slim women so badly, what on earth would they think of me?
So I stopped reading those magazines. I stopped reading reactionary statements about the supposed fashion sins committed by other women, and I stopped making those judgements about other women, and I began to stop making them about myself. It was one of the best things for my self-esteem and for my self-respect that I have ever done.
I have been making a concerted effort to remove appearance-related insults from my vocabulary. Because honestly, if I'm pissed off at someone, it has NOTHING to do with what they LOOK like, and everything to do with what they ARE like.
This rang very true with me. Happy as I always am to argue endlessly against the politics of, say, Ann Widdecombe, I would also endlessly defend her when people criticising her resort to making fun of her appearance and weight. And they invariably do.
Firstly, there is no need. It is cruel, it is nasty, and no contribution for the advancement of women is ever made when politicians are only critiqued on their size and perceived attractiveness. Secondly, it is entirely irrelevant, and unhelpful to the argument anyway. If you want to slate Ann's position on abortion rights, go ahead. But you only devalue your own argument if you make any reference to her never needing one because 'she's so fat and ugly that noone would want to impregnate her'. And yes, I've heard that numerous times. This undermines any valid point within the rest of your argument, as well as being needlessly shallow and hateful.
Criticising other women's bodies goes counter to everything that feminism should stand for. It is hurtful to other women, and it is hurtful to ourselves. And it is irrelevant to any other criticisms of a person, be it their politics, their acting skills, their singing ability, their ability to read the news, or, frankly, anything at all.
Certain newspapers are renowned for creating outrage and horror out of the smallest things, but this example had me howling with laughter. That might be related to the painkillers I'm currently on for an excessively painful period, but that just makes it all the more relevant.
It appears that somebody on set thought it would be funny to add 'jam rags' and 'pile cream' to a blackboard shopping list in Marlon Dingle's kitchen. I agree, I think that is quite funny.
I had actually never heard the term 'jam rags' for sanitary towels before, so I've learned something new. And it highlights the fact that just as characters in soaps are rarely seen going to the toilet, they are also rarely seen as having periods. Funnily enough they never watch other soaps, either.
The Fail tells us:
Vivienne Pattison, director of Mediawatch, said: 'Clearly whoever wrote that knew exactly what they were doing, and they certainly didn't need to. 'It's not a particularly helpful phrase to refer to sanitary towels as "jam rags" , and it is unnecessary. [...] Sharon Kennedy, 26, from Kingstanding, Birmingham, said: 'I couldn't believe my eyes when it appeared on screen - it's not the kind of language you expect to appear in one of our oldest soaps. 'I had to cover my young son's eyes because I didn't want to have to explain that kind of crass language to him at such a young age. [...] Mother-of-two Jean Walker, 38, from Lichfield, Staffs, added: 'I was stunned when my son, who is only seven, turned around and asked me what a jam rag was. 'It's not the kind of thing you want your kids seeing, so it was disappointing to see it on a programme like Emmerdale just after dinner. 'You hear phrases like that used in the street or in the pub sometimes, but to use it in front of millions as part of a TV soap is a pretty silly thing to do.'
These people don't appear outraged, or scared for the moral health of their child, regarding the current storyline of a murdered man's body being found in the woods, or an older woman's admission of graverobbing, or the sad death of the chronic alcoholic pictured in that screenshot that very night (yes, I watch Emmerdale!). But a mention of sanitary towels in slang terms - UNACCEPTABLE!
Oh my. Somebody think of the children!
I use medical terms and slang terms to refer to periods. I try and avoid overtly negative ones like 'the curse', despite my endometriosis and PCOS making me feel quite cursed on days like today. When I lived in France, periods were often referred to as 'les Anglaises' - nobody quite knew why, but one theory was the shade of red that white Brits turn when they holiday in sunny France, and another was to do with the red coats that the guards of Buckingham Palace wear.
So I'm on the blob, I've got the painters in, Liverpool / Arsenal / Man U are playing at home, I'm menstruating, I have my period. There's nothing offensive about that, it's a fact of life, and talking about it shouldn't horrify anyone.
Because I've always had problems with my periods, it is something I have had to talk about regularly. I also had to come to terms with the fact that periods weren't shameful. Buying sanitary towels as a teenager might have felt mortifying, but now I barely notice doing it. There really is nothing to be ashamed of.
The Onion has a nice collection of euphemisms for menstruation, my favourite probably being It's 'that time of the month' where 'I'm not at my best' because 'my vagina is bleeding'. The Museum of Menstruation has the most comprehensive collection of words used to describe menstruating I have ever, ever seen. That site is actually endlessly fascinating, with extensive information on anything and everything to do with periods.
So, what are your favourite period euphemisms? Do you prefer to use less euphemistic language? Would you be horrified to see 'jam rags' on a shopping list? Or is any mention of our 'monthlies' offensive at all?
Jess posted that women will bear the brunt of three-quarters of extra taxes and benefit cuts from the latest budget. Disabled people are also at risk, especially with the proposed changes to benefits, so disabled women will be particularly adversely affected.
In a 2004 study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, on the extra costs of living associated with being disabled, it was found that disabled people living on benefits face a weekly shortfall of £200 compared to the amount required for them to ensure an acceptable, equitable quality of life and minimum standard of living. And those results were for people on maximum benefit levels.
With many people who are too sick to work being 'pushed into seeking work without any help or support', and the continuing rolling out of ESA, a system condemned as 'unfit' by one of the very people who designed it, along with proposed 'savings' (by which we mean cuts) to Disability Living Allowance (DLA), many disabled people living on benefits will be even more limited.
The cost of living for everybody, as well as the particular extra costs of living for disabled people, continues to rise, and will do so especially with the increase in VAT. As benefits are frozen and essentially cut, disabled women in particular will be seriously adversely affected.
For working disabled women, there will also be more problems. The Joseph Rowntree report found that disabled people with high-medium needs would find themselves with a shortfall of £80 a week, not even including possible PA costs. Add to this that more disabled people tend to work in the public sector than the private sector, where cuts are of course being made, and the situation is frightening. In addition, disabled people who work can claim Disability Living Allowance, so cuts and limitations will affect them too. In fact, some working people can only work because of the way they use their DLA to cover additional costs, so cutting that could well mean that some working disabled people would have to stop work, and claim benefits.
The proposed budgetary changes threaten to send many more women into poverty. They threaten to send many more disabled people into poverty. So for disabled women? It is a very scary time indeed.
Oh dear, it doesn't matter how many times we talk about it, and my goodness we talk about it a lot, it happens again and again.
The Press Complaints Commission has upheld Clare Balding's complaint after AA Gill in the Sunday Times referred to her as a 'dyke on a bike'.
Posts
