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 also, amusingly, turned up on the ITV News website and a Canadian News site, CBC.ca, over a twitter hashtag game about the government's plans to snoop on every email we send, amongst other things.
Personally, things have been busy. I'm missing writing for Where's the Benefit? but since the Welfare Reform Bill (oh, sorry, Act) came into law I've felt entirely powerless over it. I need to get beyond a place where every possible action seems pointless, in that respect.
The last few weeks I've been on two crutches rather than one. This started when I tripped and tore a toenail off, then continued when I got new neurological symptoms in a rather large new section of my left thigh.
While I am normally all in favour of the wonder of mobility aids, because they give people freedom and independence and, well, mobility, I get seriously less enthusiastic when I need two crutches rather than one. It means I am hurting my elbows and wrists on both arms instead of just one, it makes doing nearly anything a nightmare. I have to ask for help a lot more, it hurts, I hate it.
If it turns out to be long-term I'll just have to get the hang of it, but in the meantime, I'm seriously unimpressed.
This morning I got on the bus. It's a local service where it tends to be the same drivers most of the time, so I know some of them. Today, on spotting that I had two crutches and not one, a driver I know reasonably well said, "got another forgery then, have you?", and laughed.
It was banter. That bloody word. Can't I take a joke?
On top of feeling distinctly unimpressed with the two crutch situation already, this idiot added a whole other layer of fed-up-ness to the mix. For the rest of the day I felt self-conscious. Do all these people think I'm faking?
If he had thought about it, even for a millisecond, he would perhaps have realised that an increase in the number of crutches perhaps corresponded with a deterioration in my health. He would perhaps have realised that I might not be overjoyed about that.
Today was so painful. My arms are completely wrecked, and my right hand is considerably worse than usual. I don't know if that is a progression of the condition, or just a reaction to too much crutch use today.
It's not funny. It's not banter. It's thoughtless and fucking cruel, if you take even a second to think about it.
A terrified umbrella group has been set up who believe that because of the gays, that teetering, vulnerable institution which is heterosexual marriage, is under threat.
Warning of the Profound Consequences of legalising same sex marriage, the Coalition for Marriage fear that, "if marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined". They also, somewhat inexplicably, warn that "People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded". Because presumably, if the gays can marry, this will cause widespread redundancies and it will mean that social services will no longer accept heterosexual married couples as potential adopters or foster carers.
Following is that infamous slippery slope, "If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?". I'm surprised they didn't carry on to the usual "or what is to stop people marrying their pets?". Are the Coalition for Marriage so fearful that if same sex relationships get equal rights, heterosexual people will abandon traditional marriage in droves, to marry their gay best friend instead?
The Coalition for Marriage are running a petition which, they say, "demonstrates that there is broad public opposition to redefining marriage". They may have jumped the gun with this statement, as the 'broad public support' currently stands at 124 signatories, the vast majority of whom are Bishops, Rectors, members of the General Synod of the Church of England, vicars, Ministers and Pastors. Three Labour MPs and four Conservative MPs have also signed, but the people who have signed can be considered to be neither numerous nor broad in range at this stage.
They begrudgingly promote Civil Partnerships as justification for now allowing same sex marriage, before pointing out that "It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage", going on to say, "People should not feel pressurised to go along with same-sex marriage just because of political correctness. They should be free to express their views". So, I'm expressing my views.
Quite why allowing same sex people to marry fills these people with such dread is not something I can understand. If I marry a girlfriend, it doesn't have to be karmically balanced out by a straight couple getting divorced. Heterosexual marriage is one of the most established institutions in the whole world - just what do they imagine might happen if I could join in? It's almost flattering that they think equal marriage rights would be such a powerful move that the entire heteropatriarchal institution would be under immediate threat. I would be quite happy if it would, but I fear it is overestimating what two men or two women getting married would actually mean.
(Clue, it would mean they were married, then got on with their lives like everyone else)
The Coalition are asking for people to sign up to the following statement,
I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.
Personally, I support the rights of same sex couples to marry, and of mixed sex couples to get a Civil Partnership.
Mind you, having just watched this video, maybe the Coalition for Marriage is right: gay marriage could in fact end humanity.
In all seriousness, however, many people struggle greatly with the inability to commit to marriage within their relationships. A video of Kitty Lambert in New York expresses powerfully just how ridiculous the current laws are.
You can see the full-length version of that video here.
[The first image is a screenshot of the Coalition for Marriage website. The second is a cartoon from Lefty Cartoons, used under a Creative Commons Licence. Hat tip to @bhiggi for helping me to find the second video. This post originally appeared at The F-Word]
I sleepwalked last night. It is something I have started doing this year, for reasons unknown. It is horrible, and I wake up too freaked out to get back to sleep. I'm writing this because it's bedtime again and I'm scared now.
It's not even just sleepwalking. Last night I got to sleep about 2.30am. I woke up at 4. I was downstairs, and had sleepwalked. Not just that. I woke up vomiting, because I had eaten tonnes of food in my sleep. I have no idea where my glasses are (I have spares now, thankfully, mainly because of this very thing).
I woke up vomiting over myself, after 1.5 hours sleep, because I had eaten so much. In my sleep.
It is foul, I hate it, it scares me.
Can't imagine this post will stay up long, because it's all quite humiliating. But maybe writing it down will help me to freak out less in anticipation of sleeping tonight.
It started with a blog post, where David Gillon challenged 38 degrees about why, despite a disability benefit cuts campaign receiving lots of votes, it never reached the 'call to action' stage.
Then there was an article (now amended) which described an athlete's move from Paralympic to Olympic competition as a "move up".
I then read in Jezebel about a sex worker who is awesome because she works with disabled clients, which apparently makes her intriguing.
And I started to wonder, what do you think of us? Of me? In these three stages, the mainstream, and the left-wing, tell me that I am inferior, and I am other. So very, very other.
Then Lisa Egan wrote a post (trigger warning) about suicide, and her despair at the lack of support from even campaigning organisations, and I still, somehow, didn't cry.
Then, finally, the article that did make me cry, in which I learned that 2/3 of people avoid disabled people because they don't know how to act around us. In addition,
A third of those questioned demonstrated hardened negative attitudes towards the disabled. Reasons cited for this ranged from disabled people being seen as a burden on society (38%), ill feeling around the perceived extra support given to disabled people (28%), and the personal worries and sensitivities which rise to the fore during a recession (79%).
It went on,
Some 60% of Britons admit to staring at disabled people because they are different, with more than half of people (51%) admitting they feel uncomfortable when they meet a disabled person for the first time, with more men (54%) admitting to being uncomfortable compared to women (50%).
At a time when cuts are actually killing disabled people, we are also experiencing more negative attitudes, perceptions of being a burden, an additional cost, especially during a recession. How very inconsiderate of us to not wait to attain crippled status until the economy is fixed.
If you're questioning whether this is a feminist issue, then the point is being missed. I am a woman who 38% of people polled consider to be a burden. I am a woman who 2/3 of people polled admit to avoiding for reasons of prejudice. I am a woman who 50% of women polled admitted to being uncomfortable to meet. I am a woman who is witnessing her friends become more and more afraid to leave the house, for fear of government- and Daily Mail-inspired abuse in the street. I've experienced it myself.
There are so many issues at the moment which are putting us all into a state of crisis. This is one of many: people are starting to frighten me. Is the person I'm talking to one of the 38%? Or the 50% Or the 65%?
Given that women are the hardest hit by spending cuts, and disabled people are the hardest hit by spending cuts, disabled women are being overlooked, avoided, resented, marginalised and othered. It takes non-disabled people, at this stage, to make some of the changes that need to happen.
[The image is a photograph of handmade print next to one of the stencils. They read "FEAR MORE HOPE LESS". The photograph and artwork are by Ben Murphy and are used under a Creative Commons Licence]
When I complained about Julian Assange speaking at Occupy LSX, I was told I was being divisive. When I drew attention to zohra moosa and Chitra Nagarajan's experiences of racism at the same occupy camp, I was also told I was being divisive. Complaining about the Labour Party, about the Lib Dems, about rapes at other Occupy camps, about inaccessible feminist meetings, and about issues being ignored under the heading of #solidarity, all get me called divisive.
The idea is that if you complain about something, you risk dividing the movement, at which point the opposition - be it the patriarchy, the 'right', the rich, the government - can move in and rule. And I understand this concern. When a movement is struggling for a voice, the last thing it needs is the people within it arguing amongst themselves, instead of against the people they are uniting to fight.
However, there comes a point when supporting a movement whose ideology or aims you broadly agree with becomes one painful compromise too many. And if you speak up, the 'divisive' accusations pour forth. But in my daily, lived experience, the division does not come from me raising awareness, the problem comes from the issues arising in the first place.
Because if I cannot physically get into your occupy camp, it is not me who has divided the movement. There is a very literal division between the non-disabled people who can get in, and the disabled people who can't. And because if there have been rapes at your occupy camp, or your occupy camp produces a document telling anyone who is raped at the camp to not go to the police, it is not me who divides the movement by drawing attention to it, it is those who rape, and those who attempt to suppress legal redress against rapists who cause a division. And because if disabled people who can't leave the house spend hours and days and weeks live tweeting events to take part in, and raise awareness of, a demonstration, and then those same disabled people actually plead with the protesters to add benefit and social care cuts to their banners and chants, and are ignored at every turn, the division is being created by them, not me.
I understand that in a broad movement, gathered together ideologically but not always agreeing, compromises will need to be made. I am becoming less and less understanding, however, about how often the white, heterosexual, cis, non-disabled men are asked to compromise, in comparison to the rest of us. Because being called divisive is sometimes very similar to being silenced.
[The image is a black and white close-up photograph of a person's mouth, with piercing, with a finger held up against it in a 'shush' position. It was taken by Ko_An and is used under a Creative Commons Licence]
Anyone who knows me knows that I am a chronic procrastinator. In an effort to improve this really stressful trait in my life I have been reading up and studying all about it, and one of the best resources I have found is the iProcrastinate Podcast. I have been listening to the whole back catalogue over the last couple of months, and trying to implement some of the strategies that Dr. Tim Pychyl recommends and explains.
Since my year in France, as part of my degree, I've always wondered why French people apparently do not procrastinate. They don't even have a word for it (dictionary said, "faire quelquechose demain qu'on devrait faire aujourd'hui" - do something tomorrow that you should do today). So, as Tim sometimes answers listener queries on his podcast, I decided to email him. To my very pleasant surprise, he responded quickly and has now made a podcast episode all about it.
I am very much looking forward to listening to it, and you should go listen too! Go on, it'll be good, I promise.
I have been doing some research on sex and disability, and thought I would share some of the links I have found. This will be useful for me in the future as a resource, and hopefully to others too.
Earlier this year, a friend of several of my friends died. He was young, and the circumstances were tragic and, at the time, somewhat newsworthy. But the news media can all too easily lose sight of the very real grief and sadness surrounding someone's death, by getting caught up in the 'story'.
Some months later, and this 'story' has re-appeared in the local news, because his inquest has taken place. The real loss facing his friends and family has been overlooked in favour, yet again, of sensationalised details of his death.
Because he died by suicide, even more care than usual should be taken when reporting his death. According to the Press Complaints Commission's Editors' Code of Practice, "When reporting suicide, care should be taken to avoid excessive detail about the method used.". This is also backed up by the Samaritans, who say that
certain types of suicide reporting are particularly harmful and can act as a catalyst to influence the behaviour of people who are already vulnerable.[...] Research suggests that media portrayal can influence suicidal behaviour and this may result in an overall increase in suicide and/or an increase in uses of particular methods.
They also specifically advise the media to "Avoid explicit or technical details of suicide in reports".
On a more personal level, this man's friends and family are devastated at his loss. In particular, it is felt that reports like the one in today's Star not only dramatise a tragic situation, they also ignore that this was a person who was loved, and whose life amounted to so much more than what was portrayed. In addition, the mention of his child is worded in such a way that his friends are concerned that this could cause her to blame herself for his death when she is older.
This man died because of depression, and responsible reporting should include information on how people who are feeling depressed can seek help. Ethical reporting should refrain from including unnecessary, distressing details of his last moments. And respectful reporting should take into account the feelings of those who loved him, who will read this news report with a pain that is difficult to describe, but devastating to experience.
I did not know this man, but have seen similar newspaper reports on the suicides of two of my friends, so I know this pain well.
While I hadn't been able to join an occupation on a Sunday, I went to my local occupation this afternoon and spent an hour or so there drinking tea and putting the world to right. What follows is not an in-depth access survey, but is rather the impression I got, based on the information I was told or observed.
The Sheffield Occupation is in front of the Cathedral, so trams and buses stop nearby. It is on a flat courtyard and while there are some steps to access it from some directions, there are sloped alternatives alongside them.
The Occupy Sheffield has one portaloo, which is not accessible. The local Quaker Meeting House is offering the occupiers use of their toilets, and they do have wheelchair accessible toilets on each floor (with lift access to each floor). Once they close from 9pm - 9am, use of the portaloo begins, excluding many disabled people from using it.
The closest Changing Places toilets to the site are at Sheffield Town Hall and at Ponds Forge Sports Centre.
They have generators for electricity, but try to only use these at night. They also have gas heat, which is basic. If you need electrical power for any of your equipment, this could be problematic at the Occupy Sheffield camp. If you have a need to keep warm that would go beyond wrapping up really well, then again it may be an inaccessible protest for you in that respect too.
There is a good supply of food and hot drinks. I was the only visibly disabled person at the camp when I was there, but talked to a man who was a mental health service user. Another disabled person had clearly been at the camp at some point too. This photo is of a piece of paper taped to the main tent, which reads "I am one of the few disabled people who has a job. I am mad about what our society has become. I am the 99%".
The photo at the top of the post is of the main tent. It has a large banner on it, reading "Occupy Sheffield", and another fabric banner reading We Heart NHS. Both were taken by me.
There is a lot more I could say about the experience at #occupysheffield and maybe I will, but for now, this is a very basic accessibility survey for the site.
Firstly, there are big companies who have signed up, unsurprisingly, to get people to work for them without a need to pay them, such as Poundland, Matalan, Tesco and Primark.
Secondly, there are public sector organisations who want to benefit from unpaid labour, such as the local councils of Barnsley, Blackpool, Bromley, Chester, Dudley, East Riding, Gateshead, Greenwich, Hartlepool, Islington, Kensington, Medway, Neath Port Talbot, Newham, North Lanarkshire, Northumberland, Portsmouth, Renfrewshire, Stoke-on-Trent; numerous further education colleges; and several NHS trusts.
And thirdly, and perhaps most disappointingly, is the depressingly large number of charities and third sector organisations who are seeking to benefit from people being forced to work without pay, at threat of loss of their benefits.
Just some of the organisations who the DWP state will be involved in delivering the Work Programme, are:
Action for Blind People Autism West Midlands Disability Information Bureau Disability Works* Enable Hammersmith and Fulham MIND Leonard Cheshire Disability Papworth Trust Remploy RNIB Rochdale and District MIND Royal Mencap Society Royal National College for the Blind Scottish Association for Mental Health Shaw Trust The Mind Consortium (Hull and East Yorkshire MIND) Warrington Disability Partnership
These are the organisations from the list that stood out to me as disability organisations. Organisations ostensibly to represent and fight for the rights of disabled people.
Last year I wrote about Disability Works, 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". I argued in May that the Hardest Hit organisers could not represent me or fight for my rights when they also stood to benefit from the proposed changes in welfare reform.
Now Disability Works are amongst all of the above voluntary sector disability organisations who are seeking to benefit from workfare. Along with all the other charities above, and with all the problems Workfare will cause for disabled and non-disabled people, we simply cannot trust these organisations to have our best interests at heart. They, along with Primark and Tesco, aim to profit from labour which is unpaid, unfair, and is carried out against a threat of a loss of benefits.
These big disability charities do not represent me, they do not have my interests in mind, and they do not speak for me.
Some disabled people are completely fit for work, but cannot find any, so claim Jobseekers' Allowance. This is particularly an issue because disabled people face many barriers to work, including inaccessible workplaces, employer prejudice and employers being ignorant of, or refusing to adhere to the Equalities Act in relation to reasonable accommodations.
Increasingly, however, disabled people who are not fit for work are finding themselves claiming Jobseekers' Allowance, when they are reassessed and fail to meet the limited criteria for ESA. The result of this is that more and more people are signing on, but also unable to work, for health reasons.
People who have been unemployed for more than two years and haven't secured sustainable employment could be referred onto compulsory community work placements under plans being considered by the government.
Under the proposals people who have been supported intensively through the Work Programme for two years yet have still not entered sustainable employment, may have to do community work or ultimately they could lose their benefit entitlement.
Ministers believe a minority of jobseekers struggle to engage with the system fully, are unable to hold down a job and therefore require a greater level of support.
The government is to test compulsory community work coupled with more intensive support through Jobcentre Plus in four key areas ahead of rolling out the scheme nationwide in 2013.
This is fundamentally unfair. We are in a position as a country where unemployment rates are rising, and job opportunities are shrinking. If someone has failed to get a job in 2 years, it is most likely to be due to circumstances outside their control, and to then force them into unpaid labour, against the threat of losing their pittance of an income from JSA, is exploitative.
For disabled people, even moreso. People who are disabled but genuinely fit for work will still require adaptations, accommodations, and accessibility. These people are less likely to have found a job in 2 years because of the reasons I explained above. And will the people who are happy to take unpaid labour also be happy to accommodate people with complex needs and requirements?
And those who have been found fit for work but are, in fact, not at all fit for work, will be in the most trouble. All of the above, on top of not being well enough to do it. Will their regular sickness absences or inability to be reliable cause them to lose their benefit entitlement? I would imagine so, according to what the press release says.
Workfare is exploitative and unfair to everybody who is forced to do it. For disabled people it has added layers of unfairness, which have the potential to leave, yet again, the most vulnerable abandoned without financial support.
[The image is a black and white photograph taken at a protest in New Zealand against a Workfare programme. There are numerous people with placards saying, "The rich get rich at the expense of the poor" and "Real jobs not workfare". It was taken by SocialistWorkerNZ and is used under a Creative Commons Licence]
There's nothing I wouldn't do to hear your voice again. Sometimes I want to call you, but I know you won't be there.
Are you looking down upon me? Are you proud of who I am? There is nothing I wouldn't do to have just one more chance To look into your eyes and see you looking back.
When, like me, you're a left-wing feminist blogger, and you get an email saying, "Oh my God you're in the Daily Mail", the automatic response is to expect the worst. I had an idea what it would be about, because I had done some interviews with journalists about the story I broke about Eamonn Holmes saying to a girl who had been raped, "Well, I hope you take taxis now".
The tweets I had initially sent about him saying it had been retweeted hundreds of times, and I had had lots of support for what I had written, but what on earth would the Mail have to say about it...?
It's certainly been a weird 24 hours. I won't be recommending the Mail, Telegraph or Sun for their feminist content any time soon, but I'm certainly pleasantly surprised that I've been quoted in them all, and not in a horrible way.
I co-wrote a blog post at The F-Word with Helen G, Jess McCabe and zohra moosa, about Julian Assange speaking at #occupylsx: We are the 49%?
Marks and Spencer were only marketing their astronomy toys to boys. I wrote about women in astronomy, and their quick response to correct their mistake: Reach for the stars, girls
This morning I saw Eamonn Holmes say to a rape victim, "Well, I hope you take taxis now". So this afternoon I blogged about it at The F-Word: Victim-blaming on daytime TV
[The image is a photograph of dozens of brightly-coloured sweets in the shape of flowers.]
, (also 
) and you can see 
Posts
