Be the change

There's a saying often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi - "Be the change that you want to see in the world".  It's been changed a little from the original "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world's problems".

So the exact words might be different, but the sentiment is the same.  I see it as meaning "don't sit on your arse whingeing about an issue if you're not prepared to try and do something to change it".  Not quite as eloquent as Gandhi or Budda, but it does what is says on the tin!

Sadly Hogwarts isn't real and there isn't a spell to turn odious excuses for human beings into socially, morally & environmentally aware individuals (please do write in if you know of a charm that does all of the above!!).

However, if you sign an e-petition and you post a link to it on social media - your 100 friends see it.  Then , say a third of them share it on Facebook, or tweet a link to it.  Then all of their friends and followers see it and maybe a third of them sign it and publicise it, and so on.  Then if some of those friends, and friends of friends sign up for updates from a site such as Avaaz, Change.org, Be the change initiative, or 38 degrees, they will receive information about how the project or cause is progressing and be notified about other campaigns that they may want to get involved in.    So even though little old you is statistically unlikely to be able to single handedly change the world, a couple of minutes of your time (if that) could help to make a big change.

Just one person and their contacts can create a tidal wave of activity, and then suddenly a couple of hundred thousand people have signed a petition and it gets loads of publicity and the petition publicly lands on the desk of a politician or a CEO of a company, or a local councillor.  Then suddenly, it isn't quite as easy to keep up their shady activities because lots more people know about it and are putting pressure on them to change their practices.

Obviously, even a huge petition or protest isn't a guarantee of a person, an institution, or a company changing their ways.  But embarrassment is a good motivator for those in the public eye - as one thing they really hate is having their dirty laundry aired in public.  In a company, negative publicity can affect trade deals; customer confidence; sales; share prices.  And one thing we have learnt from the banking crisis is that no matter what, those at the top of the tree do like their bonuses, and share deals as part of their remuneration packages.

If the negative publicity is going to affect their share prices and profits (which those at the top of the tree have a lot of interest in because it affects how many holidays in the Caribbean they can have a year), then there is a bigger chance that they will change.  Politicians don't like bad press either - the Oxbridge elite do like to appear whiter that white in public. Public opinion about their practices can affect opinion polls, and opinion polls can affect voting.  Negotiation is always a good strategy to start off with, but sometimes, causing a fuss is more effective.

Sometimes I have to tune myself out from the news because the amount of negative things that are happening across the world just seems depressing and overwhelming.  After all, what can I do to change what's happening in Iraq?  I don't have enough money to buy sufficient food to feed the millions of people that don't know where their next meal is coming from.

But then I metaphorically slap myself around the face, get my head out of the sand, and get active.  I don't have the answer to all the world's problems, I don't have the money to feed the poor, or employ the homeless.  But, I can buy a copy of The Big Issue; sign a petition to stop British companies supplying arms to Gaza; join the committee of my union to help make changes in my workplace; write about issues on social media; donate to Water Aid , sponsor a child through World Vision - and that's just a few ideas as to what you could do. I think Matt Damon took the ice bucket challenge the right spirit - Matt Damon Ice Bucket.

I'm conscious of trying not to be preachy - that's the last thing I want.  But I do want to try and do my bit, so that when I eventually pop my clogs people may say that I made some mistakes in my life, but I did stand up for who, and what I believe in.

When "good enough" just isn't good enough

There comes a point in your life when if you haven't attained the society "norms", then you are viewed almost as a second class citizen.  Both my sibling and I have somewhat "let the side down" as far as society is concerned because we're in our thirties and we haven't popped out a sprog or two.  We both got married (my sibling stayed that way - me, not so much!). I did things the wrong way round in getting married first as the younger sibling, but I also took the heat from getting divorced.

It would, I expect, be considered terribly uncouth of me to pop out a sprog now I'm not married - and perhaps it would be deemed "not the done thing", especially as I had my chance at marriage and it ended in a divorce that should put me off men for life!  Yet despite having done the "grown up" things of buying a house and getting married, these were not deemed good enough to be treated like a adult by some people.

Now, don't get me wrong, there is a big difference between being an adult and being a "grown up".  The intention of my friends and I is to avoid being a grown up for as long as humanly possible - and the term "responsible adult" strikes fear into our thirty-something hearts.

Anyway, I digress (just for a change!).

So, having passed the big three-zero a couple of years ago Mother Nature's (& society's) big old countdown clock is ticking loud and clear.  So, as far as society's concerned, I have two options.  I can either hurry the hell up and find a suitable mate to breed with (for suitable, see "has a job, isn't a satanist; axe murder or mormon, and has active sperm) - OR, become a mad cat lady.

Let's examine those two options.  Whilst having kids is something that was/is on my to do list, I am also aware that I didn't have kids in my marriage because a)we had a house and a car, and as everyone knows, those two things (especially in combination) cost lots of pennies and b)the relationship, whilst completely amicable, wasn't right for bringing kids into the world.  I figured that there are enough kids in the world whose parents are separated - I didn't want to risk bringing a child into the world when our relationship was only "good enough" as far at the outside world looking in was concerned. And what started off as a fairly amicable separation turned into a horrendous divorce.  So thank crunchie good enough wasn't good enough for me to decide to have children with him. 

The second option is to become a mad cat lady.  Some of my friends would tell you that I'm slightly cracked already - so that takes care of the mad bit.  And cat lady: well, I like cats - sadly I had to leave my two awesome cats on the other side of the world. So now I'd worry that any subsequent cats wouldn't live up to their awesomeness!  But, however, I seem to be a good judge of cat character (though sadly not rabbits or men's characters!) so when I get my own place that could be a possibility.  But no creepy-eyed Siamese cats, or those big fluff ball cats (Burmese?) that remind me of the cat in that Bond film and always have filthy tempers.
 
On reflection, being a mad cat lady is the most appealing of the two options at the moment!

Am I being too demanding (given that I'm a female, over thirty, and it's my "duty" to procreate) to want to be attracted to a man intellectually as well as physically?  To be able to have a conversation at two in the morning about who would win a face-off between Care Bears and Cabbage Patch Kids, or whether bullying would be less prevalent if mindfulness was taught in schools?  To want someone that I can have mind-blowing sex with but will make me a hot water bottle and buy me chocolate when I have P.M.T?

Or, should I be looking into the possibility of settling down with the ok-looking bloke that doesn't have B.O. or any criminal convictions that deigned to pass the time of day with me at the bus stop?  Should I be grateful that he even noticed an old has-been/never was like me?

The thing that always gets me is when you look around you and the crazy guy/ugly as sin woman/complete douche bag in your town has somehow managed to hook up with the love of their life/someone that is either the complete antithesis to them/someone so far out of their league their phone calls cost £5.00 per minute?  Whilst surfing the net I found a quote from a blog called Bridget Jones has nothing on me  that I think sums my feelings about this up quite nicely:

"How does someone as weird as she is have a fiance when I can’t get a normal date to save my life?  There’s only one possible explanation: I was kidnapped by aliens at some point in my life and they’ve done something to me that repels normal men."

So, to sum up - is good enough, good enough?  Hell no, I want my Prince Charming to have a sarcastic sense of humour, know my favourite confectionery like the back of his hand (weird expression - who spends any amount of time looking at the back of their own hand?), is my intellectual equal, be great in bed, and turn up on a Harley (or an Audi TT if it's raining).

Does true altuism really exist? And does it matter?

Altruism:  Sacrificing something for someone other than the self (e.g. sacrificing time, energy or possessions) with no expectation of any compensation or benefits, either direct, or indirect (e.g, receiving recognition for the act of giving).

Some people say that there's no such thing as true altruism, actions that are truly selfless, ones that you get absolutely nothing in return for.  I'm not sure if it really matters.  Part of me thinks that if you have done something good for others, then does it really matter?

To a greater or lesser extent, society has pretty much always been run on a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" basis.  Way before the first coins came into existence, bartering and exchanges of goods and services were in effect - I'll give you a kilo of potatoes if you help me with my tax return etc.! 

In general  - as much as members of the human race are capable of behaving atrociously, I think that your average human being is a decent sort of a creature.  Not necessarily inherently good, but a middle of the road, OK sort of person.  And yet some (who can afford to) choose to donate to charity, some don't; some people hold the door open for the person behind them - some let it close in their face; some stand up for what they believe is right, others merely mutter behind closed doors "isn't XYZ awful" but never so much as sign a petition, let alone go on a protest march.

So, going with what motivates a person to stand up for what they believe in, what motivates a person to stand up to a tyrant, - say, Hitler - despite huge risk to themselves and their loved ones?  I know it's a bit maudlin, but something like the second world war is a good example of people showing their true colours - the truly awful and the truly good.  There were so many people that risked their business, their homes, their lives - to help others in a desperate situation - or to "rebel" against the disgraceful  individuals that called themselves the "superior" race - or to "disobey" the Gestapo's commands; and they have disappeared into the mists of time with no recognition whatsoever.  It's only the likes of Oskar Schindler, Miep & Jan Gies et al (that hid Anne Frank & family) that made the history books & films.

I'm not a psychologist or sociologist so I can only hypothesise from my own humble point of view.  If you, out of the kindness of your heart, do something that benefits another and you end up getting recognition for it, does it take away from the fact that you've done something good?  Personally I don't think so.  Some celebrities get flack for their charity endeavours, people saying that they only do it for good press.  To me, I guess it depends on your intent.  If you truly believe in a cause (and happen to be famous) and you donate money or time (or both) to said cause, and your photo gets published whilst involved with that cause or charity - does it lessen the good that the money you gave to that charity can do, or take away the education from those children you helped to learn to read?  I don't think it does.

Most "normal" (whatever that is!) people feel good when they have done something nice for another.  If I know that I'm going to feel like a good person for helping that old man across with his shopping - does it suddenly make that old man's arms ache again as if he's still carrying his shopping?  No.   If I help my goddaughter with her reading and to learn to use her imagination when I could be watching telly, what do I get out of it?  Nothing.  "Aah", the naysayers say; "but you may rely on her to read items out of the TV paper when you're old and your sight's fading, so that's still a benefit to you".  To them I say - bollocks! 

There are enough apathetic, unmotivated, uncaring and downright unpleasant individuals in the world that do no good in their neighbourhoods, families, or with their friends.  Let's celebrate the good intentioned for their kind deeds big and small; let's champion the grannies and friends that read children bedtime stories; the people that hold doors open for others; and those who donate their pocket money, or a fraction of their yearly profits to charity.  And let's all try to be the people we want others to be.

Mad hatters, fruit cakes and black dogs

My friend is writing a blog about her experience with depression in the hope that it will help people going through a similar thing.  I think she's really brave.  But it did push me to be brave enough to share some of my thoughts about it.  In theory, these days, depression and mental illness are supposed to be much less stigmatised than they were, say 50 years ago.  In reality - I'm not sure how much of the stigma has been removed.

Whilst locking people in asylums for not conforming to societal norms is no longer de rigeur - being sectioned is a possibility. I know several people who have been going through a really rough time and felt like they were going mad and that the men in white coats really were going to come and lock them up in a padded room.  Whilst in the past, unmarried women were sectioned by their relatives for daring to bring a "bastard" child into the world (and had their child taken away at birth) and "sullying their family name".  Despite this no longer being a threat to unmarried mothers in the UK, there are still a lot of issues regarding mental health that revolve around power.

There have in recent years been several celebrities that have "come out" as having mental health issues (sometimes through choice, sometimes through being "outed" by lovely paparazzi or public looking to make a quick buck) - Catherine Zeta Jones (Bipolar Disorder), Emma Thompson (Depression), Ruby Wax (Bipolar Disorder), Stephen Fry (Bipolar Disorder), Lenny Henry (Depression) - I could go on for ages.  I have always felt that in a way, it's kind of easier for celebrities to "come out", as usually when they do, they are already well paid, well known, and get regular work for their talent/ability/skill/connections.  Their potential employers can see their previous work that established their reputation - so generally, the phone keeps ringing.

For the average Joe - you're stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes to work - especially when applying for a new job.  When applying of a new job, there are often the obligatory equal opportunities and health questionnaires.  This puts you in a quandary.  Do you declare your health condition (in this case mental health condition), in the hope that the powers that be won't use it against you and not give you an interview (but for an entirely different reason, obviously, they can't be seen to be discriminatory)?  Or, do you not declare it, and hope that you never have to have any time off work for said health condition and that your employers end up finding out that it was a pre-existing condition that you failed to declare, and subsequently all hell breaks loose?

There is an initiative called "Time to Change" www.time-to-change.org.uk/ which is a Department of Health initiative (funded by the Department of Health, the Big Lottery Fund and Comic Relief) which is led by Mind ( www.mind.org.uk/) and Rethink Mental Illness (www.rethink.org/).  The idea of the initiative is to reduce the stigma relating to mental health problems.

This, in theory is a very good idea.  In theory, health providers are intended to get behind the campaign - GP's, Health Centres, Mental Health providers etc.  But you can't remove age-old stigmas overnight.  Many staff in the NHS, and specifically in Mental Health Trusts, suffer from some form of mental health condition - most frequently depression.  Sometimes, staff become service users (the politically correct term for patients), in worst case scenarios they become in-patients.  However, I know that staff have been let down by those same Trusts.  When prejudices do result in you not getting a job or a promotion, or being judged as a certain type of person, or as unreliable, or just generally going unsupported during a difficult time. 

In theory, an employer will say "if you're unwell, take time off work".  But, you're not in a hospital bed, recovering from an operation, so, a quick phone call to ask you something is surely OK, right?  You don't have flu, you can get out of bed, so you should just be able to answer a few emails.  All this serves to reinforce the thought that you are hugely inconveniencing your employers.  It piles on the guilt that you are already feeling, feeds the dislike that you already for yourself, and feeds the idea that you are just one big burden.

Guilt is a big thing with regards to mental health issues - from my own experience and many, many people that I have spoken to.  A good way to lift your spirits is doing something that you have previously enjoyed - whether that's listening to your favourite songs; going out for a walk in the sun; seeing your friends; going fishing - whatever.  But problem is that no-one can see that you're hurting/feeling worthless/wondering if you're ever going to be "normal" again.  So you feel guilty for daring to leave your bed/sofa and, God forbid, leaving the house, lest someone see you and make the assumption that you're pulling a fast one and actually you're right as rain.  And don't, for goodness sake get caught smiling or laughing!

A lot of people assume that if you have a mental health condition, you have an understanding family/group of friends to support you.  Even if you are close to your family (which not everyone is) and/or your friends - they still won't necessarily understand what on earth you're going through.  I was asked when going through a horrendous withdrawal from medication (that the side effects of doing so are apparently akin to coming off a class A drug cold turkey - paranoia, hallucinations, massive anxiety) if I could "behave myself" for an evening so my then partner could be taken out for a night out drinking.  Words failed me - this request came from someone I cared about and trusted - as if I wouldn't turn off how scared, freaked out, physically ill, and depressed I felt if I could.

I am not naive enough to think that a person's depression has no effect on their nearest and dearest - I have been on both sides of the fence - the "patient", and the supportive friend/partner.  I know that it can be difficult to try and support someone who is suffering from depression or other mental illness.  And I know that carers need time out. But choose your words wisely, for you never know how deeply they can wound.  Whilst I have had some great people in my life, who have been very supportive, you still don't want to bother people with your troubles, to be a nuisance. 

Winston Churchill is well known for referring to his depression as a "black dog".  The origins of this link go way back in time, but he is the most well known person in modern time to be associated with the link.  Although it is a term that I have used myself, I always think that the terms people use regarding mental health are quite interesting.  To me, dogs are friendly, comforting, and I have known some very nice black dogs.  I don't know why Churchill made the link, but I'm guessing it had something to do with the fact that it stays by your side, is difficult to shake off - like a loyal dog.

And some of the terms/insults people use for people with mental health issues are ironic because several of them are food related - and when you're feeling low you often use food as a comfort.  Personally, I'd rather be referred to as "crackers" than a "fruit cake". To me, fruit cake is dry, stodgy and bleugh, whereas crackers are tasty with some butter and a nice bit of cheese :) - and nutcase? well, I don't like nuts - and what if you're allergic to nuts?  Imagine having anaphylactic shock in response to yourself  - #Awkward!

Joking aside - why is it still so common for people to be discriminated against for what is a medical condition?  It's no wonder people are scared to ask for help - they are scared of being derided by their friends and family, let alone strangers.

Mental illness doesn't stigmatise - why should you?

So is it time to change?  Too bloody right!

/http://www.blackdogtribe.com/

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Depression/Pages/Introduction.aspx

http://www.depressionalliance.org/
http://www.carers.org/help-directory/mental-health-conditions

Jam, Jerusalem, and the two Mr Darcys

The role of women in society is something I have always been interested in.  How they are portrayed; how they are spoken to; how they view themselves.  We’re kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. If we don’t stand up for ourselves, we’re classed as subservient. If we do, we’re “bloody women’s libbers”. I don’t class myself as a “women’s libber” per se, but I do believe in standing up for what I believe is right.

Considering that the women’s suffrage movement (The National Society for Women’s Suffrage) started in the UK in 1872, it’s surprising really, how little has changed since then.

Random piece of trivia: The term “suffragette” is widely used to describe any women in the suffrage movement.  This term actually only refers to those who used violent means of protest, all other activists were known as Suffragists.

Yes, women have the vote, yes we have the right to own property etc. - but in terms of how we are viewed; spoken to & about - I'm saddened by how little has changed. We are expected to be all things to all people - friend, lover, mother, sister, daughter, career woman, domestic goddess. When the reverse doesn't really happen - blokes are just expected to be "blokey" (burp, fart, swear, talk about "birds" etc.). I wonder whether the days of the saying: "A lady should be a chef in the kitchen, a maid in the living room and a whore in the bedroom" (if anyone can find out who first said this I will credit them) are really gone.

I don't expect a man to "keep me in the lifestyle in which I'd like to become accustomed". In the very short periods of time in my adult life when I have not been working and have been with a partner, I have hated being reliant on them to pay the bills. The likelihood of me running off with a “Mr Darcy” is relatively small - mean, moody, tall dark and handsome and happens to be loaded and have a stately home in the country - um, thanks but no thanks. For starters, he was a moody, brooding git, and whatever Mills and Boon purports, in actuality, those kind of blokes generally have rather large anger management problems! A "Mark Darcy", of Bridget Jones fame is perhaps slightly more likely to cross my path, but, anyway, I digress (you'll get used to that).

I'm not a domestic goddess, and quite frankly, I'm sick of the notion of being made to feel like less of a woman for not being one.  I can't make jam, and the only words I know of "Jerusalem" are "and did those feet, in ancient times, walk upon England's something or other". Were I to join the W.I., I would be the "naughty one" in the back being told off for giggling - probably something like Helen Mirren & Julia Walters' characters in the film "Calendar Girls". I would be Helen Mirren's character, buying a Victoria sponge from M&S after being emotionally blackmailed into entering a W.I. cake competition.  

Unfortunately, I feel that women are viewed in a much harsher light than men are. I am not a witch, lesbian, bitch or a man-hater - terms that are often thrown at women if they step out of the pre-defined, "acceptable", subservient role that women are expected to play by some (including some pre-conditioned women, as well as men).  Housewife (or house-husband!) is a term that kinda irritates me - indicating that one is married to the house - shackled almost. Home-maker is an alternative term that some use, but I don't think it's much better. 

From friends and relatives and people I know through women's groups, it seems that women are still being treated as a second class citizen in some respects. There are women that I know who are "housewives" and/or mothers, that don't get any weekends or holidays off from their "chosen career". Whilst their partner gets evenings and weekends off from work, a lot of these women don't. They still feed and bathe, and read stories to the kids after their partner gets home from work, they are the ones that get up with the kids at the weekend. They still wash up/load the dishwasher, hoover up & clean the kitchen after dinner & at the weekends. And that makes me sad. 

I don't think all their husbands or partners are awful people; I don't think they are all b*stards; I don't think that they do nothing to contribute to the household; and I'm not trying to tar all men with the same brush. But this is a great example of women being taken for granted, and in a way that so many people don't even realise. This isn't a men-slagging vehicle - I have some friends and relatives that are great examples of running an "equal as possible" household. That doesn't mean that both partners have to cook, that they both have to cut the grass, they both have to build the flat-pack furniture. 

To me, equality doesn't mean you all have to do exactly the same thing.  To me, equality is about respect. You will never hear me utter the vow "I promise to obey" (please, friends that are reading this, if I lose the plot completely and do ever do this, shoot me!). And I would never ask a partner of mine to say that vow. Because I feel that is disrespectful, indicating that one partner is more powerful, that their views are more valid than the other's.   

Any potential partner that is hoping I'm going to be a Bree Van Der Kamp from Desperate Housewives is going to be sadly disappointed. I have no idea how to make a successful soufflé or the perfect puff pastry. But I'm house-trained; am more than happy to take my turn in cooking a meal that doesn't come out of the freezer compartment at the supermarket; I am capable of intelligent conversation (apart from first thing in the morning); I can put together an Ikea flat-pack wardrobe without feeling the need to launch it out the window; I don't spend my monthly wage and half of my partner's on clothes, and I'm quite happy spending the afternoon in B&Q.

And here endeth today's murmurings - I'm sure I will return to the role of women in later blogs!