What is your definition of (dis)Ability?

This debate has come up in forum I am a member in. People say that severe food allergies should count - I'm saying no. As a sufferer of a severe food allergy and a person with a (dis)ABility (several in fact) I call foul.

Your thoughts?

OH NO! Canada's going to split into tiny pieces!

BRING IT HARPER. BRING IT!

To those of you who don't pay attention to Canadian politics, you really should right now. This is one of the most interesting times in Canadian political history. Right now 2 of the national parties, the NDP and the Liberal Party have forged a coalition deal that would, when the confidence vote fails (it's only a matter of time Harper, just deal with it) create a coalition government led by the Liberals. (You can read the accord here.) The Bloc Québécois is not formally part of this coalition, but has pledged their support for the next 18 months. (If only we could have Gilles as PM. *sigh*). Not only that, but Green Party leader Elizabeth May has also lent her support to the coalition. That means that 4 of the 5 major parties are UNITED behind this effort. And they have all made concessions. (As one does when one makes alliances like this. And also as one does to actually get shit done in government.)

Let me take a step back. Besides being evil, or as Gilles Duceppe likes to do let's just say that Harper is the Canadian Bush, Harper did a few things to bring this on. He did what every politician does and said that he would make an effort to work with the other parties, then he calls an election (which he said he would not call, btw) and the first thing he does is spit on the other parties. (Well, more accurately poke at them with a sharp stick.)

This is in no particular order, but has a common theme.

1) Proposes to take away public subsidies of political parties. As it stands now, each vote earns the party $1.95.

But because the Conservatives have such a strong fundraising base, their subsidy represents only 37 per cent of the party's total revenues.

By comparison, the subsidy amounts to 63 per cent of the Liberals' funding, 86 per cent of the Bloc's, 57 per cent of the NDP's and 65 per cent of the Greens'.

So who gets hurt? Every single party in opposition to the Conservatives.

Well there are several points in this one link so here's the link and here are the points:

2) Cutting public service pay

3) Suspending the right to strike for federal employees

4) (My favourite) PAY EQUITY! Who needs it!

And he would put a crimp in pay equity – a program that requires Ottawa to pay women equal wages for work of equal value – although there is no evidence that the current system is either iniquitous or expensive.

And then there's the Tories taping a private caucus call of the NDP. (Hello, ever hear of Watergate?)

The Prime Minister's Office handed out copies of the recording to reporters on Sunday, claiming it showed the NDP and the Bloc Québécois had long conspired to topple the Conservative government.

And there's also that whole thing where Harper and the Tories like to insult the Bloc at every opportunity. (Because they're evil and THEY HATE CANADA AND ARE TRYING TO DESTROY THE COUNTRY! HIDE YOUR CHILDREN! THE QUÉBÉCOIS ARE COMING!)

One poke too far? Did he seriously think that a *larger* minority in Commons would somehow make the opposition go against the Charter of Rights? That they would let you bulldoze through them doing whatever the hell you wanted? Yet he continues to show that he thinks that getting several more seats for the Tories makes him able to do whatever he wants without the confidence of the Commons. There was supposed to be a confidence vote that Harper put off until the 8th trying to stave off the inevitable. What happens now is up to the Governor-General. She has several (historic) options: If Mr Harper asks her to prorogue (all bills, motions, etc are expunged and the parliament is in recess), her likely response is to ask him to prove that he has the confidence of the House. He can’t do that, so he’ll either have to ask for an election or resign. If he asks for an election, she can’t really grant it to him given that she has a letter from the coalition - according to convention she pretty much has to allow the coalition an opportunity to demonstrate that they can govern. An election will be the last resort. This is what I'm hoping for and this is what historically happens. But we shall see, not won't we.

To see *exactly* what's been happening may I suggest CPAC (It's the Canadian CSPAN). December 1st's Question Period (I hope this works as a direct link to the video if not just search) is rather good and December 2nd's is even better. It was all over the news as this is a rather historic time in politics and times like these have never been seen in Canadian Parliament. (At least not broadcast.)

BRING IT HARPER!

Of course they want the prorogue, because it would give them more time to spread their lies. They're calling the opposition alliance and possible unseating of the Tory government an undemocratic, illegal coup. As one expert said Harper either doesn't know parliamentary politics or he's lying. I know which one my money's on. They're also saying that the separatists are going to be running the nation. Um, well, no, the Bloc is not part of the coalition and Duceppe already said that he pledged to support and do what's best for CANADA during the next 18 months under the coalition government. Again I say OH NOES! THE SEPARATISTS ARE RUNNING THE COUNTRY! OMG CANADA IS DOOMED! During the 12/1 Question Period session Harper kept saying that they refused to sign the Coalition Accord in front of a Canadian flag when there's a lot of footage of them IN FRONT of a Canadian flag. The guy just can't stop lying. Here's to a new government and soon.

But for some brevity (and common sense) in this situation may I suggest Canadian Cynic and Bloodless Coup!.

While we're on the subject of debt

Marcy Kaptur rocks!

Hey Washington!

Are you going to buy my debt next? What's a couple of thousand dollars in student loans compared to $700 billion?

And just when

things seem to be getting better....

A new leaf

These have been some interesting times for me. Stupid, ridiculous, hard times for me. And you know what? Lines were crossed. Things that should never have been said were said. And I saw this at reweaving and I was rejuvenated. It said exactly what I have always thought. The weights that have been holding me down at the bottom of the ocean were lifted. The gag over my mouth disappeared. I could see; I could breathe again. Here's what it says:

I don’t do blind loyalty to anyone, or anything, I critique and interrogate everyone and everything.

Don't expect me to censor my thoughts or my friendships into some thing you find acceptable

That's it, that's all it took. Not rocket science, I admit, but just those two simple sentences, those two little statements, they were enough. I have never been the darling of anyone. I say the wrong things to everyone, it drives my partner crazy sometimes. Even though I am a dedicated radical feminist anti-pornstitution blogger I have dear friends, who are friends for the reasons one generally has friends, who are pro-porn. They don't like what I have to say, but they listen to it at least and are respectful of my words as I am of theirs. We debate, but in the end, and this is all I think one can ever do, I present my argument to the best of my abilities and hope that it creates a spark-something that will cause them to see the truth in my argument and will get them to change their minds.

In the end that's all we can ever do: present our arguments and have enough faith in those arguments that they alone will cause someone to see our side of the story. Changing someone's mind does not come by telling them how wrong they are, by what they should change, or by demeaning them, yelling at them, or lecturing them. I have seen all of these and I am sickened by it.

Radical feminism is about getting rid of this entire system of dominance and hierarchy. No more oppression. No more capitalism. None of it. That also means that there's no "leaders." It is a movement of education, of information. The message is so powerful, the truth so right that we don't need to force people to do anything. I believe this. I believe with all my heart that a world without dominance and hierarchy is possible. Soon? No. But someday? Yes. It warmed my heart when I met some of The Redstockings in NYC and one of the women said to me "I'm doing this for my daughter's daughter's daughter." Which is what I've always said. (Though I'm not having any children.) What we aim to do is to make the world better for each generation of women, and one day.....

Anyhow. I have seen the yelling and the lecturing and it just makes my blood boil. I believe in this message with every fibre of my being. Words cannot describe just how much that message means to me. It is who I am; it is how I live my life; it informs every decision of every day. But who will hear the message when they're getting yelled at? Who? I used to do it too, and I cringe when I see it, you can find examples of it on the internet even. I was like that too, I admit it, but you know what changed that? I remembered that the world isn't black and white. I saw that I got one person to stop watching porn simply because when I found out he did I told him that I don't hang out with people who do and it started a series of conversations that ended with him buying Andrea Dworkin books of his own accord. It's the message, people. You need to make sure that it gets heard. That's my mission, making friends and allies is nice, but not if I'm supposed to toe some party line or pass some purity test. I've never been able to do that and I probably never will. Nothing's black and white. Not even math when you study it enough. (I know how to invent numbers!) It's all shades of grey.

But what's worse is what happens if you say something that the online community, which is very different from real life radical feminists that I've met for the most part, **not all** mind you, I am not making a blanket statement one way or the other here, doesn't like. If you critique the name of a blog like Dead Men Don't Rape as Laura once did you can be attacked and called pro-porn. If you thank people who supported you and suggest that you should talk more often even if you are across the great porn divide as Debs did then you can have your intelligence and loyalty to radical feminism questioned.

And these things were ugly. People were vicious and mean and condescending and all sorts of other things. Tears have been shed, things have been broken (inanimate things, but that might have just been me), and relationships irreparably damaged.

Why the self-cannibalism? Isn't a number of disparate voices good? I think it makes the movement stronger. Do we really have to agree 100% of the time on everything? Because if that's really what needs to happen then I fail. I fail miserably. It's never going to happen. I can think of one big bright shining issue that I know there's going to be a problem with: trans. We don't agree and unless y'all start thinking about being more trans-inclusive we won't. Hell, I don't even agree with myself all the time so I sure as hell aren't going to agree with whatever the hell I'm expected to agree with all the time.

Does it mean we all have to like each other? Because really if someone who doesn't like me doesn't like me and says so that's FINE. It's much better then someone who doesn't like me pretending to like me. There are enough fish in the sea and I don't have to be friends with every single one. (I've always fancied sharks though and I thought of that as I was writing that so does that mean I want to eat a few people?) I learned long ago that sharing an ideological connection with someone was not enough. Most of the people that I worked with in activist communities were the people that have abused and assaulted me. So obviously I know that just because we share the same ideology it does not necessarily mean that we're going to be best of friends or friends at all. I'm OK with that. (not the assault and abuse part but those are also not the people I'm talking about here for the most part).

Some of my friends have been abused by some of my other friends. This pains me and I try to stop it as much as I can. Sometimes I'm successful. I wish I was more often, but then again I'm one person and I'm not always around. But here's the thing. I am expected to stick up for people who are abusive towards me simply because we are both anti-porn. Well FUCK THAT. I am no more going to defend ideas I do not agree with or people who are abusive to me then I am going to start cheerleading porn. I am and always will be my own person. I will not defend something I do not agree with because I am told to. I will defend it because I believe it.

But anyway, I'm sick of it-sick of sitting by and not saying anything to all sides. Y'all are on notice. I'm gonna say what I think and I'm not too good at being anything but blunt, it's just the way I am I never learned the "social niceties." Anyway, it feels like my Independence Day. I feel like me again. (Knowing I'll probably disappear back down the rabbit hole again after this, but whatever, when I emerge you know what to expect.)

Melanie C sums it up nicely. Here's Independence Day for you:

I know I make mistakes
I will have to live and learn
Sometimes you play with fire
And sometimes you get burned

I have my dream to live
Following that star
It doesn't matter how long it takes
It doesn't matter how far

No time for make believing
And it's too late to turn back now, you-you-you

I've been dreaming about it
I can't live without it
I've got to find my own way
I'm not changing my mind now
Or looking behind now
This is my independence day
My independence day

I know it'll take some time
But I won't give up the fight
Sometimes you win, sometime you lose
But that's alright, oh yeah

I've got to spread my wings
And learn how to fly
Cos this feeling drives me on
It's something I cannot deny

No time to make excuses
Cos it's too late to turn back now, you-you-you

I've been dreaming about it
I can't live without it
I've got to find my own way
I'm not changing my mind now
Or looking behind now
This is my independence day
My independence day
Hey, my independence day, oh-oh

No matter what comes my way
I'm gonna live for today, yeah-yeah
This is my, this is my independence day
(Gonna live for today)

I've been dreaming about ir
I can't live without it
I've got to find my own way
I'm not changing my mind now
Or looking behind now
This is my independenceÂ

I've been dreaming about ir
I can't live without it
I've got to find my own way
I'm not changing my mind now
Or looking behind now
This is my independence day
My independence day (independence day)
Day, my independence day (independence day)

Wishing on that same bright star
I shouldn't wish my life away, wish my life away (independence day)
They say it's a small small world
They say it's a small small small small world (independence day).

People who shouldn't be allowed to work with women

I don't normally look at PostSecret, but someone pointed this out to me:

There are really no words I have to describe how horrifying and repugnant this is. No matter how much you dislike someone there is NO reason to not only condone, but agree with the daily terror that is Domestic Violence. I've worked at a DV shelter and I have seen firsthand the effects of DV on women and families. There is nothing, NOTHING that excuses this. It is not only blaming the victim for the abuse whose responsibility is solely that of the abuser, but it is also continuing the oppression by blaming that person. This is the same mentality that keeps women from reporting the abuse and that keeps abusers from jail and from police taking the matter seriously.

The most common reasons for not reporting domestic violence to police are that victims view the incident as a personal or private matter, they fear retaliation from their abuser, and they do not believe that police will do anything about the incident.

Women who are in DV situations have more then enough problems without the people who are supposed to help them blaming them for abuse and disregarding the fundamental reason for that abuse: misogyny. Most women already believe that it's somehow *their fault.* The person who wrote this should quit since they feel this way.

I wish I could express myself better, I am beyond angry.

Onto more people who shouldn't be allowed around women.


Recently blogger Kyle Payne plead guilty to filming himself sexually assaulting a woman. According to his site, this is Kyle Payne:

Meet the Blogger

Kyle is a social justice educator, writer, and activist. Much of his work is concerned with putting a stop to violence against women. For years Kyle has served as an advocate for survivors of sexual violence and other forms of abuse, in addition to promoting what he calls “a more just and life-affirming culture of sexuality” through activism and education. As a researcher, Kyle has studied the feminist anti-pornography movement and is particularly interested in men’s roles in confronting pornography and the rape culture. In addition to his pro-feminist work, he is involved with anti-racist, free speech, peace, and anti-globalization movements.

Education

2008 - M.S. Degree in Adult Education
Capella University, Minneapolis, MN

2007 - B.A. Degree in Philosophy & Religion,
Social Consciousness, and Women’s Studies
Buena Vista University, Storm Lake, IA

College Activities

Rape Crisis Advocate (4 years)
Editorialist (4 years)
Webmaster (4 years, several organizations)
Resident Advisor (3 years)
Student Radio (3 years, several positions)
Academic Assistant (2 years)
VP of Service Learning (1 year)
Wellness Education Specialist (1 year)
Career Peer (1 year)
Student Senator (1 year)

College Honors and Awards

Male Leader of the Year Award, BVU (2007)
William H. Cumberland Research Award, BVU (2006)
Willard Stief Award for Community Living, BVU (2006)
Nominee, Senior of the Year, BVU (2007)
Nominee, Volunteer of the Year, BVU (2006, 2007)
Alpha Chi Honor Society (2006-present)
Dean’s Fellowship, BVU (2003-2007)
Who’s Who in American Colleges and Universities (2006)
Campus Compact Civic Engagement Fellowship (2006)

Here's the thing: Much of his work is concerned with putting a stop to violence against women. For years Kyle has served as an advocate for survivors of sexual violence and other forms of abuse, in addition to promoting what he calls “a more just and life-affirming culture of sexuality” through activism and education. As a researcher, Kyle has studied the feminist anti-pornography movement and is particularly interested in men’s roles in confronting pornography and the rape culture.

He works putting a stop to violence against women and against rape culture yet he, himself had no problem with sexually assaulting and making pornography out of an intoxicated and unconscious female student. He was in a position of power over this woman, a Resident Advisor in the dorms and police found the film on his hard drive. After he posted bail he wrote this on his blog:

"For a variety of reasons, there is very little I can say about the recent news. So, unfortunately, I cannot give you the answers that you might seek. Worse yet, I can do little in the way of defending myself against a whole host of claims about my character that are both irrational and damaging.

IRRATIONAL! IRRATIONAL! Yes it's irrational to get angry about the fact that you, someone who labeled himself a "radical feminist" who worked against rape culture then turned around and not only sexually assaulted someone, but made pornography out of it. According to his blog he works doing rape crisis advocacy which scares the hell out of me-a rapist talking to victims of sexual assault! There's more about this at Buried Alive.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

So Matt's a better dancer yet he's not getting better then himself so he has to leave? How does this make sense in any way shape or form. "Uh...you're brilliant, but you're not getting more brilliant so you'll have to go." His solo was so much better then Thayne's.

WTF?

Nigel made the right vote for Kourtni to stay, but then again he was the only one who noticed that Comfort's solo was weak and that at this point in the competition Comfort shouldn't be getting props simply because she' a hip hop dancer and should be held to the same standard as everyone else.

Protest hate and homophobia Monday June 30th

STOP THE HATE! -Anti-Skinhead Rally

Monday, June 30, 2008
9:00am - 8:00pm
Vancouver City Jail
Main & Cordova
Contact Info Phone: 7788360442
Email: peterlotion@hotmail.com

On Saturday June 28th during Vancouver’s annual Eastside Pride celebration
in Grandview Park a few participants noticed a group of large skinheads
destroying pride signs and stomping on them. Queers and allies confronted
them and were brutally assaulted; they were punched, kicked and thrown
into a vehicle. The skinheads were arrested and are expected to be
released on Monday June 30th. Activists and allies are protesting they’re
presence in our communities.

Come show your pride and resist fascism! The day will include music,
food, drag shows and will end with a Showering of the skinheads with
resistance and community.

NOW's media Hall of Shame

What sexism? Visit the Hall of Shame here.

Some of my favourites that I missed this campaign season:

Andrew Sullivan from The Atlantic:

“The second bout of public tears just before a crucial primary vote - after no evidence that Senator Hillary Clinton has a history of tearing up in front of the cameras - provokes the unavoidable question: should feminists actively vote against Clinton to defend the cause of female equality?”

WHAT. THE. FUCK. How does one imply the other? What does that have to do with female equality? I'm actually speechless on this one.

Charlotte Allen in the Washington Post

“Women ‘are only children of a larger growth,’ wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right? … By all measures, Hillary Clinton has run one of the worst – and, yes, stupidest – presidential races in recent history, marred by every stereotypical flaw of the female sex… . What is it about us women? Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental? … I don’t understand why more women don’t relax, enjoy the innate abilities most of us possess (as well as the ones fewer of us possess) and revel in the things most important to life at which nearly all of us excel: tenderness toward children and men and the weak and the ability to make a house a home… . Then we could shriek and swoon and gossip and read chick lit to our hearts’ content and not mind the fact that way down deep, we are … kind of dim.”

Internalized sexism anyone? Yes let's reinforce the entirely false stereotypes of femininity and womanhood. These are complete lies about what women are capable of that were created by this patriarchal society and do nothing but continue to reinforce women's oppression. Yes some women may choose to do these things, but to say that it is innate behaviour is on par with saying that blacks are naturally inferior to whites. It just. ain't. true. and is a lie propagated by the white male patriarchy to justify oppression of all non-white and non-male people. (Not to mention the laundry list of other oppressions of people who deviate from what the powers that be define as "normal," i.e. people with disAbilities, homosexuals, etc.) Yes please set us back to Victorian notions of women as weak, stupid creatures that can do nothing more then tend to the home. (Though of course this only applied to women of some means, and ones who were white at that.)

By the way, according to her I am not a woman, which by her definition is just fine by me. And my partner makes a much better househusband then I make a housewife. He's the one who cleans the house (I don't scrub the kitchen floor on my hands and knees/clean good enough), he irons his shirts (what? people still do that?), he cooks all the time (by choice fyi), and doesn't like my style of throw everything into the washing machine without separating (I do it when he's not around though). So is he less of a man?

As for that last sentence, do I really have to name all of the accomplishments of women or the fact that there are an amazing amount of smart women out there, the fact that we are graduating college at higher rates then men. Women have always been overlooked for their intelligence. For instance from the letters between them it has been revealed that Mileva Marić, Einstein's first wife, contributed equally to the theory of Special Relativity so much so that he gave all his Nobel Prize money to her. This line of thinking almost kept Elizabeth Blackwell, who was let into medical school b/c they thought her application was a practical joke, from becoming the first modern female doctor who then set up a practice in the slums of New York City (because she was denied by all other practices in the city because of her sex), trained nurses to help during the Civil War and went on to inspire and teach women to become doctors themselves.

It is this kind of reasoning that was used to justify denying us the vote. It was this kind of reasoning to deny women from entering universities and male professions. It is this reasoning that keeps us from earning the same amount as men do, that keeps women from being offered tenure track positions at the same rate men are, etc, etc. But somehow we weren't so dim and weak (swoony) during WWII when they needed us in the factories, or again when you are working class or working poor you are apparently not a woman since you are working and a lot of times in crappy labor intensive jobs (a few of my old factory jobs come to mind *shudder*)

Yeah, well, FUCK YOU.

More Numbers

Hillary's support has steadily grown in March-May while Obama's has dropped in all categories except African Americans (so all you commenter's who say it's only old white women (apparently I and many other Hillary supporters don't exist) can shove it). There are numbers and charts and everything. I may be a mathematician but I prefer pure mathematics. Ask me how to invent square roots, not do stuff like this.

She certainly has gotten more votes since March 4th. Don't you think that the presumptive nominee should have been winning all those, since he was inevitable? Obviously, no one told the voters.


Oh and to Keith Olbermann: Stop using "Good night and good luck" as your sign off. You are a misogynist gasbag that is not even a fraction of the journalist that Edward R. Murrow was. He's rolling over in his grave every time you say that. If anyone in the mainstream media came even close to doing what he did (HA!) they would be fired in a heartbeat. There is not a modicum of honesty or integrity in your reporting. You uphold the status quo, he sought make sure that the truth was exposed, even if that meant bucking the status quo and putting himself in jeopardy. YOU, sir, are NOT him, and are besmirching his legacy.

What is going on with the "party?"

Sometimes my friends say things in a much more succinct, and oftentimes, much more understandable way then I can. So I've all ready seen the FOX news interview. I knew that neither candidate was liberal. Moderate is about all we can hope for from these parties, but after Edwards and his populism and single-payer universal healthcare dropped out (I may have finally admitted that we will never have Edwards as an actual Presidential candidate. But he made the press follow him to very poor rural areas of Appalachia. UHC is something that the Clinton's tried, but failed miserably because the dems in congress wouldn't back them because they didn't like the Clintons then and even though Bill was the only 2 term democratic president since FDR (LBJ if you count that he got re-elected after 2 years serving after JFK was assasinated). Guess what, they still don't like them. One can only guess why. Bill changed the base, he actually changed the bloc of voters that went for a Democrat. (more on this in a little bit)

Want to hear my theory? I'm sure you do. Democrats nowadays don't think of themselves as that. Look at our recent nominees, excluding Bill. Kerry, Gore, Dukakis. What do they all have in common? They are seen as elites. No matter what Jon Stewart says, people don't want someone like that in the WH. Even if they do have progressive reform for working class and poor people (which I firmly do not believe that Obama has) they're going to take it as you telling them what's best for them. The reason that Bill was not painted as such is because he grew up working class, he went to public school, even though he eventually made it into the power elite.

And of course last night there was Donna Brazile on CNN

BRAZILE: Well, Lou, I have worked on a lot of Democratic campaigns, and I respect Paul.*** But, Paul, you’re looking at the old coalition. A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

(Sidenote here: Except you can't depend on blue collar and latino voters. If they don't feel that you are working, and I mean actively working, for their financial well-being (health-care, unions, etc), then they will be values voters. You are one of the people IN CHARGE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. HOW THE HELL DO YOU FORGET ABOUT "REAGAN DEMOCRATS" AND THAT OBAMA'S SUPPORT BASE IS THE SAME AS (10 state) DUKAKIS!!!! Stop blowing off the people the dems need to win in the fall, ffs. )

(I mean, even bigoted morons know that.

"Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win – blue-collar, working class people," Limbaugh also said. "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."-Rush Limbaugh

)

This fucking Unity Pony thing is pissing me off. Unity only if you're a latte liberal, oh sorry, the "creative class," a college student, or African-American. He's a uniter. Does everyone feel united? Because what I've heard from the Democratic leadership and Obama's campaign this cycle is 1) the largest minority in the country doesn't count (neither does any other minority except AA's: gays, asians, etc, all under the bus for you!), 2) women will always come crawling back since we have no where to go (fuck you!), 3) same with the working class, but who needs them since they tend to vote Republican anyway (Axelrod, and btw that's why you need them dumbass.)

But I have one question, and I'm sad to say it actually hadn't occurred to me until a friend of mine brought it up, what has Obama been doing for the black community? She hadn't heard anything. Hell, he didn't even bother to show up to black dominated areas of IN. What a fucking prince. I mean, Hillary obviously has the hick blue collar vote sewn up so why does she keep showing up? The week leading up to the primaries she was speaking in places that the only way she could have lost is if everyone suddenly died and dead people started voting. Why abandon your most loyal constituency?

Unity pony my ass. Here's why: the dems do know what unity looks like. We saw it in '92. We saw states vote dem that had not done so ever/in a very long time. (I mean Lincoln was a republican so you can only go back so far with these things.) Bill did it. That's right, the Big Dawg gave us states no other democrat has even come close to carrying. We could have done it again, but now one of our core constituencies hates him and therefore Hillary. Why? Because he got called racist for this:

"Second, it is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, numerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.
"This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen...So you can talk about Mark Penn all you want. What did you think about the Obama thing calling Hillary the Senator from Punjab? Did you like that?"

Which was twisted into "Bill Clinton calls Obama's campaign a Fairy Tale!" Because what better way to shake away a group that so solidly supports your opponent (and who is still very wary of you, they weren't all love and kisses at first) then in this case to call him a racist. Because even his seemingly reality challenged handlers seemed to have understood that the AA community were among the strongest Clinton supporters. Now he's a racist. Huh.

And the Democratic leadership is completely, 100% A-OK with smearing our base expanding, tried to get progressive social change done but couldn't because the dems don't like them because they're not one of the elitist latte drinkers and the leadership doesn't like that. And they don't want to see the Clinton's or anyone else so unlike them in office if they can help it. They'd rather lose in November, which is what the numbers are telling us will happen with Obama as the nominee. They seem to think that us non-black and/or non-young and/or non-rich people don't matter.

I gotta ask, why is this race so black and white? Seriously? What about the indigenous, asian, latino peoples? Do we not care about that. Are there only two races that matter in this country? And what is up with my latino friends being called racist for not voting for BO? Especially when they're giving you reasons why they didn't. Again, fuck you.


Anyway:
It's obvious why dems are falling all over themselves for Obama, even though right now nationally he has a 10% of beating McCain. (And the Rezko trial wraps up next week.) His purported 1 million name donation databank. Not to mention his immense backing from Wall Street. (Note: That site is the Black Agenda Report. I'm really glad my friend pointed it out to me and I highly recommend sticking around and reading other articles there.)

Seven of the Obama campaign's top 14 donors consisted of officers and employees of the same Wall Street firms charged time and again with looting the public and newly implicated in originating and/or bundling fraudulently made mortgages. These latest frauds have left thousands of children in some of our largest minority communities coming home from school to see eviction notices and foreclosure signs nailed to their front doors. Those scars will last a lifetime.

I think this about money and not change. WHy would I ever take off my cynic cap and believe that someone, let alone a whole party, was in politics to help people. Yeah, I know that they'll definitely be helping themselves out while they do it, all politicians do, but turning on someone because they have an actual progressive social agenda? Afraid Hillary will succeed and will actually do better with social reform then Bill? Because that's all I can think. It can't all be white guilt and greed. It's not like he'd drop out of the party. He'll still fundraise for you. Though with all the people you keep dismissing I doubt there will be any democratic party left come January.

I haven't voted for a Democrat for President since I voted for the Big Dawg (and yes I think he's a sexist ass), but since I've been accused of being some sort of "fan" I thought I'd clear it up. (And let Taylor Marsh actually do it since I read this and just went YES YES YES!)

The reason Clinton is my candidate is not because I'm simply some fan. Hillary is my candidate because she's got a brilliant mind, is a fighter, and I believe the only candidate who can bring Americans back who have been voting against their economic interests for decades. I believe only she can expand the party to Latinos, as well as bring women out in droves, including Republican women, independents and women who have never voted before. If I didn't believe Clinton was a winner I would never have backed her in the first place.

I leave it to the venerable Dr. Violet Socks

“If the Obama contingent succeeds in taking over the Democratic party, then we will have, in effect, two Republican parties.

“Who, then, will speak for the women of America? Who will stand up for our rights? Who will hold fast against sexism and misogyny?

“Who will fight for the middle class? Who will fight for working people? Who will fight for universal health care? Who will protect Social Security?

“Who will hold fast against polluters and thieves?

“Certainly not the new Obama-style Democratic party. The Obamabots are just like Republicans: swimming in sexism and utter disdain for anyone but themselves.

“If progressives want to have a voice at all in national politics, our only hope is to keep the Obamabots from taking over the Democratic party.”

Sit down, shut up, and behave

EDIT: I have been calling people reminding them to go vote tomorrow and to go vote for Hillary. You should too.

Now back to your regularly scheduled post.

In the past several days, two distinct things have happened that, while I should not be surprised, are disheartening nonetheless.

I belong to a (kick ass) knitting website Ravelry, and there are of course topic boards for people to come together and talk. Someone came onto ours and made a comment and then went back to the Obama board and made a comment about someone "being off her meds." As a disability/mental health rights activist I had something to say about this.

OK, I don’t know or care who you are talking about, but making fun and using a mental health issue/disability as a slur is deeply offensive. It is just as bad as using a sexist or homophobic slur.

It implies that what someone who has mental health issue or disability has to say is somehow unimportant or not as important as “normal” folks. It is offensive to me personally as a mental health/disability rights activist.

I know that most people do not think of this, and I ask you to please not use mental health as a way to insult people as it is offensive and demeaning to people with disabilities.

I was replied to with this:

Sigh. Ok. First of all: I realize you do not know me at all, and therefore have no way of understanding the irony of the charges you have leveled against me, but seriously…you’re way out of line. There is such a thing as being overly sensitive.

But more importantly: I was not referring to you.
....
But that said, I will remove the offending post, although I do want to make it clear (since the post will be removed) that I did not actually mention anyone by name or make any sort of indication who I was referring to. (unless more can be deduced from this post, which is possible.)

Apparently because it was not directed at me and because it was a "harmless" ableist slur I should just shut up and sit down. I was also accused of making a stink about this oppressive remark because it was made by an Obama supporter and told that if I knew anything about the person making it then I would know that I was out of line. So I should not speak up when she does this? How about sexist or racist or homophobic slurs? Should I just let those lie as well since I support a different candidate which apparently makes it impossible for me to want to end oppressive and marginalizing behaviour? I would also like to add that Obama supporters on her own forum were chiming in saying that they agreed that those sorts of comments were out of line.

Apparently I should, because in another forum on the same site someone pointed to this Salon article called Hey Obama boys: Back off already! (A preview, for those who haven't read it:)

I am a loud feminist and a longtime Clinton skeptic who was suddenly feeling that I needed to rationalize, apologize for, or even just stay quiet about my increasing unease with the way Clinton was being discussed. Meanwhile, I was getting e-mails from men I didn't know well who approached me as a go-to feminist to whom they could express their hatred of Hillary and their anger at her staying in the race -- an anger that seemed to build with every one of her victories. One of my closest girlfriends, an Obama voter, told me of a drink she'd had with a politically progressive man who made a series of legitimate complaints about Clinton's policies before adding that when he hears the senator's voice, he's overcome by an urge to punch her in the face.

The discussion turned to the rampant sexism of the campaign and someone brought up Obama's comment “I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.” So the discussion turned into how any sign of emotion in President Senator Clinton is seen as a weakness because women are painted as being too emotional, especially too emotional to do anything as silly as run a country *cough*Thatcher*cough*.

Some *ahem* argued that it was a harmless statement to which I pointed out that it is loaded with sexism when used to talk about women. To which I was told to "stop it right the hell now" and that I have "no critical thinking skills" am "regurgitating what the patriarchy and media tells me" (since I had said that if we had no critical thinking skills that's what we would be doing and we weren't, natch) and "playing the victim." Because there is no logical or factual basis for our response that the "feeling down" comment was sexist. Then same person, and this is were it gets really good said "If feminists can’t allow for more than one interpretation of a comment..." HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA Because I guess that only applies to you, eh? The plethora of people who disagree, Clinton AND Obama supporters alike, are not allowed their own interpretation? We're just dumb people who can't think for ourselves and must be told what to do! I see! (Sound familiar to anyone else? Now I really want to move out of this country. These people fucking scare me.)

So lets recap shall we?
1) No matter how many oppressive slurs people use, especially against the differently abled and women, as long as they are Obama fans they are somehow above reproach. We should just lie back and think of England, because apparently if you ignore (dis)ableism and sexism they will just go away. (But not racism. We must call everyone on everything that can be considered racist, which I agree with, but it MUST ALSO be applied to all other oppressions. Including heterosexism *cough* Obama equal marriage rights *cough*)

2) If you do dare to see sexism (which is punching you in the face every time you turn on the TV or open a paper) you are somehow wrong. Just sit back and let the Obama people tell you how you are supposed to interpret these things. Remember, sexism is not a big-T Truth, but a little-t truth and can only be correctly interpreted by people smart enough to love Obama.

3) Any comments about oppressive remarks made to an Obama supporter are not valid if made by a Clinton supporter. EVER. Even when an Obama supporter agrees, if a Clinton supporter ever says something about an oppressive remark it somehow overrules what the Obama supporter says and thus invalidates the objection.

Everyone clear? If we all just sit back and behave (i.e. let them tell us what to do), maybe we'll get a cookie.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month

I bought this shirt. I am a survivor. Jennifer Baumgardner created the shirt as part of a project I Was Raped she has been working on through her organization Scarleteen, a sex education program (which will receive some of the proceeds from the sales of the shirt to fund their work).

This story was in the Sunday NYTimes and the comments are atrocious.

I think the comments on the blog post about the shirt from The NY Times are the most revealing thing about the project. So many people are saying that “no rape survivor should shove this in my face” or that “it’s personal” or “what am I supposed to say” or “if I were a rape survivor I wouldn’t wear it therefore it’s fucked up”, etc., etc.

What's beyond the realm of fucked-upedness is people comparing rape to the mortgage crisis or fucking losing a job:

We have all been victims of something. Ever lose your job, your house, your sanity? Ever been bullied or humiliated?

Yes, those things suck, but A) the victims are not blamed (maybe in bullying) and B) the complete decimation of trust, security, shame, violation, degradation, fear, self blame (what did I do?), and it goes on and on DOES NOT COMPARE ON ANY LEVEL. This is disgusting minimization. Not to mention that rape victims suffer from Rape Trauma Syndrome some of the highlights include flashbacks and nightmares that continue to haunt and traumatize you after the event. Any smell, sound, etc that reminds the person of the event can also further traumatise the victim. Not to mention long term effects like Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which has a lot of the same symptoms as Rape Trauma Syndrome only you get to enjoy it for years to come. I was first raped in high school. Now, over 2 decades later, I am still dealing with PTSD and I probably will be dealing with it for the rest of my life (I will also admit that part of this stems from childhood emotional and physical abuse from my mother.)

It’s obviously doing it’s job and no one’s even wearing them yet! Words cannot express how much rage I have at the people telling me that I am victimizing myself by choosing to buy and possibly wear the shirt and telling ME HOW I should deal with MY OWN healing process. They obviously want us to not bother them with the fact that rape happens, and it happens a lot, and it doesn’t happen in dark alleys, and it doesn’t happen only at gun or knifepoint, and it doesn’t only happen in bad neighbourhoods or that it somehow doesn’t happen to “strong” women. (I was once told that I couldn’t be raped (by someone who did not know my past) b/c I am a hardass.) And it happens often and it happens to people they know.

They say the shirt is stupid and ineffective whereas there are over 300 comments which means it’s pretty damn effective so far in getting people to talk about it. Then they say, “well why not make rapists have the word rapist tattooed on their head”, uh, how about because about maybe 1% ever get found guilty, maybe.

Well, when I get the shirt, I’m just going to head back over and read these comments and I know it will get me to wear it. I’m sorry you don’t want to talk to your children about rape. I’m sorry you don’t want it shoved in your face. I'm sorry it makes you fucking uncomfortable. But you know what? I didn’t want to be raped, and I’m sick of everyone thinking that it’s a private fucking matter. If someone had just beat me up in an alley and I talked about it you wouldn't tell me that was private so FUCK YOU. It's about getting people to talk about the subject, it's about me and letting all the other victims who I come into contact with every. damn. day. that they are not alone. That they can talk about it, that it IS NOT something to be ashamed of or something that should be a dirty secret. And if they want to talk with me, that I'll be there for them.

Dumbass comment of the day

I’ve never been in favor of arresting and shaming men who pay for sex. Most customers who get in trouble aren’t high-profile politicians like Eliot Spitzer. Their “crime” is that they’re poor or getting started in life.

Because poor men are the bulk of men who frequent prostitutes. She (the writer) must have a very strange way of judging poor, because in my neighbourhood there are days in the month when there ain't food in the fridge. And these are the guys buying sex. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

WA Caucus Obama v Hillary

SO today were the WA caucuses. I was caucusing for Hillary. Of course I knew that there would be plenty of Barack supporters in attendance and I was sad that they were the majority in my precinct (9 delegates to 2), simply because of the reasons that they gave for supporting him.

1) I hate Hillary.
Ok, why? Nothing concrete, of course.

2) He's not a politician, he doesn't "play the game."
Oh yeah? He's slagged off the other candidates just as much as they have slagged off each other. And just because he doesn't appear to play the game, he *IS* a politican and he *WILL* be making compromises and deals. If he's elected, boy will you be disappointed.

3) He'll change the system.
Not even superman can do that. People don't seem to understand how the system works. We need someone who can change things from the inside out, someone who knows how to work and manipulate the system. B/c there's that whole checks and balances thing.

4) Hillary's voting record shows she makes compromises.
See #2, also he abstains from so many controversial votes, which is something he won't be able to do as president. Aren't you scared that you don't know what he's going to do when faced with a hard decision? It terrifies me.

5) He inspires young people
Well, we not only had the *youngest* people in our precinct, but when we broke up into candidate caucuses we also had the majority of young people, funny how that works, eh?

6) He's a uniter.
A) Bush said that *shudder*, B ) if he's such a uniter then why was it not unanimous? Also how much uniting do you think he'll be able to do without making compromises?

Also, I got up to give a speech for why the undecideds should vote for Hillary (or Obama supporters should change their votes) and I was visibly shaking. Never done that before. Shaking and my voice was quivering, but even Obama supporters told me I did a good job, so I guess it wasn't that bad, but I'm finally starting to calm down, 5 hours later.

Full Frontal Feminism: a review

Lets put aside the naked woman on the cover for the time being. Obviously it makes me angry that a thin white naked woman is pictured on the front of a book about feminism.

While I understand that Jessica Valenti wants to reach out to women who shy away from the word feminist, she really doesn't know how to represent it right. Yes she makes really good points and her book is accesible to a wide audience, but the way she goes about trying to sell young women and girls on feminism is to try and make it "sexy."

The second chapter in the book is all about how being a feminist leads to better sex. The opening sentence is this: I'm better in bed then you are. And I have feminism to thank for it. Now, feminists having better sex is true, but really the second chapter? Aren't there more important things to talk about instead of expounding about what great sex you're having now that you're a feminist? Sure it's a happy consequence, but it shouldn't be the reason that someone becomes a feminist. Sex is not the be all end all of life. Sure it's great, I myself really enjoy it, but it's ridiculous to make that the first thing you present in your book. I mean is Cosmo somehow now feminist because it has tons of articles about how to have great sex? (But keep in mind most of those are of the "how to please your man in bed" category.) The way to get women and girls interested in feminism should be by accesibly written books, like this one, talking honestly about the problems we face in a patriarchal society. Women and girls should choose to be feminists for the fact that there are so many things that are anti-women in society. Are you going to be a real feminist if the only reason you call yourself one is to have great sex? I think not.

Also, one of the reasons she cites for women not becoming feminists is that when they hear the word feminism they think we're hairy. She goes on to explain how sexy and fun today's feminists are. What's not sexy about being hairy? I've been hairy since I was 17 and no one has ever been turned off by it. Well a few, but obviously they were idiot frat boy types that I wouldn't want to be with anyone, since who wants to date moronic sexist assholes? Not I.

In her third chapter, Pop Culture Gone Wild, she critiques the media system and talks about how women's sexuality has been commodified and pornified. Yet in her blog, feministing, she talks about the sex industry like it is just good old sexy fun. She never invites radical feminists, many of us who have actual first hand experience of working in the sex industry and who speak out about the horrors and abuses we suffered in that "sexy good fun" industry. But this follows from the focus of the book on how "sexy" feminism is. It's such a shame and a horrible effect of many people in the so-called "third wave" accept porn's humiliation, exploitation, and abuse of women as fun because it has the appearance of being sexy, unlike hairy legged prudes like me. ;)

Obviously what bugged me about this book is how it is shaped around selling feminism the way we sell everything: with the promise of sex and sexiness. Should we really be mimicing the current media landscape that is unquestionably racist and misogynistic and uses sex to sell everything? I would hope not, but that is exactly what Valenti does in her book. She does make great points about the media and the beauty myth, she then goes on to talk about how today's feminist wear lipstick, heels, and sexy clothes. Us hairy legged feminists never tell women they can't do these things, all we ask is that people examine why they do wear these patriarchal beauty standards. I wear them sometimes too, but I am fully aware of how society views this. I admit that now I do it more for fun now, because I feel free to do so since I realised that I previously wore them because society told me that's what women do. Yeah it's fun to wear fun makeup (it's always very extravagant, which is what I see the point of makeup is) and I certainly do appreciate a well made shoe, heel or no.

Another thing that really rubbed me the wrong way is when she went on The Stephen Colbert Show, one which, like The Daily Show, makes light of things light pornography and exploitation of women, she gave him a shirt that said "Feminist Chicks Dig Me." It's bullshit. Chicks on a feminist shirt to describe women? It's bullshit as I do not feel that being compared to a baby chicken is particularly empowering. I've always found the shirt to be bullshit, but the new "spokeswoman" of feminism condoning it on national television? Yep, there's nothing more empowering then being compared to an animal. And not just an animal, but a BABY animal. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR Bah humbug.

Dear TV writers:

I hate you. I really really REALLY do. How would you like it if I made up fucked up stuff about you and broadcast it all of the world and it made people fear and loathe you before they even know who you are? Really, you think that would be unjust bullshit? Well then STOP FUCKING DOING IT TO US. Don't know what I'm talking about? Here:

Criminal Minds: 2 episodes into the season and 2, not 1, but 2, bad guys who are "borderline." Never mind the fact that I didn't see anything that was really borderline about either of them. So what's your fucking problem? Do you just think that because Borderline is so stigmatised and so unknown that you can pick on us and say that we're crazy scary people who (and I *almost* quote) 'believe that all relationships revolve around us'? Seriously? So yeah, we do do that to some extent, but first of all so does everyone else, and second of all I've never met or heard of anyone who's borderline kidnapping and killing people because they think that those people are there just for them. For fuck's sake, it would have definitely made the news since we borderlines are the big bads of the mental health world. BOO!

So do I get to look forward to an entire season of this bullshit where every creep who is a murderer is talked about as borderline? Every single one? You know, if people who are borderline would be less scared to talk about it openly (and with bullshit like this who can blame them for not wanting to talk openly) we might actually be less stigmatised, but even without you moron writers putting this bullshit into your show we all ready have to deal with therapists who refuse to work with us, people who don't know how to treat us, and people who are scared or freak out when they find out we have a "personality disorder."

I mean, ok, so if you only labelled one of them borderline (because it seems that almost every killer on your show has some mental health disorder which, you know, it seems like maybe there could lets say, HALF of them who were "healthy" so people will stop blaming people with mental health problems for anything horrible that happens in society*) I could somewhat deal with that (if he did indeed *act* as though he was borderline) because, yeah, I'll give you that anyone can be a killer, even a borderline. But the fact that it has come up two weeks in a row and used as a way to make sure everyone knows that this guy is super crazy and that borderlines are likely to carve you up into bits and eat your innards, well that makes me just a little bit pissy.

SO will you please stop kicking on people who are among the most feared and reviled in the mental health world (I mean, how appropriate is it that docs can refuse to treat us. What if you went in for a check up and the doc refused to treat you because they don't like people who have the flu? huh? Feels shitty, don't it.) So please pull your heads out of your asses and stop saying that every damn bad guy on your show is borderline. Because if you knew even a little itsy bit about it, you would know that we're far more likely to hurt ourselves then to hurt others. Oh and women have it more often then men.

Sincerley,
One seriously pissed off clown with borderline personality disorder.

*Did you know that in psychological tests done on rapists and pedophiles, doctors could find no difference at all between the psychological make-up of a 'healthy' person and a convicted sexual predator. Interesting, huh.



To my fellow BPD sufferers, a plea:

I want more people with BPD/ERD to stand up and talk about it. I'm sick of getting kicked around because of fear of the unknown. There are more of us who have been diagnosed borderline then there are diagnosed bipolar or schizophrenic! Those 2 conditions aren't nearly as scary or as picked on as borderline. I can't get you to do anything, but I just hope that I am not alone in bringing this stuff up. If you ever feel moved to talk about it, to a friend, on a blog, anywhere, and are scared just remember: I'll always be here for you. You have my unconditional support. We need to do this together.

When past mental health diagnoses become a weapon

I've been trying to write this post for some time, but it's really hard to exactly express what I'm feeling, so I'll just list it: anger (and a whole lot of it), disgust, fear, anger, incredulity, outrage, shock, sadness, and more (righteous) anger.

A woman, Fran Lyon, whose website can be found here detailing what's going on, who was diagnosed with Borderline Personality Disorder when she was a teen (which is ridiculous b/c you're not supposed to be diagnosed with a personality disorder until you're over 18) is being threatened with having her baby taken away from her, 7 years after her diagnosis, and 6 years since her therapist has said she has recovered from her symptoms. (For a breakdown of BPD look to my old post found here. Read this first if you know little or nothing about BPD/ERD.)

From Writhe Safely (link at bottom):
A man rapes a woman, her resulting PTSD is misdiagnosed as Borderline Personality Disorder.

Women who have been raped are traumatized and eligible for the non-punishing dx of PTSD, which sits on AXIS I of treatable mental illness.

BPD is an AXIS II diagnosis, the AXIS referring to disorders of the personality, that are by definition lifelong and untreatable.

Daily Mail article (Reproduced in full here with my own emphasis added).
The daughter of teachers and with a glittering academic future, Fran was delighted when she became pregnant. But social services discovered the illness she thought she'd put behind her - and will confiscate her daughter when she is born...

Fran Lyon is due to give birth to her first child - a daughter she has already named Molly - on January 3. But the prospect, far from being one of joyous anticipation, fills her with a dread that keeps her awake at night.

It's not because Fran doesn't want the child. She does. Desperately. And not because she is frightened of the pain of labour. She is prepared for that.

It is what happens afterwards that fuels Fran's anxiety. And there can be no preparation for that pain.

For within 30 minutes of birth, barring any medical complications, Molly will be handed by doctors to social workers. They have instructions to take away Fran's newborn baby and place her in foster care.

The 22-year-old will then be transferred from the maternity wing to a gynaecological ward, because Northumberland Council has decided that Fran - who has never harmed anyone in her life - is potentially a risk to other mothers and their babies.

Fran has no idea if she will be able to touch her baby, even for a minute, before leaving hospital alone, or if she will ever get her daughter back. Her biggest fear is that she won't, and that Molly will be put up for adoption.

'It is incredibly upsetting not knowing if I will be allowed even to hold my baby,' says Fran, a charity worker. 'Until social services became involved in my life, I was having a normal pregnancy and was full of excitement.

'They have taken away what should be the most precious time in my life - and I will never get that back. I'm already in love with my baby. I can feel her moving, I talk to her. I've bought her baby books and clothes. You just can't undo that attachment.'

Fran is an intelligent and articulate woman. She has nine A- starred GCSEs, five grade A A-levels and is in the third year of a neuroscience degree at Edinburgh University - which she is completing at home in Hexham, Northumberland.

However, what concerns Hexham Children's Services, which is part of Northumberland Council, is Fran's medical history.

Having had a difficult relationship with her parents, who are teachers in good state schools, from the age of 15, she started selfharming. Fran spent three years - on and off - in psychiatric hospitals.

Her problems appear to have begun when she was raped by an acquaintance at the age of 14. Diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, she was discharged from a therapeutic facility in 2002, where she had spent 13 months, and spent nine months as an outpatient.

Today, she needs no medication and, according to her former psychiatrist, Dr Stella Newrith, 'has made a significant recovery to the point where her difficulties are indistinguishable from those of much of the general population'.

In a letter to Northumberland Council, Dr Newrith, who treated Fran for a year when she was 16 and has known her for many years, stated: 'There has never been any clinical evidence to suggest that Fran would put herself or others at risk, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest she would put a child at risk of emotional, physical or sexual harm.'

Furthermore, she said: 'I would view the removal of Fran's baby as an extraordinarily heavy-handed gesture. It is also my professional opinion that doing so would be an infringement of Fran's human rights, as it would be much the same as removing a child from someone from the general population.'

Yet on August 16, a child protection case conference recommended that Fran's baby should be taken away at birth - a decision based in part on the contents of a letter from consultant paediatrician Dr Martin Ward Platt, who has never met Fran and could not be present at the meeting.

In his letter, Dr Ward Platt states that 'even in the absence of psychological assessment, if the professionals were concerned on the evidence available that [this woman] probably does fabricate or induce illness, there would be no option but to put the baby into foster care at birth pending a post-natal forensic psychological assessment'.

However, he warned that it was necessary first to establish as far as possible whether or not Fran does suffer from this illness - something Fran claims they have failed to do.

Fran has never been diagnosed with this condition, yet she has nevertheless been deemed by Northumberland Council as someone likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy, a controversial and unproven condition in which a parent - usually the mother - makes up or induces an illness in her child to draw attention to herself.

And so, unless a judicial review next week rules in Fran's favour, her baby Molly will almost certainly be taken away at birth.

'I can understand why they might have concerns about my past, but the speed with which they have come to this conclusion, despite the evidence of my own psychiatrist, is terrifying,' she says.

'I was at the case conference and it lasted just ten minutes.

'This letter from Dr Ward Platt was given to me just five minutes before the meeting started, and when it was produced, the chairman said there was no point - in the light of what this letter stated - even considering the other evidence which I wanted to present, which was letters of support from psychiatrists.

'I think they simply panicked, and when people panic they make, in my opinion, bad judgments. I left that meeting numb with shock. I'd had absolutely no time to digest the letter or argue my case, and I was so horrified at what they'd said that I just couldn't even begin to respond to it.

'I have never harmed anyone in my life. I have no criminal convictions. I believe I can be a good mother to Molly - but they are not even prepared to give me a chance to prove that.

'I have offered to stay in a mother and baby unit after Molly's birth for as long as they want, and to be monitored. I would be prepared to stay there for 18 years if it meant I could be with my baby. But that, it seems, is not even an option.'

Fran's case is far from unusual. Two thousands babies under one year old were taken from their parents last year by social services - three times the number ten years ago. Critics believe councils are doing this to help meet government adoption 'targets'.

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, chairman of the Justice for Families campaign group, certainly thinks so.

'How can it be in the child's best interests to take a baby away from its mother at birth? The reason why they do it is because it's much harder to take away a baby the longer it spends with its mother, and a healthy newborn baby is so much easier to find adoptive parents for.

'It is estimated that 97 per cent of babies taken away from their mothers at birth, on the basis that the mothers are "capable of emotional abuse", are never returned to them - and that is simply scandalous.

'Of course, there are cases where it is right to do so, but the whole public family law system is corrupt because of the secrecy which surrounds it. Decisions are based on opinion and conjecture, rather than fact and evidence.

'What does Fran's case tell us? That no woman who has been raped or had mental health problems can be allowed to have a baby, even years later?

'What could be more traumatic than for a mother to have her baby taken away at birth? It's monstrous. That, in itself, can cause mental health problems, which is then used by social services against the mother as a reason not to return the baby. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

'There has been a massive increase in younger babies being taken into care, before there is even any evidence of harm - and you have to ask why that is.'

Despite her own troubled past, Fran Lyon is convinced she can be a good parent, and is desperate to prove that. From the start, she has been open and honest with social workers about her medical history, but she feels this has been used against her.

Although she describes her childhood as 'difficult', she refuses to elaborate, other than to say that she is close to her mother and younger brother, but has no contact with her father.

The catalyst for her severe mental health problems was, she says, the rape she suffered when she was 14.

She told police that she was attacked while working as a Saturday volunteer in a charity shop in Northampton, when the shop's founder - a middle-aged man - drove her to an empty warehouse supposedly to pick up supplies for the shop.

When Fran reported the rape, he was interviewed by police. Three more women claiming they, too, had been attacked came forward and agreed to testify against him. However, in 2001 the man killed himself before the Crown Prosecution Service could decide whether to proceed.

'After the rape, I became clinically depressed,' says Fran. 'I lost a huge amount of weight and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital after trying to kill myself with an overdose of tablets. It wasn't a cry for help; I wanted to die because of what he had done to me.'

She spent the next three years, on and off, in residential psychiatric hospitals in Oxford, Nottingham and London after being diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder, in her case characterised by self-harming, instability and suicidal tendencies.

For the final 13 months, Fran went to a therapeutic residential clinic, where she attended individual psychotherapy sessions and group analysis before being discharged as an outpatient.

By the time she was 18, she appeared to have put her problems behind her.

She started to flourish, taking five A-levels at Orpington College in Kent and applying to study neuroscience at Edinburgh University.

At the same time, she worked for two mental health charities, Borderline and Personality Plus. It was through that job, two years ago, that she met the man who is the father of Molly.

'Of course, I was worried when I fell pregnant. I wondered how we would cope as a couple, because we weren't living together,' says Fran.

'But once that wore off, I was excited. I would go shopping with my mum to baby departments, buying books and looking at prams.'

But a few weeks ago, all normality ended. Social services suddenly became involved when Fran phoned the police after what she describes as a 'disturbing incident' with her partner. Fran's relationship with him ended immediately.

'The case was referred to social services and I was interviewed by two social workers, who said from the beginning that they would have to look at the whole family, not just one person in isolation,' says Fran.

'At that first meeting, they asked about my concerns regarding the baby's father, but then it became clear through their questions that their investigation was centred on me. I have never made a secret of my mental health problems. I felt I had nothing to hide.'

Fran was co- operative, she says, because she naively thought children's services would offer her help and support. She was stunned when she received a letter informing her that a child protection case conference would be held on August 16.

'That's when I became frightened and thought for the first time: "Are they going to take my baby away from me?"

'I couldn't believe how everything had happened so quickly. When you are up against a big system such as social services, it is very easy to feel overrun and overwhelmed.'

Realising the seriousness of the situation, Fran instructed a solicitor and contacted her former psychiatrist, Dr Stella Newrith, who offered her full support.

A second psychiatrist, who Fran knew through her charity work, offered a character reference stating: 'I have no doubt that her diligence and capacity, particularly in dealing with complex emotional situations, will stand her in good stead for the rigours of parenthood.'

Yet these testimonials, Fran says, were never even read out at the conference after Dr Ward Platt's letter was produced.

Northumberland Council insists that two highly experienced doctors - another consultant paediatrician and a medical consultant - attended the case conference.

Neither they, nor anyone else present - including Fran solicitor - made any objection. Feeling stunned and intimidated by what she had heard, she felt unable to speak out.

Everything she wanted to say will now be heard - with the help of a new solicitor who specialises in such cases - at appeal.

According to MP John Hemming, Fran should win her case; but there is no guarantee that she will. Both he and Fran are particularly concerned that last week social workers contacted the psychiatrist who provided a character reference for Fran. They believe this was done with the intention of 'pressurising' the witness into withdrawing his support, and undermining Fran's appeal.

It was seemingly suggested by a social worker to the doctor in question that Fran had given incorrect details about her health to hospital staff: in short, doubt was cast on the reality of an ectopic pregnancy Fran suffered on Christmas Eve two years ago.

'Is it ethical for social workers to go behind my back and speak to my witnesses, discussing my private confidential medical history and suggesting to them that I might have made things up?' says Fran.

'I did have an ectopic pregnancy, and I have the scars to prove that I had abdominal surgery.' Mr Hemming goes further, describing such behaviour as akin to witness nobbling. He also claims it is not uncommon for social workers to pressurise witnesses - a punishable practice in the criminal courts.

'There is a culture in which the end is seen to justify the means, and sometimes the means employed would not be tolerated in any other court of law,' he says. 'Yet if anyone tries to speak out, they are guilty of contempt of court. The whole family court system, because of the secrecy which surrounds it, is vulnerable to bad practice. Social workers are under pressure not to lose cases.' Northumberland Council, while legally prevented from speaking about individual cases, insists there is nothing sinister in their actions.

A spokeswoman said it was the court which would make the ultimate decision, after hearing legal representation from both sides. 'Safeguarding children is our top priority,' said a spokeswoman. 'We speak to all sides without bias or pressure. 'We would welcome a review of the family court arrangements, and support transparency, as long as this is in the best interests of the children.

'Safeguarding arrangements have been praised as good following a rigorous inspection by a number of Government departments. It was specifically noted that "good action was taken to enable parents to keep their children safe in the home and the community. Our duty to safeguard children is our only motivation, and we strive to keep children with their families wherever possible, or extended families if that is not possible.

'We do not have numerical targets for adoption; nor have we received any financial rewards in relation to adoption figures.'

As for Fran, the final four months of her pregnancy are filled with stress and uncertainty, and the nagging terror that her worst nightmare will become a reality and her baby daughter will be snatched away from her. 'Some days I feel positive,' she says quietly.

'But others I feel totally overwhelmed. All I am asking for is a chance to prove that I will be a good mother.'

Sadly, that wish may not be granted her.

Now I was diagnosed as BPD a few years ago, not by my therapist who believes that I only have severe PTSD whose symptoms mimic those of BPD, but by a psychiatrist I had to see in order to get meds. Now in my disability file held by the government I will always be labeled as BPD. (Thanks, doc.) As Fran's case shows, this can be very dangerous. Now I do not plan on having children, but my friends not only trust me with their children, but encourage us to spend a lot of time together (mostly b/c I seem to be everyone's favourite crazy auntie). The thought that because I have been diagnosed with BPD that I should be a danger to children is ridiculous. BPD is characterised by self-harm, not with harming others. I wish I could express more of how I feel about this situation, but I am just too overwhelmed with disgust and anger to be eloquent.

In the News:
Journal Live article
Telegraph article
Sky News article

From the blogosphere:
The Roadkill Diaries' Tony Blair's Britain
Writhe Safely's How Psychiatry Blames the Victim
Uncool's Fran Lyon (also a hat tip to Lina for making me aware of the situation)
The Trouble with Spikol's Horrifying Violation of Human Rights
*NEW* S511's Link Roundup

I will be updating this as more blogs and news items appear, and I will have another blog when the court decision is made. I'm hoping for the best, but I'm not holding my breath since society seems to think that anyone diagnosed with a mental health disorder is less then human.

Asshole of the day

In response to this post which was talking about my condescending Limits prof.

The shit you are doing is beyond simple. Stop being a pussy and quit blaming everyone for your sub-par mathematical skills. Your professor has nothing against you, he just thinks you're a fucking moron and would have probably said that to anyone that cannot understand the basics of calculus at such a level.

-Gottfried Leibniz

So me acing the next quiz must be further proof of my idiocy. So the fact that he's only condescending to female students, even the only person to get an A in our class, is not important since he so obviously would be condescending to any student, not just the women.

The fact that I maintain an A/B average in Mathematics and Physics is just because I'm lucky a good guesser because my puny mind just can't comprehend anything and I should just give up now and get a job at McDonalds, because only people with subpar math skills would get A's and B's.

How dare I get pissed at a sexist condescending asshole? Why don't I just take it like a man? Mmmmm, yeah. I don't think anyone should be treated like that, even if they are an idiot.

Edited to add: I posted this not just because I was pissed and wanted to see the bullshit some people write me (though their comments are usually unpublished), but also because it's people like this who make me want to work harder and 'show them.' Look out for me!