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.

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.

Who needs clean water anyway?

At least 16 lakes across Canada are to be reclassified as toxic dump sites.

But Catherine Coumans, spokeswoman for the environmental group Mining Watch, said the federal government is making it too easy. She said federal officials are increasingly using the obscure Schedule Two regulations to quietly reclassify lakes and other waters as tailings dumps.

“Something that used to be a lake — or a river, in fact, they can use rivers — by being put on this section two of this regulation is no longer a river or a lake," she said. "It's a tailings impoundment area. It's a waste disposal site. It's an industrial waste dump."

Coumans said the procedure amounts to a subsidy to the industry and enables mines to get around the Fisheries Act.

.....

A local environmentalist who attended the Long Harbour meeting, Chad Griffiths, said of Sandy Pond: “It's easy enough to consider just one lake as just one lake, as a needed sacrifice, right? But it's not one lake … It's a trend. It's an open season on Canadian water.”

....

Last fall, a Federal Court judge ruled that federal bureaucrats acted illegally in trying to fast-track the Red Chris copper and gold mine without a full and public environmental review.

The decision put the project on hold, but late last week, the Federal Appeals Court reversed the decision, paving the way for federal officials to declare lakes to be dumps without public consultation.

.....

“We want it stopped,” said Dennis, who lives in the native village of Iskut, 18 kilometres northwest of the mine site. “We want to stop the mine … The animals will be drinking that water and they'll all be polluted too.

"Once they do the mine, they’re going to leave, and we're the people who are going to live with that. Not me, but my grandchildren, the small little kids like this. That's who's going to live with the pollution.”

(emphasis mine)

Of course the Fisheries Minister doesn't care, in fact he thinks it's more responsible.

From the Opposition:

"The reality is these Conservatives are giving those mining companies a huge subsidy by allowing them to use freshwater aquatic systems that are fish-bearing lakes as chief waste disposal sites," Nova Scotia MP Peter Stoffer said in the house on Tuesday.

"What they should be doing is having independent linings and holes filled with water, and put the tailings in those things, free and clear of any natural water system."

I wrote an angry letter, so there's something you can do too.

Also, there's another Work Less Party PARTY on the 28th. They're always a blast and why not financially support the best political party in BC while having a bit of fun? It is an election year and Sam Sullivan's not running again! Though I need to find out more about the new guy. Whoever he is I don't like the party so I doubt I'll like him either.

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.

Presidential primaries

So here in WA we caucus. Last time I caucused for Kucinich. But now I find out that not only is he a friend of Larry Flynt, but that he supports his misogynist ways. More on the second point below.

As a feminist who is against the exploitation of woman I can no longer support Kucinich. So I guess I will be backing Hillary. I did vote for her for Senator in NY ages ago. Barack scares me. His voting record tells me nothing, and he has not done anything to distinguish himself in any way that's satisfying to me.

It really saddens me about Kucinich endorsing Hustler (article by Jackson Katz *sigh*). No matter how much I agree with the other things that he stands for I cannot support someone who supports a woman hater and rapist.

From the article:

For those of us who cling to the quaint notion that any progressive politics worthy of the name must be anti-sexist by definition, this is truly deflating news. After all, we're in the 21st century. The days when prominent men in the progressive movement would dare to associate this openly with the likes of misogynists like Larry Flynt were supposed to be relegated to the mists of memory, before the modern multicultural women's movement came along. In fact, one of the catalyzing forces in the rise of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s was women's experience of sexism on the left and in the civil rights, anti-poverty and anti-war movements.

....

Let's be clear about who Flynt is. He's not some run of the mill good ol' boy with political passions and deep pockets. Please spare us the "First Amendment hero" platitudes. On the contrary, Flynt is a wealthy capitalist who for years has been one of the most notoriously sexist figures in American public life. His signature publication, Hustler magazine, has published some of the most misogynist and racist photo layouts and cartoons in the history of mass-distributed porn magazines. He has been accused of incest by his now-grown daughter. He repeatedly dismisses women with the gumption to challenge his raging sexism as "anti-sex bitches" and much worse.

It is willfully naïve for any self-respecting "progressive" to dismiss Flynt's pornography as harmless "adult" entertainment. How can it be considered harmless to consistently portray women and girls in a sexually demeaning and degrading manner? Flynt hasn't built his porn publishing empire in a vacuum. Our society has some of the highest rates of sexual and domestic violence in the world. The numbers are staggering: one in four women will be raped or sexually assaulted. One study showed that one in five teenage girls has been in a physically or sexually abusive relationship. Most women won't even walk alone after dark. Whenever we discuss the effects of pornography -- and regardless of how one feels about people's right to produce or consume it -- anyone with a minimal sense of social responsibility has to examine the relevant context, including where and how it is produced and its relationship to social reality.

....

Hustler cartoons are also notoriously saturated with images of racism and sexual cruelty. As the media scholar Gail Dines points out, the cartoons can be even more overtly offensive than the photo layouts because they carry a "humor license" and hence avoid critical scrutiny. One result is that men of color -- especially African-American men -- are routinely presented in the most reductive racist stereotype: as brutish rapists of white women. Women of color are caricatured with animal-like qualities -- or as non-hygienic slobs. One characteristic cartoon depicts a school science fair. A white boy proudly stands in front of his project, next to a big sign that reads: "ant farm." Next to him is a large Black girl, naked from the waist down; under her the caption reads: "crab farm."

*sigh* I REALLY liked Kucinich. I am really disappointed. I, like Jackson Katz and many of my feminist friends, took his very progressive politics to mean that he supported the equality of women.

Silly, silly me. I spent the years previous to my school as a traveling activist in anarchist circles. The, what many people call "manarchists," are misogynist, racist assholes, which is ridiculous because if you are advocating anarchism, as I understand it, you are advocating equality and freedom of all people, regardless of anything like race or gender. Why am I surprised? Dammit. I've been able to escape this heartbreak for the past few years by concentrating solely on my schooling. That and being on disability and having 3 cats makes it *somewhat* difficult to just hop on a train and go wherever I want whenever there's a campaign I want to work on. I don't miss it partially because I was so burned out by fighting the manarchists and the fact that almost all my sexual assaults have been by my 'fellow activists.'

I HATE THE SO-CALLED "LIBERAL" MALES WHO ARE MISOGYNIST JERKFACEHEADS. ARGH

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!

*sigh*

About BB

I know this particular person and clique don't represent feminism and aren't even worth the time of day. But I think we need to be aware of what some of our theory lends itself to. I think the sane, thoughtful anti-porners need to wrestle with this, struggle with it, understand why the people on the other side fear inducing sexual shame.

Yes because feminists can't possibly be anti-porn. *screams*