Uncategorized


I knew there would be people who criticised the way I brought up Austin, because they’d say that I was (in my father-in-law’s words) “making a lass out of him.” I was ready for that, and have been able to live with it. But the awful realisation came to me just the other day, when Austin was telling me about his ‘best’ friends – I, too, have a good amount of these gendered ideas left in me.

Austin has five close friends, of which four are girls. And when he went through his list of friends, I found myself wondering whether I’d done something ‘wrong’. Whether I’d forced my views on him so much that he could only identify with girls (ignoring, of course, the boy amongst his friends, as one does when guilt tripping happens!). I was pleased that he could make friends with girls, of course, but realised that I felt guilty about the amount of female friends he had compared to male. I want my son to have the friends he wants – if he made friends with lots of traditionally-masculine boys I’d put up with it, though I’d wonder what I’d done to him to make him feel so comfortable with them. I never thought I’d worry about female friends.

It just SHOWS how central the gender divide is in life, though. The first thing you know about a child is hir  sex: zie is labelled “boy” or “girl” from the moment of birth, and that knowledge affects what the child wears, what zie is shown, how zie is treated. No matter how much we disagree with the gender divide, it’s still THERE – and it still affects us to some extent.

I’ve never put Austin in dresses. Although I say I let him choose his clothes (hence his pink tops and purple trousers), I’ve never given him the option of wearing a dress as ‘normal’ wear (he tries things on, of course, at home). I’ve done this so that he won’t be teased, but as long as everyone (including me) continues to make this distinction between what is suitable for boys and what is suitable for girls, the teasing is always going to be an issue.

There are two problems here. Firstly, the fact that no matter how much we may agree or disagree with them, gendered ideas are fairly central to our world. Secondly, given problem #1, it is difficult to know how far to push the boundaries with our children. I want my son to be a happy, well-balanced boy. The fact is, if I ignored all gender ideas and (for example) sent him to pre-school in a dress, the teachers would have some sort of negative/weirded out reaction to him, and so would some of the children he goes to school with. I might think that the idea that “boys are like this” and “girls are like this” is an unhelpful way of looking at the world, but do I have the right to make an example of my son? As an adult, I can choose to accept/reject the gender ideas and understand what I am doing. But Austin is three. He’s too young to understand all the background to it, so is it fair for me to ask my son to do things which will almost certainly make his young life harder, and get him teased, perhaps bullied, by his peers?

I’d like to nominate Star Child shoes for the very first department of WIN award.

What’s the department of WIN?

Well, some time ago I wrote a blog post, Breeched from Birth, looking at how we use children’s clothing right from birth to push them into gender stereotypes.

I mused on why children’s clothes needed to be segregated into “girl” and “boy” clothes seeing as the basic shape of children is the same until puberty begins. Why couldn’t clothes for children just be organised by category, e.g. babygro, trouser, skirt, jumper etc.?

That would be a start, but I would also like to see less frillyfication of girls’ clothing (it gets to the point where the garment is impractical as the frills don’t wash well) and less, erm, blokification of boys’ clothing (“mummy’s little soldier” etc.) too.

I got chatting to Anji about it and she had the idea of coming up with a department of WIN, a department of FAIL (o hai Tesco!) and I wouldn’t mind a department of MEH too but maybe that’s pushing it!

So how to define WIN? Personally, I think in order to WIN a clothing shop, whether online or in real life, needs to meet at least two of the following criteria (and to get a MEH would meet just one, to get a FAIL would meet none):

1)      Clothes are separated by garment type or other way that isn’t based on gender

2)      No clothes that are so flimsy as to be impractical; no clothes that glorify violence (especially not if these are showcased as “girl” and “boy” respectively)

3)      Pictures of children in the clothes that include boys that aren’t wearing blue, grey, dark green or brown, and girls that aren’t wearing pink, purple or lilac.

But that’s just a rough idea. Any additions or subtractions are welcome. Of course, it also helps if the clothes wash well, are reasonably priced, do not use sweatshop labour to produce them, are environmentally responsible and so on.

Anyway without further ado onto Star Child shoes.

I was looking for some shoes for Bertie (my two year old) for a wedding. He was going in a maroon pair of flairs with maroon cravat and waistcoat and a white shirt (all from charity shops). I wanted something smart but quirky. I scoured the shops and found only clunky, ugly looking shoes, or incredibly flimsy, impractical looking shoes (can you guess which was intended for boys and which for girls?)

Via the natural parenting magazine Juno, I happened upon a company called Star Child shoes. Not only are the shoes organised by style (and not boy/girl) but they come in a wonderfully diverse range of colours and patterns, whilst all being the same basic shape.

They are also incredibly practical in that they are more like slippers, but with a solid suede base so they are not particularly slippery. They also allow a lot of room for feet to stretch; despite what the likes of Clarks might tell you to get you to part with your £20+, less is often more when it comes to shoes (with bare feet being best of all).

The price? Well, they’re not amazingly cheap, weighing in at around £17 a pair, but unlike shoes that come in sizes (e.g. 4, 5, 6) they come in months, so your child’s feet grow into them and they last about six months.

They are handmade in the UK, and use non-toxic dyes (you know how kids love to suck their feet).

And, you can fling them in the washing machine on a low heat (although, I did notice the dye did run a little on Bertie’s shoes, so take care to wash with other similar colours) and even when they dry (not in a tumble drier) they are still soft and pliable.

The one thing that does concern me is that the shoes have leather uppers, which is not an option for the majority of vegetarians and vegans.

Back to the beginning though, the thing I’m most impressed by is the sheer range of styles and the fact none of them are listed as “perfect for your little princess / soldier”. They feature styles that children love (bright, colourful, pictures of vehicles, animals and confectionary) and they don’t shoehorn (pun intended) children into stereotypical gender roles.

Star Child shoes = WIN!

(Well, you wanted to see the shoes on, didn’t you?)

In my last post I talked about why my husband often fails to do basic housework tasks and why I end up doing much more than my biology dictates.

To give me a break from thinking about it, I decided to pop to my local supermarket and buy a toy or two for my little boy.

I am pretty skint at the moment, so the “pocket money toys” really appealed.

Imagine my surprise when for just three quid I found the perfect toy for him. He loves doing what the big people in his life do, just like all young children, and I saw a dustpan and brush set which firstly he would love and secondly it would stop him using the adult broom like a lance heading dangerously in the direction of the television.

Unfortunately, it was bright pink and in a box marked “the little princess playset”.

Now obviously, I bought it for him.

But I thought, how many Mums are actually going to buy these for their sons, no matter how much they might enjoy cleaning up like the grown ups? How many Mums are rather going to walk on by until they get to the cars and trucks and other “boy” toys?

I’m not saying there’s anything inherently wrong with cars and trucks. My little boy is also obsessed with pickup trucks and will not let me on the computer for very long before he comes up to me and informs me in no uncertain he wants to look at pictures of pickup trucks.

But when they’re the only type of toys we buy for boys, they miss out on essential role play (which children love) and also they’re told their role is to sit around and play while the women work. That housework is only fun if you’re a girl. And it looks like often this pattern continues into adulthood.

From UNICEF:

This year alone, more than 500,000 women will die during pregnancy or childbirth. That’s one woman missing every minute of every day. We call these women “missing” because their deaths could have been avoided. In fact, 80 per cent of maternal deaths could be averted if women had access to essential maternal health services.

We know where and how these women are dying, and we have the resources to prevent these deaths. Yet, maternal mortality is still one of the most neglected problems internationally.”

Via UN Dispatch and Feministing.

I came across these magnetic words for children at Amazon, aimed at children from 4 and up. They’re like magnetic poetry – a bunch of single words on magnets designed for writing sentences, letters, poems or whatever on your refrigerator or other magnetic surface of choice.

Like with almost everything aimed at children (hello Tesco with your blue and pink English school dictionaries!) they come in a boy’s version and a girl’s version. I am amazed and dumbfounded at the differences between the word sets.

Girls:

clothes, hairband, heart, love, sparkle, perfume, beads, necklace, furry, lipstick, ribbon, handbag, want, glitter, fairies, fluff, candy, flowers, wings, sherbet, bubbles, sweets, pink, make-up, skipping, magic, dancing, ballet, bunnies, rainbow, ladybird, lemonade, stars, sky, shoes, chocolate, doll, party, secret, diary, hair, jewels, princess, queen, tiara, ice-cream, teddy, music, sunshine, birds, butterfly, sugar, angel, diamond, cooking, friends

Boys:

boots, glue, monster, scary, bones, racing, moon, helicopter, aeroplane, tractor, money, lorry, wizard, conkers, frogs, sticks, mud, dirt, spiders, snails, stones, bubbles, sweets, flags, magic, pond, string, grass, rugby, bug, dogs, caterpillar, cobweb, worms, dinosaur, dragon, bike, scooter, forest, treasure, climbing, swinging, skeleton, running, ghost, trees, swimming, lawnmower, treehouse, blue, football, chocolate, car

Reviewer C. Hurley “Zoonie” had it spot on and said everything I wanted to, but more succinctly and with more humour:

I was so pleased when I found this list of primary, targeted words guaranteed to widen every little princess’s vocabulary just enough for her to play with and absorb these crucial messages which will help her form the limits of her intellectual boundaries in years to come.

Thank goodness the set excludes any complicated words like Doctor, or Car, or Career, or heaven forfend: Reading. We don’t want our little ones to get silly ideas in to their heads. The right social conditioning from as early as possible will present the world with compliant, self absorbed, distressed, depressed and anorexic teenagers who are all the more willing to spend, spend, spend on hopeless diet cures, makeup, hidden, guilt ridden chocolate (one of the special words placed here!) and anti-depressants which will really make life worth living.

I particularly like the pink packaging, covered in stars. One might, startlingly, have thought that the words list had basic references to Astronomy in but thank goodness, those fears were allayed straight away as I eyed up the list of words envoking fantasy parties of frills and ruffles, endless Disney Princess re-runs and a future of anorexia driven depression and body hate.

Well done, Indigo worldwide limited, for creating such a wonderful gift, to help shape a bright future for your little one.

Is this what they mean by ‘starting them young’?

I’ve been worried lately by something a few of my friends have been saying.

“I’d probably never vote Tory… but” it starts.

Can you guess what it is they’re talking about?

If I tell you these friends of mine are parents that look after their children full time, that might give you a clue.

Yes, that’s right. The think tank that brought you the frighteningly anti-Muslim briefing, and the would-be-laughable-if-they-weren’t-serious anti-scouser briefing also brought us the radical suggestion that mothers should be paid for looking after their children.

And what I want to know is, why has this idea, which, if it wasn’t for the language of “mothers” rather than “parents”  sounds incredibly feminist (“Equal Pay for Equal Work” – and we so often say “but stay at home parents are working!), been co-opted by scary neo-con right winged think tanks?

Of course, the right winged press seized upon the idea, as “paying women to stay at home”. Which sounds terrifying, admittedly. But if you actually dig down into the policy, it is about giving mothers (I do wonder where fathers would register in this, of course) control over how they source their childcare. So a mother would receive a grant towards childcare which she could use for daycare, or alternatively, give to a relative, say a grandparent, who looked after her child or children, or keep herself and take the option of avoiding work outside of the home.

And the thing is, it does sound like a good idea. An idea which could do wit some tweaking, of course, to make it more friendly towards stay at home fathers, but a good idea, and a feminist idea at that. So I can’t help thinking, why isn’t it coming out of feminist mouths?

A recent survey of 3,000 UK women (done by Babycentre) found that over half of working (paid work) Mums would prefer to stay at home. Now you can make the case that this is because they have been socially conditioned to be nurturing. You can say that stay-at-home-mothers are colluding with the patriarchy (yes, I have heard that one). That they should want to go out to paid work and isn’t it disappointing that they don’t?

But I personally believe that although every choice we make (or want to make) can never be completely viewed without the lens of feminism, women are not complete idiots. If so many mothers are saying, actually, we’d rather stay at home with our children, but we can’t, isn’t that a feminist issue?

Current policy in the UK is very much geared to getting mothers back into work as soon as possible after their maternity leave finishes. You only get jobseekers’ allowance if you’re actually actively seeking work. Adverts on the buses into my nearest city Liverpool tell me “you might find childcare is cheaper than you think!” and give me the telephone number of jobcentre plus so I can find out just how to get my hands on this cheaper childcare. It seems to me as though the government genuinely believes the only thing that is stopping mothers returning to paid work is lack of cheap childcare.

And I think that many of the second-wavers thought the same thing. One of the demands of the Women’s Liberation movement was for free 24 hour nurseries, under community control. And of course, we’ve never got anything even close to that. But what we do have is a system that will support us to some extent  financially should we decide to put our children into official, state childcare (nurseries or OFSTED registered childminders).

But was the demand for free nurseries inspired more by Betty Friedan, or by Ruby Duncan (who tellingly doesn’t even have a Wiki entry)? Did poor women, who already combined work and childcare (often by taking children to work in dangerous conditions, or by leaving children with a relative until eventually the oldest child was able to look after the younger ones, or even leaving their children in ultra-cheap local nurseries with a whiff of laudanum about them) get asked if this was what they wanted? Sometimes I wonder. But current government policy seems to be based on the idea of “all women would do paid work if only childcare was free or very cheap”.

In fact, many women do get free or cheap childcare offered to them, usually in the form of relatives (often grandparents). And yet, I know of more than a few who have still refused this free childcare in favour of staying at home with their child or children full time.

The trouble is, as soon as we start talking about “incentives” for either not going to paid work, or going to paid work, we’re saying one is superior to the other. And at the moment, the government is saying that going out to paid work is the “right” choice. And no matter how much those parents – usually mothers – who stay at home rightly claim “but I am working!” – they will not be believed. The government doesn’t believe them; why would – for example – a husband believe “but I do work!” when his wife isn’t paid for the work she does.

But of course, as soon as we start talking about incentives for staying at home, we end up with the other problem. “Latch-key kids and their evil selfish mothers” and so on and so forth. Social problems are all the fault of mothers wanting to go out to paid work, of course. Women should be kept at home at all costs. And I think this is where policy exchange, sadly, are coming from.

And yet, the idea of a grant towards childcare – however that childcare is sourced – is in my opinion an excellent one! It tells us that those looking after children are indeed doing a job. But it also doesn’t favour SAHPs over WOHPs either. It may even encourage more men into SAH parenting.

And isn’t equal pay for equal work a feminist idea? I want to see this idea reclaimed by feminists and not shied away from out of fear of returning to some kind of middle-class 1950′s suburban nightmare. At least, until we have truly flexible working available to all, this idea of paying parents for their work, might just be a good one.

by Ruth Moss

I’ve written before and at length about facebook’s policy on breastfeeding photos, and why this is a feminist issue. Just letting anyone reading know that there is another protest planned on 21st February.

You don’t have to be a nursing mother to join in and show your support. You don’t have to be a mother. You don’t have to be a woman.

All you need is a photo of a mother nursing her young – human, or mammal – and use it as your profile pic for one day whilst changing your status to “Hey! Facebook! Breastfeeding is NOT obscene!”

Feel free to use one of my pictures if you can’t find any of your own.

I really do think this issue is wider than just breastfeeding (although that in itself is an important issue). It’s about disgust at women’s icky bodies and controlling them because of that disgust.

by Ruth Moss

A conversation that was started when Arwyn wrote about sexism in children’s literature, and continued here and here (and also on twitter and by email – if you’re not twittering – why not?) has had me thinking for weeks now.

No matter what we say to our pre-schoolers, they’re going to encounter the mainstream at some point, whether that’s through television, friends, school, nursery…

The most privileged members of society are also usually the most mainstream.

How do we counter that?

And what if their home environment matches up with what they see on television, in magazines, in books? My son will grow up child to a white, heterosexual, cisgendered, married, able-bodied couple. Will he ever even think to question his priviledge? Will my voice disappear in the baying of the other voices telling him exactly what is “normal” and what is “other”?

Looking at the darling of UK pre-school children’s programming, CBeebies, the majority of the presenters are overwhelmingly white (there was a very brief couple of days where Sid and Skye were the main presenters but this ended far too quickly). And in the programmes themselves, the vast majority are headed up by men. A quick tally count (off the top of my head – but I am a bit of an expert!) reels off 18 male-fronted shows, and three female-fronted ones.

Of course there are some shows, such as Charlie and Lola, where arguably the character that is given the most air time is the female one, or Balamory and Me Too, where the starting character is a woman (interestingly enough, in both cases, a Nursery Teacher), but then we’d have to start counting programmes like In the Night Garden, where Iggle Piggle is the starting and ending character, as male dominated.

I can’t think of a single programme on CBeebies where the central character is not able-bodied. And as for GLBT characters? Whilst I do appreciate that programming for pre-schoolers tends not to explore issues around relationships, would it really be that much of a leap of imagination for, say, one of the children in Charlie and Lola, for example, to have two Dads, just as an “aside”? I’m not entirely sure how one would “depict” a trans person as opposed to a cis-gendered person, in cartoon or puppet format, but at least as a tiny starter would it really be too difficult to have a young boy that wears dresses, as in this book? (I appreciate that in itself comes with some very negative connotations, so any suggestions welcome.)

I know there was a big hoo ha (or should that be ha-hoo?) over ten years ago now with the arrival of the Teletubbies and Tinky Winky, the big purple one with the handbag and occasionally tutu, and the “ZOMG our kids will be turned gay!!!” reaction that ensued, especially in the more right winged parts of the US. But as I say, that was over ten years ago now. Surely we’ve moved on by now. If we can have an openly bisexual character in older children’s TV programming in the form of Captain Jack Harkness, surely we can tweak a few things in CBeebies?

Otherwise I might even have to start turning off the television.

by Ruth Moss

Well, yesterday was blog for choice day and I missed it. But by the power of twitter, and thanks to blue milk, I’ve managed to get my act together in time for today.

I have a confession, which is that I haven’t always been pro-choice. To be fair, I was raised as an evangelical Christian and my “only in cases of rape and incest” views were actually pretty damn liberal amongst my peers!

When I rejected the religion I was brought up into, I started to reject the “pro-life” stance I’d been taking. It happened slowly, mind you. I came, at first, to view abortion as a kind of “sometimes-necessary evil”. I supposed, that in some cases, say, where contraception had failed, or where economic circumstances were such that a baby would be born into breathtaking poverty, or where a baby would be so severely disabled they would have no quality of life or… well, you get the picture.

I thought of abortion kind of in the way my sister-in-law (a vegetarian) thinks of meat eating. Not particularly nice, and she’d never do it herself, but as long as it’s done as humanely as possible and as little as possible it was the best of a bad job.

Gradually my views started to change. But it wasn’t until I became pregnant and had a baby myself that I realised I really was totally pro-choice. Because pregnancy was awful; the morning sickness (and afternoon, and evening sickness, and night sickness), the exhaustion and lethargy and sheer inability to move on occasion; and then the labour, with the pain which was like torture to me and about which I still get flashbacks; then the episiotomy which had me weeing standing up for several weeks (and I still can’t use my mooncup even now); the pelvic floor problems, the occasional leakage; the sleepless nights… and this was all for a much-wanted and much-loved child.

(Don’t get me wrong, I know not every woman’s pregnancy is like this. There were some complications in my case – won’t go into them now – and I know for some women a pregnancy is a joy. I think if I ever have a second child it might be a different story.)

The thought of putting another woman through this, against her will? Seems like torture to me. And that’s what we’re talking about when we talk about being anti-abortion. Forcing women to endure pregnancy and labour against their will.

However, once you identify as “pro choice” you have some uneasy decisions to make. Are you pro-choice all the time? Are you, for example, pro-choice whe it comes to women aborting only female foetuses? Are you pro-choice when it comes to abortion for foetuses where the resulting child could have a disability?

And… are you pro-choice when it comes to the other choice, the choice to keep the foetus, and have a baby? Are you pro-choice when it comes to, say, a post-menopausal woman gaining fertility treatment to conceive  a child? Are you pro-choice even in an over-populated world? Are you pro-choice even though you believe motherhood is a problematic, even patriarchal construct?

Are you pro-choice, all the time?

By Ruth Moss

The original author of this blog started to write about her postnatal depression, but didn’t get chance to finish it.

I think this is a very important issue, and a feminist issue. But I come at it from a different perspective than many others, and one that feels a bit embarrassing to the feminist in me.

I had a difficult, induced birth and my baby was taken from me to Special Care almost straight away. I really struggled breastfeeding in the early days, with nipples that felt like they’d gone two rounds with a cheese grater. And I got no support, really. Family and friends’ advice ranged from “you’ve done so well, no one would judge you if you stopped” to “you’re just being stubborn and trying to prove a point”. Actual real help was in short supply.

And I started to feel I was going mad. I felt like I was totally alone, and I started to suffer from paranoia. I was convinced the entire world wanted to stop me from breastfeeding my baby. I woke in the night, not with the baby (although that happened too, obviously) but with fear and blind panic.

Trouble was, everyone seemed to think that it was continuing to breastfeed that was making me anxious and depressed and thought they were being kind by advising, persuading and almost coercing me to stop. My husband drove me in the early morning to Boots to buy some ready-made formula, which he insisted was the only solution. I remember walking around the shopping aisles crying. I must have looked a sorry state!

And others thought that what would be just the ticket was a good night out, or at least a nice meal out, away from the baby, away from Mumming. But the truth was, any separation from my baby made me panic even more. I went for a meal with my husband in The Bottle and Glass, a posh pub just outside of St Helens, while my little one was at my mother-in-law’s. I sat there the entire time distant and depressed, barely able to speak.

However, with some fluoxetine (also known as prozac) and, eventually, some skilled breastfeeding support, I started to feel much, much better.

My brief brush with postnatal depression was over, or so I thought. I had escaped almost harm-free.

Until I went back to work. Truth to be told, I didn’t want to return to work. It doesn’t sound very feminist, does it? I wanted to be a stay-at-home Mum / full-time Mum / whatever you prefer to call it. But events took over. I always feel the need, in attachment parenting circles, to justify why I couldn’t afford it, just what obstacles were thrown in our way, what unexpected bills, what problems – but hopefully, on a feminist web site I don’t need to justify myself as much. I’ll just say – I couldn’t afford it in the end. We couldn’t afford it. I think sometimes people forget it’s not just the mother’s decision. People say “you could have done it, you just needed to make sacrifices”. Sometimes this comes from people who have sacrificed everything and downsized their life completely. But sometimes it comes from people who have sold the third car and gone on a European holiday instead of to Barbados.

People – both sets – seem to forget that it’s not just up to the mother whether or not she’s prepared to make sacrifices. It’s the mother’s partner, too, if she has one, who has to be prepared to down their standard of living. I might have been prepared, at least for a little while longer, to live on supersaver food, to default on some of the bills, to get rid of the mobile phone and internet… but there was no way in the world my partner was going to.

But I digress. Instead of going back into my old job as a Recruitment Consultant I got a temping job in the NHS, doing basic clerical work: filing, copy-typing and bits and bobs. It wasn’t particularly well paid but I quite enjoyed it. After 48+ hour working weeks in Liverpool (just over an hour away door to door by train) it almost felt like part-time to be working 830-430 in Whiston – ten minutes by bus, or on a nice day, a 45 minute walk. The work was great; basically you’d get in in the morning, someone would give you some stuff to do, and you’d do it. No masses of thinking needed. I did a few extra bits and pieces to help out, like designing an annual leave spreadsheet, and a few database-type things.

But after a few months, a permanent job elsewhere came up which I applied for and got. And then the trouble started. It was quite a complex job; although the job title was “Administrator” it was much more than admin; it was almost like an Office Manager role with some bookkeeping thrown in for good measure. It also required long periods being alone in the office. In fact, I had my own office – my own room, I should say – and a request to move into the main room with the other staff members was declined. I think the Manager was scared I’d be too distracted, but in fact, being on my own so often actually made matters worse.

Every day that went by I felt worse and worse. And the awful truth was, separation from my child felt unbearable. I felt so far away from him, both mentally and physically, and being on my own so often made me feel odd.

I started to suffer moments of anxiety. I struggled to get any work done. From being the most organised person in the office in my previous, pre-baby role, I went to disorganised disaster. I got in trouble for it. That made things much, much worse. I felt like a lazy failure. And I felt paranoia coming back. I started to think my boss was watching me, monitoring me, talking about me behind my back with the other members of staff.

I started to get more and more panicky.Then I came down with a water infection (unknown to me at the time) and had a terrible, dreadful panic attack.  I went into work anyway. I sat on the train on the way to work shaking with fear. I thought I had been drugged, such was the feeling of paranoia. It felt like someone had put some acid, or strong skunk, in my food somehow. My mind raced around and around.

I got into work and sat on the floor, under my desk. I was in on my own, again. I called my husband, who worked in Warrington, and asked him to come and get me. I called one of the other employees and told her I had to go home. I called the IT person, with whom I was meant to be meeting that morning, and cancelled.

My husband came to my work and drove me home. I got an emergency appointment at the Doctor, who analysed the situation (I was also drinking lots of water, and going to the toilet very frequently) and told me I had not been drugged but was having a panic attack; he said that often, if you’ve had depression before, and then you get ill (he also diagnosed a UTI with a urine test) it “presents” with a panic attack.

After I knew that, I managed to stop panicking a little. And over the course of the rest of the evening, I was back to “normal”.

But after that, the panic attacks continued. Nothing ever quite as bad as that one, mainly because I knew they were coming, and could tell myself “it’s a panic attack, it’s a panic attack”, but still pretty debilitating.

I really started to struggle in work. I would sit in my office for long periods just staring into space. My boss was starting to notice and started to take steps to improve my performance (which also meant steps to get rid of me if I didn’t improve). Obviously, this made the anxiety much worse.

I visited the Doctor and begged her to put me back on the fluoxetine, but at a higher dose. She started me on the lower dose again. She offered to sign me off work for a while, but given everything that was going on, I declined.

I wish I’d taken those two weeks off. The fluoxetine made things worse, just as the Doctor had predicted. I got very behind with my work, but out of fear I hid how behind I was. Eventually, I took a day off with flu, and came back in the next day, a Friday, to find out my boss had been through my drawers and found out the amount of work that hadn’t been done. I was called to a meeting on the Monday with the boss and the Chair (who was a very unsympathetic and unlikeable lady) and rather than face them, I handed in my notice that Friday, the last Friday before Christmas.

I’m now looking for part-time work, something basic, something close to home, something that just enables us to keep going with all the bills, and mortgage, and still have a bit left over for the odd nice bottle of wine. My husband has kindly stepped up saying he is now happy to do this, seeming as full-time, permanent work affected me in this way.

I feel there’s still a stigma around postnatal depression – around any mental illness, really. But I also feel – whether rightly or wrongly – that within feminist circles, it’s fine to talk about the lonliness and depression of maternity leave, of feeling tied to your child and hating it – but talk about the dread of being separated from your child, about finding paid work the lonely sphere, not maternity leave (which, after those anxious and panicky early weeks, I quite enjoyed) and it’s a bit – well, it’s just not very feminist, is it? Betty Friedan would be turning in her grave! I don’t know if I’m imagining this response, if only a “straw feminist” would react with disapproval, but I know myself I feel almost as though I’ve “let the side down”.Especially with the reliance on my husband; isn’t that what the second-wavers were trying to get the hell away from?

The Doctor has finally agreed to double my dose of fluoxetine, and I’ve signed up with a few agencies in the hope of finding some temp work, until I can get that nice easy part-time close to home job. In the middle of a recession.

I’ve tried to put into words how I felt. But actually I will give you an image. Recently, a film came out called The Golden Compass. It was based on a book called Northern Lights. In the film, all children grow up having a daemon. This takes the form of an animal, rather akin to a “familiar”, but it is basically their soul. The child is attached to their daemon by an invisible force. One of the most harrowing scenes in the film is where the bad guys, who are trying to separate children from their daemons, get hold of the heroine, Lyra, and put her into the machine that will separate her from her daemon. Her panic, her fear, her horror – it’s all on her face in that moment, just before she is rescued.

And that look on her face, just then, encapsulates neatly how I felt when I was separated full time, permanently, from my child.

I appreciate not everyone feels like this. Some mothers cannot wait to get back to work; the “back to work for a rest” is only half a joke. I think feminism listens to these mothers, even if the mainstream doesn’t and believes they have to carry about some kind of guilt. But there are others, too, for whom separation actually makes things worse.

Can feminism embrace both sets of mothers? I hope so, it might just help restore my sanity.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.