16

May

Good on Romola for making a quip about her poor old vagina

The English actress Romola Garai revealed she had to have 23 stitches, poor girl, after giving birth. She thought she’d never laugh again. It was a quip she made at the BAFTAs presenting the award for best comedy. Watch it here.

Who’d have expected that eh? Brilliant really. In fact I couldn’t applaud her frank witticism more. It’s about time we all got real about what some women endure during childbirth. Why are we so squeamish about it? It’s clear from the clip that some men weren’t laughing. Perhaps they found it distasteful. Why I wonder? They’re not French are they? Well, it’s about time they grew up.

And no. I don’t think it’s too private, or shameful, or inappropriate. We talk about dicks all the time don’t we? Plus, in an age when people announce their miscarriage on Facebook (a girl I went to school with really did do this), we’d be kidding ourselves to think the private is still private.

the-truth-1903.jpg!Blog

Romola’s quip comes of course in the same week that Angelina Jolie revealed in an op-ed for the New York Times she’s had a double mastectomy.  Good on her for laying the truth bare I say.

So what do you think? Too much information or about time we all faced up to the reality of what it means to be a woman?

7 days ago Short URL Comments

body/culture

/////

02

May

Nevermind what the feminists say, More! gave a voice to female sexuality

Today the newsstands will be one magazine poorer. More! the lifestyle and celebrity magazine or ‘your daily fix of fashion and men’ is no more. With a circulation figure of 90,000, its owner Bauer media decided it was time to give it up.

So ‘position of the fortnight’ is a thing of the past. As is also the magazine’s seemingly tireless appetite for candid boudoir confessions and the sex lives of celebrities. I’m hoping it will be missed by schoolgirls all over Britain but the truth of the matter is they’re probably playing Chatroulette or crowd sourcing sex advice off teen forums. At the very least they’re reading Grazia.

More-magazine-001

Some, like the New Statesman, welcome its downfall:

Journalists who produce sexist content designed to sell women products they don’t need to fix physical deficiencies they don’t have are engaging in an exploitative mode of production for pay, for sure

I think they’re missing the point.

This may be how it ended up but this wasn’t how it started. I confess I hadn’t bought More! in years (I suppose when you’re having sex, reading about it isn’t so alluring) but I do remember what it was like reading it back at school in 1993. It was electrifying, exciting and empowering.

Why? Well, unlike any other magazine, More! gave a voice to female sexuality.

I don’t care what the majority of feminist bloggers and Twitter trolls are saying about how it touted filth and promoted body fascism, the bottom line is that in the 90s no other magazine was saying, in a friendly, approachable way, you’re a woman and it’s ok to want to have sex, to enjoy it and to know what you like and what you don’t like. It’s not as if we had any useful sex education to speak of – unless you count our chemistry teacher tossing a tampon into a beaker of water!

In an attempt to stay alive, More! may have lost its way and resorted to stories that made girls feel fat and insecure, but this was never its aim. In its heyday, More! was a brave pioneer and it changed the way girls, like me, talked and felt about sex.

So I lament its demise. And I do so even more when I see how its male equivalents (FHM, Maxim, Nuts etc) read by schoolboys all over are, without much public dismay, turning more and more into hardcore, misogynistic porn.

So are you glad to see it go? Was More! mindless drivel or daring journalism?

21 days ago Short URL 2 Comments

body/culture

///

16

Apr

Is the media to blame for measles?

Measles has arrived in London. New cases are emerging in the boroughs of Hackney, Haringey and Barnet.

So how come it’s back?

In 1998 a study by Dr Andrew Wakefield linked the combined vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella (the MMR) with autism, especially among boys.

Parents worried. Many decided to go ahead with the vaccination anyhow. Some decided against it. Tony Blair and his wife refused to tell us if their son Leo had been vaccinated. We still don’t know.

newspaper-and-fruit-dish-1916.jpg!Blog

In retrospect, Dr Wakefield may appear a fool but at the time many media organisations invited him on to argue his point with doctors and scientists.

The media knows a good controversy when it sees one and soon the MMR vaccine was a national debate. To vaccinate or not to vaccinate, that was the question.

Some experts now feel this was a “catastrophic failure” on the part of the media and hold it partly responsible for the outbreak. There have been some harsh words directed at the ex-editor of the South Wales Evening Post who voiced many concerns over the MMR vaccine at the time. The paper, however, still defends its campaign.

We’re told there are always two sides to every story but should these two sides always be given the same amount of airtime or column inches? What if one side of the argument is flawed or, worse still, fabricated entirely? And what if support for this flawed argument ends up endangering the lives of not only those who support it but also those who do not?

Measles is a dangerous disease that can lead to complications like blindness and meningitis.

I’m not sure if I’d have given my baby the vaccine back then. Perhaps, like many others, I’d have been unable to tell the difference between the fool and the sage. For we might all do well to remember the wise words of Mark Twain: ‘Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference’.

37 days ago Short URL Comments

body/culture

//////

11

Apr

Can we learn from the babies who play with fire?

We have a balloon in our flat. Baby plays with it, prods and pokes it, and I think to myself any moment now and those sharp little pincers are going to make it go BANG. The shock of it would undoubtedly give him a fright, then they’ll be a second of silence before he cries and cries.

So, every now and then, I kick it out of his reach. I protect him from it. But am I being too protective? Should I let him learn for himself that balloons are fragile and if you’re not careful they burst?

It reminds me of the ongoing debate about fairy tales. Should we really be reading kids grim (quite literally in the case of the worst culprits Grimm) stories, like The Little Fir Tree who finds himself destined for the bonfire or the ugly Cinderella sisters who end up getting their eyes pecked out for their sins? Will these bad, sad tales scare my child unnecessarily or simply equip him for the real world?

fire-eye-1938.jpg!Blog

Just how much protection is something which Pulitzer prize-winning author, Jared Diamond, grapples with in his fascinating book on traditional societies The World Until Yesterday:

‘a tentative generalization is that individual autonomy, even of children, is a more cherished ideal in hunter-gatherer bands

…in the New Guinea Highlands…parents considered that child autonomy extended to a baby having the right to touch or get close to the fire and to suffer the consequences. Hadza infants are permitted to grasp and suck on sharp knives.

…Among the Martu people of the Western Australian desert, the worst offense is to impose on a child’s will, even if the child is only 3 years old. The Piraha Indians consider children just as human beings, not in need of coddling or special protection’

As Daniel Everett who lived for many years among the Piraha Indians of Brazil tells Jared:

‘This style of parenting has the result of producing very tough and resilient adults who do not believe that anyone owes them anything … Eventually they learn that it is in their best interests to listen to their parents a bit.’

Shocking as it might be, it would seem letting children play with fire has its benefits too. You can read more about what Jared discovers here.

I’m not saying let babies suck on knives but how do I find the right balance between allowing my crawling, clambering 8 month old the freedom to explore his new world while at the same time keeping him safe from harm?

Should I catch him before every fall, cushion every tumble? When does a bit of parental protection become too much?

42 days ago Short URL 3 Comments

culture/head

//

01

Apr

No time to think? It’s a blessing in disguise

Before having a baby, I was plagued by indecision. It didn’t matter if it was silly – sushi or sandwich – or serious – rent or buy – I often found myself stalling for time, powerless and stuck between two possible worlds, irritating others as much as myself in the process.

At its best my indecision was paralysis by analysis – at least it felt like I was weighing options up judiciously. At its worst it felt like nothing more than inept inertia. Even if I decided not to decide, this never felt like a choice in itself. It just left me feeling even more agitated.

the-choice.jpg!Large

Having a baby changed all this. I no longer have the luxury to mull options back and forth. There’s little time to wash never mind analyse two possible solutions infinitely.

Yet decisions have been made and, what’s more, they’ve been made quickly, confidently and, it would seem with hindsight, smartly too. We’ve bought a house, decorated a nursery and organised a baptism. And I’ve no regrets so far or maybe I’ve no time to cultivate them. Does it even matter I wonder? Perhaps even a bad decision can be made good.

So why, despite the fact I’m deprived of work stimuli and sleep, am I suddenly able to make decisions and feel happy about them? I thought my condition was chronic.

It would appear that the fact I’ve now so little time, that even the most mundane household chore is done with a sense of purpose and urgency, has put me back in touch with my gut instinct, my intuition, my emotional response to choices. Childless and with lots of time on my hands, it seems I’d lost the ability to make snap decisions based not on a whim but on a massive amount of intuitive knowledge and experience.

I’m not the first to think the gut is worth listening to. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book on it. It’s what he describes as ‘the kind of thinking that happens in a blink of an eye… those instant conclusions that…are really powerful and really important and, occasionally, really good.’

One example Malcolm uses is a hospital in Chicago where doctors were told to gather less information on patients with chest complaints, to focus only on a few key bits, like blood pressure, while ignoring everything else. Despite their reservations – doctors like the rest of us thought more information equals better results – the hospital is now the best in the US at diagnosing heart attacks.

When it comes to decision-making then sometimes less really is more.

So do you agree? Is too much emphasis put on thinking before we leap?

52 days ago Short URL Comments

head/random

////

27

Mar

This is boring

Now we’re passed the 6-month mark, time with baby is a lot about play, discovery and interaction. There’s no lack of ideas. Every toy I pick up or class I attend claims to educate, entertain and stimulate like no other. The implication is that all this stimulation will make my baby brighter and better equipped for the world.

I’m sure there’s some truth in it but what about a bit of doing nothing now and again?

Well, according to education expert Dr Teresa Belton who’s been looking into boredom and its effects, we shouldn’t be afraid. When it comes to kids her message is clear:

children need to have stand-and-stare time, time imagining and pursuing their own thinking processes or assimilating their experiences through play or just observing the world around them.

As part of her research Teresa interviewed a host of successful people about being bored as a child. The general consensus was that it spurred on creativity.

little-girl-in-a-blue-armchair-1878.jpg!Blog

The artist Grayson Perry sees boredom as a ‘creative state’ in itself. Similarly the author Meera Syal remembers how being bored as a kid made her write: ‘because there is nothing to prove, nothing to lose, nothing else to do.’

I couldn’t agree more!

I’m not saying leave your baby to fend for themselves on a Spartan floor for hours on end but what about encouraging a little more of their own imaginative play? Why not watch to see what these clever little babies can create out of a safe but empty space – the vacuum our modern world, with its mobiles and iPads, grows more and more afraid of. An old Christmas bauble is currently top of the toy charts in our house and the competition from Fisher Price and co is all singing and dancing as you can imagine.

So do you agree? Is boredom the key to creativity? Should we be leaving our babies to do nothing from time to time?

57 days ago Short URL 1 Comment

culture/head

///

20

Mar

Movies love a bad mom but don’t be afraid

Bad mothers scare us. When the hand that feeds you bites back it’s as if the world has gone mad. That’s why cinema can’t seem to get enough of them. There are no sharp intakes of breath when the wayward or wicked father does his worst but let a bad mother grace the screen and it’s a horror show.

Take the recent psychological thriller Stoker in which the recently widowed mother Evelyn Stoker (Nicole Kidman) has a few harsh words to say to her teenage daughter….

‘I’ve often wondered why it is we have children in the first place. And the conclusion I’ve come to is that at some point in our life our things are screwed up beyond repair. So we decide to start again, wipe the slate clean….so we have children…little carbon copies we will turn to and say you will succeed where I have failed. Because we want someone to get it right this time…

But not me.

Personally speaking I can’t wait to watch life tear you apart.’

You see. Scary.

Nicole Kidman as Evelyn Stoker (Fox Searchlight)

Evelyn Stoker goes mental (Fox Searchlight)

Mad mommy Evelyn Stoker is no exception. Think Norman’s faceless controlling mother in Psycho, Lula’s embittered mama in Wild at Heart and the dysfunctional, allegedly incestuous relationship between heiress Barbara Daly Baekeland and her son in Savage Grace. It seems Hollywood can’t get enough of the unhinged mother.

Check out this gallery for even more….

So what makes these mothers so bad? Envy? Vanity? Control? Well, yes, all of these perhaps. But it’s also love. Or too much love. It’s what happens when mothering turns to smothering. Perhaps that’s why they scare us so much. We’re closer to them than we think.

So far I’m hoping I’ve been a good enough mother to our son. But if I’m honest there’s a bit of the bad mother in me too. The trick is not to be afraid of her, to face up to her and what she needs.

So do you agree? Is there a bit of the bad mother in you? Do you think Hollywood gives moms a bad name?

64 days ago Short URL 3 Comments

culture

//

08

Mar

Love, egos and Look Who’s Talking

Look Who's Talking

If you were around in the 80s there’s a good chance you’ll have seen Look Who’s Talking (single mom has a baby with a voiceover) and Pretty Woman (Hollywood prostitute hooks rich guy).

I’m sure you’re all familiar with the story of Pretty Woman aka Cinderella but what about Look Who’s Talking? Gimmicky movie, you’re probably thinking. Fun – if you’re twelve.

Well, all I can say is watch it again. It’s gas! Check out the opening scene between Albert, the wealthy married man in the movie, and his accountant Millie who is also his bit on the side and already pregnant with a fully fluent foetus:

Albert – Every time I say the word divorce, my wife loses five pounds. I’m sorry she’s bulimic.

Millie – I can’t wait for you forever.

Albert – It’s going to work out soon. The doctor prescribed new pills and she’s starting ballet classes.

Millie – It’ll be like the playwriting

Albert – She knows this can’t make her fat. She said writing made her ass spread.

As you might guess, Albert’s not up to much and so we follow new mother Millie as she gives the dating scene a go in search of the perfect daddy.

Pretty Woman came out about 6 months later and watching Look Who’s Talking got me comparing the two.

Why? Well both movies seem to me to be about falling in love and egos – but with one key difference.

In Pretty Woman, egos remain intact. The prostitute’s fantasy of being rescued by a white knight plays out. The final scene is just an exercise in ego stroking.

This isn’t what happens in Look Who’s Talking. Albert, our egocentric married man, doesn’t get Millie even though he does eventually leave his wife. Just like Edward, the rich, ruthless lawyer in Pretty Woman, Albert’s a narcissist, or going through a selfish phase as he puts it. But initially so is the money-oriented (and let’s face it, when pregnant, who isn’t?) Millie.

But – and this is the crucial difference – unlike Edward and the prostitute in Pretty Woman, Millie learns to put her ego to one side and listen to her heart.

If you truly follow love there are no fairy tale endings. Falling in love is about trusting in the unknown and giving up the security, say for example, money and power bring. Yet it’s this certainty that the ego craves and hates to surrender.

My 20s were all about boosting and toning my ego. I’m not knocking it but that’s the great thing about falling in love and having a baby. Time is spent on other things….

76 days ago Short URL Comments

head/heart/random

/////

06

Mar

Hello baby, goodbye books

http://advancedstyle.blogspot.co.uk

Another beautiful image from Ari Seth Cohen’s Advanced Style blog

For the first 6 months after giving birth I read nothing. In my naivety I thought breastfeeding might offer the chance to dip into a book now and again but I was so bleary-eyed all I did was buy stuff online and look at photos of flabby celebs on the Daily Mail.

I wasn’t dreaming much either which gave a whole new meaning to the term ‘get real’. My life had become so real there was almost none of the imaginative stuff left.

Thank god for pretty blogs with lots of pictures:

Old Love

Advanced Style

I’m Revolting

And one for when I feel like saying (again) those were the days…

Awesome People Reading

78 days ago Short URL Comments

random/style

//

28

Feb

Is TV bad for babies?

Image

When it comes to bringing up babies, TV is the bad mummy’s prop. No matter how intelligent or learned the programme is, plonk your baby in front of the telly and it’ll soon transform into a full-blown babysitter. In fact you may as puree up some Chicken Cottage for the tiny tot and light up.

But, I ask myself, as I make yet another slippery dash from the shower to the living room to check baby (who has gone eerily quiet) isn’t dicing with death on the balcony after learning to walk before he can crawl, is a bit of telly really all that bad?

Now baby is 6 months old, he seems curious and alert enough to try a little. Some programmes do nothing for him. Others get him very excited indeed. His favourite is Waybuloo which follows a troupe of lyrical doe-eyed Teletubby-like creatures as they play and learn. Scheduled at 6am when most babies rise and shine, it’s full of tinkling sounds, twinkling lights and gentle movement.

Through the crack in the door, I watch him watch it. His excitement and enjoyment is palpable. His eyes dart from side to side. He jumps and smiles and kicks his legs.

Surely this has to be as stimulating as lying on his play mat tugging at the same bunch of dangling toys?

Well, not so fast! While recent studies show telly has little positive or negative impact on cognitive development when compared with other factors like the mum’s education and income, the jury’s still out. It depends on which study you happen to look at.

In the US there’s been at least 50 studies since 1999 looking into the effect of telly on babies under 2 years of age. Their conclusion? Telly for babies is certainly not beneficial and probably bad:

‘children don’t really understand what’s happening on a screen until they’re about 2 years old. Once they do, media can be good for them, but until then television is essentially a mesmerizing, glowing box.’

But as screens become more ubiquitous, isn’t it time we stopped demonising telly and began appreciating this cheap and convenient medium as just one of the many ways we can educate, entertain and stimulate our babies?

And to be honest, as the living room turns into a laundrette and yet another nappy demands attention sometimes, for mum and baby alike, a change is as good as a rest.

84 days ago Short URL Comments

culture/head

///

Blog at WordPress.com.
Theme: Esquire by Matthew Buchanan.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 32 other followers