On Living With Pain

Pain is a tricky thing to talk about.  It is subjective - one person's 8 on the pain scale may be another person's 5.  Regardless of this, pain is something we should all take a little more seriously in terms of how we see our own health, and that of others.

Recently I got some gastro bug thing - which is fairly regular occurrence now I'm a parent of small humans.  It was bad enough that I felt super wiped out and had to take time off work.  But I thought it was just a regular tummy bug - I was glad it was just 'poos' and not 'poos and spews'.  A few days later, Murray caught my bug.  He also had to take time off work, but what was different for him was the pain.  He described it as the worst abdominal pain he'd ever experienced - like vices gripping specific areas of his stomach.  Because his pain differed so much from what I'd experienced I was concerned.  Maybe he didn't have what I had?  Maybe he had appendicitis?

       Me in Auckland hospital
for my second ectopic pregnancy

When we quickly realised this was not the case, we postulated theories as to why his pain was worse.  The most logical one we could come up with was that because I have regularly encountered abdominal pain (IBS, ectopic pregnancies, ovarian cysts, prolapse) my body may have acclimitised to pain - maybe his 9 on the pain scale is a 5 for me.

Current scientific research tells us that actually the opposite of this is true.  People who suffer from chronic pain conditions can become more sensitive to pain as the nervous system's function is altered by overuse.  This led me to wonder if, given my health history, my nervous system experiences pain as it's supposed to.  Has something that was once a 5 on my pain scale crept up to a 7?  And if it's supposed to be a 5 and not a 7, does that mean I'm worried over nothing?

A terrifying diagram of BV                   

I am pretty sure I'm not the only person to question whether the pain I experience is 'real'.  And I think the main reason I question this is not because of the newly learned information above, but because the medical profession rarely seems to take my ongoing pain seriously.   To give a recent example, since giving birth to Etta (nearly 5 years ago), sexual intercourse has been painful.  Initially, it was excruciating - penetrative sex was not really possible for the first six months post labour.  When I finally got brave enough to tell my GP he told me that bacterial vaginosis was the obvious cause of my pain.  Unsurprisingly*, his treatment plan for BV was only mildly helpful. But because he had physically examined me and found nothing obviously wrong previously, and because his manner made me doubt my pain was 'real', I was anxious about bringing it up again.

Since then, when asked about whether I needed birth control I have routinely said that because I am exhausted and it is painful, I don't have sex enough to justify using it.  On zero occasions has that elicited a worded response, or advice, from a single GP**.

My mother has suffered from debilitating abdominal pain for my entire living memory.  She had a full hysterectomy when she was younger than I am now in an effort to alleviate her pain, which later caused further complications.  When I told her I was writing this and asked for her input she said '..my abdominal pain*** is generally always ignored, not mentioned at all.  I have to bring it up and no-one has ever questioned me about it and my GP does not factor it in as a reason for me not being able to work but is happy to issue me prescriptions for pain relief every time I go.'

From the countless first-hand anecdotes, blog posts, articles and statistics I've read, our experiences are not unusual.  And as a common experience this does every person suffering from undiagnosed chronic pain a disservice.  Because aside from the obvious social outcomes**** of living with chronic pain, the physiological outcomes of chronic pain are massively under-rated.

Chronic pain affects almost every endocrine system in the body.  This can lead to changes in insulin glucocorticoid states.  What this means in regular speak is that ongoing pain changes how we metabolise lipids which affects the system that sends chemical messages through our bodies (via hormones).  This can lead to further health conditions including mental illness, muscle weakness, osteoporosis, diabetes and changes to metabolism - weight gain or loss.  Not only this, but recent studies have shown that chronic pain can lead to indolent hypertension and tachycardia, which in turn can lead to heart attacks and strokes. 

So living with chronic pain can (and does) literally kill people.

And, of course, pain is the body's way of telling us when something is wrong.  When you cut yourself chopping veges, you (usually) feel pain.  When you fall over trampolining and sprain your ankle, pain is one of the things that indicates the severity of your injury.  When you have appendicitis, sharp pain when pressure on the appendix is released indicates to medical professionals what their likely diagnosis is.

When we, or medical professionals, ignore that pain we can be missing the body's most obvious signal that something is wrong.  In most cases, pain is indicating a condition that is treatable, or at least, manageable.  In some cases, chronic pain is indicative of life threatening illnesses, like cancer.  In these cases, a late diagnosis could turn a treatable illness into a terminal prognosis.  When medical professionals ignore ongoing chronic pain they are ignoring the well-being of their patients.  Which seems pretty counter-intuitive to me.

*             *            *             *             *             *            *             *

So why isn't pain taken more seriously?

I'm going to postulate some theories here.  The first theory is backed my quite a bit of research and is something I've written about before.  Most of the examples I have of medical professionals ignoring pain are ignoring womens pain.  Studies have shown that women's pain is taken less seriously than their male counterparts.  Why is this?

Sexism.  I don't think I need to say much more than that.  Those old stereotypes that men are strong and are not allowed to show weakness affect how they are treated when they do.  If a man actually goes to the Dr it may be assumed he must be probably very ill, if not dying.  Conversely, the stereotype of women being hysterical, emotional and oversensitive could lead professionals to downgrade their first hand accounts of what his happening to their bodies.  Until we can push these old fashioned notions out the back door, I doubt we're going to see much positive movement forward in terms of better support of and higher diagnostic rates of womens issues.

       'Easy for you to explain'...

My other theory - based on personal experience alone - is that Drs just do not have time to talk to their patients to diagnose anything other than simple ailments.  I think this is why many people turn to more holistic treatments for help.  At a GP's office, a standard appointment slot is 15 minutes.  At an osteopath, homeopath or acupuncturist the usual amount of time for initial consult is an hour.  I think this is why, in spite of copious trips to the Dr complaining of chronic exhaustion at age 20, it was a homeopath rather than a Dr that thought to test for Epstein Barr virus.  So while the GP signed off on the bloods (because obviously homeopaths can't), I would never have gotten a fairly simple medical diagnosis if it were not for the homeopath asking a bunch of questions no Drs had bothered asking previously.

Basically, I think women's health issues often fit into the 'too hard' basket.  And because they do not have time and work in what is often a high stress environment, GP's will often just prescribe the pill and paracetamol and send us home.  For many gynecological conditions symptoms are inconsistent and not always presenting at the time of the consult*****.  But in these instances, women with recurring pain should be referred on for scans, and if still unresolved to gynecologists or gastroenterologist or urologists until a solution can be reached.  I wonder if the reason this doesn't happen is because the public health system is so overloaded Drs are discouraged from making referrals?  I can't think of many other logical reasons why this would happen.

And my final theory is that women don't always tell their Drs all of their symptoms.  This sounds stupid, but it can be hard to talk about pain - especially in areas we are not exactly encouraged to talk about.  Many of us are raised by stoic or prudish or shy parents.  We are also raised within a society that can't even talk about vulva's accurately.  This, combined with GP's not always asking as many questions as they should, is not a great equation for women's health.  I mean, if you've met me, you'll know I'm fairly forward, relatively educated and big on women's rights.  I still freeze when confronted by most medical professionals because I immediately feel I am somehow less than - unimportant.

And this patronising Dr doesn't make it any easier to want to talk

about vaginal discharge

It feels to me, as though you need to have an education on how the health system works to get any currency out of our current public health system.  Either that, or have private medical insurance and an education in health yourself.  This seems massively unjust.  And while I think a large part of the problem is financial, an equal part is social.  We need to know our rights.  We need to understand our bodies.  We need to feel valued enough to give our pain a voice.

* Just want to say I have had BV countless times and I knew it was not the cause of such extreme pain, but he was the Dr, so I humored him.

** I did get a sombre knowing nod from a female GP once, but no further engagement on the topic.

*** Mum has suffered sharp pain in the same specific place in her abdomen since her final ectopic pregnancy (she had three).  It is very likely given her medical history, that this pain is due to scar tissue forming in that area that has hardened.  Regardless, it has never (her pain) been validated by medical professionals.  She has still not been referred to the the pain clinic, when both of her brothers [pre Auntie Shaz's transition] who also have chronic pain conditions, were sent not long after diagnosis.

**** I think these should be fairly apparent, but just in case they aren't some of these may include anxiety, depression, addiction issues, insomnia, inability to participate in regular social activities, inability to go to work, inability to exercise, inability to participate in a normal family life, inability to exercise proper self care plus a tonne of other things.  Just think about the level of function you have when you are in pain, then try and imagine how that looks when you suffer that much all the time.

***** They tell us to try and come in when pain is presenting, but with long wait times and Drs with busy schedules, this is not always feasible.  And not everyone can just drop everything they're doing to drive to the Drs and wait for an indeterminate amount of time to maybe get some help.  And for those of us who have been disappointed by Drs countless times, it is hard to believe that, even if we do get there on time, it will make any difference in terms of getting an answer.

On sexism and the election

I cried when she stood down.  I was heartbroken.

Other people have written about this far eloquently than I, with better researched arguments and more politico savvy.  But someone said something to me the other day which made me feel like I had more to add.  So I may just be reiterating things you already know, and things you've read about before.  But regardless, I need to say it.

Never in my lifetime has NZd's political sexism been as transparent as it is in the lead up to this election.

Well, maybe it has.  Maybe it's just the first time we've had strong female leaders at the helm for a while.  Regardless of why, it is a phenomenon which makes me feel physically ill.

In the lead up to this election we have seen three party leaders use tax payers money in a fraudulent manner.  For one of whom, the fraud was historical and self-admitted.  For the other two the fraud happened whilst they were in parliament, and was uncovered by researchers or the media.  Two of these party leaders are still leaders running in this election.  Neither of these leaders outed themselves about the fraud and one of these leaders is the current Prime Minister of New Zealand.

The one who is no longer a leader has also been strongly nominated as the 2017 New Zealander of the Year.  And whilst stepping down as leader was entirely Metiria's choice - it was understandable given the immense pressure she and her family were under following her admission.  Whilst the media pursued the other leaders too, the ferocity with which they came after Metiria was jaw dropping with some calling for her resignation.  While both Bill English and Winston Peters paid back the money they had appropriated whilst in government, their public admonishments were not nearly as strong as that received by Turei even though their fraud was committed whilst they were in government and earning a decent income.

Why is this?

I postulate there are three parts to it.  The first part is that New Zealanders love to hate beneficiaries.  This is bolstered by the current governments constant painting of them as criminal fraudsters living it up large on the tax payer dollar.  It is easy to kick those that are already down, so even though benefit fraud only accounts for a small proportion of other types of fraud in NZ (like tax avoidance) beneficiaries are relentlessly hounded by the MSD and the media.*  So even though Turei's fraud was historical and circumstantial she was 'one of them' and needed to be taken down.

The second part to this is that like many women do, Metiria chose to put her family before her work.  Whilst the majority of her party were in support of her staying and staying would have been more powerful in terms of the argument she was trying to make, she put the needs of her family (namely her elderly mother) first.  It is difficult for me to see either Bill English or Winston Peters feeling the imperative to make the same choice.  And truthfully, I think it's because they're pākehā (or pākehā valued) men.  Whilst both are parents, and probably also someones kids, they don't have the same direct responsibilities as Metiria as a solo parent or as a Māori woman.

I don't know the stats.  My evidence is mostly anecdotal (but there are papers on it so it's obviously a thing) and based on my understanding of Te Ao Māori and experiences.  But overwhelmingly, I have seen women of colour - especially Māori and Pasifika women - to have different responsibilities than pākehā women.  They are often directly responsible for the care of other family members - siblings, parents, Grandchildren, cousins, nephews and nieces.  And if not directly responsible, they often still have a level of responsibility for care within the whanau - driving elderly relatives to hospital appointments, or financially supporting extended family members. 

These are not responsibilities easily understood by pākehā.

I think the third factor in Metiria's treatment is that she is not just a woman, but a Māori woman.  Whilst pākehā do also care for extended family directly or financially (this is the case within my own family), it is the exception rather than the rule.  Whanaungatanga is an important part of te ao Māori - so caregiving is a cultural expectation.  Metiria has lived with responsibilities misaligned with pākehā values and a strongly pākehā government.  This is part of who she is.  And this has been interpreted negatively because of her admission of benefit fraud, which was (again) done to aid her family.

I do not think she intentionally martyred herself for her people.  There were a lot of factors in her downfall, but from my perspective the biggest factor by far is that her experience as a woman, a caregiver and a mother, is not one often pitched from parliament.  Hearing a woman's experience - in particular a struggling Māori woman's perspective, is confusing.  Because we do not hear it often enough.  Because women's experiences are largely not valued by our government.

So that's half of it.

Jacinda Ardern: A New Hope? 

Now lets talk about Jacinda.

I don't even know where to start.  Do I start with the fact that her clothing choices are questioned in a way male political leaders aren't?  Or the fact that someone decided that her choices regarding procreation were a political issue?  Or the fact that  a prominent business man thought it acceptable to describe her as a 'pretty little thing'?  These are just the superficial issues.

The things regarding Jacinda that have irked me the most have been less obvious, and are things that as a woman she probably has dealt with her entire life.  The first of which is mansplaining.

This is probably just a personal bugbear.  Men do it to me all the time - including my partner** and I fucking hate it.  This makes me feel that my intelligence, experience and personhood has been written off in an instant purely because of my gender.  And it sucks!  I'm an educated, intelligent woman who reads extensively and has worked broadly.  And watching a woman of Jacinda's quick wit, education and experience have basic statistics and political concepts mansplained to her debate after debate is sickening.

If she were Colin Craig, she would have probably sued someone over it.

Watching Bill English and Mike Hosking talk over the top of her has been hard.  When I voiced this to Murray during the first debate he said 'English is just better at talking through them'.  I thought about it, and truthfully he was right.  He is better.  And I wondered why she wasn't being more forceful in the debate.  But it made me wonder what would happen if Jacinda applied the same approach as English: would we see her as better at getting her point across and leading an argument?  Or would she be perceived as a mouthy bitch?  Given the events that have happened in the lead up to this election, after serious thought I think her conservative approach is sensible.

This is the thing about women in politics - it is impossible for them not to be aware of their gender in every little thing they do.  Because they are judged to a different set of standards than your male counterparts.

Watching the debates I have to admit, I perceived Jacinda to be weak.  I appreciated that she has a moral high ground she didn't want to tread on as other politicians do regularly, but I didn't think she was strong enough.  Every time she waited politely for Bill to finish, every time she used the words 'please' and 'thankyou' and acknowledged her fellow MPs for the valuable work they were doing, I cringed internally.  I saw this as a consequence of her having lived as a woman, and having to kowtow to men on a regular basis.

But after serious thought I've realised this is not the case.  Jacinda is just smart.  She understands public perception.  She's just seen another woman get crucified for her womanhood.  Jacinda is gaming it.

Which brings me to why I felt the need to write this.

I was talking to a colleague about the election, and who we were planning on voting for.  And she said to me 'I'm voting Labour, because then maybe we'll have a woman PM.'  She went on to tell me that she knew this was probably sexist, but after what happened to Metiria she was just tired of seeing women getting beaten down.  I was appreciative of her honesty, but must admit I was shocked.

But I thought about it, like really thought about what she said and I actually totally agree.  I am sick of the boys club.

 I miss Aunty Helen...                           

I am saddened that we had nine years of a wonderful female Prime Minister (who kept our books in surplus incidentally), but we are still back to debating what colour Jacinda will wear to a debate.  We should be better by now.  I mean, there's been a smear campaign that Jacinda supports 'full term abortion' - and people have believed it***.  Seriously.  It's all a bit ridiculous.

So fuck it.  I'm going to say it.  Let's vote for a female PM.  Or if not, lets vote for parties that at least support us**** as women.  We should be waaaay past the 'you need to vote, women fought hard for your right, blah blah blah' rhetoric.  We need to vote.  And we need to vote for people who actually represent our rights as women.

Because this boys club does not have our best interests at hard.  And it has got to go.

Basic breakdown- best party for broadly addressing women's rights is The Green Party, 
and the Maori Party also have some great ideas.  

The worst parties are Act and NZ First.

* Just FYI - I have been audited for benefit fraud before.  I have very seldom received any money from the MSD - just at two periods of time in my life - both for under a year - and both due to breaks in my mental health affecting my ability to work.  Whilst I hadn't committed any fraud to my knowledge, I was terrified that I may have done so accidentally.  None of this is particularly helpful for someone who is unable to work due to suffering from chronic anxiety.

** Sorry Murray, but it's true.  There will definitely be an element of me misconceiving some things as 'mansplaining' that are regular explaining - but when you've been mansplained to your entire life it is difficult not to feel touchy when people get patronising on your arse - especially about things like mechanics of a board game that I statistically win as much as you (and you know the stats).  I don't think you're trying to be an arse, and I love you.

*** Man do I live in a bubble!  I had no idea this was going on until someone posted about it as a comment on my cousin's Facebook page.  I didn't even know this was happening, let alone that someone would believe it.  It's totally just copying the Religious Right's treatment of Hillary during the lead up to the US election.  And people still believe it.  What is happening is that Labour is in support of decriminalising abortion - not that it's ok to terminate pregnancies after 37 weeks...  This is my next blog topic right here.  Truly.  I'm pissed right now.

**** You're not an 'us' you're a dude?  Woman's rights are still in your best interests.  Just read/watch this or one of many other great articles or videos on it if you haven't been schooled on it already.

On Remaining Civilised

Tomorrow it'll be two years since Murray and I had our Civil Union.  And since I was such a slacker last year and forgot to write about our first anniversary, I thought I'd better write about where things are at two years on.

The last two years have been eventful, but have also flown by.  We bought our first home, we dealt with some health issues, and now we're not far away from having our first kid.  All of these things sound very grown up which feels weird (me?  A grown up?) but whilst doing all these things we're still living our lives pretty much as we always have: I'm still reading, writing and waxing political, Murray's still gaming and we're both still busy with work, family and friends. 

It might sound like an odd thing to say, but I'm so grateful that not much has changed.  The only major change for me is that I feel more secure in our relationship, which allows me the freedom to focus on other aspects of my life.  I see being in this Union as being more like being part of a 'life team' (puke-worthy I know, sorry).  We each bring different skills and qualities to our team, and we need to have faith in each other for this team to be a success. 

As quite independent people, we tend to do our own thing much of the time, and that works for us.  What's important is that we have the same big picture goals and each contribute to achieving these.  Also important is to remember that we're human, and humans in enclosed spaces will likely butt heads time to time.  Recognising the difference between head-butting due to a bad day versus being due to an actual issue is an important skill to master.  Once you can do that, working out how to minimise the fallout constructively is the next step to a harmonious 'Unionised' existence.  While we're not perfect at this, we do our best, and that's probably the most important thing of all.

The fact that two years has gone by so fast speaks for the fact that despite facing big grown up things together, it mostly hasn't felt like hard slog.  I'm more of a realist than a romantic, and think that still enjoying someone's company after two years of being 'Civilised', four years of living together and five years of being in a relationship, is more a testament of our love than any well meant poem or sparkly bling.  For our anniversary we'll be celebrating with a nice dinner out where we know the food is great, the drink menu superb, and we won't catch bed bugs (this happened on our first anniversary.  Probably good I didn't write about it.)

And while not much has changed for us one thing that looks like it will change soon is the legality of gay marriage in New Zealand.  And because this may be changing, we are often asked if we will convert our Civil Union to a Marriage.  While I'm so glad that this change is on the cards, after a very brief discussion on the topic, we decided that we will not be converting ('Do you want to convert to a Marriage?'... 'No'... 'Neither') .

The two main reasons we chose to have a union of some kind were:
a) to solidify the bond that we already recognised as a couple

b) to celebrate this bond with the people we care about

Now that we have done that, there is no reason to rehash things.  The only practical reason to change from a Civil Union to a Marriage would be in order for us to adopt.  As far as I'm concerned the adoption laws in New Zealand still need updating, regardless of whether gay marriage is legalised or not, so it is still important to make people aware of this.  Being in a Civil Union allows us to do this.

In keeping our Civil Union we are recognising that inequality still exists.  I find it illogical that de facto couples, many of whom have been in relationships that far outstrip those of their 'Married' counterparts, cannot legally adopt as a couple.  To me, saying that those in Civil Unions and de facto relationships do not have the right to adopt is similar to religious persecution.  Why should we discriminate against people who, for whatever reason, choose not to marry?  And more importantly, given societal changes, why haven't we revisited our adoption laws since the 1950's?

I understand that this is partly due to the fact that we only have a very small amount of adoptions in New Zealand every year.  However, I do not feel this is a good enough reason to allow discrimination.  Like legalising gay marriage, this is a human rights issue.
 

If gay marriage comes in and makes Civil Unions obsolete, so be it (I think this is highly unlikely - there are many reasons to choose a Civil Union).  I will be so proud to live in a country where gay people can get married (fingers crossed for Wednesday), but it's important to remember where we came from, and that so many people worked hard toward making this change possible.  I'm looking forward to being that crazy old person who says 'We had a Civil Union because back in my day kids, gay people couldn't get married' and seeing disbelieving wide eyed faces staring back at me. 

And Murray will be there looking at me too, rolling his eyes and biting his tongue or mimicking me poorly behind my back.  Happy anniversary Murray.  Thank you for loving me in spite of my political rantiness x x

On Choosing Gender Neutral Baby Things

Yeah, yeah, nah.

I have had a range of reactions from people when I've said 'yes, we're having a girl, but please don't buy us pink clothes.'  They range from  'Sweet!' to 'Just dress her up when the grandparents come over', to 'That's never going to work'.  So I thought I'd blog about why I'm making this choice.  This way I can direct any confused friends or relatives here, or print it out for any older relatives who don't use the internet.  I don't expect people to support us in this choice without understanding why we're making it.

I am definitely the driver in this decision, but Murray agrees.  And we aren't just doing this because she's a girl and cos 'feminism' - we decided before we found out the gender of our child (and we only found this out because I am impatient) that this would be part of how we choose to parent.

In having a quick look to check if my memory serves me right, I found this article on the history of pink and blue baby clothes.  Until the mid 19th century babies were dressed pretty much the same, and through the early 20th century the typical colours were actually pink  for boys and blue  for girls.  This didn't morph into the current gender/colour norms until the 1940's.  And there was a revival of non-gendered clothing for babies in the 1970's (cos feminism).  So I do find it a little odd that people would care that I don't want to dress my likely-girl in pink.  This concept ain't nothing new.

The main problem I have with gendered clothing and toys is that it encourages us to use gendered language around little people: 'Isn't she so pretty?' 'Isn't he so big and strong?  Are you going to be a truck driver like daddy?'.  And using language like this around little people tells them what we expect from them.  Language like this alongside saying 'girls (and boys) can do anything' is just confusing.  It's like saying 'You can do anything, but we'd prefer it if you do X'.  I don't want to confuse my kids.  I want them to be able to choose to do whatever without ever feeling worried or guilty about their choice.

Secondly, I don't understand dressing little girls in restrictive clothing when they are just learning to move around.  Dresses simply make moving harder to do - I know, I'm a dress wearer.  Babies and small children are just learning how to get about - which is why they toddle like drunks.  If I were planning on getting drunk and going out, I would not wear impractical clothing (heels, tight dresses).  Because I know from experience the likelihood of falling over and humiliating myself is high.  So why would I dress my small, tottering child this way?  And lace and decoration only aid in making movement awkward or uncomfortable.

Which brings me to a another point: lace and bows aren't necessary.  They are just there to make something 'pretty'.  Do we dress our little boys in lace and bows?  And if not, why not?  I'd say the reason is because we care more about making our little girls 'pretty' than our little boys.  Because we want other qualities than 'pretty' from our little boys.  I expect my little girl than to be more than just 'pretty' also.  Therefore I will try not to dress her in ways that will elicit this response from myself or others (I know this will be hard - I shop, I buy, I look at cute things, I'm human).  I will do my best not to objectify my child.*

Little people are like sponges - they absorb what is going on around them.  I found it fascinating when I learnt that at 21 weeks pregnant your baby can actually taste what Mum is eating through the amniotic fluid.  In utero, we are already influencing our babies future taste in food (need to cut out this lolly habit).  Our choices have a huge impact on the understanding and future choices of our kids.  And because of how I was raised/society etc, it will be difficult for me  not to use language that gender types.  So I am going to give myself as many tools as possible to aid in this.

I am well aware that I live in a world full of other little people and external influences and marketing that will influence my child.  I have no plans to wrap her in cotton wool, prevent her from watching TV or engaging with others so that she turns out like scary Victoria from this cycle of ANTM (yes, I watch junk TV, I'm not some feminist Nazi).  But until she is big enough to make choices for herself, I will try to keep her home environment as neutral as possible (ANTM in secret).  There are plenty of awesome, non gendered toys that most of us played with growing up: blocks, teddy bears, puzzles, books, wagons and trikes, educational games (square shape goes in the square hole) et al.  Toys are about modelling behaviors and learning new skills through play.  If we give her a doll, it'll come with a truck - 'dressing' things is no more important than 'driving' things.

This is particularly important to me as Murray and I fill fairly stereotypically 'gendered' roles at home.  I am the person who usually cooks (not at the moment due to malaise ie: pregnancy), and keeps the house respectable.  Murray is the person who works hard and earns money to support our family.  This is a choice we made independent of gender typing.  Murray earns, and has potential to earn more money than me, so it is logical he does this.  I care more about home maintenance, and a fair chunk of my life revolves around food - so it is logical I look after these things.  There are many other things we do that are less gender 'typical', but this is the face of it.  We will need to discuss and be open about the fact that this is a choice we've made, not what is necessarily 'normal' or 'proper'.  And we can reinforce this notion of 'choice' through gender typing as little as possible.

Although I'm sure most people I know aren't going to be thinking this, I need to mention it anyway: gender and sexuality are completely separate things.  There is no evidence to suggest that raising your children in a non-gendered environment makes them 'gay'.  I am not trying to make our child 'gay'.

And because we recognise 'choice' we also recognise that fairly early on in the piece, this kid is likely going to want gender typical things.  She will probably want to wear pink like 'Dora'.  And that will be fine (Dora is annoying, but not a bad role model for a two year old).  But if she wants to wear overalls and play in the sandpit, that will be fine too.  Like all parents-to-be, we want to do our best for our child-to-be.  And for me, modelling equality is as much a part of that as trying to cut down on the sugar so this kid isn't a sugar junkie like me.

For more info on gender neutral parenting, have a look here (I found this interesting)

* I know that most parents aren't intentionally objectifying their children, and I'm not trying to be judgy, just being blunt.

Why I chose to have a Civil Union

I wrote this just before our Civil Union last year to make things easier for people to understand why we made this choice.  Given Mr Key's recent support of Obama's statement around gay marriage, I thought it was about time I shared it via my blog:

First of all, it’s a choice.  Nowadays in New Zealand when you look at the Department of Internal Affairs website it says: Births, Deaths, Marriages, Civil Unions.  It is an option.  Now if you want a legally binding contract with the one you love you can choose a Marriage or a Civil Union.  It’s like when you’re on a plane and you can have beef or chicken.  You choose the one you like.  If you choose the chicken it’s not usually because you’re anti beef.  It’s usually because you prefer chicken.  My choice is not an ‘anti marriage’ choice.  It is just a choice for my preferred option.

Why did I choose Civil Union over marriage?  The main reason is to do with being raised to treat everyone as equals regardless of gender, ideology, ethnicity or sexuality.  In choosing Civil Union I am respecting the values instilled in me by my parents, and my grandparents.  This is no different than those who choose to get married in a specific faith system.  I choose Civil Union as it is most reflective of how I was raised to treat others.

Civil Union is a non-discriminatory union which all New Zealanders can have.  I have always struggled to understand why people treat others differently based on their sexuality, or preferred gender identity.  Why do people care?  Why is it anyone’s business at all?  When Murray and I were talking about it yesterday he quoted Trainspotting : ‘1,000 years from now there will be no guys and no girls, just people’. (the actual quote says ’wankers’, but you get the gist).  In this, Murray feels as strongly as I do.  We don’t want to be treated any different than our gay/bi/transgender friends just because our relationship is ‘straight’.  In choosing to have a Civil Union we are choosing a union which every New Zealander can have.  We are setting the tone for the value system we will instil in our potential children.  I am proud to make that choice.

When the Civil Union policy was put in place by Labour I was incredibly proud to be a New Zealander.  My feelings on this are probably similar to how many New Zealanders felt about David Lange’s No Nukes stance and speeches in 1985.  We are not the first to have a policy like Civil Union, but it doesn’t make it any less special or important to us as a country.  It is a policy of equality whilst respecting tradition.  It was created in addition to Marriage whilst preserving Marriage in its original state.  Helen Clark said if she’d had the option, she would have chosen to have a Civil Union.  I am happy to walk in Helen’s footprints.

I am not anti marriage.  I just don’t feel a Marriage can do for me what a Civil Union can.  I have no issue with my friends and families choice to get married because it is their choice.  There is no reason for us to have a Marriage to satisfy family traditions as neither of our families subscribe to any particular religion.  If people take offense to our not choosing marriage, they should really examine their own value systems.

It is a choice which reflects our views on our relationship; balance, equality and respect for our differences.  It is a choice that I will proudly live with for the rest of my life.  I am excited about the fact that I have a choice, and that I am able to start creating our own traditions.

Hauhanga a rongo, Arohanui mai x

*             *             *             *             *             *             *             *

Over time, we've learnt that while Civil Unions are more inclusive than Marriages, those in them have less rights than those in Marriages.  Because we chose a Civil Union over Marriage, we are not legally able to adopt as a couple in NZ.  While changes to these antiquated adoption laws are being looked at by MP's from many political parties, our PM has said that this is not a priority for this government.

This issue is increasingly pertinent to us following my second ectopic earlier this year, and the removal of one of my fallopian tubes.  While we have been given the go ahead to try to fall pregnant again, the chances of another ectopic are high.  While we are eligible for one free series of IVF treatment, the waiting list for this treatment is long, and we cannot afford the $10,000 - $15,000 it will cost to go private.  If we have further complications, adoption would be our preferred option, but because of our choice of Civil Union instead of Marriage, this option is not available to us.

This is systemic discrimination.  Even if the number of children up for adoption in NZ is low, in stating that this 'is not a priority' the government is saying that equal treatment is not a priority.  Many people I've spoken to have thought I was joking when I told them this was current law - it is no joke.  We've had other people say we could swap to a Marriage purely for the sake of adopting.  If we change our marital status purely to work within a framework built around inequality, than we are saying this framework is ok.

It is not ok.  In standing by our choice, we provide a voice against systemic inequality.  Why should we, or gay, or de-facto couples have to find loopholes in law in order to receive the same rights as married couples?  Instead, we need to focus on creating an environment that doesn't tolerate this type of discrimination.  Why should we be punished for making a choice based on our beliefs of love, acceptance and equality?

I am extremely proud of our choice.  I hope that one day we can have children, and that those children will grow up in a world different than it is now.  And I am certain that if more people stand by what is right, rather than what is easy, this new world will be possible.