Proud Brit or Biffer?

One thing I'm getting sick of is my Facebook friends sharing memes or posts stating they're "British and proud" or "English and proud". It's not because I don't think that's something to be proud of, nor because I think it's something that shouldn't be stated publicly. This is a wonderful little country and there's a lot we can and should be proud of, which I will come onto later. The problem I have is that the memes they share come from pages which also spout hatred towards anyone they deem to be not British enough - usually Muslims, but frequently anyone 'foreign' or, essentially, not white. It is somewhat ironic that most of the people who like and comment on these pages describe themselves as such patriots when they can barely communicate in the language of the country they claim to love so much. Sometimes this ineptitude is shared by those in charge of the page.

But I digress. Here are some things that Britain is famous for, that we should all be proud of:

1. The English Language. It's wonderful. It's the official language of over sixty countries worldwide and it's the third most common language in the world after Mandarin and Spanish. English originated in in the fifth century, brought here by Anglo-Saxon settlers (before they arrived, we spoke Latin and Celtic languages). English is classed as a Germanic language and has several features in common with Dutch, German and Swedish, for example. Over the course of its development, English has also taken influence from Old Norse and Norman French. Many of our words come from Greek or Latin, others through our colonisation of other countries. Some 'foreign' English words are:

Bungalow is a Hindi or Bengali word meaning "belonging to Bengal". It was first recorded in the 1600s, when single-storey houses were built for early European settlers in Bengal.

Zombie (if you've read this blog before you know i love these guys) originated in West Africa. It reached our language via the slave trade.

Parka. If you spot a fascist wearing one, remind them it's a Russian word.

Shampoo. Maybe the reason so many racists shave their heads is because they object to using something with a name derived from Hindi?

2. Tea. Not only is the most British of drinks not really British, neither is the word 'tea'. It's Chinese.

3. Fish and Chips. It's probably one of the most well-known dishes in English cuisine. And yes, the meal of deep friend battered fish and chipped potatoes (surely everyone knows the humble spud came to our shores from the Americas?) did originate here, but it was Jewish refugees from Spain and Portugal who first introduced us to deep-fried fish. The first chippy was opened by a Jewish immigrant from Eastern Europe.

4. Saint George. His distinctive flag is waved by racists when they toddle off on one of their marches and by normal people during sporting events and on St. George's Day. England's Patron Saint is believed to have been born in Syria. It's not clear whether he came to England as a refugee, illegal immigrant or an economic migrant but he slayed a dragon for us. A DRAGON.

5. The Pub. We've had pubs in England longer than we've had English - they arrived with the Romans, who built them along the road network so that weary travellers could rest and enjoy a refreshing drink.

So yes, there is much for us to be proud of; our magnificent muddled language, our Chinese drink, our Jewish deep-fried delicacy, our Syrian saint and our ancient Roman alehouses. There seems to be a common fear amongst the pages my friends pull the memes from that this is under threat from people of other cultures and faiths 'invading' Britain. The Romans invaded Britain and gave us proper roads and pubs. We invaded India and brought back polo and pyjamas. Refugees who came here gave us our favourite fish and chips. Our Patron Saint was Syrian. Our culture, our language is what it is because it has borrowed so much from others. It has changed, grown and been enriched. We add new words and phrases to the dictionary when they become widespread. Our fashion, music, cuisine all take influence from other cultures. Sometimes its only temporary, e.g. harem pants, berets or Nehru collars, sometimes more permanent. It's widely believed that Tikka Masala originated in Britian, Tikka being an Indian dish and the Masala sauce added to appease the British taste for meat in gravy. It certainly wasn't created by someone descended from the Celts, however. An Indian or Bangladeshi immigrant adapted the dish to our liking. Or, if you're a bit racist, they forced their culture on us. Those nasty immigrants, making food the way we like it.

I do wonder whether they consider the origins of the meal they sit enjoying down the pub on St. George's Day. I do wonder whether they realise that the vast majority of the foods sold by the 'foreign' supermarkets (e.g. Aldi, Lidl) are made in the UK, in the same factories as the foods sold by the other supermarkets, which they're happy to shop in. On the evidence I've seen, they clearly don't. I shop at Aldi. Every product is labelled in English (sometimes also in other languages because the factories also export these foods abroad, or to antagonise racists I'm not sure which) and most state the country of origin, just like they do in every other supermarket. The onions, potatoes, mushrooms, carrots, kale and cabbage I bought there last week were all grown in Britain and packaged in bright Union Flag covered plastic bags. I can't buy this much British produce at my local market! Aldi has recently been criticised for a labelling error that meant some of its luxury yogurts may have contained hazelnut yogurt instead of the flavour stated on the label. Obviously this is bad because some people are allergic to hazelnuts (I'm allergic to racist nuts myself) but the yogurts in question are made on the same farm that produces the same yogurts, in identical flavours, under another brand that is sold throughout Ireland. The farm is in Ireland. It's called Killowen Farm, and their products have won several awards. The Irish seem to make really great yogurt; Aldi used to have their posh ones made by the same people who currently make the posh ones for Tesco and Lidl.

I'm not really sure what the "English patriots" make of Ireland. Given the number of people who stagger around England's towns and cities on St. Patrick's Day, wrapped in their flag, wearing shamrock deely-boppers, sozzled on stout and Irish whiskey, it would seem there is some affection for it. So why the hatred of Aldi over the yogurt incident? Is it because Aldi originated in Germany? Ironically, so did Nazis. Recently, someone took some of Hitler's statements and Nazi propaganda, replaced the word 'Jew' with 'migrant' and posted them under Daily Mail articles about the refugee crisis. You could also replace it with 'Muslim', if you want to recreate the sort of bollocks that gets posted on the likes of Britian First or the EDL's Facebook pages, although with considerably less eloquence. These disguised Nazi sentiments were upvoted. Approved. Agreed with. If you can bear to trawl this bottom section of the Internet, you'll see "proud patriots" calling for the boycott of Muslim businesses, the sterilisation of migrants, the execution of anyone who does not hold their idea of "British values". Nazis boycotted Jewish businesses, they sterilised the mentally ill, alcoholic, disabled and those of mixed parentage. They segregated them, took away all their rights and then shipped them off to death camps where they were either gassed or tortured and experimented on. What they did was abhorrent. It was inhuman. Yet here and now there are people posting messages of Facbook calling for the same action to be taken towards Mulsims and migrants and thousands of others agree, baying for their blood in illiterate streams of vitriolic bigotry.

But that's not what my friends share. I know that most of them (I wish it was all, and it's only because I believe it's possible to reverse the brainwashing they've undergone that I haven't 'unfriended' them yet) never would, and would find such views just as abhorrent as I do. They share something apparently innocent; a meme supporting animal welfare, or one supporting veterans. Some may even share one that they feel demonstrates the pride they have in this fabulous little country of ours. How many take a look at the other posts shared by the author of the meme before they share it? It seems like none of them do. Perhaps it's because these groups are too clever to call themselves anything as blatant as 'Neo-Nazis of England' or 'We Fucking Hate Immigrants' or 'Ignorant Arseholes Who Believe Everything The Daily Mail Prints Without Question'. Perhaps if it were that obvious, my friends would think twice before clicking 'like' or 'share'. No, these groups call themselves things like 'Our Britain', 'English and Proud', 'Patriots Global Alliance' and, of course, 'Britain First'. It doesn't take more than a few seconds of actually looking at those pages (and they are all genuine Facebook pages) to see they mainly consist of hate-filled, poorly spelled, punctuated and grammatically incorrect idiotic ranting. It's funny how often hate and illiteracy go hand in hand, given these people claim to be patriots, not racists, you would think they would at least learn how to communicate in English properly.

I'm not the only person to have noticed this. Another genuine Facebook page goes by the name of 'Spell Check A Racist'. Its users (often using secondary accounts to avoid clogging their friends' news feeds with racist vitriol) reply to such comments by correcting their mistakes. Sometimes they receive an equally illiterate, insulting response, usually along the lines of "fuk of grammer Nazi", which the dear spell checker will usually respond to by posting "I think you mean 'Fuck off, grammar Nazi', but keep trying :)" I love it. It's absolutely hilarious. Hilarious that the "not-racist-buts" liken people like me to Nazis when they're the ones calling for the slaughter of people solely on the basis of their faith or country of origin.

So, dear friends, if you are one of those people who idly shares things without first considering the source, I hope that from now on you will. Unless you don't mind that people will think you are one of those not racist buttholes. Or you are one of those buttholes. Sometimes it is really difficult to tell! I know that those friends of mine who unwittingly shared things posted by these horrible pages won't be offended by this. When it was pointed out to you, you were mortified, you took the posts down, you apologised. If this has offended you, why? Is it because you feel I'm insulting your intelligence? Every single one of the people who shared Britain First's anti-animal cruelty memes is intelligent. The reason these pages post such things amongst the bile is so that people will unwittingly share their page. You, and thousands of others, we're suckered by it. It's OK. Just be more discerning about where you share stuff from in future. Read the first few posts of a page before you share something. If that meme supporting The Poppy Appeal didn't come from The Royal British Legion or Help For Heroes, don't share it! Search out their pages and share something from there instead.

I know that some of my friends are scared. With the media reporting every act of terrorism, every deplorable act carried out by ISIS, that's sort of understandable. But I always remember what Yoda said: "Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." The people who comment on these pages are angry and hateful, and I don't want to see you end up like them. What are you so afraid of? Are you afraid of the same things they are angry about, the same things they hate?

Are you frightened that immigrants will be a drain on the welfare system? Then you might like to know that immigrants have contributed twenty billion pounds to the British economy over the past ten years, and that they're far less likely to claim benefits or social housing than people born here. Mainly because they simply don't qualify! You have to have permanent residency in the UK to milk the benefits system, so anyone here on a work or student visa, or anyone claiming asylum can't claim a penny. Over 90% of public housing goes to Britons. Those seeking asylum here don't get handed a house and a suitcase full of cash as soon as they arrive, they are photographed, fingerprinted, security checked and issued with ID. They are required to report to an immigration centre on a regular basis. They may be allocated housing, usually of such poor quality that nobody here wants to rent it. They are given roughly half what a claimant for Jobseeker's Allowance receives to live on each week. If their application is unsuccessful, as in up to 75% of cases, they get nothing. Those whose applications fail are detained. Many are held in the same high-security 'removal centres' whilst their applications are processed. Those who fail, who are too scared to return home are locked up idenfinitely, despite not having committed any crime. 

Are you worried that we can't cope with the numbers? OK, so you were wrong about them being leeches, but surely the system can only support so many of them, right? There are roughly 185,000 refugees in Europe, some 3000-5000 in Calais. Last year, Britain granted refugee status (i.e. approved the asylum applications) to just over 14,000 people. Fewer than Switzerland, Holland, France, Italy, Sweden and Germany. Britain's migrant population is around 9%, though migrants make up around 16% of the workforce. Refugees account for less than 0.5% of the population. We aren't "full" a theree are fifty-two countries with a higher population density than us, and we've only built on just over 2% of our available landscape.

Are you scared they might really be terrorists? Do you really think that terrorists would take the same risky journey as the refugees? Much easier to give them false documents and fly them over, or recruit people already living here. Is it because they've got mobile phones? Rich people flee war zones too. Brown-skinned person plus mobile phone doesn't equal terrorist any more than brown-skinned person wearing rucksack. Or maybe you believe all brown-skinned people are terrorists? I fucking hope not. Some of our mutual friends have brown skin. Maybe you're more discerning than that, maybe you can tell the difference between those who are terrorists and those who aren't? Great! Give MI5 a call, I'm sure they would welcome someone with your talents. Maybe you think it's only those who are Muslims that we should worry about (although I'd have to point out that even Britain First know Muslims come in lots of different colours).

Britain First and the other hate-mongers claim they aren't racist, they're just concerned about the "Islamification" of Britain. They don't seem to like mosques being built here, although one did concede he wouldn't mind one being built "here" (wherever it was they were protesting) as long as "we" could go and build one in Mecca. Maybe he meant church? But then the Muslims were wanting to build a mosque in Bradford or Stoke or somewhere, not in the middle of the fucking Vatican City. You can bang that "Britain is a Christian country" bollocks all you like but it isn't a holy city, so anyone can build whatever they like as long as they've got planning permission. At the start of the "We Want Our Country Back" documentary on BBC Three last night, a Britain First spokesperson declared "Britain has always been a Christian country, for over a thousand years this has been a Christian country". The poor fellow is clearly confused by either the history or Britain in general, or the history of Christianity. Britain hasn't "always been" a Christian country. We don't know much about what we did before the Romans arrived. They introduced us to Christianity roughly 1400 years ago. When the Anglo-Saxons came, bringing with them the beginnings of our beautiful language, we all went back to being Pagans for a couple of centuries. Today, we're a 'non-religious' country - if you want to go with the majority, in a 2015 survey, 49% of people described themselves as having 'no religion' compared to 42% as 'Christian'. Even if you refer to the 2011 census results, in which 59.5% of the population identified as Christian, 65% of the population said they were not religious. Only 12% of Britons actually bother going to church every week, with more than half saying they never go (other than for special occasions) so, sorry, I'm not convinced. In the 2011 census, just 4.4% of the population declared themselves Muslim. Aaron! They're taking over! 4.4%!! We're overwhelmed!

I suspect much of the Islamophobia that comes from Britain First etc stems from a lack of understanding of Islam. Unless you make the effort to learn about something you know nothing about, it's very easy to believe the first thing you see. Even if that's a lie. Especially when that lie is published in your national press. Some of my favourite myths about Islam are as follows:

Burqas. Although 'burka' is an accepted transliteration of the Arabic word, the former wins you a lot more points in Scrabble. The Quar'an does contain passages which some believe say men and women should dress modestly. Many Muslims believe in this tradition. So do many Jews. But it is a tradition, not a requirement. Many Jews don't adhere to dressing modestly, neither do many Muslims. Whilst wearing a veil is a legal requirement in Iran and Saudi Arabia, it's outlawed in more Muslim countries than it is required. France famously banned the burqa, which affected a whopping 367 women. The Muslim population in France is about 3 million. Burqas wearers therefore accounted for just over 0.01% of them. I don't like burqas, or face veils, or any form of modest dressing that's related to the subjugation of women. Why should women have to hide? Why can't men learn to control themselves? But I'd rather women come to that conclusion by themselves and choose not to wear it than ban it. Very, very few Muslim women wear burqas or face veils anyway, so the fuss being made over them seems a bit like a storm in a teacup to me. Especially when the whole thing has bog all to to with Islam.

Bloodthirstiness. Muslims were portrayed as violent and barbaric centuries before 9/11. Islam spread much faster than Christianity and Hinduism and many people assumed this was because they conquered everyone they came across and forced them to convert. But actually, Islam forbids the killing of women, children and innocents along with other acts that those into the conquering game generally partake of, like burning orchards and knocking down wells. It was Christian crusaders that did all the beheading and whatnot, the Muslims were rather more passive and seem to have conquered peoples by simply being nice to them. If anyone fancies a game of 'whose holy book is the evillest?' I'll wager theirs is no worse than the Bible. The Quar'an does not justify acts of terrorism in any way, shape or form, unless you're reading from the complete and utter bellend's version, i.e. cherry picking and taking things out of context. If I do this, I can quote the deputy leader of Britain First as saying, "We're fascists, we're bigots, we're racists." This partial quote serves my argument perfectly, but I'm happy to admit that's only part of what she actually said. It's a pity they don't extend us the same courtesy when they quote, well, anyone or anything.

Intolerance. Nope. The Quar'an clearly states that Muslims are not the only ones who worship God, yes, The God, the same one worshipped by Jews and Christians. It also states that they must protect churches, monasteries and synagogues as well as mosques. Indeed, following a terrorist attack in Alexandria in 2011, Egyptian Muslims guarded churches whilst Christians prayed. The Christians, in turn, guarded the mosques. The message of Islam is overall one of hope, faith and peace. Britain First (let's just call them Biffers from now on) describe themselves as a Christian organisation clearly haven't paid attention to those passages in the Bible that instruct Christians to be tolerant and loving of others, especially those who are "strangers", i.e. immigrants. I hate to resort to cliché, but practising what you preach really does help to get your message across; preaching tolerance whilst practising hate just doesn't work.

Halal. Religious slaughter, whether under Islamic or Jewish ruled, involves killing an animal instantly by slicing it's throat, windpipe and the blood vessels in its neck with a sharp instrument. Although British legislation requires that animals are pre-stunned before slaughter, these methods are exempt. However most halal meat comes from animals that have been pre-stunned. This is permitted under Islamic rules, whereas Jewish rules prohibit it. Yet the vitriol spewed by the Biffers is overwhelmingly biased towards Muslims. There is no legal requirement for halal meat to be labelled as such, and it's likely that Britons have been eating it for years without knowing. What confuses me is that nobody gave a fuck about this - until they suddenly found out they had been eating It. Do those people who called for a boycott of Pizza Express after it was revealed they used halal chicken think that animals slaughtered in regular abattoirs are put gently to sleep after completing their bucket lists? The jury appears to be out on which method is the most painful and, to me, this is largely irrelevant because there's no 'humane' way to slaughter anything. It's part of the price if you want to eat meat, and I accept that. I'd rather the focus be on animals being reared humanely than quibble over which is the more painful of having a bolt through your head or your throat slashed with a knife. And halal doesn't fund terrorism. Don't be so fucking ridiculous.

A lot of racists say they aren't racists because they direct their hatred solely towards Islam. Whilst they openly admit their Islamophobia, they claim they can't be racist, Islam being a religion, not a race. Jewish people are considered (under British law, if not elsewhere) to belong to a race because they have a shared culture and history that goes beyond their religion. Muslims throughout the world share history and culture that is unconnected to Islam. So Muslims are a race in the same way as Jews. Biffers often argue that they're not racist, pointing out that people of different races, including white people(!) follow Islam. Britain's Muslims, however, are predominantly brown-skinned, of Asian and Arab origin. So yes, they are racist. Are you? Or are you my friend? Please consider your source before you share.

Note: this post may contain typographical errors because I've typed it on a tablet and i haven't yet figured out how to spell check in this app. If you spot any, please point them out to me so I can correct them. Unlike Biffers, I welcome any input to correct or improve my writing.

Doctor Who IS She

Dear Sylvester McCoy,

You weren't my 'First Doctor', but it is of your tenure as the Gallifreyan in the Big Blue Box that I have the clearest childhood memories. My friends and I would ritually discuss your latest adventures on the bus to swimming lessons, and playing 'Dalek Dodge' in the creepy outside toilet block was a playground favourite. Those memories were fond, and we were sad when Doctor Who came to an end in 1989. I was unimpressed with the 1996 attempt at revival, and mourned the wobbly sets, rubber-faced aliens and dodgy special effects, and bemoaned the attempt to cast a 'sexy' actor in the role (all due apologies to Mr McGann; he just doesn't do it for me).

When the show was again revived in 2005, I approached it with as much caution as excitement, but I'm a big fan of Christopher Eccleston's work so I was always going to give it a chance. And it was incredible stuff. I loved it every bit as much as I'd loved watching you as a child - perhaps more. Then the delectable David Tennant took over and the dynamic between the Doctor and his companion suddenly became very different to what it had been when I was a child. Rose fancied the Doctor (so did I, having had a long-standing crush on Mr Tennant since my early teenage years). She fell in love with him. And he with her. Despite their separation, this shift in the dynamic of the relationship between Doctor and companion to be a romantic one continued, although Martha's love was unrequited. Donna had a more 'traditional' platonic relationship with the Doctor, but suffered the most upsetting, tragic fate ever: becoming the best person she could be, bettering the Doctor, then being forced to forget everything. David Tennant was undoubtedly a sex symbol and I don't complain about the relationship his Doctor had with Rose, or Martha, or Donna, but I hoped things might take a different turn when Matt Smith replaced him. They did, for a while, but only because Amy's heart belonged to another. Clara fell hard, and the Doctor did too. But it's simply not appropriate for an ancient alien to settle down with a twenty-something human now is it? I'm sure that's not the sort of dynamic you're so keen to protect. Step forward, Peter Capaldi.

Now, although I think it somewhat unfair to Mr Capaldi to suggest that his casting was the reason for the cessation of any romance between Clara and her Doctor, but the number of women who grumbled on social media that the Doctor was suddenly "an ugly old bloke" go some way to support the theory. The dialogue between Clara and Vastra in his very first episode, 'Deep Breath', confirms it. Clara fancied Matt Smith's Doctor. She doesn't fancy Capaldi's. And I'm glad. Series 8 marked a turning point when 'new' Doctor Who started being more like it had been when I'd first started watching it. The Doctor, no longer a young, attractive man (sorry, Peter!) was back to being a mentor rather than a mancrush.

When Peter Capaldi initially assumed the role of The Doctor, his concern that Clara was only with him because she fancied him was evident. Throughout his first series, she learns (finally!) how The Doctor was always so much more than that and she starts to appreciate him in new ways. Capaldi's Doctor reminds me so much of yours. It's one of the reasons I've enjoyed the most recent series so much.

One question I've always pondered, ever since my childhood, however is this: why is The Doctor always a man? Female Time Lords exist. Steven Moffat has, through the casting of Michelle Gomez as Missy - The Master or, rather, The Mistress, The Doctor's greatest foe - confirmed that it's possible for a male Time Lord to regenerate into a female form. A female Doctor is something he's seen as being on the cards for some time and he's been very open about it. Why are you so against the idea?

"It would ruin the dynamics between The Doctor and the assistant," you said. Did the dynamics between The Mistress and The Doctor change that much? At all? Missy is every bit the Machiavellian sociopath that Roger Delgado was. She and The Doctor have the same love/hate relationship they've always had. The dynamics between The Doctor and his 'assistants' have already changed since you played the role. It's somewhat ironic that yours paved the way for those who followed (1), given your remarks. What sort of dynamic did your Doctor have with Ace? The Doctor - your Doctor - was manipulative. Though she was by far the most realistic companion The Doctor had ever had up to that point, the first to work things out for herself rather than merely ask questions, the first to fight to protect The Doctor rather than scream helplessly for him to save her... but she was merely a pawn in one of his long games with an ancient enemy. The Doctor can't half be a bastard sometimes.

In some ways, many of The Doctor's modern companions have much in common with the 'sacrificial lamb' Bond Girl - the woman who falls hopelessly in love with Bond (usually the one already in a relationship with the bad guy) who ends up dying as a direct result of her encounter with Bond. Ace's fate depends on which version you prefer. Rose ended up trapped in a parallel universe, Martha risk her life in almost every episode. Jack was forgotten, left behind. Repeatedly. Donna saved everybody and was forced to live in a world where she was the only one who could never know about it. Amy was shot back through time. River died. People might forget that, since her last meeting with The Doctor was the first for both him and us viewers. But he showed every single one of them how to become better people. And they him. And it's here that I stop using gendered pronouns to refer to The Doctor. Because the qualities The Doctor possesses that allow that to happen aren't exclusively male.

As a long time fan of Doctor Who, the relationship between The Doctor and his (oh OK, one more time) companions has always intrigued me. It's possibly because I appreciate the insignificance of humans in the vastness of space. The idea that there is more out there beyond the solar system that we know, and the potential that we are therefore not alone. That this was not and is not the only planet capable of sustaining life. What might those other lifeforms be like? Would they wish to harm us? Despite The Doctor's tendency to be highly manipulative of them, he (last one, promise!) has a particular fondness for them. The Doctor wants to protect Earth (before it's inevitable death) and the continued existence of the human race. The Doctor's companions aren't naive, but they consistently arrive with a complete lack of awareness of their significance. Rose was a shop assistant, bored with her mundane existence. Martha didn't believe she was good enough. Donna knew she wasn't. The Doctor helped them all realise their own worth. Is that something only a man is capable of?

You describe yourself as supporting feminism but you believe that only a man is able to teach a woman (for The Doctor's companions are mainly female) her true value? Feminism challenges the very fact that men have been defining the value of women for millennia. We don't need men telling us how we can be better. This isn't to say that women can't be inspired by men, can't learn anything from men, just a plea for you to recognise that the role of teacher, mentor is not a solely male one. Perhaps your concern is harm to the romantic dynamic between Doctor and Companion? Is it the possibility that a female Doctor might form a romantic relationship with a female companion that concerns you? Or is it that you're uncomfortable with the idea of a young man forming a romantic attachment to a much older woman? Does the prospect of The Doctor being portrayed by a young, attractive by patriarchal standards woman bother you more than the role being filled by an older one? Or one not deemed attractive?

This isn't about a "cultural need" for a female Doctor, whom you compare to James Bond. You'll note that I don't say there are no comparisons between the two but I completely disagree that the characteristics of either character are exclusively male - the difference is how such characteristics are perceived in women. In the case of Bond, substance abuse, having multiple sexual partners, disobedience etc are seen as negative behaviours in women but Bond is lauded as a hero and such things are encouraged in men who wish to assert their 'maleness'. The Doctor's personality changes with each regeneration but remains broadly that of an individual in a highly privileged position who fights to protect the oppressed. As someone who claims to support feminism, you should realise that it is the fight of women against oppression and, whilst I personally welcome the support of male allies who can help break down the system of patriarchy from within, it is women's fight and we don't need (indeed many feminists do not want) men to help us. Since The Doctor's ultimate aim is to fight oppression, I wonder why you are so adamant this is something a woman couldn't do.

Steven Moffat said that "you cast a person, you don't cast the gender". That's why women have been playing Hamlet for centuries (2). What personality traits is it that you see in The Doctor that couldn't be portrayed by a women, bearing in mind that The Doctor's fundamental reason for existence is entirely unrelated to gender? Bearing in mind that The Doctor's personality is prone to change with each subsequent regeneration in any event? Peter Capaldi, who has been a fan of Doctor Who since - ooh - forever, sees a female Doctor as a possibility. Why can't you? Perhaps you share the same concerns that I do, that a female Doctor would be stereotypically female. Take The Doctor's costume, for example. Each has adapted it to fit their personality. To reflect the fact the producers wished to present the character as more enigmatic, yours wore a jumper emblazoned with question marks and carried an umbrella with one for a handle. Initially a light, casual outfit that reflected the Seventh Doctor's whimsical nature, it became darker in colour as the darker aspects of The Doctor's personality were revealed. On that evidence I don't baulk at the possibility a female Doctor might go through regular costume changes but then there's no reason why another male Doctor couldn't do this. Would a female Doctor pick a highly impractical designer frock and a pair of Jimmy Choo's as her preferred garment? Or would things take a comic turn, where someone whose entire lived existence as a man would result in series of clueless attempts to dress a body with hips and boobs? Would she rummage through The Doctor's absolutely enormous wardrobe of clothes or - horror! - make the TARDIS' first stop the nearest branch of New Look? As a woman who wears whatever the fuck she likes, I'd like to see a female Doctor who dressed a bit like me. Jeans and a t-shirt with biker boots one day, a patterned blouse and trousers with trainers the next, a vintage dress and Doctor Marten's the one after that. Heck, there are even days when I wear Converse with a massive, stripy knitted scarf and a trilby (like the Tenth, Fourth and Third Doctor's respectively). We can dress for the occasion or we can dress to suit our mood or we can do both - who says women have to wear dresses to weddings? Oh yes, men.

Doctor is a title that has no gender. Despite having been played by a man since it began, Doctor Who is not bound by the rules of gender, only the personality of the person playing the role and the imagination of the writers. The Doctor would not fundamentally change, only people's perceptions of the The Doctor. Your belief that The Doctor "is a male character" says more about your attitude than your claim to "support feminism". I note that comment was followed by the word "but". It seems all to common that anyone claiming to support anything then saying "but" doesn't really support it at all - rather like people saying they support breastfeeding "but not in public", or "but only if the mother covers up", which isn't supportive at all. It's not difficult to draw parallels between this and what you said.

I might draw a similar parallel between your argument and that against a black James Bond but at least Rush Limbaugh had the good sense to realise that he was being racist to suggest that was a bad idea. To argue that The Doctor is a "male character" is sexist. Plain and simple. You acknowledge the existence of the "glass ceilings" for women but then speak of "drawing the line" - where is the line for men? Men played Shakespeare's female roles because women were forbidden to act. Suggesting that there is ought now to be a limit on the roles women play simply because they are women is archaic and downright offensive.

You aren't the only person who seems to believe that the casting of a female Doctor would be solely to serve the interests of "political correctness" - that seems to be the feeling of a large number of people if the surveys I've seen at the end of various articles regarding your comments are anything to go by. I refer back to Steven Moffat's comment, "you cast the person, you don't cast the gender." Comments like yours, like all those who pooh-pooh the idea of a female Doctor citing "political correctness", show you don't see women as people, but just as women, with all of the associated gendered limitations. Feminism seeks to free women from those limitations. Saying The Doctor shouldn't ever be female is imposing a limitation on women. So please don't keep saying you support us, because those comments show that you don't.

Do I want you to apologise? Say you would back the casting of a female Doctor? No. You don't have to do that. If you believe it's a bad idea, then you believe that, for whatever reason and it doesn't matter if I or anyone else disagrees with you. Just don't try to defend your sexist comments by claiming to support feminism. Be Rush Limbaugh and own your prejudice.

Helen Mirren said she could name "at least ten wonderful British actresses who would absolutely kill" as The Doctor. I doubt Ms Mirren would be so self-important to include herself on that list but she'd certainly be on mine. Maxine Peake would be brilliant. Olivia Colman would too - and continue the newly established tradition of casting actors who have previously appeared in smaller roles like Freema Agyeman, Karen Gillan and Peter Capaldi (the latter two in the same episode. How awesome is that?!) Don't get me wrong, I'm not sitting here, typing away with the notion that the next Doctor should or must be female. I'm just not discounting it is a possibility like you are. Eddie Izzard would be an amazing Doctor. Phil Davis is fabulous (and he also appeared in 'The Fires of Pompeii' alongside Gillen & Capaldi, which would make for some spookily spectacular casting). But it isn't up to me to influence the process any more than it is you. I suspect Steven Moffat has an idea of where he wants The Doctor to go and he will cast the right person to take The Doctor there. That person may well be a woman. So be it. Line crossed, glass ceiling shattered. And I'll still watch Doctor Who because the nature of the relationship between Doctor and companion doesn't have to be based on the Doctor's ownership of a penis (3).

So we disagree. And that's OK. You don't have to change your opinion just to suit me. But that does mean you're not a feminist (4). So please don't say that you are or that you support us again unless you are prepared to revise your opinion. Just one final thought... what if the next Doctor is ginger? A ridiculous question, you might say. But arguing against a ginger Doctor makes about as much sense as your argument against a female one in my opinion, i.e. none at all.

Yours sincerely,

Samantha Reilly (age 36)

(1) http://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who/33496/doctor-who-how-ace-set-the-template-for-modern-companions

(2) http://www.theguardian.com/stage/gallery/2014/sep/26/female-hamlets-sarah-bernhardt-maxine-peake-in-pictures

(3) Or penises. Two hearts... anything else he's got two of?

(4) If men do behave in ways and express views that are supportive of feminism, I don't personally take issue with them describing themselves as 'feminist', although 'feminist ally' is preferable, I understand there are circumstances when it's easier not to. Like when your Tweet is four characters too long ;)

Fatherless on Father's Day

When I say 'fatherless' it's not because mine isn't around any more in the sense that he's deceased. He isn't dead. Well, he might be. I wouldn't know - I haven't seen him since I was sixteen and when my grandfather on that side of the family passed away the first I knew of it was as a postscript in a Christmas card from my Nanna. My father was largely absent from when I was young enough to still have my age defined in months. Not that I didn't look forward to spending what little time with him I got to, and I have many fond and funny memories of it. I have many more less pleasant memories though.

My parents split up because my father had an affair. My mother tried hard not to speak negatively of him. My grandma, however, would often remind me of the plans she had for her large, wooden rolling pin should he ever show his face at her door...

My Dad let me down on so many occasions though, and I eventually came to realise that he was a really terrible father. There's a photograph of us together, taken when I was around nine months old. To look at it, too see the expression on his face as he looks at me, you would assume I'd just deposited a nice fresh turd in my nappy. Which wasn't the case. He was trying to read the paper. So was I. The photograph, taken by my mother, was clearly intended to show that I was a curious child. What it shows is that Dad just wanted to read the paper though, and I was getting in the way. When I won a place at a rather prestigious high school, he promised to not only help pay the fees but to send me on the school's famous foreign exchanges and trips abroad. The latter never materialised and he stopped paying his share eventually, leaving my mother to struggle financially and accrue significant debt just so I could finish my education. There were many times I'd stand in our front yard, anxiously awaiting his arrival, only to get a phone call some hours later to say he couldn't pick me up that weekend after all.

Some time in the early 2000s, I received a telephone call from Nanna, saying Dad had been trying to get in touch with me. Given that me and Mum hadn't moved or changed our telephone number, well, ever, I found this a little hard to believe. He never did get in touch. She sent us a letter with a photograph of Dad's wedding to his latest wife who, somewhat creeping, bore a startling resemblance to Mum on her wedding day... and that was the last I heard of him.

What is the role of a father? For mine it seems it was merely to fertilise an ovum. A good father doesn't even have to do that necessarily, as any father raising adopted children, or children born via sperm donor or a myriad other circumstances where there is no biological relationship between father and child would tell you. A father's role in child-rearing is the same as a mother's: to love, to nurture, to protect, to teach, to guide, to inspire. So, since my biological father abjectlly failed to do any of these things, today I give thanks to the men in my life who did: the grandfathers, the uncles (both my actual Uncle and all the men I call 'Uncle' who were really my cousin or not even a blood relative at all), the fathers of my friends, teachers, professors, co-workers, friends and various prominent figures who have all demonstrated the qualities a father should (not all of them are fathers, by the way) and have together proved that there's more to being a father than simply being the man you call 'Dad'.

I'm bored of all the breastfeeding bullshit

Earlier this week, the results of a study into the long-term effects of breastfeeding on intelligence were published. The study found that breastfeeding duration was linked to IQ, i.e. that the longer a child is breastfed for, the higher their IQ. Those who conducted the study claim to have accounted for other factors, such as socio-economic factors, which might also be considered to contribute to a child's IQ. So far, so good, right?

Wrong.

Every single time a study like this is published, the same things happen:

1. At least one media outlet will ask whether mothers are put under too much pressure to breastfeed.

2. A steady stream of mothers who did not, or could not, breastfeed for whatever reason feel compelled to explain themselves.

3. Anyone who advocates for breastfeeding is likened to a Nazi.

These things don't irk me per se, they merely indicate that the point has been spectacularly missed. Studies that prove the 'benefits' of breastfeeding are bullshit. In saying that I'm not disputing that there is a direct link between breastfeeding duration and IQ, susceptibility to illness etc - there are, these studies have perfectly valid findings. What I call bullshit on is how they explain them.

None of these studies does a thing to increase our shockingly poor breastfeeding rates. Cultures which show higher breastfeeding rates tend to have better maternity leave, less or no advertising of formula and encourage things that are just normal behaviours in other mammals, like sleeping with their offspring and carrying them (babywearing), both of which make breastfeeding a damn sight easier than having baby sleep in another room or using a pushchair, as long as they're done safely. Schools often mis-teach children that being a mammal means birthing 'live' babies as opposed to laying eggs when, in fact, it means the babies are fed with milk, even if those babies hatch from eggs, as any Duck-Billed Platypus would tell you. Humans are often reminded that we are primates, that we are not that different to apes and monkeys. I think we often forget that we (and they) are also mammals.

Breastfeeding isn't anything exceptional, it's not 'ideal', it's just a biological normality. It's what breasts are for. It's what mammals do: when a women births a baby, hormones are released which stimulate her breasts to make milk. When a baby suckles, it stimulates the breasts to make more milk. Breast milk is tailored to meet the baby's needs, it contains not only the precise level of nutrients they need at each stage of infancy but is packed with antibodies, affording them protection from disease until their own immune system is properly developed. It's impossible to replicate artificially. What substitutes are available are adequate at best, potentially lethal if misused. It therefore follows that a breastfed child cannot have a 'higher' IQ, merely a biologically normal one. But countless news outlets hail this recent study as demonstrating one of the many 'benefits' of breastfeeding. How can something that the body is designed to do have 'benefits'? You might as well argue the 'benefits' of being able bodied, of not having asthma, of having 20-20 vision... but we don't, because that's stupid. Likewise we don't talk about the 'benefits' of not smoking. Oh the subtlety of language.

When a part of our body stops functioning normally, we try to fix it. If someone breaks a leg, for example, it's treated by setting the fracture so it can heal, and the person uses crutches to help them walk, they don't ask for the leg to be amputated first. If someone develops a kidney disease, they're first treated with medication rather than put on dialysis. If someone needs a blood transfusion, they get given human blood rather than an artificial substitute. If a woman's breasts aren't working properly though, the default position seems to be to stop using them, to replace them with something artificial. We don't do this when other parts of our bodies aren't working properly, it seems, only breasts when we're trying to feed our babies.

It seems to me that the vast majority of mothers do want to breastfeed their babies. The reasons why so few manage to keep it up for any significant length of time are many, and I don't wish to be critical of any woman who stopped breastfeeding at any point earlier than I did (my son self-weaned at the age of three) but when I see the same old myths trotted out over and over again by women who did stop breastfeeding very early on, or by women who didn't even start breastfeeding, that does irk me. The difficulty is that it's impossible to tell who is telling the truth and who is just making an excuse, perpetuating a myth. And it doesn't matter. The point is that nobody needs to justify why they did or didn't breastfeed, or why they stopped when they did or carried on to when they did. All that matters is that every woman has the opportunity to breastfeed successfully for as long as they wish. That's bound to include some women who don't want to breastfeed at all and, as long as they're making an informed decision not to do so, then surely that's OK?

An informed decision can only be made when you have knowledge of all of the facts. This means pregnant mothers need to be told the truth, they need to understand how breastfeeding actually works, so they don't panic about not having enough milk in those early days when it seems they can only produce a few drops, that babies don't all eat on the same schedule, that newborns have tiny stomachs and wake frequently and that that's normal. They need to be told how much harder it is to sterilise bottles and make up feeds freshly every time a baby is hungry, and what they risk if they don't make up a fresh bottle every time. They need to be told what the health implications of not breastfeeding are for themselves as well as their babies. They need to understand the difference between risk and certainty - that breastfeeding won't prevent them from getting cancer, that it won't make their baby smarter, that not breastfeeding only increases the risk of cancer, that it might mean their child might not reach their full intelligence potential.

It might seem obvious to some that because not breastfeeding has so many risks associated with it, every mother would choose to do it no matter what, but it's not that simple. If women weighed up risks vs convenience every time then we'd never take our babies out in the car, never give them jarred food, never use disposable nappies etc. When we opt for convenience over 'benefit' for our children we aim to do so at minimal risk, but we still take a risk. The issue for me is that most of us are barely aware of the risks of not breastfeeding. Anyone who tries to talk about them gets accused of bullying.

The biggest problem is that not breastfeeding is what's normal now. I remember seeing my cousins being breastfed as a child but, beyond that, I don't remember seeing anyone doing it in my day-to-day life. It's very rare to see film or television babies being breastfed. If breastfeeding is mentioned, it's usually in a comic or derogatory way. It's very rarely portrayed for what it is - just a baby eating. Friend had a baby? You won't find a 'congratulations on your new baby' card depicting breastfeeding. And the only time you'll see breastfeeding in an advert is when it's being used by a formula company to promote their product.

It's illegal to advertise or promote infant formula in the UK. 'Infant' formula being the first stage stuff you give to newborns. If a baby has formula, that's the only kind they need. There's no medical reason for any of the other kinds, the companies only created it to get around the ban on advertising. You might argue that's not fair, that mothers should have the right to compare products and decide which one to give their baby, right? But they're all the same. They have to be by law. There's absolutely no difference between the cheapest and most expensive brands, you're just paying for the name. Paying for them to advertise their other products. Inflating the price of the thing you need to keep your baby alive to pay for people to tell mothers in the developing world that their breast milk isn't good enough for their babies, to provide them with just enough formula to use until their breast milk is gone, forcing them to spend every penny they have to buy more formula which they can't even prepare safely because they have no access to clean water at home, effectively killing their babies. That's what formula companies do. They kill babies. They aren't interested in making their products better, safer, not interested in the health of your baby, they're only interested in profit. When breastfeeding advocates speak negatively about formula, it's usually in reference to these practises, not the product itself.

Infant formula has a legitimate place. Whilst wet-nursing is a possibility, it's a very rare occurrence in the West and carries its own risks - ones we just didn't know about when it was more regularly practised here, like HIV. The same is true of donor milk, unless it is properly screened. But you wouldn't accept a blood transfusion that hadn't been properly screened, would you? Mothers who accept donor milk directly from other mothers choose to take a risk in doing so, but milk banks exist in the same way blood banks do it's just the milk is given to premature or sick babies as a priority. It's not that radical an idea to have milk banks accessible to all, if enough women were willing to donate milk. Since such a system doesn't exist, if a woman cannot or does not breastfeed for whatever reason, there is is formula. It's an adequate substitute. Used properly it has minimal risk. But it's like any other medicine, there are potential side effects. Formula is a medicine, it is artificial and it is, we must be honest, inferior to breast milk. Vastly inferior. But rather than have a go at people like me who keep having to point that out, why aren't people having a go at the people who make it? Why aren't they telling them to make it better? Why aren't they complaining about the mark-up they have to pay and demanding less advertising so the product becomes cheaper? Why have a go at people like me who point out how unethical practises by companies like Nestle cause the deaths of so many babies around the world rather than telling them to stop those unethical practises? That's stupid.

There's often talk about women being 'pressured' to breastfeed, but I've never witnessed or experienced this. What I do see, all the time, is women who've been given wrong information, bad advice and wholly inadequate support taking the responsibility for other people's failures onto themselves. They feel the need to justify themselves, to 'make excuses', and they seem to take anything said about breastfeeding personally, whether positive or negative. This manifests most often as guilt. Sometimes anger. Almost always directed at the wrong person. Whilst it's true that all the necessary information is out there, not every woman is capable of seeking it out for herself. Many will need guidance and a lot of support. People learn in different ways and that means some women will need to be shown how to breastfeed, just reading about it won't be enough. That means breastfeeding needs to be seen, just for starters.

If something goes wrong with a part of our body, we go to the doctor. The problem is that doctors generally know squat about breastfeeding. They simply don't get taught enough about it. Specialist breastfeeding support isn't readily available everywhere. Women are told to stop breastfeeding because they have to take certain medications all the time, when the reality is that very few medications necessitate this. They're told not to breastfeed after certain medical or dental procedures, when there's no medical need to do so. They're told there's no reason to continue to breastfeed when their baby hits a certain age. It's all bollocks.

We do not need any more studies looking into the 'benefits' of breastfeeding. If I'm honest, we don't really need any studies that look into the risks of not breastfeeding either. What we need is a society that doesn't bat an eyelid when a woman breastfeeds her child, no matter where they are, no matter how old the child is. We need a society that gives parents decent maternity leave, that allows flexibility for mothers who return to work and wish to continue breastfeeding their children. We need a society where people expect breasts to be used for breastfeeding, not just to titillate men, where women are measured by much more than just the pertness of their breasts. We need a society where breastfeeding is just normal. If it were just the normal thing to do, more women would do it. But if we want people to see it as normal, we have to start portraying it as normal.

Where I live there is a programme that aims to support mothers who wish to breastfeed by ensuring they are seen by a trained Breastfeeding Support Worker as soon as possible after their baby is born. Part of this process includes referring them to a breastfeeding group - not for support as such, although the volunteers are trained to offer advice on how to overcome the more common problems women face, but as a means of putting them in touch with other breastfeeding mothers, or women who have breastfed. The women who volunteer for these groups are amazing. They help to normalise breastfeeding. They (pardon the pun) bust myths, they share their stories so new mothers know what's normal and what's not. Often, they have overcome a particular difficulty themselves and breastfed after a traumatic or surgical birth, breastfed multiple babies, premature or very sick babies, breastfed despite their own health problems, breastfed after they returned to work, breastfed older children. They encourage, they inspire, they empower other women. It's easier and more accepted for them to speak about the 'benefits' of breastfeeding - it's seen as gentler, less confrontational. That infuriates me and it's one of several reasons why I had to stop volunteering for one such group. That's not a criticism of the excellent work they continue to do, more an admission of where I stand. The older I get, the more I am becoming attuned to the subtlety of language, the more I see breastfeeding as a political and public health issue, albeit a particularly emotive one. One we seem to be talking about in completely the wrong way. Breastfeeding has no benefits.

What saddens me most about this is I'm not the first person to say it. Diane Wiessinger did almost twenty years ago in her article titled 'Watch Your Language' and very little has changed. I think perhaps she said it much better than I have, but the fact that so little has changed means I'm not going to stop saying it - shouting it if I have to - until they do. Until it stops being news when a woman is asked to cover up or stop breastfeeding. Until it stops being news that science has proven a link between breastfeeding duration and any given desirable health or social outcome. Until an entire generation of women grow up knowing how to breastfeed long before they decide to have children. Until it's just something women do and nobody bats an eyelid.

But until then, Kellymom is perhaps the best available resource on breastfeeding on the Internet, Baby Milk Action the only charity dedicated to protecting all babies whether breast or formula fed from the evil corporations who care more about profits than they do babies and Cradles are just, well, awesome.

MY Fat Story

I used to be fat. I used to weigh over thirteen stone and squeeze myself into size 18 clothes that were too small for me because I couldn't bear to buy a size 20. I'm only 5 ft 3.5 in tall so not only was this not a good look, it was also rather bad for my health. It's possible that it caused my kidney disorder, although it probably wasn't the only factor. It's possible my genes decided to fuck up my kidneys the moment I was conceived and there's fuck all I can do about that!

I was not always fat, although I'd perhaps say I had 'fat tendencies'. As a kid I had skinny arms and legs and a huge pot belly. This remained the case throughout my teens and early twenties until I started to be less self-conscious of it and bagged a fella that didn't mind it (1). An incident from my younger years stick in my mind:

A non-uniform day at school. I was standing with my 'friends' on the bus lane, near the end of the path which ran between the science building and the tennis courts. A girl we all knew was sitting on the bench that was there. She was wearing jeans and a crop-top. She was leaning forward slightly. My 'friends' commented that she was 'blobbing out' over the top of her jeans. This girl was at least two dress sizes smaller than me and with a stomach like a washboard. My 'friends' were always friendly towards this girl... to her face. Out of earshot they were complete bitches. I wondered what they must day about me when I wasn't within earshot. We weren't friends for much longer after that - for completely unrelated reasons, I must add.

I mentioned this incident to my mother who, instead of offering support, told me I 'could stand to lose a little weight'. Whilst this was perhaps, in essence, true, it wasn't what I needed to hear. I wore size 12 clothes at the time - not exactly enormous. I did want to be a little thinner, but I needed support and encouragement, not criticism that served only to reinforce the validity of the bitchiness of my then friends....


My weight and dress size remained pretty static throughout my later school life and the time I was at university. When I moved back home after graduating it crept up a little and I was wearing size 14s with a weight of roughly 10 st when I met the man who would later become my husband. I was a regular gym-goer at the time, and went swimming most days before work. That soon stopped, and I became a regular pub-goer and gorged myself on the chocolates I was bought and the sumptuous dinners he cooked for me. My weight and dress size crept slowly up. Not long after we moved in together, I decided to do something about it. I joined Slimming World (online - I was far too shy to walk into a group full of strangers) and it worked - I weighed 10 st 2 lb and could fit back into size 12 clothes the day we got married. I wasn't at my 'goal weight', however, and I had hit a massive hurdle in my weight loss journey: I was pregnant.

I found it impossible to process eating so healthily with the numbers on the scale going up. So I gave up. I ate what I wanted throughout my pregnancy and I put two stone back on. PTSD and PPD meant I wasn't able to climb back on the bandwagon straight away. Slowly, my weight started creeping up again. The size 12s stopped fitting, then the 14s, then the 16s, then the 18s started getting tight. I remember buying a pair of linen trousers in size 18 specifically to wear for summer because I was so damn hot all the time. They were a little tight, but I figured I'd be able to 'slim down' by the time I needed to wear them.

I don't recall exactly what it was that kick-started my second weight-loss journey. It probably wasn't one specific thing, just the culmination of months of hating looking at myself in the mirror, hating seeing pictures of myself, hating that I couldn't fit into the kind of clothes I wanted to wear, hating that I looked awful in the ones that did, hating being hot and tired all the fucking time... just hating myself. Despite the previous success I'd had with Slimming World, I didn't want to go back to it. It had always felt like 'a diet' to me, not a way of eating I could have continued for life, which it necessarily has to be to work in the long term (2). I decided to just try and eat more healthily and get back into exercising regularly. So I did. On my 'diet', no food was banned. I just ate less of it. Some 'dieters' dislike weighing and measuring and counting calories but I found that's what worked for me. I used an app on my phone to keep track of what I ate and I tried to view it in a positive way - instead of trying to stay under my calorie 'limit' I tried to look for better ways of using the food I liked to reach my calorie 'goal'. If I fucked up, and ended up buying dinner from KFC, I simply started afresh the next day. I started walking more, getting off the bus a few stops earlier. Last summer I even took up running - something I said I'd never ever do (unless something was chasing me), but I loved it. Gradually, the weight came off, the clothes got smaller, and I'm typing this weighing less than 9 st and wearing size 8 jeans. I still eat whatever I want, just in moderation. I walk practically everywhere but I've stopped running - at least until it stops being so cold and dark in the mornings. Fuck. That.

Losing that much weight wasn't as easy as it sounds. The premise is simple: consume fewer calories than your body expends in energy. It's the principle all diets are based on. The two ways of achieving this essentially amount to eating less and/ or exercising more; now AKA the Hopkins Diet.

The difficulty I have with this is that people don't become fat simply because they eat too much and move too little. People don't sit there, just stuffing their faces without a care in the world and watch themselves fill out. Even if there are no underlying issues, the weight creeps on, barely noticed, over a long period of time and it can be several years before they really see the change. People don't overeat or under-exercise just because they are lazy or ignorant, either. In my case, my relationship with food and exercise are all influenced by the following:

• Throughout my entire childhood I was taught to clear my plate. Not doing so was 'bad'. So I would eat past the point of satiety in order to be a 'good' girl.
• Food was a comforter. If I was upset, I was given chocolate or sweets to make me feel better. The association of food with comfort continued into adulthood until I recognised that it didn't need to be there - that doesn't mean I'm not still tempted to grab the chocolate if I've had a particularly shitty day.
• The practicalities of working, travelling a long distance between work and home and my husband rarely finishing before 7:00 or even 8:00PM meant that planning meals was a nightmare - one we usually solved by eating out or ordering in. Yes, I know we could have gone about this better but we went for the quick and easy option. Knackered, stressed people tend to. Sue us.
• PTSD/ PPD meant the prospect of getting out of bed some days was difficult enough, let alone the thought of cooking a fucking meal.
• When I was diagnosed with a kidney condition, I was placed on high-dosage steroids, which increase your appetite, making weight loss more difficult.
• When your childcare fees sap the majority of your disposable income, you can't afford to join a gym or slimming group or anything else that might give you access to some form of motivational support - when I investigated what was available through my GP I found out I wasn't fat enough to qualify. Finding the motivation to do it by yourself is fucking hard.

These aren't 'excuses' as such, but I did have to overcome these things in order to successfully lose weight. It wasn't easy to recognise some of these issues in the first place, and figuring out a way to deal with them on my own was even harder. A lot of people will need support from others to do this. They certainly don't need some sanctimonious bitch telling them it's easy. There's even been some new research that suggests it might not actually work for people who are chronically obese (3), because their body chemistry has completely changed making them 'a fat person' rather than a thin person who has become fat.

Anyway, I did it. I'm 'thin'. Am I happy? Well... yes, because I can wear the sort of clothes I feel comfortable in. I can look in the mirror and I'm pleased with what I see... most of the time. When I was a teenager I wanted a stomach like Cindy Crawford and now it seems I have one (4). I do find it frustrating that clothing sizes aren't consistent, so I can be a size 8 in one shop, a size 12 in another and a size 6 in yet another and that, according to some clothing brands sizing charts, my actual measurements make me a size 14 or larger when those sizes are far too big... I could write a whole, ranty, post about that.

A few weeks ago, I was standing in the queue for the fitting room at Primarni, clutching a size 8 t-shirt, a size 10 dress and a size 12 skirt (5). The woman in front of me had a pile of clothes draped over her arm - all size 14 or 16. She was thinner than me. Yesterday, as I was browsing the racks of clothing in a local charity shop, I saw a woman much thinner than me going through the size 12 trousers - clearly for herself as she kept holding them against her. Another woman was looking at size 14 dresses. She was also thinner than me. Now I know all about the 'vanity sizing' shit, but my visual impression of these women was that they were all thinner than me. And I can fit into size 8 or 10 from most places now. I refuse to believe that they were deliberately looking for loose fitting clothing - nobody wants a loose strapless dress or skirt with no belt loops! So either these women have poor body image (which tight jeans and t-shirts would suggest is not the case) or I do.

I find it quite terrifying that I might be looking in the mirror and seeing fat bits where there aren't any, that nobody else sees, but my husband still found me attractive when I weighed nearly four stone more than I do now so I don't fully trust other people's opinions on this! It wasn't that long ago that there was a furore over Primark using a dummy with 'protruding ribs' (6). It wasn't that long ago that I would have joined in. But my ribs started to look like that when I was over a stone heavier than I am now, when I was still overweight....

I know that someone is bound to be thinking 'stop comparing yourself to other women'. But that's a really difficult thing when you've been doing it for most of your life. Every day we are bombarded with images of women that are deemed attractive or healthy looking - you can't ignore it, it's everywhere. When I was younger, the guys I found attractive never felt the same - they usually preferred one of my thinner, prettier friends or (in one case) turned out to be gay. One I did go out with would spend our time watching music videos together telling me which female singers were 'too fat' - women far thinner than I was at the time. Unsurprisingly, it wasn't a very long relationship. My husband pledged to love me as I am, no matter how I am, but he recognised I wasn't happy when I was bigger and he's been as supportive as he can. I didn't lose weight to become more attractive to him, but to myself. Good job really, because I've been called a 'fat bitch' twice since my weight dipped below the 9 st mark - on both occasions it was by other women and not in jest....

I'd be lying if I said I didn't feel some pressure to look a certain way, to conform with what society expects of me, but I'd like society to know it's all an illusion. My clothing choices hide all of the ways my body has been changed by pregnancy so, despite being a titchy dress size now, I'll never wear hipster jeans or a crop-top. I do have a bit of muscle definition in my arms though - it comes from having to carry heavy bags (and toddler) back from the shops on a regular basis - so I'm happy to wear sleeveless or strapless things I never would have done before, although I'd never go without scaffolding (7)....

I remember a few years ago when Anne Widdecombe did 'Celebrity Fit Club' - a 'reality' TV show featuring overweight celebrities that was essentially a televised slimming club/ boot camp. I believe the celebs were discussing others who had written diet books and she commented that hers would just be two pages long: page one would read 'eat less' and page two 'exercise more'. Obviously, for a hell of a lot of people it's not going to be that simple. But it is a legitimate 'diet plan'. And it worked for me. It works for me. Eating too much food in general over several years stretched my stomach. When I first started reducing my calorie intake I found it terrifically hard because my stomach just wasn't full. It has slowly shrunk. It used to astound me that my housemate could eat a McDonald's meal for lunch (around 1000-1200 calories worth of food) and then eat nothing for the rest of the day and not feel hungry. Now I understand it. If I eat a 'big' meal I don't eat much - if at all - the rest of the day. I simply don't feel hungry and I can't physically fit any more food in my stomach. I frequently have to leave uneaten food on my plate - although I find it difficult and feel extremely guilty to do so sometimes, so ingrained it is upon me that this is inherently wrong. It's so hard trying to raise a child and teach them only to eat until they are full when you weren't raised that way yourself, but I guess I could be grateful he's just asked for and eaten three whole apples in succession rather than three packets of crisps or chocolate buttons. I must be doing something right!

And that's all I have to say about that. I have no recipes for 'guilt-free' versions of your favourite culinary indulgences, I have no sparkling words of wisdom, no secret to share. I just stayed focused and determined to lose the weight and I found a way of doing it that worked for me. And now I'm focused and determined to keep it off for the rest of my life... anyone know how many calories you burn typing? I seem to have typed rather a lot.... I have more to say but I drink loads of water these days (instead of heading straight to the biscuit tin every time I feel peckish) so now I really have to pee....

(1) To quote Charlotte Bronte, "Reader, I married him."

(2) Slimming World works for a lot of people. I'm not trying to slag it off. If that's what works for you - do it. If not, choose something that does. Studies have shown that no 'diet' plan is any more effective than any other, it's all about which method works best for the individual.

(3) http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/theres-no-point-telling-obese-people-to-exercise-more-doctors-claim-10039641.html

(4) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/cindy-crawford-praised-for-keeping-it-real-by-posing-in-underwear-without-the-aid-of-photoshop-10044763.html - my stretchmarks are way more impressive though... ;)

(5) You have to admire Primark for their ability to make a woman three (or more) different sizes within the same shop according to the item of clothing she's buying.

(6) http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/news/primark-forced-to-remove-skinnylooking-mannequin-with-protruding-ribs-after-customer-complaint-9629784.html

(7) I first went to Bravissimo when I was still breastfeeding (and quite fat) because I wanted a prettier bra than those I'd found available elsewhere. I've not bought a bra anywhere else since - and now I'd struggle to anyway due to having a back size only marginally bigger than I had when I got my first training bra....

Ickle Fings

When I was a little girl, my absolute favourite toy was my doll's house. It was a fabulous Lundby one, exactly like this:

I was extremely lucky, because I also had three additional floors for it, including this garage extension:

And this one with the most fantastic 'forest' wallpaper:

I won't show you the third one. I didn't much like the wallpaper in that one and, besides, I can't find a picture of it on Google images....

Anyway, this fabulous house was filled with c. 1980s Lundby and Barton/ Caroline's Home furniture and accessories. If you're curious to see the sort of things I had, you can check out my Pinterest. The house and much of its contents were bought for me by my mother and grandmother, whose house it always lived it. I spent countless hours rearranging the furniture, accidentally kneeling or standing on some bits having put them on the floor beside or behind me as I did so... oops. The house remained at my grandmother's long after I'd grown up and stopped playing with it because my young cousins would do so when they visited her.

After my grandmother died in 2010, I decided to take the house and restore it - it didn't matter that I was pregnant with a son, rather than a daughter, at the time. Sadly, I discovered that my grandmother had, albeit well-meaning, covered the floors with scraps of velvet and carpet and the walls with wallpaper offcuts - badly. And used superglue to stick everything down. The prospect of restoring it from the state it was in was way beyond my capabilities, and the thought of renovating it into something more modern never crossed my mind at the time, so I decided to sell it. I spent many happy hours identifying the approximate age and origin of the furniture, which had also included some old Dol-Toi and Mattel 'The Littles' items, as well as a number of others that weren't quite the right scale for a 1:16 doll's house but had lived in mine quite happily anyway. I listed everything on eBay and made a decent amount of money from it. I was happy.

A couple of years later as I was wandering round my local charity shops I came across this:

A near-perfect condition Caroline's Home in its original box. They only wanted £5 for it. I figured I'd stick it on eBay and maybe make a bit of profit... until I went into another shop and found this:

That's a Caroline's Home wardrobe - I'd had one in my Lundby doll's house. It was 50p. That clinched it. I was going to restore this thing and fill it with the furniture I'd had in my house as a child. It would be my new hobby.

Initially, that's exactly what I did. Charity shops, car boot sales and good old eBay were how I tracked down most of the items. Whilst I primarily focused on the things I'd once had, I also acquired things like this pink bathroom suite, hoping to furnish the house solely with Caroline's Home items - my Lundby House had had a Lundby bathroom suite.

However, this particular piece would require some renovation - the bathroom taps are broken. I started researching restoration techniques figuring that a custom renovation might be easier than tracking down replacement parts. Whilst doing so I came across some beautifully renovated Lundby houses - and I decided I wanted to do the same. When I'd wanted to restore my own house it had been with the intention of getting it back to its original condition. Now I could see that didn't have to be the case - I could repaint it, repaper it, do it up in my own style, make things for it and still incorporate the furniture and decorations I'd loved as a child. I trawled eBay and placed the winning bid on this:

Whilst it isn't quite the same as the one I'd had as a child, being a slightly more recent model, I didn't mind since my original intention was to completely redecorate it. However, once I'd got it home and had a little play with the furniture that had come with it, I decided I wanted to keep some of the original wallpaper to have as 'feature walls'. I found a way of making a removable template so I can cover it up and change it according to the style of room I'm creating, just in case I get the urge to start rearranging things as I did as a child, which I almost inevitably will....

It's a work in progress and, aside from acquiring a lot more furniture and miniature items to put in it, not much progress has been made in terms of redecorating the house itself. It's been a while since I did anything with it at all, but I've always got my eye out for 'ickle fings' to put in it. These pictures show off some of my favourite acquisitions so far and the sort of style I'm ultimately going for:

This last one is of my 'crazy cat lady' bedroom - it's not the most up-to-date version of this room, which now boasts several more cats and 'ladies' items including a whole load of 'Bratz' bits that were the perfect scale. This room's theme was inspired by my finding that sign (a fridge magnet) and being reminded of Jenny Joseph's poem 'Warning' and that scene in 'Friends' where Chandler predicted he'd become 'Crazy Snake Man' (1). My son does not mind that I have 'borrowed' bits of his Playmobil in order to complete this look....

There is more doll's house stuff on my Pinterest, including a board showing the things that have inspired me to get creative. And when I get around to it, I'll share the results.

(1) When I was single I'd said the same thing, except I'd have cats, hence the kids would've called me 'Crazy Cat Lady', and there you have it....