What not to do for the terminally ill 1

Do not visit every day. While it seems that you should -- after all, the number of visits you have left is limited -- don't. The person is dying. They are tired. They want at least a moment a day to be along to ponder their thoughts and do things for themselves.

My mother's siblings are in contact every day. No sooner does one leave does the next one turn up, or phone, or do something well-meaning but which is utterly exhausting for her. She doesn't need to hear the minutia of your life - that's the bonus of death being imminent: none of it matters anymore! Just as she is about to sit on the couch to rest and the door bell rings again. And they just never seem to get it. They stay for so long and her sigh of relief upon their departure is huge. She thinks she can relax. But then, someone else turns up ...

People, I understand it's hard for you, but your visiting and incessant anxious small-talk WILL NOT CURE CANCER. It will not give your loved one energy, and to be honest, they won't enjoy it. How much would you enjoy constant visitors when you are so exhausted that you can't think of anything other than sleep?

On picking your battles

Is it okay to have an argument with one of your boyfriend's friends, who you don't know, on the bf's Facebook page?

Usually I would say no. But today I did. And it's because some things need to be called out for what they are, no matter where this takes place. While we all have grand virtues, we can't shove our opinions down the throats of others ALL of the time. For instance, my friend's grandmother is convinced that the Stolen Generation is a myth. It took the whole family a long time (and a lot of futile arguing) to just accept that this is what she thinks. While they purposefully avoid the subject, when she does mention the issue, they've learned not to bother with the argument, but to quickly change the topic. It what's frequently referred to as: 'agreeing to disagree'.

Today my boyfriend posted a photo of a car in so narrow a park that to fit in it, there was just a breath of air between the car and the concrete pillar next to it. The car had a 'P' plate on it. My boyfriend had wittily captioned the picture: 'And who said "P" platers are bad drivers?'. A bunch of people commented on the photo, with the general sort of banter one would expect. And then came this gem from a former colleague of my partner:

'There's absolutely no way out of that park driving forward or backing out without it scraping down the side. I'll go out on a limb here and put my money on it being female ;) Sorry to all the females out there but it's true!'

'The same way it's true that all men are sexist pigs?', I replied.

There were so many things that infuriated me about his comment that I didn't know where to start. While I wanted to write a detailed rant about how useless the meaningless apology was, I figured that it was a Facebook photo, not an academic blog. I also suspected that someone who writes comments such as that above was more likely to label me as the insane feminist who can't take a joke rather than be remotely reflective on his outright discrimination.

You see, the 'Sorry to all the females out there but it's true!' was more annoying than the moronic generalisation it followed. What is it that you are sorry for? You see, I don't think that you're sorry for offending people with your discrimination. Nor do I think you are sorry that you wrote this down. In fact, the only thing I think you are sorry about is that it's actually not politically correct to discriminate against women.

And that exclamation mark at the end of your apology, what's that about? Are you trying to pretend that if you add this overused piece of punctuation you'll make people laugh? Because I didn't laugh. I thought you were patronising. I thought that it's people like you who perpetuate gender discrimination. At a basic level, perpetuating this myth about women drivers is why men frequently abuse and bully women on the roads - because it's the women that can't drive, don't we all know that?

And at a more complex level, this is part of the gender discrimination that sees women disadvantaged on almost every measure. And which contributes to the gender inequity which means that women aged between 15-44 are more likely to die at the hands of a man than of any other cause. What's the link between your harmless comment and domestic violence? Let me spell it out:

1. Attitudes such as yours encourage the idea that women are inferior drivers
2. This leads to bullying and intimidation on the roads
3. Women feel unsafe as they are likely to be alone, and smaller in stature, than those who are bullying them
4. This means that women feel less safe than men do
5. It also means that there's a somewhat accepted culture of it being okay, for men to bully women
6. This manifests into other parts of our lives, where the bullying and intimidation can, and often does, lead to violence against women

So when you're at dinner with your partner's stubborn grandmother, you may do well to bite your tongue, but at other times, we have to speak up. You have to call something out for what it is. Because sometimes, our silence is enabling discrimination and abuse.


Update, 10:30pm
I didn't even realise that today marks the 22nd anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre where 14 women were killed by a man who declared he was 'fighting feminism' and who himself had been the victim of abuse at the hands of a man. May we not forget what we've lost and sacrificed in a fight for a more equitable world. This post is for those 14 women.

Gay marriage and the ALP: A rundown

So the Australian Labor Party have changed their party platform as being in favour of gay marriage. Which would be great were they not avoiding the corollary action of legislation. It's been determined that potential legislation is to be left open to a conscience vote. So here's the catch:

• The ALP policy is the no member can cross the floor (i.e.: Vote against a Bill in parliament which is in accordance with party policy).
• Therefore, if the party policy is in favour of gay marriage, were the ALP to present a Bill, in parliament to legislate marriage equality, all of its members would have to vote in favour of it, irrespective of personal preference.
• Given that the PM has become increasingly conservative and nonsensical, a conscience vote is the only way that the ALP can have an official platform which members can vote against.
• A conscience vote is the exception. A conscience vote allows members to vote with their personal conscience rather than tow the party line.
• There are 150 seats in the House of Representatives. In order for a bill to be passed, 76 of the 150 members must vote in favour of the bill. The ALP only have 73 seats in the House of Reps. Therefore, all members of the ALP, plus the Green MP - Bandt, as well as at least two of the three Independents would need to vote in favour for the Bill to be passed (presuming no Liberal party member is prepared for career suicide by crossing the floor as the Libs policy is against changes to the Marriage Act).
• For a conscience vote to lead to legislative change,  it would need all three Independents and Bandt to vote in favour as well as 72 of 73 ALP.
• It is widely known that there are several Labor MPs who are against same-sex marriage. Therefore, unless they vote against their personal conscience, we will not see any change to the Marriage Act.
• Julia Gillard has made calls for Tony Abbott to offer his party the opportunity of a conscience vote. However, this is political game playing. Essentially, she is forcing Abbott into a position where he will come across as unreasonable if he denies the conscience vote to his party; also, she can shift the blame of marriage inequality to Liberal MPs not having the opportunity to have a say on the issue.
• While I am all in favour of both parties offering their members a voice on the issue, the fact remains that Gillard has the power to put forward a formal Bill in parliament, which ALP members are not allowed to vote against. 
• This Bill would also have support of Wilkie and, I suspect, Oakeshott and Windsor. The Greens are unanimously in favour so Bandt would vote for, and the Greens balance of power in the Senate would see it passed.
• Consequently, Gillard is creating a loophole to jump through which doesn't undermine her party's contentious policy of members not being allowed to cross the floor; nor does it force her to effect change. She has satisfied her party by changing the official platform without having to legislate accordingly.
• Gillard must also take responsibility for being the Prime Minister who ignored her Party's views. More importantly, she won't ever be remembered for being the leader who undid two hundred years of discrimination.

Sigh. Another sad day in Australian politics.

Pork, prawn and egg, rice paper rolls

Makes 10

Ingredients
130g of fresh prawns chopped into small pieces
200g pork mince
2 eggs
2 sticks of celery, finely chopped
1 carrot, finely chopped
A handful of beanshoots
1 red chilli, finely chopped
2 spring onions, finely chopped
½ a small red capsicum, finely chopped
(If your partner isn't allergic to them, it would be highly delicious to also add some crushed peanuts)
Handful of coriander
10 sheets of rice paper


Method
1. Whisk eggs and cook in a frypan like an omelette. Once cooked, roll up and chop into small pieces. Set aside.

2. Cook pork in wok, once browned, add prawns.

3. Add all vegetables, stir through

4. Add coriander

5. Add pieces of egg and stir through, turn off heat and set aside.

6. Prepare a large bowl with hot water, but not so hot that you can’t put your hands in it

7. Place a sheet of ricepaper in the bowl for about 20 seconds. Remove, place on chopping board, spoon in some of the meat mixture, wrap and place on a plate. Repeat.

Serve with sweet chilli or fish sauce. (FYI: Asian supermarkets have 'Hot and Sweet Chilli Sauce'. It's similar to sweet chilli but with more hot, less sugar. I prefer it muchly.)

Is a PhD hard?

I've been asked this question a  couple of times of late. Probably because it's the end of the year and at the end of one year, and at the beginning of another, people like to stop and take stock of where they are at. In my experience what happens between October and February is that there are major relationship changes. Some people break up, but many, MANY, people get engaged or married. Last year, over a period of six days in December, I knew of eight couples who became engaged. That's right, more than one a day. And for reasons mostly to do with weather, there's many a wedding from November through February.

At the same time that people are considering their relationships, they also tend to think about their careers. And increasingly, postgraduate study is a thought within this. And this is where I end up being frequently asked about a PhD. These questions often come in a very cautious tone. To which I reply, 'it's not as hard as people would have you believe.'. Contentious, I know. So contentious that I have avoided writing about this as I am slightly scared of receiving the hate mail Jacinta Tynan was inundated with after she wrote an article declaring that motherhood was easy (see: here).

Here's some points that I make when asked about the PhD

If you don't enjoy it, something's not right

You should enjoy the PhD. Not every single day, but most days. With every good job, there's tedious stuff. For instance, when I was working in a youth alcohol and other drug clinical service, I LOVED most of my work. I can't imagine I'll ever experience job satisfaction to that degree again. But that's not to say that it was all a blast. Some days were sad, many days were trying and occasionally I left work feeling totally disillusioned. And writing case notes and other administrative tasks were akin to tearing off my toenails. But mostly, I loved my work. A doctorate should be similar. I think that this is especially so given that you pick your own topic, methods and theoretical framework. (Literature reviews are the toenail tearing part for me.)

It's a pretty privileged position

Four years, to research a topic of your choosing, at the end of which, you will have become the expert in that field? It's a pretty luxurious position. Many a single mum doesn't get four hours to indulge in researching something of their own choosing.

You'll never get job flexibility like this again

My personal life has fallen apart since I started my research. My brother has died, I was diagnosed with a brain tumor and then my mother was diagnosed with a terminal illness. All of these things took their toll. But as far as timing goes, it was rather fortuitous that they've happened while I have been PhDing. I have been able to work from home, or at night, or on the weekend. I can skip work on days I need to be at the hospital and make it up some other time. When I am sad I can throw myself into my work - or I can go for a run and come back to it later. When I need more money I can do extra paid work on top of my PhD. In fact, so long as I get some progress done each six months, and have a thesis after four years of candidature, nobody really cares when or where I am working. What other job is comparable to this?! (Admittedly, having nothing due for four years can make it very easy to get sidetracked with other things. You do need to remember that you can't do an all-nighter the day before it's due like you did with your undergrad essays.)

Hard work isn't a bad thing

Now I should qualify all of the above with the caveat that I am starting from the premise that working hard doesn't make something difficult. And I think that's where the confusion lies. People ask if a PhD is hard, when what they mean to ask is whether it is difficult. So when I answer that no, it's not, I am actually saying, it's not difficult. But it is hard work. And you need to be dedicated and committed. But with anything in life, you will only ever feel a sense of achievement when you have worked hard on something, And when I say it's not difficult, that's not to infer that it's easy; but simply that with hard work you can get a PhD  (perhaps not always a good one, but a PhD nonetheless).

At the beginning of my research, my second supervisor said to me: the big question isn't about if someone will pass their PhD, it's whether or not they will finish it. I think that's true. I haven't seen anyone fail their doctorate, but I have seen plenty fall by the wayside.

Keep your perspective

Getting caught up with stress and anxiety takes up energy which could be used for working. So try to keep on top of your work to prevent that overwhelming, and debilitating, anxiety that is frequently looming in the background just waiting to pounce.

There's other things you need to consider to ensure that you can stay on top of your work and prevent stress and distraction. I've written about them elsewhere and you can find them under the PhD and PhD Advice tabs respectively. But is a PhD hard difficult? No. Not really.

List(s)

Okay so I write lists. Well, no, that's inaccurate. I don't write lists for everyday things like shopping. I just go to the supermarket and guess what I need and then get home and realise I've forgotten the chicken for this evening's chicken casserole. So I don't actually write useful lists. I write a single list, in many places. It's like my life to do list. I am not sure why I write it - what, in case I forget? Surely if something is so important to make my list of things I want in life, it isn't something I am going to forget. But give me a pen and a piece of paper and inevitably I will start writing out my list. Which goes something like this:

Finish my PhD

Travel

 - New York

 - France

 - Italy

 - Maldives

 - Vietnam

New job

 - Security

 - Flexibility

 - Autonomy

 - Good remuneration and other benefits (superannuation, parental leave, work from home etc) 

Buy home

 - sometimes I then go into detail about all of the things I want in my home: type of dining table chairs (I already have my table) , closed-plan, close to walking paths, colour scheme, kitchen appliances, style of artworks, flooring, front door, security, location etc ...)

Then sometimes I write in other things I want out of life. Like relationship goals, marriage and children. I often leave these out though, not because they aren't important, but because they're things which aren't totally within my control. And like everything else on the list, it's not as though I don't have very clear views which I am going to forget should I not write them down! It's just that writing down these goals, which I may not be able to fulfill, leaves me a little vulnerable to never being able to cross them off my to-do list. So these ones I keep close to the heart.

So in every notebook I own, there's this list, often several times over, reiterating what I want in life. Well, what I want in the next five years. I wonder if I do it in false belief that writing it down is going to make it happen now?

(I don't understand my logic either.) 

Why are women still changing their names?

Okay so I am in a hospital while my mother has neurosurgery. I’ve been here, alone, for seven and a half hours. I am very tired and emotional. Why am I telling you this? Because I need to preface what I am about to say with something that will make you compassionate towards me and hopefully make you forgive me for what I am about to admit to.

Five hours in, I was broken. I couldn’t summon the concentration to read my book – sick people everywhere, exhausted, terminally-ill mother in significant discomfort next to me – so I … entered a debate on a thread on a Facebook page.

Yes, I know. I know it’s stupid. It’s just like when people read the comments section at the end of online newspapers and get outraged. Why on earth would one read the comments?!  (Perhaps because they are in a hospital desperate for entertainment away from the misery?)

So let’s accept that this is what I have done and now allow me to vent about the experience here.

Women’s Health Australia asked, would you take your husband’s surname when you got married? If so, why? If not, why not?

Oh dear. There are so many stupid naive people in the world. Here are some of the highlights:

‘I am proud of my man’ was a very common sentiment. The inference here is that you demonstrate pride via change of name. The ironic logic of this is that he is not proud of you because he has not taken your surname. So the conclusion of this claim for name-change? You are proud of a man who is not proud of you.

Here is another gem:  ‘Yep! He is my man and I love him enough to become a part of his family and have a family of Smiths*’.  So if I take the surname of the person sitting opposite me in this shitty hospital cafeteria am I a part of his family? And if I married my partner and did not take his name, am I not part of his family? Further, he hasn’t taken my surname, so is he not a part of my family? Is it that he doesn’t love me enough to do that for me? (This section has so many questions because the logic of the reasoning left me thinking, 'WTF?')

Another very common comment was that ‘I am changing my name because I am old fashioned’. What exactly does ‘old fashioned’ mean? Because I think it’s the scapegoat for women not owning up to what changing their name is really about. You see, people tend to be very selective about what they are old fashioned about. This was best highlighted with this comment:  

‘I’m not married yet (but) I’m old fashioned in that you marry him, you have his name, and I’d like to have the (same) surname as our son’

That’s right, her son. She is old fashioned so she’ll take his name; but not so old fashioned as to have a child out of wedlock.

But by far, the quote of the day: ‘If you aren’t going to change your name, what’s the point of getting married?’. Now obviously there are endless lines of rebuttal here, but remember, you’re dealing with a simple mind, so instead of offering debate, I find it’s best to ask a counter question. One that came into my mind, ‘if you only want to change your name, what’s the point of getting married?’.

Now, to the heart of the issue.

The vast majority of commenters were in the ‘a real wife changes her name’ category.  The most frequently cited reason for changing one’s name was that ‘I want to have the same surname as my kids’. The selfless martyrs, doing it for the children. Now, I wanted to write a comment pointing out that changing your name is like being branded – you were previously owned by your father and now you belong to your husband. Well, for now you do. Because, let’s be realistic, 50% of you will end up divorced and facing the dilemma of what to do about the surname that you were oh so proud of. There were a couple of older and wiser women who commented about this. Most, even those who were still married, regretted changing their names and expressed the sentiment that they wished they had of been married in a time where it was optional. 

Let me go back to the children. Women are changing their name as they have got to have the same surname as their kids. Well, instead of me asking whether marriage was a partnership or a patriarchy, I suggested that women give their kids their own surname at birth and you’ve got it sorted – kids have the same name as you and you don’t have to change your name! Now, I was being rhetorical. I knew that the kids were an excuse.  One commenter retorted , ‘then you’d have the same issue with the man wanting the same name as his kids’. The infinite problem solver that I am, I suggested that the husband could take the wife’s  surname should this be the case – problem solved!

But no, this was never about the kids. The kids are an excuse.  Women know it’s embarrassing to admit that they are marrying a man who expects them to change their name and wouldn’t take theirs. Women know it’s not an equal partnership and are embarrassed to admit it so they use the, ‘I want the same name as my kids line’ which really makes no sense. Sure, in an equal world, half the population would have their dad’s surnames and half would have their mum’s. But, it’s not an equal world. So let’s wonder about a proportional world: many marriages will end. When they end, more often than not, the kids will spend most of their time with Mum. So, looking at these odds, I argue that there should be more kids taking mum’s surname given that Dad is more likely to become an absent figure whose name won’t be carrying much pride.

People think I am totally radical and man-hating when I tell them I am vehemently opposed to the idea of changing one’s surname. I don’t hate men, but I certainly don’t think that they are more special than women or that I should be proud of them and them not of me. I don’t think that I should do anything to demonstrate to any future daughter of mine that she is less of a person because she is female.  I don’t want to be seen to make up embarrassing excuses for what I contribute to perpetuating gender inequities. I won’t shift blame of my actions onto my children. Your children have the name you give them; you have the surname you choose to take. Fuck, why don’t you and your husband invent a surname and start from scratch?

So why do women change their names? Why don’t men? It’s not about the kids, it’s about power. It’s one of the last forms of patriarchal oppression that is still the accepted norm in modern society. And women are buying into it in droves. And they know it’s hard to reconcile professional careers, education, high-paying jobs, home-ownership  and other things with the old school gender inequity that is implicit in taking a man’s name. I give her my name. I have branded her. She is mine. My property. She is now somebody’s Mrs. FUCK THAT!

So quit saying that you’re changing your names for the children or because it shows that you’re proud of your man and start saying out aloud that you have changed your name because you want to contribute to a culture where women are less than men and where heteronormativity reigns supreme. 

*name changed

Research: it's all in the numbers

And I am not speaking about quantitative methods - the strength of the numbers there is obvious.

There's often debate in the social sciences - how many interviews is 'enough'? Should we aim for fewer, more in-depth interviews or many interviews which only scratch the surface? 'You will have too much data' is a common accusation that's thrown my way. And I will have too much data. But while a bit messy and difficult to manage, it's a far better predicament to be in that not having enough data.

So far I have done about 45 in in-depth interviews on a project exploring young people's pathways into problematic substance use. I am hoping to get to about 80. It's a life history approach and yes, there will be more data than I use for the thesis. But the thing is, the more interviews one does, the more one can grapple with the patterns which emerge.

Early on in my interviews, there were some very distinct patterns - lots of child abuse and homelessness. Lots and lots of poverty. There was also a very striking finding among the young women I had interviewed. A pattern so consistent and articulated so similarly from to participant to participant that I knew that this was a story. This was a thesis chapter. The more interviews I did, the better I understood this pattern and how it came about. While there was evidence of a pattern very early on, lots of interviews gave me the story of what the pattern meant; how it was experienced.

There was not such a clear pattern among the boys. But this week, there was a breakthrough - the boys' story began to show itself. It was one of the light bulb moments you have as a researcher. It confirmed to me the benefits of collecting 'too much' data: it makes one really understand their data. So while I may not 'use' it all in the thesis - it has contributed to me understanding it all.

I could have, potentially, written a thesis with 20-30 interviews. But I wouldn't have been able to grasp the patterns, as you need them to emerge on their own. It's all in the numbers.