Mental Illness Does Not Define Who I am

When I posted a blog about mental health discrimination and stigma about six months back, I'll admit that my experience with it was pretty limited. I'd experienced the odd sideways glance, some people were extra sensitive to my feelings, I was occasionally told to 'man up' or 'cheer up', but I never experienced what I believed was out right discrimination.

That's why, when I recently applied for a position in a summer camp in Canada for next year, I had no worries that my mental health issues would in any way impact my application. Having briefly touched down there last year whilst waiting for a transfer flight, I've since wanted to visit so I was pretty quick to fill out the application form through Camp America, so that I could do so whilst earning money to travel.

About a month ago, I received a reply (italicised below) which, in the short form, said that the company was unable to take my application further based on the information about my mental health that I had disclosed in my application.

"Based upon the information that you have provided, we may not be able to move further with your application this year. I know this news is disheartening but please allow me to explain the reason behind this decision.

Firstly let me state that Camp Canada in no way discriminates against anyone with mental health problems. However, in the past, the camps that we work with have taken on counsellors who have had a recent history of anxiety or other emotional problems and there have been some incidents that have caused the Canadian/American government to change their policies on the cultural exchange visa. Therefore, our camps are changing their application rules.

This means that camps in Canada will not hire applicants who have suffered from any mental or emotional disorders within the past two years. This is because this experience is also a job, and you would be responsible for the welfare of children throughout the day. Though the experience is fun and fulfilling, it is also tough. You will be in an unfamiliar environment and away from everything you know. Camp directors want to make sure their staff are capable of dealing with this and can keep the children safe."

The application asked me if I had ever had mental health issues. I answered the question honestly, making it clear that I had previously been diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorder but that I was physically and mentally fit to travel and work at the time. I was slightly concerned about disclosing the information, but I felt safer being truthful, and believed that it wouldn't be an issue.

When I read the response, I was obviously a bit upset that my application wasn't being taken any further. I completely understand the company's need for a policy, but the fact that I was being labelled as someone who was incapable of dealing with change, or unable to take responsibility for children's welfare based on an illness I was deemed to have recovered from upset me all the more. It made me feel foolish for ever being honest and annoyed at myself for ever being unwell. Things I really shouldn't have to feel.

The tone of the email upset me even more. I am fully aware that the experience is also a job. I am fully aware of the responsibilities and fully aware that it isn't something to be taken lightly. It annoys me that based on this experience, I'm unlikely to want to apply for this again, even when I have passed the two year mark. Why should I want to when I'm going to doubt myself and not feel trusted throughout the whole thing?

I don't believe that I'm incapable of looking after children, seeing as I've done so for much of my life with brothers and a sister all younger than me. If the company had asked, they would know that I studied abroad for a month last year whilst I was suffering with mental health issues, and that I coped considerably well in the situation. If I had any doubts about my ability to cope with the programme, I wouldn't have even considered filling out an application. I know my limits.

Personally, I think that having depression has made me a stronger and perhaps a healthier person. It's provided me with the skills to empathise and care for all types of people, and to deal with high pressured situations - situations, incidentally, that I'm sure I would face as a camp counsellor at a summer camp. Mental health discrimination was always something I feared facing before I came out of my mental health closet, but I never imagined my mental health issues would come back to haunt me when it came to the work place, especially when I was through the worst of my illness.

My mental health history really doesn't change who I am as a person. I am a 21-year-old woman who had depression, not a depressed woman. And, even though it doesn't sound like it, there's a big difference between the two. My mental health does not make up all of me. I am much, much more than an illness, and this summer camp is going to miss out on all of who I really am. I am not going to let an illness define me, and I'm not going to let anyone else define me in that way either.

Dear Mr Gove - Don't Axe The American Classics

Dear Mr Gove,
I woke up yesterday to a news feed awash with fears that you had plans to axe To Kill a Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men from the curriculum because they aren't British Classics.

I understand your desire to expose children to books that have a heritage based in their own country, to make them read books that are specific to Britain and are relatable to British students. I understand that you want to preserve British classics and their authors. However, I also understand that just because a book is written by a British author, it doesn't mean it will have any extra benefit to the British curriculum or portray anything particularly British within the story. I understand that the lessons a book can teach are invaluable, regardless of its origin and that to want to axe the aforementioned classics from the British curriculum, is short-sighted.

You have not banned the books from the classroom, no. But what you have done is taken them from the syllabus, thus making them more difficult to fit into the already jam packed curriculum. How will teachers find the time to study another piece of literature on top of those that are part of the curriculum?  How will students find the time or the will to read works such as Of Mice and Men or To Kill and Mockingbird when they have 12 or more other subjects to revise for at the same time? If they disappear from the curriculum, they'll disappear full stop.
In my class, we initially read Emma and I, (and more than likely my entire class) hated it. I hated every single page I was forced to read and I so clearly remember reading it and thinking I will never, ever read this book again. It taught me nothing, except how to be spoilt and self absorbed. The only lesson I took away from that book was that I should never want to be that kind of person; something I already knew anyway.

Fortunately, we also read Of Mice and Men which saved my concentration from wandering astray. I had never come across a book before that displayed such true, lonely and human emotions. After all, I was just a lonely teenager at the time, and I related with the characters far more than I have done since in any piece of literature.

You see, Mr Gove, we read Of Mice and Men at a time when I was feeling very insecure about who I was. I was a sixteen year old girl, beginning to understand that I was on the outside of everyone and everything else in my environment. I struggled with my identity, my sexuality and my mental health at the time, and even though I sat in a classroom full of other students reading the same books and experiencing the same syllabus, they were not experiencing what was going on inside of my head.
Like Lenny and George, I was an outsider. I was lonely, and depressed, and my self-esteem was non-existent. Like Curley, I was angry at everyone and everything because I was an outsider. Like Curley's wife, I was craving attention, and craving someone to notice something wasn't right and to pull me back into the inside.

It all changed when I read that book. When I reached the final pages, I realised that being an outsider was just fine if I wasn't alone. And I wasn't alone. I was surrounded by wonderful friends and an amazing family who would have gladly sat on the outside with me.  It was one of the most important lessons I've ever learnt, and it changed everything. I was no longer lonely and my self-esteem crept back up. I was no longer angry and I no longer craved that attention I had before. I was so much happier in myself. I wouldn't have learnt that lesson if I had not read that book.

I was inspired by that book, Mr Gove, and I still am. Shakespeare, Dickens, Bronte and Austen; yes I enjoyed their work and I admired the concepts in them, but they were never on my list of inspirational books. At a time when my self-esteem had hit rock bottom, I wondered about who I was, and if I would ever be 'normal', Of Mice and Men  was the book that I read, and was the book that lifted me from the hole I found myself in.

It is more than just a book. It is a thing of absolute beauty; a story that teaches us about raw human emotions, acceptance, friendship and kindness. It shows us the thin veil between life and death, the conflict we face in times of trouble and the tough choices between what is right, and what is easy. It challenges our stereotypes of mental health, loneliness, teaches us the concepts of mercy and hard work. These issues are presented in that story in such a way to facilitate very in-depth discussions about some important issues. It certainly made me face up to my own issues at the time.

 If these are not the lessons you want to continue teaching students, Mr Gove, then something is very wrong, because these lessons could help that sixteen year old student, as I was, who is struggling to cope and understand themselves and the world they live in.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't be forced to study texts in a classroom. In an ideal world, no one would have asked me to analyse why the curtains were blue in the opening scenes of Jane Eyre, or why she was reading a book about birds. In an ideal world, everybody would love reading, and no one would need to be told to read books. But, we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world with an education system that tests students of different capabilities in the same way - a system that demands perfection in all areas and unity, when really, we should be celebrating the specific abilities of each student, and the diversity of the British student population. 

Mr Gove, you want to broaden the literary horizons of students but it seems rather limiting to me to only allow literature from one sliver of the anglosphere. There is much that can be learnt from books, no matter who they are penned by. Give students copies of The Book Thief, On The Road, Little Women, The Great Gatsby, The Phantom Tollbooth and The Colour Purple.  Give them To Kill and Mockingbird and Of Mice and Men. No, they aren't British Classics, but they are still classics that teach invaluable life lessons.

The biggest losers here are the students, Mr Gove. Please remember that.

The Grey Area

Tesco now has 98 varieties of coffee. It's completely true; I was there just yesterday wandering around the aisle, when it hit me how much damn coffee there is in that place. I'm kind of ashamed to admit I went home and looked up how many varieties there were. How are you supposed to choose between Colombian Coffee beans, Illy Espresso Coffee Beans, Decaff, Nescafe or all the other varieties I've forgotten to mention? There was too much choice to wrap my head around. In this crazy world where  Tesco now has 98 varieties of coffee, it seems ridiculous to me that my choice about my sexuality seems so limited.

We've all heard the stereotypes attached to being bisexual; indecisive, confused, wanting your cake and eating it too, gay or lesbian in transition, the list goes on and on. If you identify as bisexual, it's likely that you've encountered these clichés at some point. I know that I certainly have.

Being gay or lesbian sometimes has its difficulties attached to it, but it can be more of a hardship to be bisexual, in a world where you are either this or that, everything is black or white and there is no middle ground or grey area to settle in. When you aren't one way or the other, but sitting on the fence, life can be problematic with issues that homosexuals and heterosexuals simply do not encounter.

Like everyone who has a sexuality, I didn't choose to be bisexual. None of us choose whom we are attracted to, and none of us have any control over our attraction. It baffles me when people tell me that I am simply in a limbo and that I can't choose which gender I am more attracted to, because it has never been a choice for me. Honestly, I like both genders equally. I am certain that I'm not in transition to come out as a lesbian, and that I haven't been experimenting for all these years. For some, it may be true that a transition or phase is occurring, but for most who identify as bisexual and maintain that identity, it is not, and, for me at least, it's boring, annoying and pretty insulting to have these lines of reasoning thrown my way over and over again.

All these clichés and exaggerated myths make being bisexual a very confusing and irritating experience. Do I really need to correct people who ask whether I'm "a bit more lesbian than I am straight?" When I was single, did I need to lay my sexuality on the table if I was flirting with someone, or was it unfair of me to keep quiet? Do I still have to explain to some people that I'm still bisexual, despite the fact I am in a relationship with a man now? It's actually quite annoying and it has gotten to the stage where I feel I should just keep quiet about it.

It feels as if it's just downright difficult and awkward being bisexual. You'd think the opposite; you  have the freedom to choose from  a pool two times larger than heterosexuals and homosexuals can choose from, you can have both gay and straight nights out and you can openly enjoy relationships with partners from both genders. And you can do all this while showing the world how open minded you are in your approach to sexuality. Great stuff!

Of course, I'm being sarcastic. All these cliches and ideas about what bisexuality should be/is, coupled with my own ideas about what my sexuality is about makes it feel like I'm trying to look left and right at the same time. It's expected considering the nature of what bisexuality entails, but it makes it feel as if being bisexual is almost impossible. With no etiquette or rule book on bisexuality, it is difficult to know what it should be about.

It's a grey area of sexuality.  It's not this or that. It's not black or white. It's slap bang in the middle, the area between the black and white of monosexual orientations. So tell me this; how on earth do you begin to fit in when you aren't in one camp or the other?

Bisexual identity is both complex and contradictory. There are few, if any, people who identify as bisexual that I know that fit into the societal description of bisexuality. Still, as is the case with lesbian and gay representation, as more individuals speak openly about attraction to both genders and more bisexual role models appear, the term may become more well-understood. Now, who wants some cake? Any flavour you like.

 

Thanks for your discrimination and stigma

Each and every one of us and each and every one of you reading this post has mental health. It's a fact that we often forget, and it is a fact that we should endeavour to remember.

There's a one in eight chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer in your average woman's life. There's a one in ten chance of developing depression in any one person's life. One in four people have mental health issues and, yet, we're far more open to discussing one topic more than the other. You don't need to be a genius to work out which one it is.

Despite the fact that attitudes are different towards other health issues, and that attitudes towards issues such as sexuality, culture, ethnicity, gender and disabilities are changing, discrimination against people who are suffering with mental health problems are still very widespread. A survey carried out investigating these issues showed that one in ten face discrimination and stigma every single day. 28% of people surveyed waited over a year to tell their families about their mental illnesses and 8.5% of people still haven't told their families. When we think about it, that's a hell of a lot of people.

When we discuss the stigma that surrounds mental health, all we're really discussing is the fear that surrounds the stigma of mental health. People suffer in silence and they don't open up about their mental health because they're scared of what others might say or do to them. It's all about the fear of possibility.

Obviously, I don't really need to say that stigma is bad, but it is. Stigma only adds to the problems that people face when they have a mental illness. Avoidance of the very thing that upsets or distresses you based on your anxieties of other people and what they may or may not think is really not very different to any other social anxiety or OCD behaviour. 58% of people say that the stigma is worse than the illness itself. Stigma has increasingly become a part of the illness of mental health and that's pretty crap.

I used to be one of those people that feared opening up about my issues, because I was so scared that I would be discriminated against, and treated differently for my mental health issues. Unfortunately, in my case, I was right to be fearful. I was told to "man up" a lot of the time. I was told I didn't need the medication that was necessary for my wellbeing at the time. I was told to cheer up, and that things would look better in the morning (of course, it never did.) People treated me like a china doll the minute they found out I had depression and anxiety disorder, being extra sensitive about what they were saying around me for fear they would upset me further, and constantly watching me out of the corners of their eyes, It was really annoying and obviously, none of it helped. All the people who said those things and treated me differently hurt me in more ways than they could possibly know at the time. Now I see that they were, and maybe still are narrow minded and foolish. But, instead of being angry about it, and instead of feeling sad about it, I should thank them.

Now I look back on when I first came out of my mental health closet I realise that the stigma surrounding mental health that bred the way I was treated actually did me a favour in the long run. The attitude towards me after I came out made me feel pretty defeatist in the short term, (ironically really because everyone was trying to do the exact opposite.) But, in the long run, it spurred me on to get well. People telling me to cheer up, to snap out of it and to stop being so miserable made me realise that, firstly, I didn't need those people in my life and that, secondly, I shouldn't let a bunch of narrow minded and scared people made me feel worse about myself. Your fear of my illness made me realise how much I wanted to stop being ill and made me remove the negative aspects (i.e. you) from my life.

The stigma surrounding mental health is crap and it needs to change. We all know that it does. Why should people with mental health issues be treated any differently because they are struggling with an invisible illness rather than one that can be plainly seen? If we could rewrite the history of the world to make people see mental and physical health combined, then our world would probably be in a much better state mentally.

So thank you to all those people who told me to cheer up and concentrate on what matters or I would never amount to anything, because I'm currently typing this in The Times Newspaper offices in London where I'm on work experience, whilst also revising for an interview for a Masters Course at Cardiff University next week. Thank you to those who said I didn't need the medication because you were right. I probably won't need it very soon. Thank you to all those people who treated me like I was made of glass because I now feel like I'm made of steel and I feel much better for it. But mostly, thank you for spurring me on to get better with your prejudices and fear. I owe you all one.

You can have a business while you're a student

About a year ago, my partner sat me down, looked me very seriously in the eye and said, “Gemma, I’m going to start a company.”

At that point, we had just finished our second year of university and had a whole year left of higher education; I my Bachelors in History and he, his degree in Law and Politics. The idea, now I look back on it, seemed a bit far-fetched. For a while, I don’t think neither he nor I really knew what he wanted the company to specialise in, not to mention what types of products it would market and sell and all the other important things you need to consider when setting up your own business. But, he did have a name, he did have partners who were interested in his ideas and he did have the drive, so we went with it.

A year later and Mayfly Tech is going from strength to strength. Since that day when we sat down and discussed the company, he has gone on with fellow directors (myself included) to establish a strong and close knit team of university students and is starting to get contracts and payment in at this early stage. They are doing incredibly well for themselves already and to say I’m proud is an understatement.

The fact that they’ve achieved this whilst at university makes it all the more exciting and special. Balancing your work life with your social life is never an easy task, but to throw managing a business in there too? It’s pretty impressive. 

Ultimately, what I’m asking is, is it possible to run a company whilst you are a university student? And should you?

Student entrepreneurship has been around for a very long time. It was Harvard students who founded Facebook, an MBA student who set up a fancy ice cream parlour in London, Undergraduates from The University of Virginia who set up Reddit and Newcastle students who now manage their own lingerie business. We’re in a recession here in Britain, but student entrepreneurship, wherever you look, is thriving.

When we think about it logically, university is a pretty good starting point for setting up a business. The pressures that non-student entrepreneurs face to make a profit really aren’t as essential when you are a university student. Sure, extra cash would be nice, but while you are a student, paying back your student loan is in the distant future and with careful use of your loans and overdrafts, you are given a chance to somewhat forget about the financial aspect of your company, and to focus on the products and management of it instead.  

Secondly, like they have done at Swansea University with Mayfly Tech, the business department of the university are often on hand to help out. The people in this department are professionals; they know how business works, they know a good idea from a bad one and they can guide you in the right direction if needs be. Their advice, (and in our case) their guidance has been invaluable to us. If you are considering setting up a business during or even after studying at university, it is essential to utilise the facilities and freely available professional advice. It really does make a difference.

University is an ideal environment for students to develop as people, with freedom to test various career choices. It is also an ideal time for trial and error; a luxury that those who aren’t students, and with full time jobs, do not have. You get several opportunities to work on your business and, if it doesn’t work, you have the freedom to start again in an environment where your ideas and thoughts will be nurtured and supported.  The first business a student launches might well not be a success; statistically, it is likely not to succeed. But the experience not succeeding and starting again is invaluable, and is one that you have more freedom to gain by starting a business at university.

The notion of using your time at university to actually study is a valid argument for not setting up a business during your time there. But let’s think about it; the flexibility students have when at university is astronomical, and is a flexibility that you wouldn’t be able to get if you were employed in a full time job, nor is it likely that you’ll ever get that same flexibility again.  

And if you’re fearful of not being taken seriously, remember all the students of the past who I mentioned above who set their respective businesses up at university. They all probably felt exactly the same, and look where they are now. Any idea is a valid one, and students who want to set up their own businesses must remember and be confident in that.

Starting a business can be a very rewarding and enjoyable experience. Of course, it’s not for everyone, nor should it be, or the world would be full of entrepreneurs and there would be no diversity in what we decide to do with our own lives. If starting a business is a direction you want to go in, the best time to do so is during university.

Of course, I’m not saying that university is a waste of time. Degrees are not useless; they give you a solid grounding, it’s always a positive thing to try to further your knowledge and university life matures you drastically in a very short period of time.  If university is the right path for you, it is a very enjoyable period of your life, with the freedom to experiment and become your own person. In a way, I suppose Mayfly Tech was an experiment to start with, but it has now thrived into something much more. Students shouldn’t have to wait for opportunities to come along. It’s a common misconception that a degree automatically guarantees a job, or that we students have to bide our time and wait three or four years before we can start looking for our dream jobs. We are in the driving seats and we mustn’t become passengers in our own lives.

Should We Ban The Sun Because Of Page Three?

This week at Swansea Students' Union, the union put forward a motion to ban the distribution and selling of The Sun and The Daily Star in the on campus shop. Honestly, I've always thought it would come much sooner than this to follow up the banning of lads mags on campus some years ago. Following a student forum earlier this week, the motion to ban these newspapers failed, though we will support the 'No More Page 3 Campaign," which is really great. However, the whole debate got me thinking about this issue.

When we come across stories like this, we are reminded that nude modelling is still considered a very controversial subject, especially for women. We have come a long way in the feminist movement since its inception but, clearly, there is still some room for improvement. I do not like the fact that The Sun put topless women on page three, because it is outdated and pointless, but I think the outright banning of a publication is not the right way to tackle this issue.

I'm not an avid reader of The Sun or The Daily Star by any stretch of the imagination, so I suppose it would not be a massive detriment to the rest of my time at university if it were on the shelf or not. It is safe to say that The Sun was never (and never really will be) a particularly popular newspaper in any Students' Union across the country, but that doesn't mean it should be taken off the shelves.

The banning is an issue of censorship. By the union not selling the newspaper, they are making it more difficult to obtain and, in my opinion, this is pretty much the same as censoring the publication. Historically, one of Britain's most valued heritages is press freedom from censorship and, (though Students' Unions are on a smaller scale in comparison to Britain as a whole), we should be treasuring this heritage and remembering that the freedom to choose which newspaper we want to read and therefore, the news we want to consume, is one of our most important and basic human rights. For me, the proposed banning was more an attack on my liberties to choose my own newspaper than tackling the issue of the objectification of women.

I feel like my freedom to express myself through my choices would have been restricted, and frankly, I feel like it is being implied that I cannot make an informed decision in what I read. Don't Students' Unions exist to represent the best interests of its members as a whole? The motion didn't represent the student body (what about those students who do read The Sun?), it discriminated against students and it went against the diversity of its membership. I admit, there should be an effort to inform people of the harmful results of these pages but, at university, we are all adults who know our own minds and know what we want to read. No one should take that right away from us.

(Also, I'd just like to stress that the union allows the stocking and selling of magazines in which men feature naked, but I'll come back to this point later.)

As with anything in life, I find that if you ban something, the likelihood is that people are going to be more inclined to try to find it anyway. Removing The Sun in our Students' Union will not end the exploitation of women. Sadly, it is a misguided thought that banning the paper in the Students' Union will make a massive difference to the objectification of women on a global scale. In fact, as much as I'd like to think otherwise, it may even make things worse as people turn to other, less regulated locations to find exploitative imagery.

As I have already said, I am of the opinion that page three is an outdated part of the newspaper that should be eradicated. Times have changed and we need to move on from this kind of smut and get The Sun to produce some quality (albeit including a bit of pop culture) journalism. However, we are fortunate enough to live in an age in which a woman can choose what type of work she wants to do. If a woman did not want to undertake topless modelling, she wouldn't do it. It is her basic human right to do that and we should respect that.

We have come so far in the feminist movement. Over the course of the last 80 years, women have moved up the ranks and now, we are more equal than ever to our male counterparts. And yet, the movement that once liberated women and fought for our rights, is now restrictive, in this instance, I feel that it is effectively telling women who may want to be nude models that their ambitions are wrong.

I am a feminist. I am very proud to be a feminist. I want women to have equal rights, to be treated equally, and believe that any woman can do anything as well as any man could. But, I am increasingly seeing that there is a certain negative stigma attached to the word 'feminism' these days, which is a shame because it really is a very empowering and wonderful movement I hold very close to my heart. However, I'm starting to feel like the movement is telling me more about what I can't do, rather than what I can do. If I want to be a nude model, I have that right to be without anyone questioning it.

My main issue with modern day feminism, however, is that it is increasingly gender specific and gender focused. What the movement really needs is to fight for genuine equality between the sexes.

Men can be feminists. In fact, men make pretty damn good feminists. I find that feminists, in fact people in general, sometimes forget that men are also the brunt of sexist thinking some of the time. You think about our society and the ways in which men are expected to behave; the list of things they cannot do because of the way our society thinks is endless. Lad culture stresses that the only way men can enjoy themselves is by acting a certain way and this acceptance of the way 'blokes' should act makes it near enough to impossible for them to be otherwise. Men and women are both the brunt of sexist thinking in an equal measure these days, and it is something we need to remind ourselves of.

Reverting back to a point I made earlier, the union stocks and sells magazines in which men feature naked. If we're going to ban topless women being featured in our shops, then surely we must ban the magazines that promote naked men. If men and women are truly equal, (which, we know they are or at least they should be), and people are so against page three that they consider banning the stocking and selling of the publication that promotes the provocative images of women, then provocative images of men should go too.

Yes, page three should go. It is outdated, it is pointless and it has no place in newspapers. It is demeaning, not just for the women on the page, but for the men, women, boys and girls who have to see it. It should go. But banning the publication and taking away basic human rights to a free press for one bad page isn't the way forward. When you start to ban newspapers because you don't like their content, you remove the power of the people, and take away their abilities to make a conscious effort to stand up and say that they don't want to buy publications which spread sexist and derogatory messages. Should the union put internet blocks on their computers to ban access to certain websites? Should books in the library be banned for spreading a bad message? The answer is no. Banning the newspaper in my students' union will not make a massive impact on sale figures to bring about a real change, (as has been seen in many others across the UK) but a real and a sustained campaign could. We should also bear in mind that, while we have a right to a free press, we also have a right to do what we want to do, and if a woman or a man wants to undertake nude modelling, then that is their right. We should not challenge what people wish to do with their own bodies. While we wait for page three to be banned (because it will be one day), we should teach our children and remind ourselves that these women and men who feature in these provocative images, and people in general, are much more than sex objects and that this derogatory mindset has no place in our individual thoughts.

Only Yes means Yes

While it is clear to many of us that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, the difficulties in communication between the sexes is a subject that has never really been understood. Both men and women, in fact humans in general, often find difficulty in understanding that, sometimes, when someone says no, that they really mean no.

The subject is explored in a recent blog post by Vincent Vinturi, titled, "When Her No Means Yes." You can imagine the kind of ludicrous bullshit that is going to be spewed out during this article from the offset. The article has infuriated me since I read it at the beginning of this week, so I'm now going to take some time to respond to it with my own thoughts.

Women say "no" to me in one way or another on a regular basis, e.g. "no, you can't have my number", "no I should go home", "no I'm not coming into your apartment", and of course, the classic, "no, we're not having sex."

Yet somehow, when it's all said and done, that woman is invariably happy that I didn't listen to a single word of protest she uttered; that I barrelled through her resistance nonchalantly and drove the ball to the basket. Women RESPECT this sexual insistence, even if they aren't acutely aware of it. 

Personally, I thought that society had somewhat moved on from these backward views. A woman is well within her rights to tell you no at any stage of the evening, be that at the bar, in the taxi home, her front porch or even her bedroom. From my point of view, I would have nothing but contempt for a man who tried to manipulate me and convince me that I hadn't really changed my mind, and would continue to force himself on me. I would definitely not respect him for throwing about his weight and convincing me to change my mind when it was already made it. It is nothing short of coercion and any man who believes that this is a good way to attract a woman is deluded.

The consent crowd, however, would like for men to believe that anything short of a written statement, notarized and signed by the soon to be fornicated party, is rape.

The only way to know that sex is consensual is if there's a freely and clearly given "yes," which, to answer Vinturi's distasteful joke, isn't that difficult to get out of a woman. Either she wants to have sex with you, or she doesn't. Ensuring consent only requires the most basic respect that we all owe to our partners from the offset: paying attention to how they feel, how comfortable they are and asking them if we can't tell.

It's really not that difficult. But, even if it were, it's the only way to ensure a genuinely equal world in which, not just women, but men's bodies aren't presumed to be available to their potential partners until otherwise stated.

Women want to monopolize power in the sexual marketplace so that they can control access to sex and manipulate this most primal, most productive of urges to their benefit. Ultimately, it isn't to their benefit at all but that's another story. Perhaps it's not different from Western men who go to a country where their sexual value is much higher and pussy seems to fall from the sky. We're all looking out for number one and doing whatever we can to pass on those selfish genes.

Ask any guy who's banged a lot of girls and has had a lot of same-night lays, and he will surely regale you with tales of seemingly insurmountable resistance, conquered and slain by his resolve and unwavering horniness. It's the nature of beautiful women to resist, test, protest, sabotage and make your job of ******* them difficult. 

It baffles me how Vinturi has any of his own stories to regale. The way he talks about women is demeaning, especially in the last two paragraphs. Women are not objects that are made to be 'conquered and slain by resolve'. This kind of logic just doesn't fly in real life sexual interactions. Are all women really to be considered willing sexual participants unless otherwise stated? If we flirt with someone, or even kiss them, does that give them permission to do whatever else they want to our bodies until we strenuously object? It doesn't, by the way, and I don't want to be in a world where not just women, but sex, is viewed in this kind of way.

With rape laws the way they are in countries like the US and Canada, it's downright scary to be a man and act with natural disinhibition in the company of beautiful women in these countries. We're at a dangerous cultural crossroads, where a woman's need for validation is at an all time high, and the repercussions for accusing men of rape are non-existent.

In the modern context, rape is essentially the act of ultimate validation and a rape accusation is the ultimate act of attention whoring. I'm not supporting it of course, don't be silly. But think about it. If a man finds a woman SO incredibly desirable that he would throw his freedom, reputation, his whole life away to **** her, that shows the woman is on the highest echelon of desirability. And in fact, women have begun to routinely accuse men of rape purely for the ego validation that the onslaught of attention brings them. Even though the night before, they gleefully received the gent's ravishment.

And why not? If a woman can have her cake and eat it, too, she will.

False rape accusations are not to be taken lightly. I will admit that it does happen and that when it does happen, it is very wrong and very dangerous for all involved. But to infer that rape accusation, be it genuine or not, is an act of attention whoring is completely wrong. The very assumption that women say no, not because we don't want to have sex, but so that we can humiliate and have control over any man who approaches us is, frankly, arrogant on the part of the man being rejected. Vinturi is essentially saying that women's objections are a challenge to a man's masculinity that should be overcome.

Secondly, I personally wouldn't feel very flattered in knowing that a man found me so desirable that he would throw his freedom to have sex with me. I can't even believe I have to clarify that.

But I have to issue a serious warning: ploughing through a woman's objections with bemused persistence isn't for newcomers to the game. Especially not in the US. You need to be FLUENT in reading female body language. You need to know exactly what you're doing. The thing to understand is that telling a man "no" is a way to weed out the weaklings from the men who know what they want (her).

Yet again, woman are being dehumanised. Women's wants, desires, boundaries and reasoning's are being totally dismissed. Vinturi sugar coats it; women's objections are a game and that, when it's all over, the woman will thank the man for forcing through her wants and boundaries. According to Vinturi, having sex with a woman isn't about connection, communication or even desire. It's about closing the deal, getting what he wants, regardless of objections, resistance or rejection.

I can't stress strongly enough how dangerous and backwards this way of thinking is. Though Vinturi states later on in his post that he is against rape and that his post is merely about how to persuade a woman, he is effectively buying into rape culture by writing all this nonsense down. What Vinturi fails to understand is the no actually does mean no. It signifies the end of the discussion and is absolutely not an invitation to push harder. Only a clear and direct "yes" can really mean "yes".

Merthyr Tydfil Is Not a 'Crap Town'

For Christmas, my parents gave my boyfriend a book entitled "Crap towns returns", which I'm sure most people have heard of. They gave it to him because they found it hilarious that our own home town, Merthyr Tydfil, featured in it, as it has done many times before because, according to the masses, it's a crap place to live.

Following that, a discussion on Facebook about the benefits system prompted some to make some distasteful comments about Merthyr as a whole, which was completely wrong and naturally infuriating.

While it is pretty funny and it's all well and good for me to joke about the unemployment rates, the famous Gurnos estate, and the fact that the average life expectancy there is 58.8 years, it doesn't change that fact that it is not ok when someone is criticising it without ever having visited. The fact is, despite its flaws, I have a very deep love for the place. It is fantastically beautiful and there are lots of hidden gems that only us locals will be able to find. The problem is that many people are unable to see past the statistics.

I'm not here to deny the statistics. They are very much true - Merthyr is in the depth of high unemployment, many people are claiming benefits and we have a surplus of people and not enough places to cater jobs for them all. The rumours surrounding Merthyr are very rarely positive due to a few areas of the town being a bit rough around the edges and a general sense of being forgotten by the Welsh government. But, what I am here to remind you of is that there are places like Merthyr across Britain, where a bad reputation outshines the place beneath. I could list a whole range of towns I think are crap because of their bad reputation, but I won't because you should never judge a book by its cover.

Despite the fact that parts of Merthyr are a bit ropey like many other places in the UK, it is a beautiful place to live in and visit. There isn't much going on there, granted, but it has a rare quality I have yet to find anywhere else and that is a strong sense of community and togetherness. In fact, I challenge anyone to walk the streets of any dozen or so towns or cities of their choice in the UK and then take a walk in Merthyr. The friendliest people will be in Merthyr. The people who value being able to smile at passersby, say hello and generally make an effort to acknowledge others on the street will be in Merthyr. The people of Merthyr, they are truly wonderful. There isn't much going on in Merthyr, but there are many places that are worse and much more run down.

Frankly, I am beyond proud to say that I was born in Merthyr. Even though I have since moved on and have now lived in Swansea for nearing three years, I miss the place every single day. It's such a beautiful place to see, with rolling countryside and such rich and cultured heritage. The novelty of always driving towards a mountain will always be one that I treasure.

The crap towns list clearly did not focus on the surrounding countryside, nor did they speak to the good - natured, warm people or consider anything other than the economic viability of the place. Merthyr is by no means beyond the help it needs to rejuvenate itself. Realistically speaking, the crap towns list serves no real purpose other than to give the general public an opportunity to make jokes at the expense of town with reputations that surpass them, and others that don't deserve to be on there at all. We should remember that Merthyr is not the only place in the UK with a bad reputation and that people should give it a chance to showcase the good qualities before judging it on the bad ones. After all, every single town and city has parts of it that are rough around the edges.

Feminist Disney

When we think of Disney Princesses, we usually conjure up the classic princesses who are delicate, pretty and obsessed with finding their prince, who usually comes in the shape of a man in the peak of physical fitness, toned up, with flowing hair and handsome features. Disney's latest venture, Frozen, certainly stays true to the classic Walt Disney Princess stories but has updated the story to reflect modern times.

For those that haven't seen this film, Frozen tells the story of two orphaned sisters, Queen Elsa and Princess Anna. Anna doesn't know that her sister has the magical powers of being able to create snow and ice from her hands; a power she struggles to control.  On the day of Elsa's coronation, her secret is revealed and she flees the kingdom of Arendelle, leaving it in a state of eternal winter. Anna sets out to bring her sister back, meeting a ice selling mountain man, Kristoff and talking snowman, Olaf.

At first glance, this is another classic love story between Anna and Kristoff.  Just as I thought the 

movie was about to steer in the very predictable direction of the-handsome-man-saves-helpless-princesses-territory, the movie completely turned around, much to my delight. This time, Disney have decided that the love between the two sisters should take precedence over any man, which is amazing. I am so glad that Disney decided to explore the territory of sisterly love for the first time.

 I have a sister myself so it was really easy to relate to Anna and Elsa's relationship and clear love for each other. Even better, the Scandinavian princesses are both very real characters; independent, strong-willed, capable, witty and smart. And what's more, they aren't apologetic for what they are, (Elsa learns this lesson in the duration of the film and comes into her own and embraces her powers as a part of who she is.) Anna remains true to who she is, and doesn't downplay her intelligence or quick witted humour for the sake of  the male protagonist of the film. These traits make the characters very relatable and remind girls that they should always remain true to themselves, and that there is more to life than waiting for your prince to sweep you off your feet.

Some say that Disney's classic movies give girls unrealistic expectations of men. It is true that male princes play a sizable role in the earlier Disney movies like Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and The Little Mermaid, but I don't think that's the main focus of Disney movies. Many people choose only to see the romantic aspect of the films, and focus their attention on the men, but we must not forget the female co-stars, as Frozen has reminded us.

In fact, if we scrutinized the Disney Princesses beyond complaining how thin and helplessly romantic they are, we would find ourselves surprised at the positive traits that the princesses teach young girls. Cinderella embodies hard work, hope and remaining true to yourself. Snow White represents purity, innocence and being loving and open minded. Belle is loyal and very intelligent. Jasmine is incredibly sharp witted and Ariel reminds girls that they should have their own mind, even when their opinions aren't popular.

Many are questioning whether Frozen is the first feminist Disney movie but, to me, Disney has never been anti-feminist in previous films. Disney films were made to prove to young girls that women can stand for something and be successful and that, should they find their Prince Charming, he is found through hard work, dedication, patience and persistence. What we really need to do what we watch these films, be it the classic era or the new, is not to complain that there are no real men like that but to take a closer look at the co-stars of these princes and learn from them.