Why people blog about illness

Hundreds of people blog about their illness or trauma every day. Sue Eckstein explains why - Guardian.

Weight Loss

3 months ago I weighed in at 99kg, so at 177cm tall, I had a BMI of 31.6. Meaning I was OBESE. I've been on a diet since, and though it hasn't been easy I've been steadily losing weight. I reach an important milestone a few weeks ago - I was not embarrassed to tuck my shirt into my belt when I went outside!

Today I reached another milestone. I'm at the mid-point of OVERWEIGHT for my height 86.1 kg, BMI 27.5. My goal is 78kg just within the NORMAL range for my height. I haven't been that weight for 20 years.

My body has changed quiet a bit. I'm much less round. My inner thighs no longer rub together I walk which used to give me rashes and chaffing. My face has changed - my cheeks are now slightly concave instead of convex. I've had more holes made in my belt because I'm 16cm less in circumference. I don't get out of breath walking up our stairs. I can go for a long walk every day now. I've bought some new clothes recently without feeling like a fat pig - and I now look quite sharp in my black moleskin jacket, black jeans and Dr Martin's shoes. Well I fancy that I do.

Sadly it hasn't made much difference to my FIBROMYALGIA but I wasn't expecting it to. I feel healthier though, and a little less repulsive.

Proforma Press Releases

I've recently been struck by how the Brits report what politicians are going to say in advance, "so and so will say blah blah about blah blah tomorrow". Once the so and so has said "blah blah" that is also reported. The so and sos get double the mileage from their PR budget, and the media seem to go along with it presumably because they also get twice the mileage from the story.

I wish they would focus more on what the so and sos are actually doing, and less on what they say they will say they are going to do if they can. Sadly the gap between what they say and what they do is often vast and it is only the light weight satirical media like Have I Got News for You or The Now Show that pick up on the discrepancies. The so and sos say so much, put out so many press releases - and as we have seen recently the press don't always bother to check their facts! - that the details become overwhelming. The media cherry pick according to their own agenda - which I think more or less consists in outraging as many people as possible.

It is good to have a reprieve from IDS/DWP press releases in the last week or two. They were coming thick and fast for a while and I was feeing suicidal trying to keep up and understand what it meant for me.

Some stuff

I've now lost 10kg on my diets (in old money that about 1.5 stone). Feeling good, though it's more difficult now. Aiming to hit 80kg mid-Feb, and will be in the normal range for my height - it will be the most normal thing about me.

I've been thinking this morning. I'm not sure if people grasp the reality of the economic situation. What the govt are doing is lowering the standard of living for all lower and middle income earners. The rich will maintain their standard of living. On the other hand Cameron's initiative to measure happiness might be intriguing if I wasn't so cynical about the uses he'll put it to. Anyone with an interest in this stuff already knows that money doesn't make you happy, and I think DC will be using this fact to try to make us feel better about lowering our standard of living, while maintaining his own millionaire lifestyle. Someone somewhere pointed out that 23 or the 29 cabinet members are millionaires - "we're all in this together"? Fuck off.

Finally, we have a new Queen in waiting. I'm a subject, and I don't mind that much. Compared to politicians the royals are an honest and useful bunch. I'm a great believer in myth and archetypes, and we need someone to bear the archetype of ruler, because let's face it those dishonest bastards in parliament inspire zero confidence. People keep saying dumb things like Elizabeth II (peace be upon her) will bypass Charles and hand the crown to William. Duh. When Elizabeth dies or abdicates the crown goes to Charles unless he dies or abdicates. The Queen can't subvert that without subverting the whole principle of monarchy. Of course William is being groomed to be King though, because that's how it works - he has to be ready to assume his duty as King should he be needed.

Despite not feeling well enough to work I have no doubt that the WCA will judge me fit for work. In my experience of these tests they seldom actually test for what is wrong with me. I can do most things once (they make you do things like squat, push against things, grip things). Once is fine as long as it's not too vigorous. Twice, or three times even, but 10 causes me pain that takes a while to wear off and it's cumulative. Because no doctor has ever tested me for this, and really it is the central physical problem I have, I am starting to get quite nervous. Actually I started to plan on a massive drop in income - jiggling my budget around to see how I can live on what I'll be getting. It won't be easy.

It's a Sin

Ian Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, said today it was a "sin" that people failed to take up available jobs as he prepared to announce a tougher-than-expected squeeze on the unemployed. Guardian.

So. Another round in the war on the welfare system. The rhetoric comes thick and fast, and now takes on religious overtones. I agree that it should always pay to work, but of course there are 3 able-bodied unemployed people for every job in this country, plus a few less than able-bodied; so I don't see how this is going to work. About 500,000 people are about to be culled from the civil service. Another few 100,000 will lose their jobs as down stream effects. Growth is only just above zero.

What we don't know is whether any of this going to help.

It wasn't unemployment which created the mess the country is in. It was bad financial management, and greedy rich people - compare the UK with Norway which has weathered the storm much better. China, and India do not have the same problems that we do either. Unemployment is a symptom. Massive numbers of sick and incapacitated people is a symptom of a broader malaise. This campaign is ideological, not economic, and not interested in the causes of our problems.

The people in this country who inherited money, whose family connections got them into the best schools, and whose old-boy networks get them into the best jobs are incensed that someone should get something for nothing. It is outrageous.

It seems to me that I must completely fail to understand the British public - presumably the PR people, who do understand them, have a firm hand on the tiller and all this rhetoric is deliberately crafted for the public, who are apparently lapping it up (except for a few students). But then back in New Zealand we voted for conservative governments for years as well. Maybe I'm just out of step?

I wonder how all this will look ten years hence? A brilliant stroke, or the beginning of a disaster.

New Glasses

Just picked up my new glasses from SpecSavers. Awesome. I'd gotten what crisp vision was like. Thanks NHS! Thanks tax payers.

The Virtue of Modesty

I've been listening to a woman on the radio who is a Muslim convert. She waxed lyrical about wearing a hijab and long dress which hide her whole body. "It's liberating", she said, "because as a woman you are judged so much on how you look". Fine I can understand that to some extent - men stare at women, and sometimes say things or worse (though certainly not that much where I live). But then she described the experience of wearing the hijab in public: she is regularly shouted and jeered at, insulted to her face, and spat at. Her children suffer the same. She has to be careful about where she goes because some places she is more likely to encounter that kind of hostility.

So this I don't understand. In what sense is she more liberated wearing clothing that attracts active violent hostility, than wearing modest western clothing which I imagine would not stand out, and not attract attention? Why choose to stand out in the crowd by dressing like an Arab, when plain clothes would be a far better way of staying incognito? An undercover cop takes off the uniform in order to blend in! She hasn't thought it through. If you dress to attract attention then that is vanity - whether you are showing off your body or your religion.

I've every sympathy with people practising their religion, though I'm not convinced by Western Muslims who want to look Arab, or Western Buddhists who want to look Asian, or Western Hindus who want to look Indian. If you dress different you attract attention. Religious people often remind me of people with tattoos. People with tattoos often walk around in clothing that shows their tattoo off. People with religious piety want everyone to know, which is in fact impious generally speaking. The whole point of the hijab is modesty. But it's modesty according to medieval Arab dress codes, not 21st century England, so it stands out like dogs balls!

I don't think that having chosen to mark yourself out as different you have much right to complain about being treated differently. You've stated your intention. Yet this woman was in tears because of it. I don't for a minute condone boorish or violent behaviour in others. Ideally we should be tolerant and accepting of difference, but the reality is that most people aren't. Yes, they are ignorant and stupid. But why bait them? If you bait an ignorant bully, you generally are asking for a punch in the stomach. That is also a form of ignorance and stupidity. In order not to attract attention one keeps one head down, one doesn't shout "look at me!"

I actually wish more women would dress modestly. It's horrible seeing all that flesh, the constant sexual stimulation and no outlet for me. Women simply do not look at me any more, but especially young women who dress to emphasise their erogenous zones. They seek to stimulate sexual desire in men, but at the same time complain about being seen as 'mere' sex-objects. I don't think women's liberation was all about women being able to dress like hookers, and star in their own porn movies. It was about (on balance at least) having equal dignity and respect, equal rights. So sorry, but if you dress like a hooker then I do not respect you for your intelligence because that is not what you are communicating. I don't like seeing men walking around with their shirts off either, or their trousers falling down. It is all saying "I don't give a shit about you or what you think, I'm going to do whatever I like and you can fuck off". And that is antisocial. So yeah, I do have a great deal of sympathy with those religious people who wish that everyone would think about the impact their choices make on others, and I am in favour of modesty as a virtue - in men and women!! But modesty means not attracting attention. The hijab cannot help but attract attention in Britain. Wearing a hijab in Britain you are never going to blend in. It is vain and immodest and stupid. Dress like a stereotypical librarian or a middle-aged woman - no one shouts abuse at them, because no one notices them (which is the whole point of modesty).