Women and World War Two

I must say how pleased I was to read this story on the BBC website -

Commendation for WW2 'Land Girls'

The "Land Girls" wore green ties and jumpers, plus brown felt hats
The "Land Girls", who worked on British farms to ensure food was supplied during World War II, are to receive a commendation recognising their efforts.
All surviving members of the Women's Land Army, which was 80,000-strong at its peak, will receive a special badge.

They "worked tirelessly for the benefit of the nation" during the 1940s, Environment Secretary Hilary Benn said.

"Their selfless service to the country deserves the recognition that this badge will represent," he added.

'Lumber Jills'

The "Land Girls" wore green ties and jumpers along with brown hats.

Many of them kept working for five years after the war, until the Women's Land Army was finally disbanded in 1950.


A film about the Land Girls, starring Anna Friel (left), came out in 1998
Their work was an important factor in ensuring milk, vegetables and other homegrown produce could be distributed around the country at a time of rationing and shortages.

And there were also "Lumber Jills", in the separate Women's Timber Corps, who were based in forests and provided wood which could be distributed nationwide.

"Supplying the nation with food and timber during the dark days of war was no easy task," said Mr Benn, who will honour the first group of recipients next year.

"I look forward to meeting some of the veterans and presenting them with their badges."

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said anyone wishing to apply for the commendation should fill out an application form, which would be made available "in the early part of next year".

It has also set up a telephone hotline for enquiries about the badge, which is 08459 335577.

ENDS

Like I mentioned it my blog about remembrance day and World War One Women, women deserve to be recognised and not forgotten. I doubt there are many female survivors left of World War One, I believe if there was a great amount, they would be recognised to, after all the Women's Land Army has its routes in World War One. When Germany successfully ensured naval blockades to British food imports, which equated to up to 55% of food requirements, there was a great shortage in farm labour and 1917 was a year of chaos and impending famine. Women got together and formed the first WLA, which included ploughing, milking, herding and thatching. Some what 23,000 girls worked hard to save their country from disaster until 1919, when men who had survived returned home and food import channels were reopended. Therefore, to prevent this occuring again during World War Two, the WLA was readily set up with guidance from those who worked during World War One.

However, like I mentioned in my first blog regarding World War One, women should be recognised to a much greater extent, from both world wars.

Removal of vital services due to lousy NHS management

The NHS has managed to get its self in a right mess over the past decade. Due to overspending and an overall unsuccessful budget management, it now has to cut many vital services to save money and to prevent further excess spending in the future. All hospitals will endure the consequences, from a reduction in cleaning staff to closure of wards.

All districts are facing huge cuts to their funding, with Oxford's alone being a staggering £33 million. Due to this, the Special Care Baby Unit at the Horton Hospital in Banbury is under threat with possible closure in 2008. Closure will result in obstetric services being downgraded to a midwife-led unit and being one of the furthest away from consultant support; 30 miles.

The possibility of the ward becoming midwife-led is understandably worrying. Any mother who finds herself in difficulty during childbirth will have to be transferred to Oxford, a measure in which delay costs lives to both mother and baby. Furthermore, staff at the Horton Hospital have repeatedly emphasized the risks of the proposal, with particular reference to a death of a child, who had to be transferred to the John Radcliffe for care because of pediatric services being cut 30 years ago at the SPCB, which were put back in place due to this. The distance between Banbury and Oxford hasnt changed, so why take the services away again and put mother and child at risk?

Futhermore, the closure of the ward is still very much possible, despite an NHS watchdog giving midwife-led birth centres a health warning after statistics found that babies have more chance of dying there than those delivered in a consultant based hospital, due to the lack of onsite emergency procedures such as a caesarean and resuscitation.

Again, like the previous two posts, this is an example of the NHS and other health agencies taking away vital care and support to patients due to their own mistakes. Rather than accepting that more funding is needed to provide full care, they take away the services to save money. Patricia Hewett should be working harder to get the funding, rather than sticking to a budget that is not enough to keep people alive!

Hopefully the various campaigns that are occuring across the country, such as the 'Save the Horton campaign' will continue their fight to keep wards open, such as the recent success in Cheltenham in which their local hospital was at risk.

www.keepthehortongeneral.org/

New Zealand follow up - I rest my case.

After my blog post yesterday on how mothers at a hospital in New Zealand are being paid to be discharged from hospital early, within 24 hours of giving birth, I was surprised to read this following story this morning and it really does demonstrate the lack of post-natal care that is a consequence of NZ's new policy to discharge the mother and baby ASAP. To be discharged within six hours is a huge mistake, particularly after the mother and baby did not see a Dr before leaving. It can't really be said that if they had stayed in hospital for a longer period that the baby would still be alive, but it really is possible that a Dr or nurse could have noticed any problems that may not have been apparant to the parents. I suppose all will be revealed once their has been an autopsy.

I really do not agree with the memo that the Capital and Coast District Health Board issued, encouraging midwives to discharge mothers within siz hours of giving birth. Like I said in the previous post, women will not get the amount of post-natal care that they need from breastfeeding to holding the baby. To make this news story worse, the couple were first time parents so they really should have stayed in the hospital longer and should not have been encouraged to go home.

I'm sure there will be many more cases like this so the policy and memo really needs to be addressed and reviewed. Let's hope this sort of thing does not begin in UK hospitals, yet it really is possible. The NHS are already trying to get mothers to leave within 24 hours so we can predict the future from a news story such as this one from NZ.

Baby dies after mum leaves hospital early

A newborn girl whose mother was discharged from Wellington Hospital five hours after the birth died later that night.
Baby death raises questions
Her first-time parents believe her sudden death might have been an "avoidable tragedy".
The baby died last Friday, just as Capital and Coast District Health Board was issuing a memo encouraging midwives to discharge mothers within six hours of giving birth, directly from the delivery suite. That policy did not apply to first-time mothers and came into effect only yesterday.
The hospital says the early discharge decision was made by the independent midwife. The midwife said the decision was up to the couple, and she believed they knew they could have stayed longer.
The devastated father, 28, told The Dominion Post yesterday that though he and his wife, also 28, were not forced to leave the hospital, it was not made clear they could stay if they wanted to.
The baby was born about 5am on Thursday, after a 20-hour labour. The family left the hospital at 10.30am. The baby died early on Friday. An autopsy will be done.
The parents did not see a doctor or a nurse after the birth. When they asked their midwife how long they would stay, she told them they could go home immediately if they wanted.
"They were the professionals with the experience and we relied on their advice. No one ever expressed any doubt about her going home.
"We do not blame anyone - the midwife and the hospital staff did a good job - but we are speaking out because we do not want this tragedy to happen to anyone else."
The couple did not know whether their baby would have survived if she had stayed in hospital, he said. "But maybe there was something that could have been picked up ... We didn't know there was any risk. We just did what we were told."
Stillbirth and Newborn Death Support coordinator Joan Curle, who has been supporting the couple, said she was shocked they had been allowed to leave so soon.
"She was a first-time mother, she was recovering from an episiotomy [a cut made to help childbirth], she hadn't slept in 30 hours, she did not have the support of extended family, the baby hadn't even learned how to latch on."
Capital and Coast issued a memo last week encouraging midwives to discharge mothers who had their second or subsequent child without complications directly from the birthing suites. They could stay in the suites up to six hours.
The DHB came in for strong criticism for saying women who went home directly from the delivery suite would be given a $100 supermarket voucher. It backtracked on the voucher scheme on Thursday.
Capital and Coast's clinical director of women's health services, John Tait, said last night postnatal beds were always available for women having their first baby.
"The decision for early discharge was made between the lead maternity carer [the midwife] and the woman. The hospital was not formally consulted about discharge."
The midwife said the couple knew they could stay longer. "Nobody tells them to leave." There was "no way" she would have discharged the family if she thought the woman was not well enough to leave.

Health professionals resort to bribery.

I read the following article online and I am shocked by the new scheme that this hospital in New Zealand has introduced. The idea to pay or shall we say bribe women who have just given birth to leave hospital within 24 hours is appalling, as if $100 is enough to compensate the removal of care and onsite emergency equipment, especially if you are a first time mum. From reading stories in the UK of how the NHS are working on having women stay a maximum of 24 hours if there baby is deemed well, I was annoyed as I believe women should have the maximum care and guidance in the first 48 if not 72 hours particularly concerning breastfeeding. If women are to leave within 24 hours, it is inevitable that the amount of women who breastfeed will decrease greatly.
The scheme in New Zealand has been introduced because of the lack of midwives. Surely they should be using the money to fund midwives, to promote courses and schemes and to generally work on advertising the profession. Instead, more and more people will accept the money and then the statistics will show that there is not a need for midwives as women are home within 24 hours, resulting in no change and no improvement of care.
Surely the main priority is of care, how are women and the child meant to receive this if they are paid to leave? Eventually wards will be decreased and be generally smaller in size as the amount of women staying over night will decrease and bingo, the government and NHS have more money to spend on themselves.

At least in NZ the women have an option, it is possible in the near future in the UK that women who give birth to a healthy baby will have to leave within 24 hours, giving them choice on the amount of post natal care they desire. Women will go home less confident then they could be if there was no limit to time and of course the mother will be very tired and will need the help of midwives/nurses in the first 24/48 hours. Not every woman who gives birth has a supportive family around her on hand to help.

Again this is an example of how the NHS work harder to remove services and cut costs then to fulfil their main role, to provide a SERVICE.

-----------
www.nzherald.co.nz

Hospital pays mums $100 to go home early
Page 1 of 2View as a single page11:47AM Thursday November 29, 2007
By Martin Johnston


Wellington Hospital. File photo / Mark Mitchell
Your Views
Are supermarket vouchers for new mothers a good idea?
Send us Your Views
Read Your Views
Mothers will be given a $100 supermarket voucher if they leave hospital within hours of giving birth, in a bid to deal with the national shortage of midwives.

The two-month-long scheme has been tagged "bribery" by a health group.

Capital and Coast District Health Board spokesman Michael Tull said yesterday: "We're encouraging people to go home straight from delivery ... without going to the post-natal ward."

The vouchers cannot be used to buy alcohol or tobacco.

The scheme revives similar ones used in Auckland and Waikato that were ditched in the 1990s after they failed to encourage shorter stays.

Women who give birth in hospital usually go home within 48 hours of a straightforward delivery.

The Wellington Hospital scheme, which starts on Saturday, is for women who have had a straightforward birth and whose baby is well.

It excludes women having their first birth or a caesarean delivery.

Women having their second or subsequent birth were encouraged to stay in the delivery suite for up to six hours after an uncomplicated delivery, said the board's midwife leader, Robyn Maude.

If they felt up to it, they could go home once staff were confident they and their baby were fine.

"No woman who is not clinically ready for discharge will be sent home."

Maternity Services Consumer Council co-ordinator Lynda Williams was appalled by the scheme.

"It's bribery," she said. "The people it will appeal to most are those who most need a lot of care and support - people from poor areas."

Mothers should be allowed to stay in hospital as long as necessary after giving birth, to gain confidence in looking after their babies.

Going home too soon could adversely affect breast-feeding and mother-baby bonding.

Other midwifery experts say there is no evidence that going home early causes problems for mother or baby, as long as they are well and have supportive family or friends at home.

In the 1990s, Waikato Health offered $120 for home help and a week's free nappies to mothers who went home within 24 hours of giving birth.

The co-manager of Mothers and Midwives Associated, Linda McKay, said the Auckland maternity information service was contracted by health funders in the 1990s to give $180 to mothers who left hospital early after delivery or had a home-birth.

"One of the reasons the Ministry of Health stopped it was they were hoping to see an increase in women going home immediately, particularly in Waikato. It didn't happen. I don't think it will work in Wellington either."

Health minister David Cunliffe said the Wellington scheme was one organisation's response to a staff shortage and was not Government policy.

He had asked the ministry to advise him urgently on the reasons for the national shortage of midwives.

Mr Cunliffe said he had received an assurance from Capital and Coast DHB that no woman who needed to be in hospital after giving birth would be sent home.

The DHB had also provided an assurance that it would work to accommodate women who wished to be admitted to hospital after giving birth.

Mr Cunliffe said the DHB was in the process of appointing more midwives and would be back to normal staffing levels by February.

He had asked the Ministry of Health for urgent advice on the underlying reasons for the nationwide shortage of midwives, he said.

Green MP Sue Bradford said it was shocking that hospitals were bribing mothers to leave hospital immediately after giving birth.

"One of the major contributors to the battering and killing of babies and young children is a lack of successful bonding between mother and baby."

The situations where this was most likely was in households where people did not have enough money to survive in comfort, and it was also from those households that a mother was most likely to take the $100 bribe, she said.


"Such mothers risk not being able to establish breastfeeding properly, not bonding well with their new child, post-natal depression and despair, as well as sinking into the addiction and crime subculture to which such households are vulnerable," Ms Bradford said.

She said sending mothers home early was becoming common practice in New Zealand and giving mothers a guaranteed minimum number of days should be considered.

Santa banned from saying 'Ho, ho, ho'.

Political correctness has really gone mad, first kids are taught new nursery rhymes, changing bah bah black sheep to bah bah colour sheep to prevent any insult to people who would not have even considered being insulted until the good for nothing Government stepped in. Now even the fictional santa is being gagged to prevent women from being offended. I read the following article online and I really do wonder what is next...


By Janet Fife-Yeomans and Amanda Grant
November 15, 2007 12:00am
HE is an unlikely revolutionary but this Christmas, Santa is a rebel with a claus.
He is having the last laugh on political correctness - and it's a great big fat belly laugh.
Santas across Sydney are rebelling against attempts to ban their traditional greeting of "ho, ho, ho" in favour of "ha, ha, ha".
Recruitment firm Westaff - which supplies hundreds of Santas across the country - has told its trainees that the "ho ho ho" phrase could frighten children and could even be derogatory to women.
Two Santa hopefuls reportedly quit the course because of the hullabaloo of the ho, ho, ho.
One would-be Santa has told The Daily Telegraph he was taught not to use "ho, ho, ho" because it was too close to the American slang for prostitute. He also quit.
"Gimme a break," Julie Gale, who runs the campaign against sexualising children called Kids Free 2B Kids, said.
"We are talking about little kids who do not understand that "ho, ho, ho" has any other connotation and nor should they.
"Leave Santa alone."

Australian Childhood Foundation chief executive officer Dr Joe Tucci said it was the latest example of political correctness gone mad.
"There is no stronger tradition for children than Santa's ho, ho, ho," Dr Tucci said.
Yesterday department stores David Jones and Myers and the Westfield shopping centre chain moved to reassure children, and their parents, that Santa and his customary greeting was part of Christmas's present as well as Christmas's past.
A David Jones spokeswoman said they had discussed the situation with Westaff and their Santas would not be silenced.
"Senior management have assured us that Santas provided to David Jones have not been censored in any way," the spokeswoma said.
At Myer, where Westaff also train the fat men in red suit, Santa could not stop laughing about the suggestion.
"Myer has not directed our Santas to refrain from using 'ho, ho, ho' and believe the expression is an important Christmas tradition," a spokesman for Myer said.
Westfield's Santas are recruited and trained by RegProm Marketing and they will be "ho, ho, ho-ing" a Westfield spokeswoman said.
"Westfield Santas are known for their friendly and welcoming nature and know how to deliver a real festive 'ho, ho, ho'.
Sydney mother Maybel Lopez said she wanted her daughter Andria, 5, to grow up hearing Santa's "ho, ho, ho" just like she had and she did not realise it had other connotations.
"It's what Santa has been saying his whole life - my whole life. It is just a normal thing really for him to say 'ho, ho, ho'," Ms Lopez said.
Westaff's national Santa co-ordinator Sari Hegarty wrote to stores explaining the company's position.
"Westaff has been a provider of quality caring Santas for over forty years," Ms Hegarty wrote in an email.
"Part of our advice to our Santas is that they should be mindful of children having their first Santa experience.
"We ask our Santas to try techniques such as lowering their tone of voice and using 'ha, ha, ha' to encourage the children to come forward and meet Santa. We wish you and your family a very merry Christmas."
Westaff national operations manager Greg Jansz said it was "misleading" to say the company had banned Santa's traditional greeting and it was being left up to the discretion of Santa himself.
____

Firstly, why on earth would kids be scared of hearting Santa say Ho, ho, ho? For years Santa has been known for this expression, how many people do you know that were scared of this when they were young? Exactly. In terms of language, it is definately semantically linked to Santa not prostitutes and by no means would kids think of any other connotations, it is merely Santa. Changing the expression to 'Ha, ha, ha' is just a joke. Why re-write history and change a tradition?

In terms of women, how many women would honestly say they were offended and wanted it to be changed? I'm sure the answer would amount to no-one, and if I'm wrong, how petty can you be? I'm all for the removal of derogatory language against women, and from studying Language and Gender at A-level, by no means does 'Ho, ho, ho' warrant an address. Of course adults will find sexual innuendo and connotations in the role of Santa, but I'm sure we could in alot of things. There are many more things associated with santa that connote sex etc, not that I want to go into detail, but I'm sure santa's sack or stockings wont be under any questionning in the near future. It is ludicrous to think women can be that pathetic yet nothing is questionned that may insult men. Like with race, the Government are going to far with PC and gender and consequently feeding their own problem by highlighting issues that are NOT issues making businesses question their own work, such as Westgate. They should start focussing on much greater issues and quit trying to solve problems that were not there in the first place.

World War One Women

Every year we remember those who fought in the great war and sarcrificed their lives and we honour those who survived, the veterans and so we should. I always wear my poppy in pride and I'm thankful that I am able to live in a society that is ours. However, I do firmly believe more emphasis should be placed on the women of WW1, from those who worked in the munition factories to the suffragettes. For years Emmeline Pankhurst led her army of women in the form of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) in order for women to have the right to vote and to have equal opportunities in male dominated society. Emmeline was imprisoned for her political campaign, which turned violent, and Emily Wilding Davison lost her life by throwing herself at the King's Horse, the WSPU's first Martyr. However, their militant campaign came to a standstill in 1914 when WW1 broke out. In a display of patriotism, Emmeline Pankhurst instructed the Suffragettes to stop their campaign of violence and support in every way the government and its war effort. As men left to fight on the front line, women were employed in many areas – transport (Air force, buses, trams, mechanics), munitions' factories, farms and women volunteered to nurse the wounded at the western front (Voluntary Aid Detachments, VAD). Women were asked to help, the more that helped, the more obvious it was that they were needed. Progananda posters stating 'More aeroplanes are needed, women come and help! Free training and maintenance allowances' said it all. With all their great war effort, women had a chance to demonstrate that they really were more than just housewives, the passive sex. In 1918 The Representation of the People Act was passed, giving women the vote. Furthermore, women remained in employment and began to have a say in society. Today, however, do we really fully appreciate the work of WW1 women? They need to be remembered for liberating women and very helping the war effort, they may not have sacrificed their lives, but they have significantly helped make our society how it is today...

Bloody Brantano advert

I know I havn't posted for a while, but I've been meaning to, have a rant about that damn Brantano advert. I know its an advert and its meant to be funny and have a goood catchline that makes people remember the ad, but I hate it. Its obviously not based on fact and they by no means have to be, but it really annoys me how they present the women as irratcic and helpless where shoes are concerned. For those who are not familiar with the advert, it is advertising the shoe companyt Brantano. It depicts Professor Anne-Marie Brantano, a fictional psychologist portrayed as one of the giants of twentieth century psychology along with Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. She supposively discovered the "sling-back synapse", an imaginary part of the female brain which reveals what women want from their shoe shopping experience. It also describes the condition "shoe rage" and answers the question 'why do women act irrationally about shoes?'. The advert is of course meant to be an aid to selling their products, but I think it is an insult to women. Not because it depicts women as linking shoes, as then men in football and beer adverts would also be wrong, but because women are conveyed as irrational, helpless and have no sense of control. Also the advert excludes men, don't they want men to buy their shoes too? Anyway, I'm not going to go on about the advert being sexist, as I don't believe it is, but it does annoy me, its just patronizing.

Ciao for now.

P.S HEATHER MILLS, ARGH.