Thank you, Lupron

I am now about five pounds away from an overweight BMI! Oh, how things have changed.

Ever since I had my tonsils out at age six, I have been extremely picky. The shitty thing is it's not just a matter of "not liking" something -- it's a matter of involuntary gagging and heaving. And my appetite, for as long as I can remember, was inordinately small. I could eat maybe a quarter of a modest-sized meal before I was at the point where I actually could not swallow any more food, because I would start gagging once it hit my throat.

My neurologist indicated in my records that I was visibly undernourished. At the time, I was 5'8", around 115 pounds. That's a BMI of 17.5, or 1.0 past the cutoff for "underweight." And a bra size of 34notevenA. (Different brands call it different things, but the one constant is that the bra would be a bit too big for me.)

(I hated my weight, for the record. My shoulder blades hurt anytime they were pressed up against anything, even a soft bed. My hips and pelvis cried out in pain from grating up against a hard plastic chair (i.e. 2/3 of every weekday ever) or even just against a fitting pair of jeans. I always felt like my bones were ready to snap at any moment. Weak, fragile.)

Right before new year 2005 I got on the Lyrica, which has a side effect of weight gain/increased appetite. I saw both. Yay! Within six or ten months I saw my body become more and more padded. It settled down around 150. BMI 22.8. Recently re-fitted for a bra (I was still wearing my stretched-out 34As) at 36C. Took some adjusting, certainly. I had always had a bit of a roll on my upper tummy, even when I didn't have much of any fat there at all. That remains. My legs are nice and firm and muscle-y now, since I started working at a place that requires me to be standing or walking all day, but besides that I am basically composed of significantly less muscle mass than a "normal" woman, and make up for that with a bit more fatty tissue. It's how I've been whether I'm completely sedentary or whether I am active and regularly exercising.

The first of these two pictures were me around my high school graduation in 2004. The last is me as of this month (taken to earn discounts off Threadless shirts. Whee!). There's a significant difference.

I've grown to be mostly happy with my body. The fact that I have extra tummy fat -- or just that my breasts are fairly small proportionately, which has the effect of making my tummy seem bigger in my mind -- is really the only thing that gets to me sometimes; besides that, for the most part, I'm certainly comfortable walking around nekkid all day, and I can admire even the unconventional things -- like the multiple scars on my back and my side, my silly slightly-crooked nose (the Hungarian in me) and my wide, full hips and butt. I like those.

Those are fuller now, though; I weighed in at 158 at the doctor's office yesterday, and I am sure over the course of this six-month treatment I will see a little bit more gain (it is only just today one full month since my first shot).

I should get used to this, right? Of course, people only gain, bit by bit, as they get older -- and it's usually better for them to do so, in terms of health and mortality. And I do plan on going through pregnancy at least once in my life. And for as much fucking medication I'm on, I can't expect not to see some weight gain. Really, which would I rather have: another five pounds around the hips and tummy?, or debilitating neuralgia, crushing anxiety, or endometrial implants growing and spreading and scarring up my insides, creating an awful amount of pain and frustration?

And culturally, which do women often choose? Not every time, but enough times that clinical trials do often see patients dropping out early for the side effects, the most common of which in medication for women is weight gain.

This is a lot for me to get used to. Really, four years later, I still have an image of myself as the skinny minny. I still expect people to recoil when they hug me because they're afraid they'll hurt me if they squeeze too hard, and remark with a concerned tone on how little I am. I still think of my breasts as exceptionally small, rather than absolutely average -- and when I think of it that way, I think that they can't be counted that way because I have more than enough tummy to make up for it. I still expect to be able to fit into Mediums and Smalls on the dress rack...

I know I am measuring against a fictional standard. But God it's just all over, and I can't escape it. It's woven down around every thread of thought that has anything, anything at all to do with outward appearance, even in the most indirect way. And I know that even if I can somehow purge myself of it, clear my own head, it's still permeated throughout our culture in an even worse way. I can't escape it -- I can never escape it.

I try, little bit by little bit, to be positive about my body around other people, and to be positive to them about their bodies, and to remind them that it's better to live a happy, healthy life in the body you've got than to stomp all over your health and happiness to change your body. But that doesn't mean I, myself, am unafflicted, unconflicted on the matter.

I was hesitant to include this next picture with those above, because it doesn't just show me as "average" -- I immediately see that spare tire below the breasts, how it pops out over the top of my jeans so obviously, how plump my thighs are juxtaposed with those skinny little toothpick calves and arms.


But you know what? I shouldn't be tearing myself down over these things. I shouldn't.

This post was originally going to be just that first line.

I'm trying to make sense of all this. I guess none of us ever fully do, do we?

Marital Rating Scale

My scores are my own estimates, based on how I would be perceived by others.

DEMERITS

1. Slow in coming to bed -- delays til husband is almost asleep.*
   
   Well, effectively, I suppose: I have more to do to prepare for sleep (remove contacts, gather medicine to take before bed, set up medicine and drink for morning taking, use bathroom, etc.) and he falls asleep in about as much time as a commercial break takes -- whereas I take an hour or so. This is actually a source of disappointment for me, because I love to fall asleep with him; I grow lonely when he's already snoozing and I can't keep from tossing about in pain. My score: -1.
   
   * The subtext here varies. The woman may be delaying so as to avoid being subject to sex at the end of her day. But then, she may have plenty more to do than her husband does (such as Merit #7!) or is even aware of -- setting out clothing for the children, finishing up the dishes, tidying up loose toys and such. A housewife's job is never done, and if she were to neglect these things to be in bed in a timely fashion (that is, at her husband's whim), she would surely see a demerit for it.
   
   
2. Doesn't like children. (5)*
   
   I could see being interpreted as not liking children, myself; I'm not really very good with other people's children (and I have none of my own, yet). A huge part of that in my past is simply my social anxiety. But when it comes to children I know, I'm just fine, and I know I will be with my own. And that's no different than many other women. My score: 0.
   
   * Whoo boy! I'm surprised this isn't an instant disqualification. Besides, it's no wonder a woman wouldn't like children in such times; she carries the entire responsibility for another sentient being, over whom she will not be able to exert absolute control no matter what she does -- who wants to be on the line like that?
   
   
3. Fails to sew on buttons or darn socks regularly.*
   
   Well, shoot! Regularly? Matt asked me the other day if I could fix a hole in his jacket pocket, and I told him that basically, I can sew a straight line for a couple inches, and that's about it. And it won't be pretty either, so it's a good thing it's inside a pocket! Buttons are the easiest thing in the world, tho'. My score: 0.
   
   * I suppose the deconstruction here is quite easy; she needs to keep herself busy with womanly things, making sure that no sign of humanity is ever to be seen on her husband or children -- it would reflect poorly on her. So soon as one stitch comes loose, it is to be mended.
   
   
4. Wears soiled or ragged dresses and aprons around the house.*
   
   He's lucky if I wear anything around the house. When I do, it's usually a comfortable chemise, which protects my sensitive breasts from any light contact (which is excruciating to me), hides the "naughty" bits, allows freedom of movement, and doesn't restrict my sore shoulders or hips. Pants come off immediately when I arrive home; they're too painful to keep on. But this is simply inappropriate around children, so I'm sure I wouldn't score so well. My score: -1.
   
   * Consider everything a woman was required to do in her day, while at the same time remaining perky and pretty. For whose benefit? The words "effortless perfection" comes to mind.
   
   
5. Wears red nail polish.*
   
   Or any nail polish at all. I keep my nails short, a habit held over from my violinning days. That alone probably suffices, though. My score: -1.
   
   * Tart! Jezebel! Wicked woman! Too subversive. And hey, if she is to remain perfectly decorative every minute of every day, who says she can have her own fun with it?
   
   
6. Often late for appointments. (5)*
   
   HA! I try to leave myself a buffer of time before any "appointment" and still often arrive barely-on-time or outright late. It comes with the fibromyalgic territory, unfortunately. My score: -5.
   
   * Again, consider everything the woman has to do in her day. Is this appointment, say, church? She had to prepare every screaming, writhing child to be presentable in public in their Sunday Best and then prepare herself! But she best not inconvenience anyone, after all.
   
   
7. Seams in hose often crooked.*
   
   Hose at all? I don't wear them, except as an extra layer to keep myself warm in the winter (and not entirely willingly -- the things are a pain through and through). But I know, culturally, wearing tights is a habit fast fading, so I'm not exactly being subversive here. But there are plenty of other fashionable faux paus' to be had for the modern women: I've given up on hiding my bra straps in a tank top, even though it's coded "trashy." My score: -1.
   
   * Must appear neat and put-together at all times. Have you, the reader, especially if you are male, ever tried to wear a pair of pantyhose? Getting them on, much less with straight seams, is a quarter-hour struggle. And once they're on, there is no simple re-straightening of the seams; you have to start all over again. Some time, when no one is at home and you know you have an hour to yourself, try to put on a pair of your own, if you never have before. You will have a new appreciation for the demands women faced every day.
   
   
8. Goes to bed with curlers on her hair or much face cream.*
   
   Or goes to bed with the bed hair she woke up with that morning! I don't often fret with these things. My score: 0.
   
   * And yet she was to have beautiful curly hair and perfectly smooth and radiant skin when she awoke the next morning. Effortless...
   
   
9. Puts her cold feet on husband at night to warm them.*
   
   I laughed at this. I've done it. More recently, I've tried to warm his cold feet and been turned away, lol. My score: -1.
   
   * Shades of "frigid," anyone? This shows a lack of consideration for her husband's comfort, and also draws his attention to her comfort, which is simply unacceptable. Suffer in silence, dear.
   
   
10. Is a back seat driver.*
    
    Only slightly, although my husband might disagree. My score: 0.
    
    * Who wants to take orders from a woman? And how presumptuous of her to claim to know what is best for a man. Women should be seen, but not heard.
    
    
11. Flirts with other men at parties or in restaurants. (5)*
    
    I'm a happy, mildly social person, which under current contexts might render me "flirtatious." But I think most people would see things more fairly. And besides, how often am I ever at parties or restaurants? My score: 0.
    
    * Insouciant! Infidelity is one of the endless deadly sins for a woman in such a time. Of course, flirting may simply be a smile or a thank you, or engagement in light but fun conversation, or appearing to enjoy herself with any male person within a short distance. But, of course, a lack of these things would be a sign of a cold and inconsiderate woman, who doesn't know her place. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    
    
12. Is suspicious and jealous. (5)*
    
    Not so much, to my eyes anyhow. Then again, we both spend every spare minute together, so we both know most of everything the other does, which could count. My score: 0.
    
    * Again, she fails to realize her place. Who gave her the right to question her husband's actions? Doesn't she have enough to tend to without sticking her nebby nose into his affairs? His business is his alone; she has no right to it, to even know of it. But (see Merit #9) her business is subject to his notice and review, every detail, at all times.
    

TOTAL DEMERITS: -10.


MERITS

1. A good hostess -- even to unexpected guests.*
   
   Hardly! Every moment of interaction with outside persons is planned. Every time I step foot outside my home, it is planned for far in advance. Double so for a person coming into my home. It simply requires far too much preparation. I would never be able to be ready at a moment's notice for anything at all. My score: 0.
   
   * No moment to herself, always open to intrusion (which, of course, isn't considered intrusion -- she is effectively public property), always pretty, always happy, her home always neat and tidy, her children always pleasant and behaving, a warm meal always ready on the stove. She has no time available to stop being what everyone else needs her to be, and just be.
   
   
2. Has meals on time.*
   
   I don't even cook the meals around here. My score: 0.
   
   * There ought be no inconvenience to the man of the house; not only need he not be the one to prepare his meal, he need not even be aware of any preparation whatsoever. If there is any wait, he has been wronged.
   
   
3. Can carry on an interesting conversation.*
   
   Depends on who it is I'm talking to. But for the most part, yes. My score: 1.
   
   * Keep in mind this conversation shouldn't be too interesting; can't intimidate a man with any sign of intellect. Best to keep to safe topics of conversation, like children and weather and beauty (but without turning to gossip) and stay out of anything "serious" -- which is of course only things that concern men.
   
   
4. Can play a musical instrument, as piano, violin, etc.*
   
   I played violin for eight years and sat first chair until my disability began to catch up with me, at which time I quit. I could probably play on the level of a second-year violin student if I were to pick up and try right now. My violin is a treasured item, though; I'm still trying to figure out how to "display" it without seeming weird. My score: 1.
   
   * Of course, now, in addition to childrearing, housecleaning, meal preparation, and other such necessities, she need be ready at any moment to perform entertainment for others. At least this is something she could draw some enjoyment out of -- but of course, were she to wish to study an instrument and actually do something with her skill, she would likely be rebuffed and reminded of her place.
   
   
5. Dresses for breakfast.*
   
   I know that this means "dresses for the day before breakfast," but I'm going to take it literally, in which case: No. I have sat at the kitchen table to eat breakfast with my -- clothed -- husband, myself entirely disrobed. And it's not really the exception to the rule. My score: 0.
   
   * Again: must remain pretty and decorative every moment of every day. Don't subject the family to her messy hair, baggy eyes and droopy tired face -- why would they want to see such a thing?
   
   
6. Neat housekeeper -- tidy and clean.*
   
   Hardly. Again, I work half the time my husband does, and he still does at least half the housework. And the place looks it, too. My score: 0.
   
   * Be available at all hours to clean up after husband and children who can't be bothered to do it their own selves; allow no disarray. If you've never tried this, it is an exhausting job. Not to mention matters of simple entropy: dust collecting on the furniture and so on.
   
   
7. Personally puts children to bed.*
   
   My "children" know when it's bedtime, and they put themselves to "bed": Mitsy on top of my nightstand, and Buddy in the cubby hole on the bottom of it. :) My score: 0.
   
   * This is a nice touch for the children, but it's also a difficult job. It's also telling that the father is nowhere to be seen here. Can't be bothered, after all; there are more important matters to tend to.
   
   
8. Never goes to bed angry, always makes up first. (5)*
   
   I try not to go forward angry, bedtime or not: if something is wrong, I want to talk it through, so that we can understand each other better, and hopefully see resolution. But that doesn't mean I haven't had those nights myself. I do think, though, we are very good in handling any issues that come up between us. But because of what I feel this really means -- below -- I can't really give myself a positive score. My score: 0.
   
   * There are two interpretations of the latter half of that sentence: always makes up before going to bed -- or always makes up before her husband does. And honestly, the latter is probably the more accurate. The woman is expected to humbly submit to the husband, admitting her wrong, and accepting any berating to follow. Even if the husband realizes he was wrong in fact, he cannot admit as much, because it would be emasculating to cede ground to a woman. And besides, her anger is a nuisance; the more quickly she lets it go (read: buries it inside), the better.
   
   
9. Asks husband's opinions regarding important decisions and purchases.*
   
   We both do. It works for us. My score: 1.
   
   * Of course, the husband is the primary decisionmaker in the family, so to neglect to seek his counsel on a matter is to deliberately flout his authority. It's not so much a matter of trust as it is a matter of (perceived intended) insult to his rule.
   
   
10. Good sense of humor -- jolly and gay.*
    
    I do tend to be a pretty happy person; as I've said in the past, you know I am not doing well when I am in public and not smiling. This is for any number of reasons, large part of which is just my personality, but not therefore free of influence from family and society. My score: 1.
    
    * Wouldn't want to remind anyone of her humanity, after all. The woman is an object, her personhood disregarded. No matter how her day as gone, how others have treated her, what may have gone wrong, how large a burden she carries on her (slender and smooth) shoulders, she is to appear bright and pleasant. She cannot serve as a distraction. Besides, her matters are not of importance when compared to anyone else's -- it's simple insubordination to presume otherwise. As such, they are to be kept inside, so that no one can even know they exist.
    
    
11. Religious -- sends children to church or Sunday school and goes herself.*
    
    I am a religious person, but my efforts at finding a church here in my new home have been nil. Do you really think I'd be able to force myself up every Sunday morning with children? My score: 0.
    
    * Notice the father's absence here. Of course, the appearance must be maintained at the church that the family comes as a family, with the father's guidance -- but in reality, the responsibility for getting there lies with the wife. And in reality, the responsibility for maintaining that holy image lies, again, with the wife: she must be perfect herself, of course, but her children must also be -- if they are not, it is a reflection on her mothering -- and her husband must also be -- if he is not, it is because she is not pretty enough, gay enough, sexy enough, submissive enough, perfect enough. Spirituality is an incredibly gendered topic, much moreso than many realize.
    
    
12. Lets husband sleep late on Sundays and holidays.*
    
    Oh hell. He wakes me up early on weekends! (That is, before 10-11AM.) My score: 1.
    
    * Wait a second, aren't they supposed to be at church? And isn't there supposed to be hot breakfast ready the moment he wakes, and isn't she supposed to be dressed and made up for the day when he does? And shouldn't the children also be awake and readied to eat with him, as a family -- but without making enough noise to wake him early? And...
    

TOTAL MERITS: 5.

So my score so far is ... 5. Which puts me under "Very Poor (Failures)."

Sorry, honey.

via

ETA: Go see the entire list over at taryn's. My ending score is a +2. Impressive!

Proposed Moratorium, The Third

GODDAMMIT, PEOPLE.

"Psycho" is not a stand-in for "bad person."

It is used by people who want to Other a person who is behaving in an unfortunate way, predictable or not.

"Crazy" and "insane" are similar words, but the connotations of those are so generic by now as to be less harmful.

But psychotic, schizophrenic, and other actual mental illnesses should not be appropriated by right-thinking people to mean, simply, Shoot! Someone Is Being Mean To Me Again.

I mean. Just. Fuck.

Inspired by the recent prevalance of people referring to Hillary as "the psycho ex-girlfriend." Of course, this particular stereotype combines ableism with sexism to reach grand new levels of insultingness. To these people, I can only say: FUCK OFF.

Sez Ez (about a different subject altogether),

One nice thing about blogs is you can say the same thing over and over again without any editors getting pissed at you. When you're coming up with story ideas, "what's new" is always the first question you're asked. But on a blog, by making the same arguments in response to different news pegs and events, you're actually much more effective at conveying your points. Few writers are so persuasive, and few arguments so instantly convincing, that one bite at the apple will transform the thinking of your audience.

I just wanted to highlight this, because it's something I've been chewing on for awhile re: my growing radicalism over the last several years. On my introduction to feminism, I was, initially, repulsed by a good many arguments even as there was something at the core of the community I felt drawn-to. As time went on, through the repetition of arguments in different ways, in response to different events, I began to understand those arguments better. That is, without a context, the arguments offended my status-quo sensibilities. But as I came to understand the context -- as I saw how seriously rampant harassment and assault are -- as casual misogyny in so many different places was pointed out to me, over and over again -- I began to understand where those arguments came from.

Conditioned blindness is what I called it in conversation with a friend today. We are conditioned from birth to deliberately not see the evidence of oppression in our society. Recognition of it leads to a dangerous place, after all. But if a person has a notion to de-condition hirself, even if not everything is tasteful to hir at the beginning, sie will eventually come to understand where those speakers are coming from.

That's really at the heart of the mainstream's rejection of feminism. They don't understand it, and they have been told from day one that understanding it leads you to want to change it, and that's an extreme position to take, and mostly it just annoys the hell out of your peers. So hey, be cool, don't get on us for shit, just go with the flow. Wouldn't want to put a damper on the mood.

Anyway, I think there's a reason blogs are at the center of a growing feminist community these days. Well, one of many reasons, anyway.

*

This is a rather engaging story from NPR about two young boys, and two different approaches to their rather obvious self-identification as young girls.

The basic error made by Zucker (and others) is in conflating sex identity and gender. The two are not interchangeable. An effeminate boy is not necessarily a girl at heart. A masculine girl does not necessarily feel attracted to fellow girls. A transwoman will not necessarily express her identity in a feminine way. And -- this especially irritates the gender traditionalists around this country-- a transgender person might not find it necessary to undergo medical transition!

How a child expresses hir identity is certainly subject to influence, from hir parents, hir peers, and the society sie lives in. Gender, however, seems to be far more malleable. The available genders, and how each particular gender is expressed, is going to change from culture to culture. Sex identity, in contrast, isn't as much an identity as in outward expression; it's an identity as in inward knowledge.

Zucker seems to fear that any allowed deviance from a culture's set norms for whichever sex would permanently confine the "deviant" to whatever gender is being expressed. Quite the opposite; allowing more of these so-called deviancies would put to rest the idea of "deviance" altogether, thus freeing us to conduct our lives however appropriate -- confines be damned.

Things I learned yesterday.

• A man coming on to a woman is one thing. A man who holds a copy of the keys to the woman's apartment coming on to her, however, adds a whole 'nother level of scary to the equation.
  
  What disturbs me the most is that when my husband related that his coworker -- who also lives in our apartment complex -- has also had a history of harassment from the landlord, I felt relieved. WTF? The reasoning, I think, is that if he's done it to someone else and they were never physically assaulted, that means I don't have to worry too much about it either. But I know even that is iffy. And either way, I shouldn't be happy that someone else has gone through the same thing. Blech.
  


• When we got on the trolley/subway/train ("the T") last night, all the seats were taken -- we weren't the only ones heading to the Penguins game. I am loathe to ask people for any sort of assistance when I'm out in public, because it opens me up to questioning that I don't particularly want to deal with. So I figured, you know, it's just a quarter hour worth of standing, it won't be pleasant but I should be able to manage.
  
  Little did I know that it's not just being upright on one's own two feet: it's holding on to the rail (holding my arms in any unnatural position for too long is painful) and keeping one's feet planted on the ground. Every time the train stopped, started, lurched, turned, or hit a bump, it meant a serious effort to stay upright and not go crashing into some other poor passenger nearby. And it was seriously hard on me, particularly that one arm, and all up and down the backs of my legs.
  
  The suckiest part is that I then had to walk uphill about a mile to the arena, and then try to maintain my balance on a wet cement "bench" while trying to get a decent view through the people and trees in front of me. I emptied a small handful of pain killers into my bag before we left, and there were only two halves left by the time I got home. And I woke up with an awful headache this morning, that I'm still trying to fight off.


• Gas is expensive...
  
  
  ... no, seriously:
  
  
  
  This same station has before advertised their gas at $2.09 when the prevailing price was just a few cents above three dollars: they were obviously going for $2.99. That was the most tightly-packed gas station I've ever seen -- and I lived in California my first twenty years.
  


• I had a bit of a realization on the way home last night. Stress and pain are irrevocably intertwined, we know. I've never been able to pinpoint a recognizable pattern of correlation in my own life, though. Until I paid attention to how I reacted to point no. one above: I pretty much fell into a slump, blank and depressed emotionally, slow and devoid of any energy physically. This is very common for me as a reaction to any stressor.
  
  And now that I think of it, I know I've read on adrenal fatigue (?) -- essentially, in chronic pain patients, the body compensates for the effect of the "extra" pain with adrenaline, but after overproducing for too long, the system becomes fatigued -- and when traditional "fight-or-flight" situations are encountered, the body just sort of shuts down. Whatever the merits of the condition itself*, that's certainly a fair description of what happens to me when I face very stressful situations -- I just shut down, not only emotionally but physically as well. It pretty much lasts as long as it takes for me to be able to clear the worry from my head.
  
  In fact, it's rather similar in function to a panic attack. What's different are the symptoms experienced.
  

*Ugh, I know I started the "alternative takedown" thing here, and I'm still not entirely happy with people who push scam treatments on people who are desparate or disillusioned enough to try anything. But I don't think scorn should be directed toward the people who are suffering with problems that their doctors can't (or won't) diagnose, for whom traditional means of treatment prove ineffective. These are people who are navigating the world they live in as best they can. If there is judgment to be given, a better focus would be the practitioners who push ineffective treatment on people for profit.

Ring that old bell

"Worth repeating":

That the Clinton people need to get used to the fact that Obama is the nominee. All the hyperbolic "he can never win the general" and the "it's not fair" stuff needs to stop right now unless you want a 100-years-in-Iraq, pro-life, pro-Roberts/Alito Supreme Court, 22% lifetime LCV rating, economic right-winger as President. To spend any time or energy at all nursing your resentments is the most fundamentally selfish thing you can do right now. I hate losing elections, I know how badly you feel, and how hard it is, but there is too much at stake to be selfish right now.

Now now, ladies, you need to stop worrying about your silly female things. We have a lot to get accomplished and we'll never get there if you sanctimonious women's studies set keep making your fuss about all this lady stuff. We do need to keep Roe in place, now, don't we, dears? It would be awfully selfish of you to cost us this win.

Hmmm. Haught dismissal of expressed concerns, threat held over head about women's basic human rights, accusal of "selfishness" (one of the most invisibly gendered words), "there's too much at stake", patronizing "I know how you feel", promise-one-never-intends-to-keep to get back to their issues when this election is over. (Oh, wait, they didn't even bother with that one.)

This all sounds awfully fucking familiar. Seems we've been hearing this for pretty much every fucking election since the fucking invention of elections. Or at least since the nineteenth amendment.

***

Hm. I suppose I should add here that when I voted, I did not vote for Clinton, that I don't share concerns about Obama's viability in the general (and in fact tend to be a bit skeptical about such arguments), that I think Clinton has done some pretty damn reprehensible things over the course of both her political career and her run for president -- etc. But I don't think that's what we're really talking about here, is it?

The Rebirth of Venus

I wish I had the disposable cash to buy this shirt.

Blogging against disablism

Jill(?) writes:

Accessibility is not and should not be just about ramps and elevators (though these things are certainly a lifesaver for me personally), but it should also be about addressing mental needs, emotional needs, spiritual needs.

I.

Our society, right now, is structured around the needs and expectations of a young (but not too young), white, cisgender, male, heteronormative, fully abled person. When issues of accessibility present themselves, the defense is: "We couldn't have expected a sick person would try to" use this service, be in this place, pursue an education, seek elected office, petition its government for fair treatment.

Put another way, the majority people are abled in pretty much every way, and even the disabled as a whole are not disabled in the exact way that each individual disabled person is -- so of course individual institutions, from the largest to the smallest and most localized, could not have prepared for [insert whichever specific disability the person trying to access has].

The same concept comes into play when a city has installed a wheelchair ramp some place, somewhere, and a person with a disability is petitioning for access in some other way. Well, we already do this much for you -- what more could you people possibly want?!

What an unfortunate and narrow view of the world! How small a world these people experience. We are closing off contact from a great many people who have so much to add. As we restrict access to institutions and continually narrow our performed roles, we lose more and more richness and depth in our individual lives.

Things could be different. We could recognize that a person can have something to contribute even as sie benefits from support and assistance that most do not require. We could recognize that it would be in our own benefit! to provide that support and assistance, and that even beside that, these people deserve to be included by merit of their personhood.

Right now, though, for a good many people, the fundamental personhood of the disabled is a hard pill to swallow. Maybe someday.

II.

There is an all-too-common attitude across the population. Simplified, it says: Don't make me feel uncomfortable, thinking about your differences.

Ew, you bleed from a hole between your legs? And it happens every month? That's gross! Don't make me feel uncomfortable!

You say your voice as a person of color is systemically silenced in favored of white persons? That's ridiculous! That would mean that the due given to my voice is unmerited and that I should change how I speak to make way for people of color -- that's too much for me to deal with! Don't make me feel uncomfortable.

Prosperity is solely a matter of motivation and effort. You say that I was privileged by my birth into a stable middle/upper class family? But I've worked so hard, and that would mean that what gains I've realized weren't the result of my hard work. Don't make me feel uncomfortable!

And so forth.

As I've insisted in the past, it even manifests in more progressive persons. Consider the argument that periodically crops up when a person is told that no matter what they do, they still bear some culpability: but that means that I can't make it go away by saying the right words or joining the right groups or buying the right things! Don't make me feel uncomfortable!

Well, bully for you, because guess what? We live that "discomfort" every single day.

It takes various different forms for various classifications in various sets of people. Some seem far more innocuous; some bear that evident stench of bigotry. Neither is any less problematic. Both dismiss the experiences of members of the historically oppressed group, simply because they aren't pleasant to think about.

Which is why women are reminded to smile by men who regard them as decorative elements and don't want to be bothered by the thought of their personhood. Which is why sick people are urged to "lighten up" and to "learn to see the silver lining" and to "think positive" by people who think of sickness primarily as either the death of the person inside the body. Which is why people of color are told to stop being so angry by people who actually think it is possible to be "colorblind." And so forth.

Wouldn't want to make someone uncomfortable, after all.

Ashley Dupre v. Joe Francis

It didn't take long for the cries of, why is she suing NOW?

Of What a selfish spoiled brat, only after the money! Of She just wants to ruin his career! Of She just needs the attention!

No, these things weren't said where I'm going to link, but the implications are there in the question (no matter the asker), and it's not hard to find actual people saying these things outright.

Thomas gives this idiocy the smackdown:

Why is she suing now? Maybe because someone is suddenly using the footage that she thought was long forgotten? Maybe because she feels cheated that Joe Francis gets to make a killing off of something she did when she was just 17, and that she got nothing for except a tee shirt and a few drinks? Maybe because, now, publicly identified as a sex worker and afraid she’ll never be famous for anything but being sexual for money, she thinks the best move is to try to get as much money out of it as she can? Maybe she doesn’t care if the whole world sees her naked at 17, but she thinks Joe Francis is a tool.

I don’t know the woman, but I can see a lot of reasons.

I think it's rather indicative that no matter what sick shit a man pulls, we have to seek out some woman, somewhere, to blame for it.

Let's put a death to this, shall we?

Trying to turn around a situation so that it is about race instead of sex. (Or what have you.)

"If somebody said such-and-such about a black person..."

Cut it the fuck out. You are playing on the narrative that racism is dead in our society, which is a back-breaking load of rancid shit.

I understand the desire to try to communicate to people who might not otherwise understand how serious something is. But please find a way to do it without making things worse for our brothers and sisters living every fucking day as a gay person, trans person, person of color, person with a disability...

These systems of oppression are incomprehensibly large and they operate in different ways for different classes of persons. They are equally reprehensible, but that does not mean they all operate the same way, and that if something problematic about [x class] is not tolerated in society, [x class] must not have it so bad after all.

Check your privilege.

Wherefore art thou feminist?

It seems to be a common question these days.

I remember the first time I visited Nezua's site and admired his serious design skillzzz.* And scrolling down his sidebar, I hit upon this image:


and stopped.

It seems particularly appropriate now.

Why am I a feminist? Because I don't know how else to describe, concerned with issues of gender. Of course, gender is not the end-all-be-all oppression, as we all know. Thus, the genius of whomever thought up the term intersectional. But an intersectional approach has been around and widely practiced for quite some time now, and yet we find ourselves in this same rut. Concerned with issues of gender -- for people who are white, het, cis, abled, etc. Concerned with issues of gender -- for people who are dominant in every other way. Concerned with issues of gender -- for those who have no other concerns to be concerned about.

But when so many of us live at those intersections, “intersectional analysis” can’t simply be a tool in feminism’s toolbox that gets whipped out to take care of us every now and then. It has to be the place that feminism lives at. Holly

So, I understand those who have become disillusioned with feminism after it has time and time again demonstrated itself to be on the side of the oppressor in any case where gender is not the only concern. What good are our words, our promises to do better, to try, next time!, when those promises are so quickly forgotten?

Myself? I have found an incredible community of women who are working to better the lives of those disadvantaged and battered down. I will continue to learn from them. And I will continue to explore outside my little privileged corner here, and learn from communities of persons who are working to better the lives of those disadvantaged and battered down in other ways. Whatever they call themselves. Because I think they're worth listening to, learning from, and working with either way.

I think it would do us all well to take another look at that image up there.

*Of course, his writing is sublime, but my brain does not always allow me to process such rich text, as it were. So I would visit his site on occasion, but sometimes my brain is running a 3.2ghz cpu, and sometimes it's running on 0.8ghz. In any case, dude's a talented dude, and you'd probably be better served reading his artful writing than my half-baked babbling.

You know.

In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.

I haven't written on the recent dustup. A lot of people have. (See Cara for example.)

And I feel those words. And I don't want to be silent.

But at the same time, I don't know that anything I say is what's going to matter, in the end.

One funny thing I’ve noticed lately is that amid the constant clamor of honky chick “allies” enjoining unenlightened honky chicks to “listen” to women of color, it is harder than ever before to hear much of anything except honky chicks clamoring at other honky chicks.

So. Rather than involving myself again in this fight that will not die -- I'm going to shut the fuck up, and start (and continue) reading what women of color have to say. And though I have no up to lift their voices, I'm going to let them do their own talking.

I've said it before: I have a lot to learn.

Consider

And it doesn’t matter how much you may *think* you support women of color; you can’t self-proclaim yourself an ally. That’s for the oppressed group to decide. Ico

This rings true, circumstances (and particular social class) regardless.

God, I am sick of

this primary.

Well, not so much the primary.

I am sick of calls for Clinton to drop out of the race.

I am sick of "tearing apart the party."

I am sick of "cares only about herself/her ambitions."

I am sick of the insecure assertions that Obama already has the nomination tied up, and Clinton has no chance to win, when both candidates are within reasonable reach of the nomination.

I am sick of assertions that the superdelegates have a responsibility to vote based on the popular vote/non-super delegate count (whichever is more favorable to their candidate, of course).

I am sick of how obvious the motivations behind that assertion are. If the superdelegates are obligated to replicate the will of the people, they have no purpose whatsoever. If people truly believe it is undemocratic that the superdels vote any other way, they should be arguing that there should be no superdelegates, not piddling around how they should justify their votes.

I am sick of people complaining about Clinton's call for Michigan and Florida to be counted, saying that she does so only because it is in her self-interest, while then turning around and making the two above arguments, as though they are being Objective and Rational and Above It All.

I am sick of the fucking misogyny that has reared its head in this primary, and how even so-called progressives can't seem to criticize Clinton without framing their argument in sexist slurs and stereotypes.

I am sick of the ugly racism that has made itself known across the country. The obvious white antipathy to being reminded that race exists, no less racism, even if it stays thousands of miles from ever implicating them personally. The Brown Menace, secret Muslim-ism, the deep-seated fear of the Angry Black Man. I am sick and tired of the unconscious but vehement effort put into preserving the system of white supremacy.

I am sick of the reflexive move to knock back down any woman in any position of power. Put her in her place. Remind her. Make it known that she can play the game, but she can never win.

I am sick of people who say that if their candidate doesn't win the nomination, they will defect and vote instead for McCain. What kind of fucking moron are you? Is it going to take a few knocks of the skull against a cement brick for you to regain consciousness and realize that yes, there are differences between Clinton and Obama, significant ones even, but that McCain is going to be outright dangerous for the country compared to either of the two? I understand those who choose not to vote for the Democratic candidate if said candidate does not meet their standards; I do not understand those who would then vote for a candidate who spits upon their standards.

I am sick of all of this. Shame on all of you. Fuck this. I'm tired of it. I will vote for either Democratic candidate in November, but I'm damn well not returning to read, watch or listen to some of you who resort to such tactics as you yourself would condemn when used by Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove. Yes, I just compared you to those two fuckwits. You may not perform such grand evil, but you are feeding into their narratives. And you should damn well feel ashamed about it.

I have never voted in a primary contest before. I've only been old enough to vote in one presidential election. I have been excited for over a year now about my opportunity to vote for a candidate I was actually exicted about in an election that will actually matter.

And I got my twenty minutes of cheery happy yay-America-ness. And then I came back to the real world. And my enthusiasm for this party is just about shattered.

Way to gear up the youth of America, folks.

Word

Nobody’s ever defended themselves against assault charges by claiming “it doesn’t hurt when I punch me,” and you’d presumably think it pretty ridiculous if they had.

Snapshots

Husband and I are going over the finances. It's a bit of a tight time (I say this, mind, knowing that we are trying our damnedest to land round two Penguins playoff tix, and have already bought Pirates-Yankees tickets, and things like how I have been on the lookout for a cute new headband/scarf lately -- so we are not poor, just cutting it a little close).

He and I did argue a bit for a few days about how to handle the finances. We already use Quicken -- something we both refer to as "the best investment we've made" (bought mere days after I moved in) -- but we use separate computers. One with XP, one with Vista. And apparently, filesharing is damn near impossible 'tween those two. And I hate to "nag" at him to sit down with me and update the finances together. And so we were hitting a bit of a wall, there.

Anyway -- we are deciding to sit down together nightly (for now) -- so that I don't have to be the one "pushing" him into it, and we bypass the filesharing problems. But we were discussing, for lack of a better term, allowances.

And husband objected.

I don't know what else to call them. As I told him, it's a constant in every financial arrangement between partners I've seen -- some amount of money each partner can have to spend on items without having to run to the other partner for approval, whether it's "$20/month" or "everything I earn after the bills are paid."

But it makes him uncomfortable. Certainly in a gendered sense (the Man, Bringing Home The Bacon, giving the Wifey her little "allowance") but also because we are both sensitive to any implication of control or abuse on his part -- I grew up in a family absolutely soaked in domestic abuse and my own mother has, projecting, called him "controlling" several times.* He is constantly monitoring his own behavior for any sign of this being true. I am constantly watching my life as a whole to make sure it does not happen to me -- partly for me -- but partly, as well, because I am desperate not to pass that paradigm onto my future children.

Anyway -- just a bit of a fragment I felt like pointing out.

*See, to her, she started losing control of me, and then he showed up on the scene. I, being a mere child (a girl, no less) with no agency (even in my mid fuckin' twenties) of course cannot be the one to have gained control of my own self -- there was a MAN in my life now, so he must be the one controlling me! This is a result of the way she grew up -- this is the only concept of a man in a relationship with a woman that she has. She simply cannot understand it happening any other way. And that is just damn depressing -- and a reason I am very, very sensitive to even the slightest sign it may happen in my own life.

How To Be A Feminist Boyfriend

I've always had trouble translating my ideas into words with any consistent level of accuracy. It's not often that writing and speaking come easily to me, and I feel like I am expressing myself effectively. Most of the time, I am fumbling around, trying to shape a vague image of what's going on in my head, by trial and error. And I often end up frustrated because it's obvious that the idea I'm apparently communicating with my words is not the idea I was trying to communicate when I put those words together.

All of which is a clunky introduction to the fact that I feel like I was misunderstood here:

So I opened the comments and immediately found that I was disagreeing vehemently with the first comment:

Deference is a privileged person’s best friend.

I would have no patience with someone flopping around acting all guilty and deferential to me. It’s happened before, and I hate it. I want respect, and deference is not respect.

That comment was mine.

Amanda goes on to make an argument that is very much what I was trying to get across.

By "deference" I meant:

• Know that her opinions come from experiences you have not had, and can never fully understand.
• Do not use this as a reason to dismiss her opinions; use this as a way to attempt to understand them.
• Give more consideration than you normally would when you are in a situation where you are the privileged one. No, this isn't "special treatment." It's attempting to compensate for the fact that, like it or not, you have been socialized to unconsciously devalue the opinions of those who are not like you. So take a step back, and think really hard about it. We're talking about your girlfriend, anyway; you should be affording her special consideration in the first place, because you respect her enough to want to be her partner -- right?
• You can still disagree. Privilege doesn't mean that your opinions and experiences must be erased, or that they cease to be valid.
• However: step carefully. If you think over things carefully, and decide that you know what, you just can't agree with what she's saying: make sure you are very careful in how you express that. Because, again, in our society, men are taught not to treat women as equals, but to dismiss them as hormonal, emotional, overreacting, irrational, etc. Even if you aren't thinking those words, you may be communicating them to her when you huff, roll your eyes, fold your arms, smirk, etc. (And she has been taught to be very sensitive to those words or the implication of them, so trust me, she will catch the slightest hint of them, whether you intend to give that hint or not.) Your inflection and body language, and even words outright, may be telling her that, basically, you don't give a shit. And a lot of the time, men actually don't give a shit. So she may not be wrong when she gets that vibe from you. And depending on any number of factors, she may call you on it -- or she may bury it inside, because she knows that if she reacts to it, you're going to shoot her down, because most people honestly don't want to admit that they don't care about their partner's feelings and opinions -- even when they really don't.
• SO: think hard before you open your mouth. And watch your body language when you are in an argument. You may be angry, but you need to make an effort to show that even though you two are not happy with each other right this minute, you still care about her.
• DON'T just say "OK" to anything she says, either because you are trying to compensate for privilege or because you're trying to get her to shut up (trust me, she knows it -- you'd be better off being honest on that matter, so she can call you on your disrespectful bullshit). That's not respect. Quite the opposite. That's failing to consider her argument at all -- just bypassing it altogether. And that shit is just madmaking, and I wouldn't blame her if she dumped your ass if you practiced it regularly.
• Remember that you are not in a contest. You are in a discussion. You are trying to work WITH your partner, not AGAINST her. When it's a straight-out fight, you are trying to understand each other's sides, and come to an agreeable conclusion for the both of you -- which won't happen if you're just trying to "win." When it's a topical conversation, you're sharpening your thinking and communication skills, working on understanding each other's viewpoints, learning from one another, etc. -- again, it's not a contest you're trying to "win." It's a conversation. Treat it that way.
  

All this is, as far as I can tell, basically the argument Amanda was making. I just didn't communicate that correctly -- I chose my word(s) poorly.

For the women:

*The side note to women, I suppose, is that it’s important to fight on the small things, even if the effort doesn’t initially seem worth it.

This is important to any relationship. Don't just let things go. Bring them up. Try to have a sense of perspective, certainly, but don't follow the patriarchal imperative to ignore any wrong your man does, because you're just being nitpicky/naggy/whatever. When you let something go unremarked-upon, you are building a mountain of anger, frustration and resentment, one sock on the floor at a time. And that is not healthy -- not for you (who suffers the stress), not for him (who isn't challenged to be a better partner, but becomes lazy and sloppy about the relationship), and not or your relationship as a whole (which will become strained at time due to unresolved conflicts he doesn't even know about).

That does not mean, however, that the weight is on the women's shoulders. Men: do your best to pay attention to this shit. If she seems put-off, ask her what's wrong, in a concerned and respectful tone of voice. She may laugh because nothing's wrong at all. She may say "nothing" in a flat or even annoyed tone of voice, in which case there is almost certainly something wrong -- whether it's something you did, or just that she's worried about a friend, or whatever -- and you need to tease that out. (Make it clear that it's ok if she doesn't want to talk, but make yourself open and approachable so that she can if she wants to.) And she may just say it up front, in which case, again, you need to step back, take a minute to think carefully about what she's saying, and then respond -- don't immediately step into defensive mode.

And try to pay attention when it comes to domestics. Try, one day, just watching what she does. You may not notice that she puts your coat away after you fling it on the chair, or straightens out the shoes, or replaces the cat's water every night, or wipes down the sink after use, or notices when you're getting low on toilet paper, or whatever. There's a lot of small things she does, silently, that you are probably not attuned to. And she would probably appreciate some help on some of that invisible work. And maybe if you stop, and pay attention, you can pick up on some of those things yourself, instead of waiting for her to get frustrated about it and open up on you for it.

Anyway: hopefully this makes my thoughts a little bit more clear. Certainly if any of this doesn't make sense or seems problematic, point it out to me in comments.

spoons

from 96dpi

This little spoon may be all I have. But damn if I'm not going to keep rocking that spoon for the rest of my days.

for what it's worth

I don't like it when people pick on Condoleezza Rice for her facial expressions. The fact that a woman's face at rest isn't pleasant and bright shouldn't be something to use against her. I don't get the sense that she's deliberately scowling; there's room for interpretation there, certainly, but I don't feel that she should have to walk about with a smile plastered on her face at all times to be acceptable to the public at large.

UPDATE

I wanted to post my own clarification. :) The subject was brought to mind by this post over at Shakesville, Melissa's graphic in particular. My post here wasn't so much directed explicitly at her, however. It's an issue I've noticed repeatedly over the years; much of the criticism of Rice's facial expressions are overtly sexist, and it bothers me. Knowing Melissa's rationale, it's obvious she isn't coming from the same place. It is worth reflecting to consider whether one is reinforcing a patriarchal narrative; that reflection will naturally lead to different conclusions in different people, which is of course why we refer to feminisms, plural.

I do have to thank Melissa for reading and responding. I certainly understand her reasoning. I was pointing out something that made me personally uncomfortable, and hoping it might start a conversation that explored the issue a bit more, not trying to draw judgment.

(Also keep in mind this was a quick post I threw up while rushing about getting ready for work last night -- not so much a "very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care." ;))