So many obligations are heaped on the shoulders of women, and it is pretty much impossible to fulfill all of them even if you completely neglect your own needs. Of course, trying to tend to your own needs means even fewer of those obligations fulfilled, and there are cries and admonishment of selfishness and failure and responsibility to others waiting for you should you assert your right to self-care, because by asserting the right to take time and energy exclusively for yourself, you are stealing time and energy that belongs to others.

Sleep is a contested act in American society (perhaps in others too, but I can only speak to the US): getting little of it becomes a point of pride; getting a lot of it is a symbol of laziness, selfishness, sloth, dirtiness, carelessness. People are expected to perform amazing tasks on as little sleep as possible, which is completely counterintuitive, because most people are going to perform worse with insufficient sleep — consider it a generalized manifestation of the supercrip phenomenon: exactly the people who are least supported/enabled to do something are the ones who are expected to do it better than normal people.

Better sleep would surely benefit many of us, but why?

According to Leive and Huffington, the main benefits realized are in service of others; the main beneficiaries are the people around you. Or, if you see the benefits, they are benefits that stem from an obligation to others, any self-benefit remaining firmly subordinate to the “greater good” of one’s family, colleagues and community members.

We should be well familiar with the concept of women as public property. Women’s bodies, women’s time, women’s possessions, women’s decisionmaking capacity, women’s self-determination — just about anything a woman possesses, though she doesn’t really possess. Rather, she is allowed use of something that is under her care but not her ownership: it belongs instead to the people around her.

Feminists are familiar with the idea that our society considers female reproductive organs to be public property. A woman’s vagina should be available for all comers (men), and simultaneously be unavailable so as not to waste its value to its eventual sole owner (a man). A woman’s uterus is to be used for the good of the human species/civilized society: the right kind of women are to reproduce as much as possible, so that their kind remain the dominant group in both pure numbers and in overall power. (On the other hand, the other kinds of women are called upon to perform the rough, menial work necessary to uphold modern society, while not polluting the human species by reproducing themselves.)

But honestly, public ownership of women extends so much further than their reproductive systems.

No woman is allowed to assume ownership of any part her physical self, her time or purpose: it is still an “indulgence” for a woman to eat anything more substantial than a leaf of lettuce, still “sinful” to enjoy less than 100 calories of overprocessed puddings and crackers. It is still somehow selfish to take a long bath or to sit and rest for an hour’s time, still slothful to refrain from moving, working, pushing, rushing every single moment of every day.

Women’s work, in general, is under-valued and un(der)paid — and it is uncompensated precisely because women’s time, their energy, their effort, do not actually belong to the women themselves, but rather to the rest of the world. It is theirs to use whenever, however, and however much they wish, and isn’t it ridiculous to suggest they should pay for the use of something that belongs to them in the first place?

This is all part and parcel of living in a patriarchy, a predictable result when society relies upon a person’s gender to determine hir position in society, the things sie will do, the roles sie will play, the direction hir life will take. But gender is not the only variant in play here. In fact, I believe that gender is actually secondary here to another factor — it is merely one avenue of manifestation for our cultural construction of health.

Surely you have heard of the theory that gender is not an inherent trait, but a performance. This theory is definitely not without flaws, but I bring it up in hopes that it provides a familiar framework for a discussion on the social construction of health.

Health, you see, is not merely an inherent trait. Health, instead, emcompasses a variety of factors, including a person’s intrinsic qualities but also the environment in which they operate and their everyday behaviors.

Health is not just what a person is. Health is also what a person does. And what drives a person to do something is not wholly internal, but rather is largely influenced by external factors.

Gender, for instance, is both an internal sense of being and something we do for other people, something we do because we want other people to think about us, react to us, in certain ways. And the things we do, and the expected reactions to them, are different depending on which culture we are operating in — dependent on where we live, on our ethnicity, on our class background, on any number of other things. What it means to wear certain types of clothing is different in different cultures. What it means to speak a certain way is different in different cultures. And so on.

This framework is — I hope — useful for understanding what health actually is.

The form “health” takes is different depending on the expectations of the culture you live in.

The ultimate importance of that so-defined “health” is different depending on the expectations of the culture you live in.

The role “health” plays in the culture, what “health” means in that culture, the way the people of that culture interact or engage with that idea of “health,” are different depending on the expectations of the culture you live in.

What you do to achieve “health” is different depending on the expectations of the culture you live in.

How your health affects your position in life, your economic opportunities, the support that is offered for you to live the kind of life you desire, are all different depending on the expectations of the culture you live in.

(And yes, all of this is just as true in a culture that makes use of the scientific method and sees itself as cool and rational. What is investigated, and how, and how the results are interpreted, and what lessons are drawn from those results, and how those lessons are applied in everyday life — all these things must grow out of the culture they happen in! )

Health, then, is not merely a personal state, but rather a cultural fulfillment. Health (of whatever kind) is expected of you, expected by the people around you. Your health is not your own, but instead belongs to your family, your community and your wider culture. You must achieve and maintain (whatever kind of) health, not because it benefits you personally, but because you will have deeply failed your fellow members of society if you don’t.

And this is what underlies the problematic aspect of Leive and Huffington’s statements. They are not suggesting that the sleep deficit for women is a problem because the woman herself feels fatigue or cognitive dysfunction. They are suggesting that the sleep deficit for women is a problem because the woman cannot fulfill the expectations of health — and the performance of duties that rely on that state of health — that society has for her. They are suggesting that the sleep deficit for women is a problem because then that woman personally fails her family, community and country.

Here, then, her lack of sleep lays bare her duty to society based on particular qualities she holds. But the disparity between her duty and her male peer’s duty would not exist if all of us did not have a duty to society to achieve and maintain a certain kind of health.

And Leive and Huffington, purporting to be advocating on women’s behalf, do nothing but reinforce the same system that screws women disproportionately when they center a woman’s obligations to the people around her over the personal experience of the woman herself.

And here, I hope, feminists will understand what disability activists mean when we talk about the supposed obligation of mentally ill people to submit to (certain kinds of) treatment for the sake of the rest of society — or what fat acceptance activists mean when we talk about the supposed obligation of all people to be as thin as possible for the sake of the rest of society — and so on.

Eating “healthy” (as determined by mainstream cultural wisdom, largely controlled by wealthy white temporarily-abled folk) is not done solely for oneself. Neither is “exercise” (of course, what counts as physical-activity-that-improves-health is controlled by the same people who control what counts as food-that-improves-health). Participation in the paid workforce is not done solely for oneself — we are, in part, fulfilling the obligation of “responsibility” (which is a component of the health performance, because when health is lacking, the ability to work declines — so work, then, is a demonstration that you are fulfilling your health obligation).

When a person neglects to fill a health-related obligation, there is someone there to remind them of the cost to the rest of society. We’ve all heard figures on the cost of obesity, the cost of heart problems, the cost of low employment rates, the cost of suboptimal nutrition, the cost of insufficient sexual education, the cost of lost sleep… wait, that sounds familiar. Anyway, the cost might be in dollar figures, might be in time lost, might be in persons participating in x activity, or might be more intangible: work decisions, relationship challenges, judgment, problem-solving, creativity… wait a second, didn’t we just hear that? Oh yeah.

And that’s what’s wrong with this angle. Ladies, you are hurting your families! You are failing your communities! You’re dragging all of society down with you! When all you have to do is get an extra hour of sleep — seriously, how selfish are you, staying up to get the dishes clean after your kids have gone to bed so that they’ll have clean bowls to eat cereal out of in the morning?

Except that the entire reason women are getting less sleep than they need is because they’re busy fulfilling their obligations to the rest of the world. The entire reason women are getting less sleep than they need is because they’re required to be well enough to handle multiple shifts, every single day, for their entire adult lives. The entire reason women are getting less sleep than they need is because they’re required to get up at stupid o’clock every morning to handle all the things they’re required to do before going to work (including the obligations to project an image of “health” — to look and smell fresh and clean, to be sufficiently hair-free, to wear attractive clothing, to possibly spend time putting on a face full of makeup and making her hair look presentable — all which are wrapped up in appearing healthy to the people around you), and when they get home from work they still have to do the laundry and make the dinner and wash the dishes and pick up the floor and wipe down the kitchen and bathroom counters and possibly wrangle kids or partners all the while –

– and then they are getting chided by self-proclaimed women’s advocates because they spend too much time doing things for other people, and not enough time doing things for oneself… for… other people…

And it’s impossible to separate the demands of womanhood from the demands of ability. It’s difficult to differentiate the hierarchy of value imposed on people of different genders from the hierarchy of value imposed on people of differing abilities.

I’m sure you get, by now, how women get completely and utterly screwed in this situation. But I invite you to imagine, then, how disabled people get completely and utterly screwed by this situation — and then I invite you to imagine how a system that did not value people differently due to their differing abilities would also remove a lot of the pressure that is currently dumped on women.

A system of equal access, opportunity, value, for people of all types of abilities, would be radically better for people currently oppressed under this gender-based system.

And when you reinforce the ability-based system of oppression, you make things worse for the women living under it.

… just sayin’.

(Cross-posted at FWD/Forward.)

I was born “The [Mom's Maiden Name] Girl.” My mother had not yet picked out a first name for me. She was living in a hole-in-the-wall shack in a poorer town in agricultural central California — it was where she ended up after my father kicked her out upon discovering her pregnancy. Get an abortion or hit the road, he said. I knew this as a child, but it wasn’t until I grew older that my mother also informed me that he was threatening to beat her, to punch and stomp on her stomach to forcibly terminate the pregnancy. He tried to send her out with no belongings in a scrap car — which was to get her from her then-home on the northern border of Oregon to her adult sons’ home in central California. That’s over 900 miles. She was 43 years old and not in the best of health. My oldest brother — something of a giant — had to gather some friends to physically threaten my father for him to make sure that she was able to make the trip safely.

I’ve never had a moment’s contact with him. My mother claims that when I was around six years old, he called her, having “dropped by” and wanted to take me out for some ice cream with his new girlfriend (with whom he had been involved during the short months my mother was married to him). Fearing for my safe return, she refused. And never heard from him again.

During my first months, my adult sister lived with us — she has told me stories of having to brush cockroaches off of me while I slept. And it wouldn’t be until I entered adolescence that my mother and I settled down in a permanent home: before that, there was not one residence I was able to stay for more than a single year’s time; we hopped around looking for the lowest rents, and spent time living in spare rooms in each of my adult brothers’ homes (three times with one, once with the other).

When I was five years old, my mother married a long-time family friend. When she did so, he legally adopted me, claiming to be my father and being added to my birth certificate as such — whether my mother just went along with this or actively sought it for reasons of future security, I don’t know. Regardless, my name at the time changed from [Mom's Maiden Name] to [This Man's Name].

A little less than a year later, after struggling with him over finances — he wanted her to continue working to support his retirement, with no support for either her nor I — she divorced him. And there, a problem cropped up: in order to get my name changed back to my birth name, she would have to go to court to prove that he was not, in fact, my biological father, and have him removed from my birth certificate. As a newly single mother, she did not have the resources to take on that task. So, even after the divorce was finalized, I remained [This Man's Name] — and she kept that name as well in the interests of having the same name as her daughter.

And that name remained mine for the rest of my childhood, adolescence and early adult life. I hated it. I hated the sound of it, I hated the man it came from, I hated the way he had treated her, I hated the way we were stuck carrying his family name despite having no ties to this family whatsoever.

Ever since I can remember, I have been very eager to get rid of that name.

And ever since I remember, I have been wholly uninterested in weddings and traditional family life. I had no interest in boys or girls as a teenager. I never dreamed about “my day,” about dresses and flowers and music, about honeymoons and housewifery.

Part of that, especially as I grew older, was that I had a distinct sense of my undesirability. I wasn’t interested in anyone else because I thought no one else would be interested in me. As I grew more aware of my health and struggled with my increasing limitations, I never even entertained the idea that anyone could ever be interested in me — not to kiss me, not to hold my hand while we walked through the mall, not to cuddle, not to call me “girlfriend” or “go steady,” not to live with me, not to propose to me and certainly not to legally commit to be stuck with me for the rest of their life. Who the hell would want that? I was a burden; my health was growing worse; they would have to help take care of me, and I wouldn’t be able to contribute to the household enough to count as an equal. So obviously, I wasn’t on the market. It never even got as far as whether or not I wanted to be: it was simply a matter-of-fact acknowledgement of a reality that would never change, and thus there was no point wasting energy trying to change it.

All this is to say that I wasn’t dreaming of changing my name as part and parcel of the supposedly-universal little girl’s dreams of wearing white and being pampered and fawned over and having pretty pictures taken in rolling green fields. I never had those dreams. I just really fucking hated that name.

So before changing my name as part of an adult relationship ever became a possibility, I had three names to contend with. My father’s name (which I’ve never officially carried), my mother’s maiden name, and that other man’s name.

And not a single one of them was a name I wanted any part of.

My father’s name? Sounded pretty cool phonetically, but it was the name of a man who threatened to beat my mother, cheated on her pretty openly during their short relationship, had some pretty serious class bigotry going on, and was by all accounts — including those of his other children, the half-siblings who wanted nothing to do with me — a complete asshole. Yes: there’s a name I want to adopt!

My siblings (on my mother’s side) actually shared a completely different name — they were from a different father — my mother’s severely abusive first husband who thankfully died in a motorcycle crash, and every single member of my family is convinced it was for the better.

And then there’s my mother’s maiden name. The name shared by my aunt and uncle and family up in Oregon, the name I was born with, the name I went by for my first five years of life.

It doesn’t matter. I don’t fucking want it.

I want nothing to do with any of those names. I grew up in a severely emotionally controlling and manipulative family and experienced abuse to the point that I am just being introduced to the idea that I may have PTSD by my counselor. (I protested, and she said “OK, well, we don’t have to put a name to it, but…”) I have pretty bad dissociative issues I am only just beginning to explore; I escaped with moderate to severe anxiety disorder and panic attacks that don’t qualify as panic disorder only because instead of being random, they are triggered by contact with my family. I fit every other qualification.

I was stuck at home with a mother who afforded me no space to develop an individual self, unable to make it on my own away from her because of my disability. I couldn’t work, couldn’t afford rent, couldn’t live independently. I pushed myself to return to college earlier than I should have — after I dropped out the first time and spent months housebound — cutting short my recovery time, just to get away from her. I lived for a year on Social Security disability (after I was approved), $7500 in needs-based college grants and several thousand more in student loans before everything started to run out — money, my ability to continue school and maintain grades high enough in a busy enough schedule to qualify for further student aid — and I couldn’t stay out on my own anymore.

And then I spent a very painful and traumatic six months stuck in close contact with an abusive mother who was keenly aware that she was losing her grip on me and escalated the abuse accordingly.

And then? I was able to move 2500 miles the hell away from all that shit to live with… a man. Whom I married. And whose name I took.

I was able to move to a place I wanted to move to, to live with this amazing person I wanted to live with, who loved me dearly, who was respectful and affectionate and treated me like a whole person, a person of my own whom he just so happened to be enamored with, whose family was warm and welcoming and accepting and easy to be around…

I was able to choose where I wanted to be, who I wanted to be there with, who I wanted to be, what sort of life I wanted to live…

I chose the family I wanted to be a part of. I built the life I wanted to live. It’s a life I just so happen to love deeply, a life that has given me so much more opportunity than I ever had on the other side of this country, thanks to the person I chose to build it with.

That person? Is a man.

I took his name.

I don’t think that’s a capitulation to patriarchy. I don’t think that’s a compromise of my feminism. I think that is a demonstration of my feminism.

I have a name now. It is mine.

Of course, when I am emotionally burned out, my body crashes. Serotonin screwup, adrenal fatigue, other stuff? I don’t know. And it has been a very emotionally turbulent two weeks. The temperature dropped without a warning, and the sudden winter weather has been an unfortunate sensual reminder of the awful personal events I went through last year, starting in October. It’s like I’ve been dropped into my own life one year ago, even as things have resolved or improved or smoothed out on that front… it ties only with my summer stuck in California as the worst events of my life, intense and injurious, dropping me into suicidal periods that (fortunately) ended up only scaring the hell out of me, rather than killing me.

And it has been a pressure of intense, high stress. I don’t know why I thought it would be safe for me to raise my voice in concern on very high-profile matters. Maybe the outrage finally got to be so strong it couldn’t stay quiet any more. But I did, and I can’t take it back now. It makes me wonder why I bother, ever, becoming involved in any space, rather than remaining in the background, quiet and invisible, slipping just out of notice. I can protect myself that way. It’s safe there.

Several people in my life, including at work, over the past several weeks who have been like watching flashbacks of my own life during its worst periods. Echoes. There’s the major and severe, mimicking the deeply abusive behaviors I could never escape from. And there’s the passing, the minor, the couldn’t-possibly-be-their-fault — speaking habits, common phrases, facial expressions — though, to be honest, even those wouldn’t be triggers if they didn’t come immediately after the behind-the-back scheming, theorizing about conspiracies, the twisting, the lying…

Why did I ever think I could do this? Why? What could I ever criticize? I am not just imperfect, you must understand. I am broken. Broken, broken. How can I ever expect to speak critically and not have that eye turn back on me? Why do I? When did I lose those self-protection skills? I used to know how. I used to remain highly disciplined.

But something gave me strength and security. And sometimes, that’s the worst thing a person can be given.

I don’t even know who my real self is. I never have. I’ve walled her off, time after time, building stronger and higher and deeper, covering my tracks, looking over my shoulder, making sure that nobody even knows she exists… if she doesn’t exist, she can’t be harmed.

I don’t even know whether she exists anymore.

Of course, this means going back through all my photos before I moved out here, too. From March 2004 through December 2006. It felt much longer than it seems, typed out like that. Feeling trapped. Controlled. Cut in half, the only person who loved me 2500 miles away. My friends, so loving, but my social circle so wrapped up with my family that I have not been able to keep up those beautiful relationships since the move.

It hurts. The good things hurt. The bad things aren’t documented, with few exceptions (me staring glassy-eyed at the camera with a distressed smile, forced to pose with my family at the church event celebrating my class’ graduation, where my family threw a fit because I spent some of my time with my friends and their families, and they felt betrayed). But I remember them immediately when I see the smiles. Because the happiness was never unfettered. The happiness was desparate, tenuous, fragile, aware of its own brevity. There was no such thing as a moment of happiness that was free from all the pain. It was all baked together, inseparable, each a part of the other. I could never have happiness without knowing it would bring even worse pain as soon as it ended, and knowing how soon it was set to end…

And now here I am, cut off from the life I had, no contact with anyone except the occasional email to my mother (though she seeks me out daily, by email, calls to my husband’s phone, invitations to myspace and twitter and facebook, finding my accounts by association with my friends) living a totally different life, much calmer, freer, and finally now able to feel happiness… unguarded.

I had to have my shield, then, and it had to be strong, and always ready. My self, the person I truly was, was holed up in a fortress deep inside, very small, restricted, not allowed to explore, grow; too dangerous. I was saving it, unable to nurture it, but protecting it for the day when I might be free from the constant assault, safe.

Here I am. I don’t need a shield here. I have, in fact, grown accustomed to living  without the weight of the armor, always protecting. Grown accustomed to just living, just doing, just being what I am, and enjoying it.

But whenever I dip into my past, I find that I am vulnerable again. I have to fumble for that shield. Shit, I forgot it. Shit shit shit shit. Overwhelmed, crushed under the weight of everything rushing back.

I lose touch with the world I sit in, right now, in this chair with the windows open and streaming in light and noise from outside, the locusts foreign to me when I moved here, my cat sleeping comfortably on the floor, the kitchen in a mess as we reorganize where we keep the spices and the dishes. The kitchen where I can cook, now, without fear that I will be yelled at, guilt-tripped, physically pushed aside, my work taken over, can’t even put a pot of water on to boil without it being changed, always wrong, never able to do anything and have it just be mine.

This kitchen now, where I enter, I pour my tea from my refrigerator, I put my pot of water on to boil, I take my box of pasta down from the cabinet over the sink, I clear the dishes out of the drainer and put them away. And that’s that. No one behind me to move everything I set down, chastise me, ensure I am never allowed to do a single, small, petty little thing for myself.

I am caught up in the old kitchen. Where my hand is grabbed as I fry up the pork for tacos, held, and another hand does the same thing I was just doing, while telling me that I was doing it all wrong. Where I find my pot of water mysteriously moved, set on different heat, on a different burner, after having been yelled at from the living room about doing it wrong. The laundry in the back, where I am instructed on how to operate the washer as I try to set a load of clothes to wash, even though I have capably done my own laundry many times, I am assumed to never know, never understand, never be capable, never be self-reliant, always someone else’s burdensome extension.

Going through these pictures of the good moments, the fun, the smiles and sun streaming, this is where I am, caught up, again guarded.

And suddenly I start, and wake up. And realize that the person I am waiting for to come home is not my mother, but my husband. That it has been a year since I have seen my mother, and a year and a half before that. I have not set foot in California in two and a half years — now the same amount of time between when I finally got my first digital camera and when I packed all my belongings in flimsy cardboard with layers of packing tape and stepped on to my much-anticipated one way flight from LAX to PIT.

I am sitting here as the locusts make their locust-noises, I hear the rhythmic hum of the ceiling fan in the downstairs neighbors’ bedroom, I see my cat sleeping peacefully on the unvacuumed carpet and the bucket of cleaning supplies ahead of me. I realize that I have a bed not fifteen feet from where I sit, a nice queen size bed with a memory foam topper, in which I sleep every night, happy and secure, with my husband. Happy. And secure. Unguarded.

It’s a hard transition.

Part I: The Personal

Note: I’m going somewhere with this. Please keep your mind open as you read, because I will be coming back in Part II with a concept that may seem to conflict with your initial reading of Part I. Thanks.

Understanding my background is essential to understanding my understanding of these things. And so we go.

My brothers and sister, between them, share two diagnoses of bipolar disorder, one of schizophrenia, two of those with psychosis, and all three have severe depression and/or generalized anxiety disorder. That is only what has been diagnosed by mental health professionals — D* was only diagnosed by way of being taken to prison and has not seen a doctor otherwise in decades.

My mother never saw a mental health professional and never will, but she shares most of the symptoms my siblings display, and my own mental health professionals have agreed with me that if there is a diagnosis to give her (with all requisite caveats), it would be borderline personality disorder.

1.

My brother D* had the worst situation of the family. He was the first to go to jail: when he was taken to court for some sort of licensing issue, he refused to give his name. Wouldn’t speak. And so they put him in jail. And he stayed there for eight months before relenting so that he could just go home.

How long would you stay in jail for a principle?

My family was religious, each member to varying degrees — but their idea of religiosity was, to say the least, a somewhat unique form of the faith practiced by their fellow churchgoers. D* was probably the least religious of any of us. But he still had his ideas.

According to him, the “self” is a thing, not a person. When you refer to your self, you are not referring to you the person, but a thing that the government created so that they could have control over you. Because in Genesis, God gave man dominion over all things of the earth, but not over man. So the government devised the “self” so that they could claim control over people.

According to him, the reason we have a “driver license” instead of a “drivers license” is because in actuality there is only one person, and we are all franchised out from that person, which the government created sometime in the nineteenth century and none of us has been a person ever since. This is called “novation.”

Also, we are all “resident aliens,” because the state owns all land, meaning we are not residents but aliens on the very land we reside on.

Also, when you write your name in all capital letters, that is representative of the “self” that the government owns. Which is why names are printed in all-capitals on our birth certificates, so that the government has official control over you. So never, ever print your name in all capitals, because that means you are officially giving your “self” over to the government, and this may even be the Mark of the Beast.

It was that latter that probably got him in trouble with the court.

These were regular topics of conversation at family gatherings. I remember the Thanksgiving dinner when he gave me my first lecture on novation. I was seven or eight years old, I think. He grabbed a piece of copy paper and drew a diagram for me. I don’t know what else to say but that the diagram showed the inner workings of a mind that works in a completely different way. It wasn’t nonsense. It had logic to it, but it was its own logic — not the logic most of you are used to using.

These ideas were not a hobby for D*; they were his world view, they were primary, his truest beliefs, and he lived his life according to them.

2.

My oldest brother, G*, was born in the late 1950s, when my mother was sixteen. She was publicly kicked out of her church and her parents became hostile, leaving her with one person to rely on — her boyfriend, the father of her child. He became my mother’s first husband. Thus began her adult life. D* would come along a few years later, then my sister, whom I called Sissie.

Her husband was extremely abusive. He had very sketchy friends and apparently some involvement in certain anti-government movements in Canada. He would drug my mother and invite his friends over. He beat her to near-death a couple of times — then went into the children’s rooms, where they were aware something bad was going wrong, and calmly informed them that if they tried to help their mother, he would kill them.

My brothers have related to me the time that D* chased G* down in the back yard with a butcher’s knife — angrily — with full intent to kill him — he had feelings of inferiority under his brother. Their father broke it up when D* was on top of G*, gave them both a good beating and a good threat or two. This is how my siblings grew up.

When my brothers were in their teenage years, he died in a motorcycle crash. My sister was a bit younger, and she has recalled crying in class when the news was brought to her. But all three of them agree now that they’re glad it happened. It freed the family.

I would come along much later, by a different father, who gave my mother the choice of getting an abortion or hitting the road. She hit the road, had me at age 43, and went on to raise me alone.

3.

I grew up in a toxic family dynamic. That may be the most respectful way to describe it.

I could write a novel’s worth about my relationship with my mother. It was one of extreme emotional dependence — both ways when I was a young child — only one way when I grew older and tried to stake out small bits of independence. The more independent I became, the more intense her emotional stronghold on me, the more insidious her tactics to keep me in the reins.

My relationship with my mother was quite happy until, maybe, age twelve or so. She was sweet and caring and supportive. She encouraged me in my talents, gave me plenty of hugs and kisses, shared laughter with me… I could relate with her, I could talk with her, I could play and have fun with her.

But when I approached that age — when I began to explore my own identity, when I pulled away from her a mere inch — suddenly I felt the grip tighten — and that hug became a hold. And there was less playing, less fun. Suddenly — in very subtle ways — she began to turn on me.

4.

There may have been a time when my relationship with my mother was one of friends. But my relationship with my siblings has always been one of enemies.

My siblings were all a generation older than I, married, with children. G* and D* lived with their respective families in the two towns I grew up in, in the Central Valley. My sister lived on the northern border of Oregon, near Portland — where my mother was living when I was conceived. We didn’t get to see her family very often; once a year when we were lucky.

I was always the outsider. My brothers and sister grew up together. In a totally different world. They were decades older. Different life stages. They had come a long way, and I was just arriving on the scene.

A toxic dynamic developed, where I was the young, stupid, spoiled, care-free little thing that was getting off too easy in life. And this threatened them. They went through hell as children, but here they were, struggling, but making a life for themselves. And I was their little sister. But my life was totally divorced from theirs, a totally different realm. One they feared was rising above them.

So they had to tear me down.

And that’s what I experienced growing up. As young as I can remember. I would be trying to disappear into the couch at G*’s house as my brothers and mother commiserated about how totally wrong I was, lectured me on how things really were, agreed that I was just too young and I would come to think of things their way when I got older.

Or they would tease me about my body.

Or they would respond to a positive development in my life — an award or good grade at school, for example — by admonishing me in all the ways I was failing now or could fail in the future.

Or I would be subject to general teasing — the kind that probably goes on in most families — but with a sharp edge, a hostility to it. A tone that made me perpetually uneasy, self-conscious, doubtful and critical of myself.

Whatever it was, ultimately, there was something wrong with me.

These were my authority figures. They weren’t just casually distrusting me. They were engaging in a coordinated campaign to make sure I understood that my own thoughts, opinions, and experiences didn’t matter, weren’t trustworthy, weren’t reasonable; that I would eventually become just like them, regardless what I thought or felt right then; that I was ultimately unimportant and unlovable, that I was a nobody, that I would go nowhere in life.

They loved me. I know they did. But they also hated me. There is simply no way around it. I was devastated when I first really came to terms with that. My own brothers and sister hated me.

And all the while, they were telling me: This is love. And this is the only love you’re ever going to get.

What do you think that’s going to do to a child?

5.

My mother’s social life followed a regular, recognizable pattern.

She would make some friends. At church, doing Avon, whatever. Then over the next couple years (sometimes months), she would grow gradually closer to them — just like any ol’ person does.

But then she would hit a certain point, when those friends were approaching a closeness, when they were moving from casual friends to intimate friends.

And once they hit that point, her attitudes spun a complete 180. She began to regard them with suspicion. She would identify all these little ways, all of a sudden, that the very things she appreciated before, were signs of something sinister. If she missed a few church services and someone checked in to see how she was doing — it wasn’t a caring friend trying to help out someone sie cared about — it was a conspiracy of some sort; they were trying to dig information, to squeeze their way in, to find some way to ruin her life. If she misplaced some item at home, those people must have broken in while she was gone and taken it — anything from a garage key to a dish to a piece of scrap paper.

She became hostile. She became… resentful. She thought that these people were getting together to make her life difficult. The conspiracy would begin to grow, become more complicated by the day.

She’d begin to retreat. Stop going places. Avoid people as much as possible. No sense of trust anymore. Everyone is a potential conspirator. Everyone is an enemy.

And then — the final stage — she would move. Claim to have been “run out of town.” She would find somewhere new, where she wasn’t known — and start over.

And the whole process would begin again.

6.

It was five or six years after D*’s ordeal in prison that G* began to take an interest in the same stuff. He started reading, and reading, and reading. And the more he read, the more passionate he became about it all.

At the time, my brothers were getting into this thing about “copyrighting” your name. I think they saw it as a way to take back possession of that “self” that the government owns. I would argue to no avail.

They decided to “copyright” their names. They each placed a classified ad in the local paper declaring their rights to their names. Declaring that this name now belonged to them, and any violation of their copyright would be punishable by some amount of money. They did some more reading, and decided each violation was worth $50,000.

A little while later, G*’s name ran in the local paper for some innocuous reason I can’t remember. Just a mention, like as a parent in a graduation or engagement announcement, or some sort of meaningless news brief.

G*’s idea of rectifying the situation meant going down to the courthouse and filing a form declaring that the District Attorney was in debt to him, to the tune of a quarter million dollars, for each of five mentions of his name in the newspaper, and placed a lien on her property.

This went unnoticed for some time, until the DA tried to sell her house and found this random man had placed a lien on the property. So she took him to court.

The court case was long and involved, because a buddy of his had tried the same thing and was being tried with him. There was investigation done into the groups and writings G* and his buddy were involved in. Second court systems that claimed to have authority over the government. The buddy was trying to sell cars without registrations because that was giving yourself over to the government. They accused him of being a terrorist. The prosecutor, in his closing statement, actually began to cry loudly in front of the jury, sniffed, then apologized, saying his son was in Fallujah right now and it’s because of these people (my brother and his buddy) that people like my son are dying for their country.

He was found guilty of all charges, including a felony conspiracy charge, and sentenced to fifteen days in prison and five years probation. His buddy got a couple years in prison.

Once he got out of prison, G* decided to go to a doctor. This is when he was referred to a few specialists, and he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, GAD and major depression. He was given a couple medications, one for his fibromyalgia pain and one for his mental condition. He tried them. But he came off them soon after — maybe a couple weeks.

That is the only time either of my brothers tried to seek help for their conditions. Didn’t last long – G* was soon back to his old self — distrustful of the doctors, very resistant to treatment. He is the one, after all, who dropped a very heavy metal object on his toe, breaking it, splitting the toenail so bad it fell right off, and getting a nasty infection to go with it — and absolutely refused to go to the hospital or even a walk-in doctor.

Then again, D* is the one who passed several kidney stones without ever seeing a doctor. He looked on the internet and found several “alternative” health sites that told him which foods to eat to “flush it out.” He followed the instructions, bearing a few months of extreme pain before finally passing them. Would not see a doctor.

Never in my lifetime has he willingly seen a medical professional. He is by far the most paranoid and most distrustful of authority in my family — why would he ever trust a doctor? They might be passing along information to — well, anyone. Either way, they are a threat far more than a help, so it would be downright dangerous for him to ever step in a medical office.

Part II: The Political

Last week’s conversation in “Emails from my mother” saw many people with similar experiences. Many people who have family members with mental illness, and many people who experienced abuse from family members, and many who have experienced both.

There were, however, several disappointing turns the conversation took. And we really need to address those.

Mental illness is still widely misunderstood in our society. In popular conception, mental illness marks a person as dangerous, incommunicable, strange and weird, living in their own world, not a whole person, not the same kind of person. According to this conception, a mentally ill person has no control over their own thoughts. “The illness” controls them. Any unsavory actions are attributed to “the illness.”

There is also popular conception (which somewhat contradicts the above, but both are still commonly held together without second thought), that says that mental illness is a character flaw: that a person need only buck up, think positive, get some sun, stop being so negative, exercise, etc. and it will all just go away. The subtler, more “enlightened” form of this conception says that a mentally ill person just needs to attend therapy and get the right medication, and it will all just go away. As if it’s that easy.

As a society, we marginalize the mentally ill eagerly, without compunction. They’re scary, they’re dangerous, they’re just not like us, they need to be controlled, for their good and ours, because they are a threat to orderly society.

Except that we aren’t. People who are mentally ill are no more likely to commit violence than people who aren’t. The only factor which increased the risk of violence is substance abuse — a factor which also increases risk of violence in the non-mentally ill. And much stronger predictors of violence include being male, young, low income, recently unemployed and recently divorced or separated. For what stigma they still may face, do we assign anywhere near the same amount of “danger” to divorcees and the unemployed as we do to the mentally ill? And yet….

And yet: people with mental illness are twice as likely to be the victims of violence. Does anyone even pretend to pay attention to that?

And why might that be? Well, when people associate mentall illness with violence, they are

significantly more likely to report attitudes related to fear and dangerousness, to endorse services that coerced persons into treatment and treated them in segregated areas, to avoid persons with mental illness in social situations, and to be reluctant to help persons with mental illness.

Huh. Imagine that. People who are told that already-marginalized people are a danger to them and all that they hold dear will begin to have ideas that those marginalized folk need to be controlled, avoided, medicated, segregated…

And this attitude, this automatic assumption that mental illness makes a person violent and dangerous, is so pervasive across our society, and so deeply-held — and yet so wrong, so not true.

Don’t you think, perhaps, then, many of our other assumptions about mental illness — no matter how deeply-held, how widely-agreed-upon — might also be wrong?…

Like that they lack empathy or reasoning ability?

Or… that abuse and mental illness can be safely conflated?

I’m not even going to bother linking specific comments for that one, because there were so many, and I participated in it too. I made the same mistake. I had suffered abuse from someone with a mental illness, and I failed to realize that there were two things going on there, two different things, and that one is not an inevitable result of the other.

Try reading my stories above again. Do you see the distinction? I told stories of growing up as a family member of people with mental illness, and I told stories of growing up abused. Did you see the two different things going on when you first read them? Or did you think I was talking about the same thing the whole time?

I was called out on my next post for writing as though the mentally ill, and people with disabilities in general, were a separate group, off there, somewhere away from all of “us.”

As though people with mental health conditions are not scattered throughout the entire population. As though my best friends don’t have these conditions. As though I don’t have them! And I do!… And I even made a specific plea in that very post for people with conditions like mine to stop thinking of themselves as separate from the people the public thinks of when they hear the words “mentally ill”!

We are all subject to these attitudes, and they reach deep into the core of our world views. It takes careful, concerted effort to undo the damage done by bias, hostility and ignorance. And even with that effort, oftentimes these attitudes remain — they are woven so deeply we don’t even know that they’re there. Even when we’re looking for them.

So we need to keep a sharp eye.

One very popular idea about mental illness, which was shown throughout the “Emails” thread, is that one can separate out “the illness” from “the person” — and that any unsavory actions or behaviors can be attributed to “the illness.” That makes it OK, because it’s not the actual person inside making those decisions to act in those ways, but some vague, faceless, soulless thing that infects them.

This, of course, is a tactic to remove agency from the mentally ill person. A family member may latch onto this idea as a form of comfort, a way to identify with “the real person” inside their loved one’s body, which is separate from “the illness” which is what did things that harmed them.

But this idea exists for a purpose, and its purpose is not comfort to those of us who struggle with our families. Its purpose is to aid control of the mentally ill population. Because when their agency is removed, it makes it much easier to impose things on them, to coerce them into things, which we would never tolerate on the healthy population.

When agency is removed from a person, it makes us less likely to identify with that person as a fellow human being. We are less likely to consider how something may affect them as a human being, with a family and a community and a life of their own, which might be affected in so many ways by this restriction or that proposal.

When agency is removed, we feel much safer making decisions for someone else.

But persons with mental illness still have agency. They are whole persons, not diminished by their difference. Their illness is not simply a disruptive module overlaid on a “normal” person’s brain. It is their brain. It simply works in a way that a normal person’s brain doesn’t.

A circle is not a square with the corners cut off. It’s an entirely different shape.

And this difference is not inherently detrimental. I know a lot of people really had trouble with this concept in the “Language” thread. And it is such an alien concept to most of the world that I know people will continue to have trouble with it. But the fact remains: Difference is not inherently bad. A different body, a different brain (which, really, is a part of the body) — these things are not inherently bad just because they do not conform to the established social norm.

Please make note, there, of the key word “inherently.” Because a particular difference in body or mind might make that person’s life difficult in certain ways. Many of these are attributable not to the person and their difference itself, but to the fact that society fails to prepare itself for this difference. Many, however, are not. Some things are just shitty to experience. As I said, I have a chronic pain condition. Pain is, to say the least, unpleasant. There just isn’t any getting past that. But, as I said in the “Emails” thread,

There may still be issues with this condition that make life genuinely hard, that cause pain and hurt to that person, and we must acknowledge that…. [But] the pain and hurt is not the whole story. A thing can be both good and bad, benefit and harm at the same time. “Normalness” is such a thing, surely, as well!

Mental illness undoubtedly has negative effect on many people who live with it. Right now it is very hard to separate out how much of that is due to the illness and how much of that is because we restrict access to understanding and affirmative health care and equal access to society to such a point that almost everyone with mental illness is going to go through some shitty stuff because of it, even if their difference from the norm is relatively slight, and the effect on their life relatively light.

The focus in making their life easier, then, should not be in training the illness out of the person to make them more like “normal.” It should be identifying ways that life is hard for that person, and figuring out how to make it not-hard. That means identifying the true cause of the problem, rather than always assuming the cause is the person’s failure to conform to “normal.”

The true cause might be that the person’s brain regulates its chemicals in a way that makes life hard on the person, and so we try to modify things to bring the brain closer to a place the person will be happy with. This is a very different thing than assuming the cause is the brain regulating chemicals in a not-”normal” way, and therefore the solution is to force the brain to regulate things the “normal” way.

Then again, the true cause might be that the person doesn’t have prescription coverage, that they have trouble finding employment and therefore can’t afford the medicine they need, that there isn’t any support for living independently in their community, that people have weird ideas about them and treat them differently in social situations in such a way as to make their life very difficult.

All of these situations have different solutions, and they aren’t “make the person more like normal or else keep them away from the rest of us by whatever means possible.” Which is, unfortunately, the default solution given how we approach mental illness right now.

And this solution is only possible given that we assume things like “the illness is separable from the person.”

The thing is, many of us with mental illness would beg to differ. Our conditions are not a separate animal; they are not a “disruptive module overlaid on a normal brain;” they are us and we are them. That does not mean that one particular condition must be the single most defining thing in our lives — but it does mean that it is, however large or small, simply one aspect of our selves, one of the many things that make us, each individual person, who we are.

abbyjean put it particularly well in a private email (quoted with permission):

so i’ve been mulling about [the practice of] drawing a distinction between “things a person does of their own agency” and “things a person does because of their illness.” [...]

in my mind, that’s not a meaningful distinction, because the idea of “things i do of my own agency without influence from my illness” is a null set. i cannot separate myself or my thoughts or my motivation from my illness. the illness is so much a part of me, so much a part of my brain, that the idea of me without the illness just doesn’t make sense. imagining how i might think about or react to specific facts and situations had i never become ill, never been diagnosed, never gone through treatment, never relapsed, never been suicidal, etc, is so remote and hypothetical as to be meaningless. how might i react to a situation had i been born and raised in canada by moose hunters? i don’t know. it’s equally remote from my life and experiences, and equally irrelevant to my actual actions and thoughts and reactions.

A circle is not a square with the corners cut off. It is an entirely different shape. And both the shapes are of equal value.

Neither the circle nor the square is any better or worse, more valuable or less valuable, more whole or less whole than the other. They are both whole, they are both legitimate, they are both worthy, they both are. They just are, they are what they are, and you cannot define one in terms of the other.

This, this is what we don’t get in our discussion of any physical or mental difference, is that we cannot define that difference in terms of the “normal” default! The fact that most of the world, and even most social justice activism communities don’t realize the inherent problem with doing this, is indicative of exactly how much we have to break down here — more than I, just one person in all her imperfections, can try to encompass in one blog post.

Part III: Where the personal gets political

There was a discussion, earlier this year sometime, on Feministe about the right of people with mental illness to refuse treatment. I couldn’t read the whole thing, it was so triggering for me. And I have no desire to search out the specific post and conversation and relive how awful that was.

But I will say this, as a child who grew up in a family that was never un-affected by mental illness, and as a child who grew up under abuse. A child who is still trying to sort out everything that means to her, and will be for the rest of her life.

As a child who watched her family start and struggle, who watched her brothers go through very personal court cases, prison and probation because they had mental illness and their world did not reconcile with society’s world. As a child who watched her brother and sister seek treatment stopping and startingly, watched how that treatment affected them. As a child who observed the differing conditions of her family members throughout periods of differing amounts of support and differing amounts of (pressure/trial/tribulation). As a child who suffered worse abuse during those periods of lesser support and greater (pressure).

I would never, ever force any of my loved ones to submit to treatment they were not willing to take.

It is not a mentally ill person’s responsibility to force hirself into a square box sie does not fit in, so that the rest of the square shapes won’t be unduly affected by hir difference.

It is never a mentally ill person’s responsibility to submit to treatment they do not want to undergo because otherwise they would be a danger to somebody else.

Did you read what I wrote up there? Mentally ill persons are no likelier to perpetrate violence than mentally “healthy” persons, and in fact are twice as likely to be the victims of violence.

The only time the rate of violence rises is — surprise, surprise — when substance abuse is present.

Substance abuse is what my family turned to when the institutions that were supposed to be supporting them were instead working against them.

Substance abuse is what my family turned to when the rest of the world was treating them with disdain for being different.

Substance abuse is what my family turned to when they had no other options left, because society took them all away.

When people with mental illness are supported, when there is an affirmative environment where they can seek help for the problems they face participating in society and there are ways to address those problems in a way that respects their wholeness and humanity and agency — when the rest of the world is willing to be there with a supportive hand when they reach for one, not bearing down an iron fist against their wishes –

– then — guess what — mental illness doesn’t have to be a Big Scary Deal.

The term disability is not a static one but is the result of a person–environment interaction. The less supportive the physical and social environment, the greater the amount of disability. (source)

I know, it’s a radical idea:

Disability isn’t the result of individual defects, deviations from the able-bodied norm. Disability is the result of a society that fails to accommodate these differences.

What if we saw these differences as variation, not deviation? After all, we fully expect our children to be born with any number of different eye colors. Why is it any less when it comes to physical and mental abilities?

Can you shape a world in your mind where there is no norm? What does it look like? How does it differ from the world you live in today? What do you expect of people as a whole in order to support those currently disadvantaged?

The more I think, the more confused I become. It seems impossible to structure society so that everyone is brought to a similar level of ability across the board. But it does seem possible to structure society so that those fully-abled work to make up for those straightforwardly lacking, and everyone works with each other in full expectation of a wide range of ability across the populace, and all of this is seen not as hassling and burdensome, noble and heroic when someone takes it on—but as mundane, everyday, simply expected, no different from separating out your recyclables or driving on the right side of the road: something that everybody does, because it isn’t that hard to do, and it benefits yourself as well as those around you, so it’s stupid and even outright reprehensible not to.

That is the world I want to live in.

Instead, we have sober, reasonable discussions about whether or not mentally ill people are allowed to own their own minds and bodies. We have sober, reasonable discussions about whether their Obvious Danger To The Rest Of Us Important People is too great to bother respecting their personhood and bodily autonomy.

We have removed their agency, and thus feel comfortable making decisions for them.

When instead, maybe what we could do is — I don’t know, recognize the diversity in neural makeup? Recognize that people have different conceptions of The World and How It Works, have different approaches to dealing with that world they conceive? And that their approach isn’t inherently worse just because it ends up conflicting with the majority view — that maybe that conflict isn’t a sign of their difference having to be bad or wrong?

And let people have their damn differences, and when those conflicts come up, manage them. In a way that respects yes, the person is different from the norm. But guess what? The norm is different from them. The fact that there IS a difference does not bestow upon the different parties any particular worth or value. It just is. It just is.

And I love her even more for saying things like this.

There were several unforgettable moments in the Obama campaign—Barack’s impassioned speech about race, the DNC finale at Invesco, Madelyn Dunham’s death just before her grandson became president-elect—but none meant more to me than a two-minute bit of tape, a simple but monumental exchange between Michelle Obama and Soledad O’Brien.

In her interview with Michelle, Soledad circled around the issues placed at the center of every discussion about female identity by second-wave feminism. O’Brien wondered how Michelle felt about following a dream that wasn’t hers. She asked about leaving a “high-powered and highly compensated” career.

Michelle acknowledged the challenges. She graciously offered that she missed her colleagues and her work. But, she continued, she could always find another career. With only the slightest hint of irony, she said if she had more time, she might bemoan the loss, but she “had a lot on her plate” and what she was doing was “pretty significant.”

I thought, “You go, girl!” As if working with the love of her life and the father of her children to become the first family of the United States while radically transforming the world as we know it isn’t the most empowering choice a brilliant and self-determining woman could make.

But the real moment came in the next beat, 30 seconds that remain forever etched in my mind as the final blow to an ideology in which women’s empowerment is narrowly defined by financial independence, emotional autonomy and professional advancement.

O’Brien went in for the kill, the coup de grâce of second-wave feminism. “But sometimes your career helps to define who you are,” she said, probing.

“It doesn’t for me,” Michelle said immediately. “What I do in my life defines me. A career is one of the many things I do in my life. I am a mother first. Where do I get my joy and my energy first and foremost? From my kids.”

This has been a point of contention for me since I discovered feminism years ago. I was struggling with my disability, in the simplest, truest sense of the word: I didn’t know how to handle my life. I was in too much pain to participate in pretty much any regular outside-the-home activity. Certainly I couldn’t work. And yes, I felt judged for that. I felt like a bad feminist for “staying home.” Especially when a long term relationship with a man entered the picture.

More broadly, adult life in this society is centered around work for pay. One’s job is a central defining aspect of one’s identity. If not the specific job, certainly the act of working, cashing your paycheck, and paying the bills. The environment you work in, interaction with your coworkers, dealings with the public, dealings with your boss, the physical or mental effects your work has on you. For most people, work takes up a majority of their waking hours. How can those hours not be an important part of who you are?

Higher-class white feminism has wholly embraced this in recent decades as women made the move into the workforce. This is unfortunate, because it is alienating. It is alienating to many people and many groups. It is alienating, as I touched on, to people with disabilities who are unable to work. It is alienating to people in the lower classes for whom the idyllic “career” is a fiction, or at least a very distant and unreachable phenomenon. It is alienating to people for whom the pursuit of more wealth and more power are not the end-all, be-all to life. Hell, it’s alienating to people who just plain don’t much care for their job and who wish not to have their lives defined by it.

A person’s job, their industry, their field of study, can be part of their identity. Again: for many people, it’s a pretty big part of your life. That doesn’t mean it has to be the biggest part. And if it’s the biggest part for you, well, congratulations: don’t assume the same for every other person.

If you’re still not getting it, for a change of perspective, try rereading that paragraph replacing job with parenthood.

Get me now? Good. Moving on.

I don’t particularly think feminist theory values work for pay as the defining aspect of egalitarian womanhood, as such. But anyone reading this blog should be well familiar with the reality that the feminist movement is afflicted with (rather, more accurately, afflicts) a variety of prejudice, preconception, misconception, and general dysfunction. A movement is made up of people. Messy, imperfect people, who soaked in all sort of prejudice, preconception, etc. as they grew up in a messy, imperfect society. And here we are.

The thing about this work, issues of social justice, is that we cannot remove the mistakes and start over with a clean slate. It’s not that easy. We are working with complex, shifting, messy, organic beings, and the immaterial force they create when they are brought together.

And sometimes, the solution that is best to address a problem in that messy world is not the solution that would be best to address that problem — excuse the phrasing — were all other things equal.

For a time, financially privileged white women felt a very real force at work around them: the dictates of their social class preventing them from participating in work-for-pay. This, whatever their privileges might otherwise be, was not fair. And so feminists fought against it. And, in a limited sort of way, they won. Now women are accepted in most fields of work-for-pay. They’re allowed to be not just the secretary but the attorney. They’re allowed to be not just the nurse but the doctor. And though it’s laughable to assert that sexism in the workplace is largely conquered (ha!) they earn much more respect than they might’ve fifty years back.

But here’s the thing. When this subset of women had their worlds cordoned off, reduced to a fraction of what they could be were they not so imprisoned, what was the problem?

By this, I don’t mean “Was it actually wrong?” I mean, instead, “What is it that made it wrong?”

Was it that women weren’t allowed to experience that world of work-for-pay (and, largely, the prestige that came with it) for themselves? That seems to be what feminism has settled on, in practice. Feminists fight fiercely when anyone threatens their place in the industry. And they are fiercely offended when anyone reduces them to their traditional purposes: child-making and -rearing, house cleaning, looking pretty, existing only for the whim and betterment of their men. And often the response is much like that of Melissa (whom I mean not to put down; it’s merely the example at hand) at Shakesville a few days back:

I’ve worked or been otherwise acquainted with married men who told me their wives were gorgeous, thin, good in bed, big-breasted, etc., long before they told me their wives’ occupations, or any other bit of information that wasn’t designed to convey how awesome the men were because they’d scored hot wives—just another accessory like a car or a great flat in a trendy neighborhood.

Why is it that when feminists seek to define their identity as women free from patriarchal constrictions, they almost always default first and often only to their occupation?

What is it that made that restriction wrong?

I submit that what made it wrong was not the specific area forbidden to women: it is that they were forbidden from an area — any area — that could contribute to their personhood and identity, that would allow them to contribute in return to their families, communities and wider society. The wrong is not that (this subset of) women was forbidden this particular aspect of self: the wrong is that (this subset of) women was forbidden any particular aspect of self.

Considering this, we round out the picture of what, exactly, work-for-pay means to women. It is something a large set of women were denied for a long time, or severely restricted, a system of coinciding and contradictory reward and punishment, a system in which women simply could not win. They saw that the system was flawed, and they worked, hard, to change that system.

But their sights were limited. They could not scrub the slate clean. They could only clean up some of the mess, then build on what they had left. So we find ourselves here. Some of the fiercest feminists are also the most accomplished professionals, and they have no reservations when it comes to defending that place for which they’ve fought so hard. But in doing so, maybe they — we — have let that part of ourselves consume the rest of us. Maybe we lost sight of the rest of our lives. The so, so many other things that we do, that are so important to us, but which are not nearly so highly valued when reflecting on our own identity.

Do you identify yourself, first and foremost, as a member of a certain profession? Why? Is it really the most important part of you?

Can you see the cracks in that facade? Do you see the classism, lurking in the assumption that everyone (who matters) excels at one thing in high school, then studies it in college, perhaps masters it in graduate school, and then moves straight into a career in that very field? Do you see the ableism, lurking in the assumption that everyone (who matters) works, and that it is always money from employment that pays for a person’s shelter, food, heat and cooling, yearly two-week vacations and bar tab? Can you see how even gender relations aren’t instantly righted with affluent white women’s entrance in the work field — lurking in the existence of the second shift, the fact that a spouse and family is considered a downside when hiring a woman but a plus when hiring a man?

These things aren’t the fault of women who work. But maybe we shouldn’t treat the importance we give to work-for-pay so uncritically. Maybe we shouldn’t pretend that we actually did wipe that slate clean.

What else do you do in your life? I’ll bet you there’s a lot of things. I get a maximum of five waking hours outside of work on weekdays and even I have many more parts to my life than my work. My husband, my cats, my geographic home, painting, blogging, hockey, design, my love of sweets and grains and tea and homemade stroganoff and mac n cheese and tacos, my family, my husband’s family, my friends, my favorite music, dancing for myself when nobody’s around, the joy of movement and the peace in rest…

I invite you to reflect on your own life. My bet is you’ll find much that challenges this idea that work must be a primary aspect of self for women who strive to be free.

And with that foundation, maybe we can begin to explore the worlds of all the other billions of women who weren’t white enough, financially secure enough, healthy enough, anything enough to be a part of that feminist movement. But it’s ok — I’ll give you some time to digest first.