I’ve never been strong on environmental isues. I mean, I care, but the movement sometimes annoys the shit out of me (same as with the liberal movement in general, the feminist movement, etc.) and I’m just not as well-versed as I could be. Basically, I’m a n00b to this.

But I read the newspapers here basically every day, the local small-town paper and the Post-Gazette and sometimes the Trib media (they annoy the shit out of me!) and I’ve been learning, over the years, how completely commonplace it is for major environmental violations to occur with naught more than a person with property nearby giving an interview to the small-town paper. They conduct studies to see whether it was in fact the suspected companies who did the wrong, find eight months later that it was, and… that’s it. No fines, no prosecution, no consequences whatsoever.

And these companies advertise the shit outta Pittsburgh. Consol Energy powers America, and brands itself as the good working-class white guy company, the Real Americans, who don’t want to give those foreigners any energy or jobs, and anytime someone dares to suggest coal is maybe not the greatest energy source out there they start blitzing the ‘burgh with ads about how we need coal and how absolutely stupid anyone would be to think otherwise.

Coal jobs are vital to the local economy — it would be a disaster for this area for the country to start moving away from coal production and toward cleaner, safer forms of energy. I, personally, think we have to do it anyway, but I haven’t lived here my whole life, and I haven’t experienced destitution trying to survive on retail restaurant line-cook wages and then finding that this coal thing pays pretty well and is willing to accept me and then the family finds some small sort of financial security.

Coal mining is killing our community, and yet it is a core part of its identity and an absolutely-essential source of economic security. Southwest PA, all of WV, parts of Ohi, the tri-state area.

Big King Coal owns this region.

I’ll leave you with a link to a local organization that’s out there doing some of the tough work on behalf of the community here and the region’s ecosystem: The Center for Coalfield Justice. If you need stats, if you want someone to interview, head over their way.

P.S. I haven’t even mentioned drilling for natural gas. Another day.

(Originally posted to my tumblr.)

It appears that the mother, at best, took advantage of her son having failed to log out and clear all cookies and personal history from his computer every time he leaves it for half a moment, and at best, straight-up hacked his account — read some things she didn’t like, and responded by posting things all over his page in an attempt to embarrass him and then going to the length of changing his passwords on his Facebook account and his email so that he couldn’t do any damage control after he found out about it.

She thinks that these actions constitute a “conversation” with her son.

The son lives with his grandmother. Someone, somewhere (I can’t find an attribution) claims that he and his mother had a “great relationship,” a claim that sounds suspiciously like the refrain that commonly comes from assaulters and abusers, from cheaters and absent parents and partners. They truly have no idea that something is deeply, thoroughly wrong with the relationship, and the signs of the second person in it — the object — protesting against that wrongness are lost on them.

Like, you know, the fact that her son does not live with her and prefers not to have any contact with her at all.

The mother is living it up in the face of all this attention. She gets to assert her ownership of her near-adult son and know that a great many will rally to her defense in response.

New plans on fighting the charges, as she believes she was fully within her legal rights as a parent to monitor her son’s online behavior.

“Oh yeah, I’m going to fight it. If I have to go even higher up, I’m going to. I’m not gonna let this rest. I think this could be a precedent-setting moment for parents,” she told KATV-TV. [source]

Denise New says she plans to fight the charges saying if the suit is successful it will be “open season” on all vigilant parents who seek to keep their children in line. [source]

“You’re within your legal rights to monitor your child and to have a conversation with your child on Facebook whether it’s his account, or your account or whoever’s account.” [source]

“If I’m found guilty on this it is going to be open season” on parents, New said Wednesday.

“You’re within your legal rights to monitor your child and to have a conversation with your child on Facebook whether it’s his account, or your account or whoever’s account,” she told KATV. [source]

“The things he was posting in Facebook would make any decent parent’s eyes pop out and his jaw drop,” Denise New said. “He had been warned before about things he had been posting.” [source]

Denise New acknowledged changing both passwords to keep her son from getting access to his Facebook page. She denied hacking into the account.

“He left it logged in on my computer,” she said. “It’s not like I stole his laptop.” [source]

Readers will note a common refrain in many of the non-strictly-news sources above (and found here): “What ever happened to de-friending?” As though this is a matter of a son allowing his mother to have viewing access to his page through her own account as a friend. The son may never have allowed his mother to have an inkling that he had a Facebook account: she still forced her way into it. Not in view of it, in control of it. This doesn’t have anyfuckingthing to do with who you friend and who you don’t.

Of course, most sites focus on the potential implications for parents’ rights, and there’s a good reason for that: our society cannot deal with the idea of children as full human beings with ownership of their own selves. It is firmly entrenched in our social consciousness that children are objects, possessions, things lacking full personhood, desire, decisionmaking ability, agency.

Much like women used to be (and are still, to some extent) considered, hm? Objects for the benefit of the full beings who own them. Women would be passed along from fathers to husbands, traded for physical and monetary property, no distinction between the two things in that transaction. Not identically, but similarly, children are considered objects owned by their parents much the same as wives were objects owned by their husbands. (I expect that mothers reading will feel this a little more intuitively than fathers might — knowing that oneself might be on the object end of that transaction can produce a different reaction, sometimes.)

It is interesting that the immediate reaction to this story on the part of adults, especially adults who have children, is to consider the parent’s plight in this story, completely neglecting the concerns of the child. And it reminds me how (feminist) abled women immediately rush to think about the plight of the caretaker in any story of caretaker abuse of PWD, completely neglecting the concerns of the person being given the care, as though they don’t even exist. As though they are objects: things that cannot be affected themselves, that can only affect the full persons in their non-lives.

It is telling, really, who we consider to be persons worthy of consideration, whose problems we consider to be important and worth solving — and who we consider to be persons completely ignorable, whose problems aren’t worth consideration and don’t particularly need any attention, much less any attempt at solving. (In fact, the solution to their problems might interfere with the solutions to the important problems — so they should be crushed if possible.)

This is what we are. People read this story of obvious, clear violation of boundaries, and think immediately on their own right to violate others’ boundaries: or else they resort immediately to blaming the victim for this clear violation of their own boundaries. The reaction more comment from non-parent adults.

How ridiculous, right? That a boy would assert his right to his own fucking life without his abuser’s interference. Especially when this parent doesn’t even have any fucking custodial rights! And we still rush to her defense. How poisoned are we?

You’ve heard the term “choice feminism” right? Usually used derisively by a person who is arguing: Just because a woman makes a choice does not make it a feminist choice, we have to be able to examine issues on a systemic rather than individual level, some choices that individual feels are good for them are actually going to be bad for the group as a whole and even bad for that individual when systemic issues are taken into consideration.

Here’s what annoys me about this argument. It always comes from the perspective of a white, cisgendered, currently nondisabled, middle-to-upper-class, heteronormative, and otherwise socially privileged person.

That doesn’t mean that it’s that kind of person saying it: it means that the very idea comes from a very specific perspective, in response to a very specific situation.

And not all of us are in that same situation.

The assumption, when this person says “we have to be able to make some sort of systemic analysis and that will mean some choices have to be wrong” they are almost always assuming some specific things.

* Women have been historically locked in their homes tending their houses and families, and larger society pushes against women’s ability to participate in the workforce, and women should participate in the workforce at the highest level possible.

* Women are oversexualized, and that sexualization takes specific forms, such as high heels, lipstick, makeup, dresses.

* Women are stereotyped as demure and submissive, soft and giving, caring and intuitive.

* Women are forced into roles as family carers, encouraged to have as many children as possible and to be the primary carer to those children, stereotyped as having special natural ability to raise children.

That’s just a few.

Here’s the thing. Everything I just said above about “women”? Isn’t true for women. Rather, it is true for white women. Or cisgendered women. Or nondisabled women. It is not true for women as a class.

Yet we continually operate on the assumption that it is!

But ask some other women, sometime, what their experience has been. Many poor and lower-class women, for example, would gladly tell you that they have never had a whiff of an option to stay home with their children — they’ve been out there washing the rich women’s drawers, or sewing them in the first place, so that they can afford dinner for their family a few days out of the week. Ask a black woman about being a nanny and wet nurse. Ask both of those women, and a few mentally or physically disabled women, about when they had their children taken away from them or weren’t allowed to spend any time with them at all (apart from the time they spent cleaning up the messes of the children of those rich/white/nondisabled women they worked for).

Ask a little black or brown girl in some poor neighborhoods about being expected to be virginal (a concept that depends on whiteness from the very beginning) until her wedding day. She’ll probably laugh at you. She’s been continually harassed, abused and assaulted since age six. She’s portrayed in larger culture as an unsexual unwoman and yet every man who crosses her path sees her as a potent sexual opportunity.

Ask the little girl with developmental disabilities about sex sometime, too. No one ever sees fit to give her any information on the subject. They fight to have her sterilized, or even be forced with serious drugs and surgical interventions to stay in a prepubescent state for the rest of her life, so that no one will ever have to deal with the messy proposition of a menstruating or pregnant r*t*rd girl. And if she does get pregnant, that baby had better be aborted immediately, because she could never, ever be anything but an utter failure of a parent. Sterilization is proposed precisely so that she will never get pregnant even if she is sexually assaulted by carers — precisely because everyone knows that she will be.

Ask the visibly disabled woman about being expected to dress up in skirts and high-heeled shoes. Everybody around her will wince at the thought of her in form-fitting, skin-showing clothing. Because, you know, “women” are oversexualized in that way. Ask her about those super-special parenting powers she supposedly has. Everybody around her will bristle at the thought of her having primary responsibility over a child. Because, you know, “women” are stereotyped as having those super-special powers.

All of these girls and women live very different lives as girls and women. The fact that they are marginalized as girls and women is one thing they share in common. But the ways in which they are marginalized are different!

A white woman is marginalized in a different way than a Latina woman is. And a Latina woman is marginalized in a different way than an indigenous woman! A nondisabled woman is marginalized in a different way than a paraplegic woman is… and a paraplegic woman is marginalized in a different way than a bipolar woman is. An upper-middle-class woman in urban New York is marginalized in a different way than a poor woman in urban New York — and a poor woman in New York is marginalized in a different way than a poor woman in Indiana.

There are different mechanisms of marginalization for different types of people — and the greater your difference from the presumed default person, the more different your type of marginalization looks than the privileged-other-than-gender woman.

And that means that what affects you, how it affects you, what issues are important to you, what is good for you and what is bad for you, is different for different sorts of people.

So we cannot, cannot assume, if we agree that “choice feminism” is misguided (and indeed, I believe that straw-ideology would be misguided — well, surely many people think that way, but that is not usually the argument that is being put forth in these discussions), that high heels, lipstick, being submissive, foregoing paid work to raise children, etc. etc. are clearly problematic under a systemic feminist analysis. Because they might be clearly problematic for one set of women — but they are not clearly problematic for the set of all women.

Actually, sensible shoes and baggy desexualized clothing might be clearly problematic for a different set of women who have been historically deprived of their right to any sexuality. Actually, full-time participation in the paid workforce might be clearly problematic for a different set of women who have already been working outside the home for centuries and have historically been denied the right to raise their own children. Actually, being aggressive and dominating or even merely appearing assertive and self-confident might be clearly problematic for a different set of women who are culturally typed as bossy, loud, demanding and unyielding and rarely read as anything but.

Given all of this, I am distrustful of anyone who argues against “choice feminism” or the idea that “any choice is a good choice for that person” because that is not the point. When people protest as you judge their choices against your standards, they are not claiming that no choice could ever be problematic. They are protesting because you are applying the standard of your particular experience against their very different experience. They are protesting because you are assuming that your experience is universal. They are protesting because you are invalidating their own experience, their own feelings and thoughts and desires, in the process. They are protesting because you are objectifying them. And it feels pretty shitty to be objectified.

(Cross-posted at FWD/Forward.)

I more-or-less grew up on the internet. I’ve been part of a variety of online communities. You definitely start to notice some commonalities. I think I’ve pegged the median life of an internet community around three years: after that time, drifting sets in, or conflicts create divisions, or original members have moved on and it feels like the essence of the community went with them, and so on. And there’s often one or two people from the group that you keep contact with over the long run.

I’ve gained so much from my time online. I’ve connected with some amazing people. I’ve made lasting friends. I’ve had space to grow, to explore. Making those connections online as a young teen actually helped me learn to socialize offline (contrary to the panic of traditional-media sorts as new media grows more prominent and the new generations make use of the technology available to them). I still had access to a network of support when I found myself unable to leave the home or socialize in-person. And access to information, the opportunity to learn things that might never have been in my reach otherwise — from sexual education to photography and design concepts to politics and social awareness. And I needn’t go into detail, I think, for most of my readers to understand the value of activism no matter where it happens.

For all the internet has to offer, it can also be a dangerous place. And I’ve watched it happen in a number of communities I was a part of. There are all kinds of people out there, and not all of them with a sense of understanding or respect for boundaries. And it only takes one person, out of hundred or thousands, to change the shape of the community they target.

It can happen in many ways. Some of you might remember that I met my husband online. The community we met in was a close-knit group of friends. Every year we planned a meeting, choosing a place close to some percentage of the group, and would go out together to museums, restaurants, theme parks, local/historical points of interest, and so on. We associated with one another with our real identities, for the most part. As far as we knew. Until one member faked his own death to us, for reasons unknown, and several people who had grown very close to him fell out of the community as a result.

There was another community, a much larger one, where members sorted themselves into sub-groups of friends. And one group was dominated by this particular woman. She made a point to be as inflammatory as possible. She wanted to see drama. And she would target any individual who raised her ire (whether they spoke against her or just happened to be in her way at the moment). Target with harsh words, target with customized insults, target with twisted stories or speculations about the person, designed to exploit their vulnerabilities, displaying knowledge of the target and hir situation — she had done her research — that was as much a personal violation as the infectious lies that she weaved into her attacks.

I’ve seen this happen in multiple communities. These toxic individuals who strongarm their way into prominence. In the beginning they are boisterous but nonthreatening. But their loud, commanding style immediately sets them into a dominant position, no matter how few people know them at first. They use their dominant position to reward people who make a show of flattering them. They make connections early, carefully cultivating supporters, rewarding them with insider status if they show themselves willing to play by the dominator’s rules.

This toxic person begins to gain prominence, in part because sie begins to sew conflict. Sometimes it is subtle, not overt or obviously conflict-seeking, but rather setting hirself up to be wronged, or finding a sensitive issue to exploit. But sometimes it is blatant: outright picking a fight with other people, seeking out enemies. Either way, sie becomes a person that no one can any longer ignore. Sie forces hir way into a place of importance and relevance to all community members; they have to pay attention, because otherwise they might stumble in hir path, or break one of hir rules inadvertantly, and suddenly find themselves in the middle of a shitstorm.

This is the point at which the shape of the community changes: this person is terrorizing the community. Hir supporters are no longer simply part of another sub-group of friends, but now become enforcers. They cannot believe that anyone would speak ill of this person who has treated them so well, and they make sure that anyone who does so is promptly punished. They make sure that no one breaks the dominator’s rules; they pick fights with others in an attempt to prove their loyalty to the dominator.

The really disturbing part is when the big fights break out: anyone who speaks out against this toxic person is swarmed. The toxic person may or may not be personally involved. Sometimes, sie sits back as hir supporters do the work of harassing the dissident, picking at all their flaws, manufacturing them if need be. But sometimes, sie will get involved — seeking this person’s greatest vulnerabilities, and exposing to all observers — knowing that sie does not need to say the nastiest things — someone else will step in and do the dirty work for hir.

And people get the message. It only takes one time, although it may happen well more than just once. People see what the consequences are for speaking out against abuse. And people, quite rightly, would rather protect themselves — even if they feel brave enough to speak up, they can see already that it’s not enough to make it stop. They might have seen a great many people speak out against the abuse, and each of them individually targeted for attack, and the dominator keeping hir place of influence in the aftermath. People may not be happy, anymore, but sie still holds this power.

This is highly damaging in any community. I’ve watched it happen, watched how the dynamics of the community change, observed the consequences of pushback. In one particularly extreme incident, the bully actually researched the real-life identity of an enemy and called around to anyone she could find, including the target’s in-laws and boss, with a fabricated story that was just plausible enough to sew seeds of doubt, and the target actually saw consequences at work because of it.

But even when the abuse is confined to the online community, it can have real effect. I’m not a person who believes that the internet is a somehow less-important space than physical proximity. We are all real people, and we are having real interactions and making real connections, medium regardless. Harmful behavior is harmful behavior, no matter how it is facilitated. And abuse is no less abuse because the abuser isn’t sitting in front of you.

To the contrary: the invasion of space, the assault on a person’s autonomy and integrity, the violation of a person’s freedom of association, are just as real when they happen over a data line. These spaces are important. They might be the only space you can interact with distant friends. They might be the only space you can interact at all, because you are dealing with disability or poverty that makes leaving the house (or bed) and socializing in person difficult or impossible. (Which is why it’s frustrating when people dismiss online spaces as somehow not-as-real or not-as-important.)

When I’m part of a community that houses one of these bullies, I live in fear of the person ever being clued in to my existence, knowing that I could not handle being targeted like that. I have had to leave communities I cared deeply about because I couldn’t keep subjecting myself to those conditions. I have had to break connections with people I cared deeply about because they had some connection to the abuser.

And not just with online friends.

After I moved to Pittsburgh three years ago, I lost contact with every friend I had in California, my closest, deepest soul-mates (in a BFF sense). You see, my mother started stalking me online, seeking out every social media account she could find, invading every space she could find me in. So I left them. All of them. For two straight years I never logged in to my Myspace or Facebook accounts because she would be able to see that I had; certainly I couldn’t have interacted with anybody on them because she would find out. The friends whose emails I didn’t have before, I lost contact with. The friends whose other contact information I did have were the ones in my home-town social circle — the social circle my mother had infiltrated. So now, 2500 miles away in a place I’d never lived, knowing no one but my husband and his immediate family, I was completely isolated from the only support system I had.

Abuse has real ramifications. On real people. No matter where it is carried out.

When it comes to online spaces, some people may not see much of a problem. It doesn’t feel threatening to them. Annoying, maybe. But not threatening. And they don’t see why people can’t just ignore it. It’s not that hard to get past, for them.

But there are some people who can’t just ignore it. People who have been through this before. People who have been primed by previous abusers, primed to respond to certain tactics. For these people, even if they are not the center of a conflict, just being exposed to those same dynamics again can be incredibly harmful. It might not be the same person, the same place, the same situation — but the same patterns are playing out, and it’s not just that you have flash-backs to previous events; it’s the way you return to the state of mind you were in during the previous abuse, the way your patterns of thought go back to how they were then, the way you react to things restored to its previous setting. You might find yourself becoming highly self-critical, questioning your own experience of things, doubting your knowledge of yourself and what happened. You might find the same problems with self-loathing come rushing back. You might be wondering whether you really deserve it. You might start to see yourself as a burden again, highly aware of all the ways you drag other people down.

You can’t just ignore it away. You can’t just Think Positive your way out of it. You can’t just tell yourself that all these thoughts are untrue; no matter how well you understand something intellectually, there is something about the human psyche that still follows those same self-destructive emotional patterns when exposed to the same kind of situation that originally set them in place.

Just because you don’t actually feel like the community bully is going to find you at your workplace doesn’t mean hir actions aren’t having real effect on you — no matter how much you fight it.

Survivors of abuse are everywhere. And they are not always known as such. They are often invisible. And the consequences they suffer are not always apparent to outside observers.

What disturbs me as I watch this play out in yet another community I care about deeply is that this community is different. It’s not just about making friends or sharpening your debate skills or sharing memes with each other. This is a community with a purpose, and it has real effect. Real change is happening because of the conversations that we have with one another, puzzling out the direction of a movement, examining systems and learning how to change them, working with one another to advance the theory behind the movement, to find relevance, to find need, and to fill it. A lot of people have been introduced to concepts they might never have encountered without a thriving network of communities dedicated to common purposes. And, as a believer in bottom-up change, I fully believe that the influence of this community will spread.

And maybe it’s naive of me to expect better, but I rather do expect that groups of people centered around advocacy and activism would have some measure of awareness of abuse, how it works, how devastating it can be to the person/people targeted. I would definitely expect many of these communities to know that the abuser has often made sure to become in some way valuable or indispensable to the larger community, doing good things for other people, even as they do such harm to others. How often do people rally around an accused rapist and close in on the accuser, because they know what a good person the accused is and what good they are doing in [other area], so there’s no way they could be capable of something so heinous, and anybody who suggests something so patently ridiculous must have some sort of insidious motive…

You will see similar narratives play out in online communities — often without even the precept of an accusation. It is not the target who (publicly) initiates the conflict, in this case — the target may have been minding hir own business — but the abuser. All the abuser needs is a slightly modified version of reality — just plausible enough that supporters/enforcers and passers-by don’t bother to check for accuracy, but instead go on the abuser’s version of events — but just twisted enough to set up the target for harassment and humiliation, just something enough to suggest salacious details (real or manufactured) that a motivated supporter might dig up about the target, and just set up in such a way that any way the target might defend hirself would only create more embarrassment or incite escalation.

This is called manipulation.

What is most frustrating is that there are people who know that something is wrong here, people who are seeing red flags, but rather than choosing to back out of the whole conflict, they step in to question the target. Because maybe there are personal issues between the abuser and the target, they figure, but on the merits (as posited by the abuser), doesn’t the bully have a point? And then they unquestioningly accept the abuser’s terms of engagement, imposing those terms on the larger conversation, forcing the target to either engage on the abuser’s terms or not at all — which, of course, sets the target up for failure. And the conversation may not have proceeded on the abuser’s terms without the intervener’s assistance.

This is called enabling.

These people are willingly being used as tools. They are allowing themselves to be manipulated, for what reason I can only guess: sometimes, for the approval of the dominating person, for the points they win by staying on the right side of the conflict (“right” as in most dominant), or maybe they’ve had conflict with the target before too. Maybe there are other reasons, reasons I don’t understand right now, that aren’t as malignant in nature, even as they have a negative effect.

But it’s especially awful, when it happens that way — because it hurts so much worse coming from the innocent bystander, the person who had previously been a friend — it cuts so much deeper when it is coming from a person who generally acts in good faith, a person who generally acts with respect.

The target, then, is isolated: the people who see what is going on are too afraid to speak up, knowing that the consequences of showing any support for the target are having some of that scrutiny diverted their way. And it is understandable to protect oneself in that case, especially when past incidents have shown that even a great many people speaking up against the abuse cannot break down the power structure that the abuser has built.

And that is why the enforcers (whether willing or oblivious) are so frustrating. Because they are the ones who are defending that power structure. They are the ones who are making sure that even when the vast majority of the community is unhappy with the state of things, they cannot wrest back control of their space. The abuser, by hirself, could not win against an entire community that is sick and tired of hir actions. But when the abuser “has a point” — “does so much good” — when people would rather stay willfully ignorant to the structure they are reinforcing as they use it for their own benefit, because any position of influence is worth it because they would use it for good things –

And the system forges on.

How many voices have been silenced by this system we so casually reinforce?

How many people have been intimidated out of writing, building, working within the community?

The answer isn’t zero.

I’ve watched enough of these conflicts now to have lost count of the people who did speak up, who bore the consequences of doing so, and whose voices disappeared entirely after the storm passed. I’ve lost count of the people who became targets, and the campaign was a success, the person humiliated, and even when attention turned elsewhere they were too scared, too depressed or burned out, questioning whether they could ever contribute anything valuable — their voices quieted.

And there is no way to count the people who were observing silently, who might have joined the community, adding their voice to the conversation, contributing valuable perspectives and insights — no matter how small their circle of influence — who were too scared, having witnessed what can happen if they inadvertently step in the path of the wrong person — who decided it wasn’t worth the risk.

Again, this is devastating in any community. But particularly in this one — a community where we want people to use their voices — we want a diversity of perspective — we want a high degree of participation. This is a community where the entire point is to listen to these voices, and to engage with one another, to build upon each other — and no matter how small the voice, no matter how unknown the contribution — it still matters. A great diversity of small contributions makes a stronger, more stable foundation for a movement.

Every little bit is just as important as the next. And the higher degree of participation you have within a group — whatever commonality they share — the more likely the movement is to actually better their position in society, in life. The more you discourage participation, the more the movement becomes dominated by a few competing leaders. And the fewer people participating, the less relevant the movement becomes, for lack of a diversity of knowledge and perspective. The fewer people participating, the more the faults of the few leaders matter. And the more likely the movement is to eat itself inside out.

I don’t trust that it will make much of a difference, just me writing on my little blog. Especially when I am too fucking scared to name names. Especially when I already spent two days suicidal last week, and still don’t know whether I feel up to meaningful participation in this community going forward. Especially if that scrutiny comes back. I’m being fairly risky, writing about it outright like this. And it’s my own safety that I’m risking. And if I find myself targeted again, I might have to pull out of yet another community because of it.

But I will mourn this one a fair bit more. Because it’s more than friends lost.

It’s purpose.

Rush Limbaugh isn’t exactly a sympathetic character. His politics are vile and he makes a career out of escalating white male resentment into white male supremacy. And that causes real harm to real people who don’t meet the requirements to be part of Limbaugh’s He-Man Woman-Haterz Club.

How did he end up abusing prescription painkillers? I don’t know. Was he taking them for legitimate pain due to injury, surgery or a medical condition, and the usage got out of hand? Was he consciously using it as a recreational drug? I have to say I am still somewhat bitter about people who use the stuff I need to be able to get on with my daily life as a quick and easy “high,” ultimately making it harder to access needed medication. (But that is argument from emotion, mostly; I would posit that the real problem is a medical field and larger culture which does not take seriously the needs and concerns of chronic pain patients and is eager to punish people who step outside accepted boundaries.)

But even if he was just out for a high, I still feel unease when I see people use that angle to criticize him.

Because, here’s the thing… the same narrative that you are using to condemn this despicable figure is the narrative that is used to condemn me.

You are feeding, growing, reinforcing the same narrative that codes me as an abuser, that makes me out to be a good-for-nothing low-life, that makes it difficult for me to access the medication I need to be able to live my normal daily life.

When you laugh, joke, or rant about Limbaugh’s abuse of narcotics, you are lifting a page from the book of people who would call me a malingerer and interpret my behavior (frustration at barriers to access, agitation and self-advocacy to try to gain access) as signs of addiction. People who would, in the same breath, chastise me for “making it harder for the real sufferers.” (See why my bitterness about recreational use isn’t actually serving the right purpose, in the end?)

Maybe you don’t really think this way. But maybe the people laughing at your joke do.

And maybe, you just made them feel a little bit safer in their scaremongering about “addiction” and deliberate attempts to make life harder for us.

Scoffing at Limbaugh’s hypocrisy is one thing — but when your scoffing takes the form of a very common, quite harmful cultural prejudice — even when you don’t mean it to — it has real effects on real people’s lives. Sort of like that casual incitement that we hate Limbaugh for.

(Cross-posted at FWD/Forward.)

It will not advance my activism to maintain the public appearance of good relations with a person who causes me nothing but pain, a person who behaves abusively toward me or others, a person who causes harm to myself or others. It does not advance a cause or better the situation of any group of people. All it does is prevent the rest of the community from feeling discomfort at being aware of conflict. But that conflict will exist no matter what: the only difference will be to my personal health. And no, I am not willing to sacrifice my personal health for others’ minor discomfort with being made aware of reality.

I am not obligated to articulate why I am avoiding this persoon or that one. I am not obligated to prove to you that my decision is justified. My reasons are my own, and they are valid. I do not need anyone else’s seal of approval to continue protecting my personal health.

Situations are complicated. And not all of the situation happens in the public eye. And sometimes, I am keeping it that way — keeping things private — for the health of the community. Sometimes, my avoidance of a person is attributable to my own personal background and triggers and issues, things that I have the right to keep to my own damn self. Sometimes, airing a personal conflict can create wider conflict with other people I care about over something that does not actually directly affect them. And I have the right to keep that to myself.

Sometimes, the conflict is a result of something that is relevant to the wider community. Something that is subject to political analysis or something that affects the concerns of the particular community. Sometimes, this conflict arises because I can see another person doing harmful things, behaving in harmful ways, and hurting other community members in the process. And I still have the right to keep that conflict to myself. I have the right to determine for my own damn self whether the actions I am capable of taking would have any positive result — or whether they might have adverse effect on my community, and how much and what kind — or whether they might have adverse effect on me, and how much and what kind — and decide for my own damn self where the balance falls and what to do as a result.

Sometimes, that means speaking up. It means rocking the boat. It means dealing with the unhappiness that results. And sometimes, it means staying silent. Keeping it to myself. And dealing privately with the pain that comes with this or that person’s continued presence and respect within the community.

Sometimes, I am avoiding someone because they whisk me back to painful times, through no fault of their own — simply due to mannerisms or patterns of behaviors which are not inherently negative, but which are just associated for me personally with negative things.

Sometimes, I am avoiding someone because they are downright abusers, even if it is not readily apparent to everyone else in the community. Abusers, you see, don’t always abuse everybody. It is quite common for abusers to be respected and revered within their wider community, considered valuable and indispensible, doing good things for other people — at the same time as they abuse one or more other people, behind closed doors, or in such a way as to slide under the radar of peers and neighbors. And their good deeds do not negate their bad ones. And I have the right to protect myself from further victimization at the hands of my own community as they come to the defense of this person they see as an upstanding and respected member being attacked without provocation (that they were aware of).

I have the right to tend to my own safety, and the safety of others who might be victims of similar abuse, or feeling similar peripheral effects of past abuse.

I have that right. No person can take that from me. Not for any reason.

This applies to people in my workplace. This applies to people in my blogging community (and yes, there are some). This applies to people in my apartment complex. This applies to people in my social circle. It applies any damn place I go. And I have just as much right to go there as the other person does.

If you respect me as a person, you must respect that right. You can keep on liking and interacting with any person you like. But realize that I have the right to abstain from interaction with those same persons. And you don’t get to question why. No matter how much you like them, it does not change the harm that comes when I force myself to pretend that nothing is wrong for the sake of other people’s illusions of harmony.

So many people have complained that it is asking too much of abled people to stop using words they consider trivial: crazy, insane, lunatic, idiot, moron, dumb, blind, etc.

I beg to differ.

You know what is really damn easy? Erasing these words from your vocabulary. All you have to do is stop saying them.

You know what is really hard?

Confronting people on their use of same language.

We aren’t even asking you to do the hard work. We aren’t asking you to tell other people to stop using that language. We aren’t asking you to confront other people on their use of that language. We aren’t asking you to explain why it is problematic, to answer people’s questions, to deal with their redirection tactics, or to handle the attacks on and harassment of the people negatively affected by that language that such confrontations always seem to draw.

You don’t have to take the brunt of it. You don’t have to deal with the negative consequences. You don’t have to face employment discrimination, street harassment, caretaker abuse, and other people’s general cluelessness about our lives. You get to sit tight in your privilege, enjoying it without even realizing you’re doing it.

All you have to do is cut a few words out of your speaking and/or writing vocabulary. That’s it.

We’re the ones who are putting our safety on the line trying to change the cultural system that oppresses us.

Two seconds to reconsidering what you’re really trying to say? Easy.

Changing other people’s deep-seated attitudes? Really damn hard.

How do you think we feel when you complain that two seconds is just tooooo haaaaard for you to take on?

(Cross-posted at FWD.)

***

[The amazing abbyjean sent me annotations. Annotations! So now: Open Letter To Feministing With Links. We proceed.]

This includes the contributors and the commentariat.

We have a problem. We have had a problem for a long, long time.

You traffick in ableism. Your entire site reeks of it. I have spoken with many disabled feminists who find it impossible to read and participate in your community. They feel excluded. The culture is thick with unexamined ableism. We encounter common slurs and problematic cultural concepts at every turn, and are met with hostility when we bring it up. Some people have wasted energy on emailing you, requesting that you address it, so that they might safely participate in the community. You never bothered to respond. To any of them.

You’ve lost a lot of readers this way. But I’m sure, because that’s the way it usually goes, you lose less readers due to ableism than you gain due to same — because you never challenge their privilege, in fact defend it, passively and actively.

That’s nice for you and all, but the rest of us would, at best, like to play too. As for the worst — we would deeply appreciate it if you would stop deliberately (and don’t you dare say otherwise, you have heard our complaints and ignored them, making your actions deliberate) reinforcing a culture which marginalizes us, leaves us vulnerable to violence (including sexual violence), ostracization, institutionalization and death.¹

I viewed enough of this happening at your site — (years ago, when I was just getting into the feminist blogosphere; disappointingly, you haven’t changed a single bit in the intervening years) — that I never even bothered trying with your site. I’d love to have been able to. But your site has never felt like a safe space for me. Ever. Exactly the opposite. Your site has felt like a hostile and scary place to myself and other women.

W-O-M-E-N.

You can read, right? Spell it with me.

You cannot claim to care about my condition as a woman if you refuse to address the discrimination I face as a disabled woman.

As far as “what issues affect women”: I am a woman. Presumably, feminists care about the oppression women face.

But you cannot address the oppression I, a woman, face, without addressing the oppression so graciously given me on the basis of my disability.

For example, I face discrimination in the workplace. But if we are only to address the male-female pay gap, and ignore the obstacles I face because I am disabled, then you are not helping me as a woman. I am still left behind, still oppressed, as a woman. All you have done is alleviated the issues which affect you. Which means you aren’t helping women; you are helping healthy, abled women exclusively.

This is the basic framework I work from in my feminism. I am not helping women if I am not also out there addressing classism, transphobia, racism, homophobia, and all of the other oppressions that women face.

The reason “Sean Bell is a feminist issue” is because you must address the oppression which killed him to be able to address the oppression of women. If you cannot address that oppression — even though it affected a man this time — you cannot help the women who are also facing that oppression.

And if feminists are ok with not helping women on that level, then feminism isn’t about helping women, it is about helping white women. (me@tumblr)

And I am sick and fucking tired of having to explain this to the likes of all of you. If you are not there to help me in the problems I face because of my disability, you are not helping me as a woman. I am a whole person, not fragmented little bits. You have to help all of me to help any of me.

And if you aren’t all-in, for helping ALL of me, you are therefore declaring that you are only interested in helping ABLED WOMEN. You can cut out this bullshit about being “feminist,” as though you are working on behalf of “women.” Because you aren’t, at that point, working on the basis of gender: you are working on the basis of women with a certain ability status. Period.

A few days ago, meloukhia at this ain’t livin’ heard us complaining, and got sick of it herself. So she posted her Open Letter to Feministing and began promoting it. And it got some attention.

Apparently, Courtney has emailed her back, as of this writing. They are “in the generalities stage.”

I have absolutely zero interest in personally emailing with any of you, but I want to make sure people know that we — disabled feminists — aren’t stupid enough to be placated with a generic private apology. And I want you to know this. What it is that I, one particular disabled feminist, want from you.

1. Just posting about ableism-in-general, while a huge step for you (considering you never engage with disability in even a token capacity), IS NOT ENOUGH.²

2. Feminists have a long history of only ever speaking the dreaded d-word when it comes to reproductive rights, particularly (almost exclusively) the right to an abortion. Yeah, I know, you thought this would be easy. THAT WILL NOT BE ENOUGH.

3. As far as I’m concerned, you are dead to the cause if you never put up a post addressing your own ableism. Not ableism-in-general. THOSE POSTS ARE STILL NECESSARY. BUT THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH TO ANSWER OUR CRIES. You must put up a post examining your own personal ableism, and particularly the ableism you deliberately condone in your comments section.

In your comments section, a few disgusting, prejudiced, DANGEROUS memes are repeated with not an ounce of pushback:

* that health can be obtained by Doing The Right Things (eating right, exercising, being upper-class privileged enough to live the perfect little high-class life that is correlated with that definition of “health”) and that if you don’t Do The Right Things, any conditions that come up are Your Own Damn Fault, Don’t Come Crying To Us For Help

* attitudes expressed that fat people, smokers, and sick people should be paying more for healthcare because their illness is dragging the abled world down

* that disability is an awful tragedy and disabled people deserve only your pity, never your respect, and who knows why disabled people are segregated away in decrepit institutions, it couldn’t be connected to the way we regard disability as the end of meaningful life as we know it, nuh uh

* that having a disabled child would be such an abomination they must be screened out at all costs, and there is nothing at all problematic with this oh no oh no (DISCLAIMER, FOR GOD’S SAKE, I DO NOT PROPOSE LIMITING WOMEN’S REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM, BUT I DO THINK YOUR PRIVILEGED ASSES NEED TO CONSIDER YOUR COMPLICITY IN OTHER PEOPLE’S SUFFERING) ³

* that Disability Is Objectively Bad, everyone knows that, duh, who would ever want a disability, of course life is going to be worse with one, and that is just because disability is (of course) inherently awful, and could never (of course) be because we make it worse by the way we treat disability[4.
* Even more frightening, the number of women who are on antidepressants ... why the hell are they having children anyway ... fuck if you can't cope with life, how the hell does one expect to raise a child! http://www.feministing.com/archives/005359.html#comment-47387

* I do think that for the sake of society, people who's severe disability roots from their genes should be prevented from reproduction. I'm not sure what that means, and I know the slippery slope that kind of thought can lead to, but I think somehow it's the most utilitarian thing to do. Not to put a blow against the I Am Sam or anything, but I think some people really don't have the capacity to raise their kids (certainly there are plenty of non-disabled parents who fit this description), but my main concern is that the children are more likely to have those same disabilities. I think society's attitude should be to respect and accept the disabled but not to encourage its increase. Certainly we don't want to always be making decisions for people who can't make them for themselves, right? http://www.feministing.com/archives/007889.html#comment-107733]

* words like “lame” and “retard” and “cripple” and “crazy” are totally ok to use — and their conceptual meanings as well — because disability is objectively bad so it makes sense to use something objectively bad to say that something else is bad, or because no one ever uses that word that way anymore (that I hear, because I as an abled person am the ultimate arbiter of how often certain things are said to certain people, the vast majority of whom I never encounter because they are segregated away from me) and it has lost its derogatory connotation, or that I have a cousin who’s retarded and I love him to death so that means I’m allowed to use the word because that totally eliminates my abled privilege, or it’s just too much of an imposition to change my language and have to lose that one concept to express that is based on harmful prejudice, or or…[5.
LAME

* God. Jennifer's body looks soooo lame. The stupidity dripping from the trailers is so overwhelming, I can't even imagine too many dumb and sexist stereotypical males going to see it. http://www.feministing.com/archives/017815.html#comment-298306

* lame. So fucking lame. http://www.feministing.com/archives/011318.html#comment-182734

* Samhita, 11/07: “Forget immigration, reproductive rights, health care or any other issue we feminists are reading up on for the upcoming election. It is all about getting a hot chick in the white house as first lady. Does that not count potential first dude, Bill? Forget you men.style.com, you are totally lame.

In that thread, someone raises the problem, and another commenter dismisses: “It's been so long since "lame" was used for people with disabilties that I really don't think it's an issue anymore. Besids, it's used as a synonym for "loser", not "defective" (which also isn't a synonym for people with disabilities anymore).” http://www.feministing.com/archives/008086.html#comment-114144

* 1/07, Courtney headlines an article “Can I Get a L-A-M-E”. again, someone calls it out in comments but no response from mods, although mods respond to other posts. http://www.feministing.com/archives/006368.html

* “LAME. Excuse me while I barf in the corner.” http://www.feministing.com/archives/015410.html

someone calls it out in comments and response: “Please don't spread prescriptivist poppycock on any site.” http://www.feministing.com/archives/015410.html#comment-257102

* “Lame-ass beer ads are a dime a dozen.” http://www.feministing.com/archives/017741.html

RETARDED

* Victoria Beckham is so retarded, I think she almost belongs in that shopping bag. http://www.feministing.com/archives/008985.html#comment-144542

* Commenter asks “Am I retarded, or can't you reverse a tubal ligation?”http://www.feministing.com/archives/007454.html#comment-93573

response is “No, you're not retarded. There are two types of ligations…” later in thread, commenter raises, no mod response though mods active in thread.

* One commenter uses the term: “It's like when you try to control a teenager and shelter them from reality - when they go into the real world, they often rebel and make a lot of retarded decisions.” http://www.feministing.com/archives/014575.html#comment-239116,
only response is another commenter pre-ridiculing any response: “Uh-oh, you said "retarded!" Get ready to duck the flying tomatoes! :P” http://www.feministing.com/archives/014575.html#comment-239125

* “Lindsay Lohan doesn't have curves like Marilyn Monroe did so to even do this shoot was a retarded idea in the first place.” http://www.feministing.com/archives/008637.html

* “So still being able to marry but being offended by something has the same impact as two gay people not being able to marry? What are they, retarded?” http://www.feministing.com/archives/011095.html#comment-179668

CRIPPLE

* “but the idea of marriage cripples my aspirations in life.”  http://community.feministing.com/2009/07/what-to-do-when-you-want-to-ma.html#comment-282211

* “When you use satire against powerless people, as Limbaugh does, it is not only cruel, it’s profoundly vulgar. It is like kicking a cripple.” http://www.feministing.com/archives/006861.html#comment-73327

* Canadian reactions are a little different from American ones, very negative or hostile actions can really ruin you (Do not make fun of a cripple, or call someone a Kitten Eater, for instance). http://community.feministing.com/2009/04/women-prefer-polite-politician.html#comment-244108

* “I'm not sure this guy built a robot just to sexually abuse. I think he's an emotionally crippled individual who can't relate to the opposite sex.” http://www.feministing.com/archives/012670.html

CRAZY

* Jessica titles post “Fun with feminist flickr (crazy billboard edition)” http://www.feministing.com/archives/006229.html

* Vanessa titles post “Randall Terry’s Crazy Road Show” http://www.feministing.com/archives/017413.html

* Vanessa titles post “Sen. Tom Coburn's chief of staff reaches new level of crazy” http://www.feministing.com/archives/017876.html

* Jessica titles post “What Double Standards Drive you Crazy?” http://www.feministing.com/archives/007551.html

* “I would be all for the feminists for life if they weren't so schizophrenic about their positions. They won't take a position on birth control but they don't want women to have abortions.” http://www.feministing.com/archives/002804.html#comment-13883

(amandaw's note: good Lord, I can only imagine what you'd find if you searched for "insane" "loony/loonytunes/etc." "unhinged" "psycho" and so forth - again, it's not just the word that's the problem)]

* that if one person, especially a person who has a disability, says something isn’t hurtful or problematic, you can call the whole thing off, because all those other people who DO have a problem with it and have suffered the consequences of it just cease to exist, poof!

* the sense of supremacy over others because you are (choose any or none, thin, abled, upper class, pretty, educated) and fully abled, which makes you totes better than everyone else, but you never CONSCIOUSLY think that so it’s totally ok that you still avoid Those People whenever possible because they scare you or squick you out, almost like they make you uncomfortable realizing your position in life is never as certain as you like to pretend it is? — nah, couldn’t be, just because they’re weird and gross and like, different and stuff

That’s just to start.

This is all shit that goes down in your comments regularly. And it makes women (spell it with me, W-O-M-E-N) feel uncomfortable and unwelcome, especially when they speak up and have other people jump back defending the exclusionary language and concepts, stating that they don’t have a problem with it and therefore there is no problem with it, saying or implying that the challenger must be oversensitive, have an agenda, looking for things to get angry about, or just doesn’t understand that the person committing the exclusionary behavior is a Good Person and that should be good enough.

Well. It’s not good enough. You are not good enough. Your whole site is not good enough. It is going to take some major changes. You are going to have to put yourself on the line, do some serious reading, reflecting, digesting, and actually change how you think and act (and not just by saying “I believe it now!” — we aren’t stupid, we can tell when there has been a true change). You are going to have to criticize yourself and your fellow writers. And –  this is the fun part –

4. you are going to have to change your comment section. You will moderate and fight back against ableism (which you will recognize, because you have actually been making an effort to learn more than you do now, right?) from your own commenters. You will delete offensive comments and tell commenters to stay the fuck in line. And not just once. Every time. EVERY FUCKING TIME.

And don’t you dare cry that it takes up so much time. Because you’re already spending that time watching your space to protect the abled women in it.

We would love it if you would give us the same fucking courtesy.

See also: meloukhia: Open Letter to Feministing; Anna: Dear Feministing: Answer your email; Annaham: Confessions of a Reluctant Young White Feminist; Anna again: Anti-Oppression Linkspam; Chally: Feminism that doesn’t advance women is no feminism at all.

All annotations abbyjean’s except where noted in parenthesis.

Of course, this is outrageous. Why should a woman who has been beaten by some asshole be denied health care coverage? It isn’t fair.

But there’s something wrong here. And not just with this discriminatory practice — but with the people breathlessly reporting it.

Because, you see, it is being reported, not as:

Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions Are Morally Wrong, but as

How Dare They Treat DV Victims and Mothers the Same Way They Treat Women with Depression, Diabetes and Cancer!

It is being reported as different from “normal” pre-existing condition exclusions. It is being reported as being especially wrong. As being worse. A true moral violation, taking things to a new level.

But why?

Here’s the thing. Insurance companies refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (anything from asthma to leukemia) because they know these people will be highly likely to incur greater costs than healthy patients. The entire rationale for excluding them is because they cost more money.

If you have had a C-section once, you are much more likely to end up having another one if you ever give birth again. If you have a history of domestic violence, you might end up with an abusive partner again, and end up needing care.

Yeah, it’s complete bullshit that these people would be refused health care. It’s downright immoral.

But why is it especially immoral to refuse health care to these women — but not to women with osteoporosis or an anxiety disorder or back pain? Or Ehler-Danlos Syndrome or food allergies or heart disease or lung cancer?

How is it any different?

Victims of domestic violence don’t deserve to suffer consequences for something that is not their fault. This is truth. It contributes to the very popular cultural myth that victims are somehow to blame for the abuse they suffer — that they must have done something to provoke it, or that they should have left, etc. All this stuff is highly damaging.

But that doesn’t make it different than telling a woman with lung cancer that she can’t have care because her disease is somehow her fault. Which contributes to the very popular cultural myth that people with medical conditions are somehow to blame for them — that they must have done something to earn them, that it’s their own fault they ended up that way, and therefore they lose rights to certain things because they are inflicting the costs of their mistakes on the rest of us.

Because if you haven’t done anything wrong, you won’t ever end up sick. If you do end up sick, there must be something you did wrong.

Maybe that woman smoked. And maybe that other woman slapped her boyfriend first. And that woman who was raped wore a short skirt and flirted with the man first. That does not make this violation her fault. This is basic feminist theory. “Blaming the victim.”

Health care is a human right. We all deserve basic health care that respects a person’s dignity and integrity and humanity.

So why are these things different? Especially outrageous?

I can’t identify any reason except one.

Because they apply to healthy women.

It’s understandable why health insurance companies would refuse care to women with arthritis. It makes sense that they would deny care to women with psychiatric disorders.

Because we, as a society, think it is OK to deny quality of life and societal access to people with medical conditions, disabilities and chronic illnesses. We have determined that it makes sense to discriminate against them. We get why these things are done. And they’re done to those people. Over there. Not to me and mine.

But C-sections? Why, one-third of mothers in the US will have a C-section instead of a vaginal birth! That affects me and mine. Therefore, it is especially outrageous — that we would be treated like we treat them.

Oh, but that’s not how you think?

Really?

What justification is there for acting as though these practices are any worse than the practice of denying coverage to women who have lupus?

There isn’t any that isn’t rooted in a deeply ableist bias.

How about we get outraged by the fact that there is any such thing as a pre-existing condition exclusion at all? I can get behind you on that one.

Today’s roundup brought to you by oh look a feather toy!

An acquaintance of mine shared a post that linked to Peter Singer’s latest piece in the NYT Magazine, “Why We Must Ration Healthcare.” Most of the article focuses on the fact that health care is currently rationed in the U.S., whether by price or by less tangible factors such as ER wait times. I don’t disagree with that part; that’s nothing more than a clear-eyed look at the reality that the American health care system has barriers to accessibility. Where Singer goes off the rails for a demonstration of Able-Bodied Privilege 101, however, is when he discusses how to put a value on human lives as a precursor to putting a value on health care. In order to demonstrate the utility of quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in rationing health care, he uses the example of how an able-bodied person reacts to a hypothetical situation in which they become quadraplegic, and how their desire to live changes. He then goes on to present a situation in which persons with disabilities (PWD) are damned if they do and damned if they don’t: he suggests that if a PWD is happy with their life, they don’t need any treatment that would improve their lives, and if a PWD is not happy with their life, then it would be wasteful to spend money on treatment that would improve their lives.

I consider this a must-read for anyone who is new to disability rights. Pizza Diavola does an excellent job showing where Singer’s logic simply falls apart, and in fact his arguments do not make sense without assuming the supremacy of the able body. But disability is not an inherently bad experience; it only becomes this phenomenon of tragedy and suffering when society refuses to provide support for people of all sorts, rather than upholding the narrow and unstable health ideal.

Following Singer’s logic, we would pretty much never seek to improve our lives in any way because to do so would admit that we were not happy with our lives beforehand, and if we were happy with it, then it would be useless to do anything to change it. How this is seen as a rational analysis of New York Times caliber, I’m not sure. But apparently Peter Singer hates the wheel, the microwave oven, cotton fabric (admitting that life wasn’t good enough without versatile and insulating body covering!), the printing press, public education, agriculture, language, music, sunscreen, and buildings (admitting that life wasn’t good enough without shelter from the elements!). Among other things.

But because disability is constructed as a tragedic deviation, we end up with nonsensical, circular arguments such as these. And it has unfortunate influence, and will further marginalize people on the basis of their inherent inferiority and thus forfeited right to life (any life, according to Singer, who would have us all killed or otherwise eliminated rather than complicating things for the currently abled — and no, unfortunately, this is not exaggeration or extrapolation; he has advocated exactly this).

Help Find the Cure for Disablism!

Disablism is a common disorder which can begin in early childhood, though its symptoms are often much more marked in adulthood. Without preventative measures, disablism can grow into a chronic condition that becomes more difficult to cure with time. Early detection and proper treatment are key to helping those with disablism lead stronger, more productive lives.

FAQs

Is disablism contagious?
The jury is still out on this question. While some epidemiologists believe disablism may have a contagious aspect and may spread virulently, other researchers emphasize individual health habits and responsibilities.

What is the treatment?
Treatment varies by the degree to which the patient is affected. Treatment focuses on creating new, nondisablist behaviors. For patients unrectifiably deficient in empathy, legal remedies may be required. Please ask your doctor for more details.

What can I do?
Most importantly, educate yourself about disablism. Ask your health care provider, “am I disablist?” Equally important, watch for early signs of disablism in your loved ones and seek early treatment. Disablism is much more cureable in its early stages than when its victims become homicidal or harm others. In addition, help raise awareness about disablism. Discuss disablism and its harmful effects with others.

For more information and resources on disablism, call the Cure Disablism Network at 1-555-BE HUMAN.

This clip from British tv show That Mitchell and Webb Look has made the rounds as a short and sweet parody of gendered advertising. I think it is also useful as a look at medicalization and the way medical conditions are presented in popular culture.

Transcript:

[Blonde, average-looking woman standing in front of white background, reacting to voiceover by crouching and grimacing, with graphic overlay of radiating circles emphasizing different areas]
Woman: Ow. My stomach!
Man’s voice: Do you suffer from gut agony?
Woman: And my head!
Man’s voice: Tension head? [Woman nods, grimacing] Got that bloated feeling?
Woman [beginning to look slightly surprised and self-conscious]: Ooh…
Man’s voice: Inevitable wrinkles? The beginnings of lady moustache? [Woman covers lower half of face with hands] And now you’ve pissed yourself again? [Woman crosses legs] Women. You’re leaking, aging, hairy, overweight, and everything hurts –
[Young boy walks on set in white dress shirt splattered in colorful stains]
Man’s voice: — and your children’s clothes are filthy! No wonder men long for other, less clammy women. For God’s sake, sort yourself out.
[Image appears on screen of assortment of several hundred personal care products, captioned "APPROX $279.99, THE LOT."]
[Woman walks onto set toward couch, with large, bulging full tote bag on one shoulder]
Woman [tiredly]: Now I’m free to live my own life, my way! [falls back onto couch]
[Scene changes to white man in bathroom with razor]
Man’s voice: Men! Shave and get drunk!
[Man has satisfied look on his face as he opens medicine cabinet, finds glass of beer sitting inside, picks it up and smiles smugly, taking a sip]
Man’s voice: Because you’re already brilliant.
[Man smiles widely at camera as woman's hand appears, groping his chest]

ginmar speaks movingly about mental illness, military veterans, and the phenomenon of “fallen women.” A few pieces; there’s much more.

It’s a pain in the ass to experience. Frankly, you’re no fun to live around during this. I mean, people have been brought up on movie mental illness, where you turn into a sweet, soulful, funny, insightful, tragic, tormented character who Teaches Important Lessons, before dying in a beautiful way that gives the hero or heroine a chance to win an Oscar.

It’s especially bad if you’re a woman, because you’re supposed to live for others, do for others, and do this al behind the scenes. The fact is that women who transgress in some way—bad mothers, not mothers, convicts, the sick, the non-sexually rebellious—-are often abandoned. Women are supposed to stand by their man. What goes unsaid, what’s kept secret is that ill women are resented, dumped, and have to face a dual burden of illness and ill-treatment. There are approximately 6,500 homeless female veterans of this war. Homelessness is often the worst and final stop on the mental illness ladder. It’s bottom. Then, too, homeless women in general are ignored. When the truth is overwhelmingly awful and about women, people just shrug their shoulders and put it down to life. When women get angry about this treatment, they often find the mentally ill label used to stigmatize them.

[...]

Suicide tidied things up neatly. By killing herself, the victim had provided her family with a tragedy over which they could weep, instead of an inconvenient complication who aroused questions that were literally unthinkable for the thinkers of the day. With her gone, so was any reminder.

[...]

What’s interesting is that both male and female soldiers are often regarded in this way: better a flag-draped coffin than a living, complex, and often angry veteran. What a drag. Better a tragedy than a complication [...]

That’s the work of a certain class. The resentment is very much the attitude of the person who discovers that those who serve are also those who know their worth. That wasn’t supposed to be part of the deal. You’re supposed to work round the clock, then disappear when not needed, grateful and humble for scraps from the table.

Which is why maybe soldiers like me, especially women, are often greeted with sadistic gloating when we crumble.

Seventeen pills of six different sorts, my 24-hour drug regimen.

I take six medications. Five of them — the antiepileptic, the antidepressant, the non-narcotic pain killer, the muscle relaxer, and the oral contraceptive — are covered through a mail-order service. I receive a 90-day supply in my mail box every three months. No hassle. If a prescription runs out, my doctor is notified electronically, he then sends the new script electronically, and everything proceeds as normal with absolutely no additional step required of me. The only thing I do is click on the check-out button on the web site every three months. That’s it. No calling. No physical piece of paper to pick up. No wait at a retail pharmacy. Just a click and several days’ wait.

There’s one other medication I take. That medication serves the exact same purpose as all five others: it relieves my pain so that I can get on with my daily functions. I take it regularly, just like all five others. I have been taking it regularly for over five years now for the same reason. But this medication is not covered by the mail order service, because it is not considered a “maintenance medication” — despite that it fills the exact same maintenance role all five others fill, just by a different mechanism.

So for this medication, I am only allowed a 30-day supply at a time, and no refills — a brand new script each fill, which requires my doctor’s input each time. I have to call my doctor no sooner than the exact day it was filled last month, unless it falls on a weekend in which case I might get away with calling up to 2 days early. Then I have to call back a couple days later to see if the script has been written. If it has, it is printed out, and I have to physically walk in to the office, stand in line to see a receptionist, have them take a copy of the script with my photo ID, sign and date the copy, and walk out with the script. Then I have to physically take it into a retail pharmacy, wait in line, hand it to the pharmacy technician, then wait the required time for it to be filled. If there are no problems with my insurance, I then must physically present myself and pay for the prescription. Then I can walk out the door with my medication.

(And this is the process with a doctor who’s relatively friendly about the matter.)

It is quite a different process and one overflowing with “veto points” — points at which any party involved can cause any sort of problem and stop the whole process up. Maybe my doctor is on vacation and won’t be back for two weeks. He is the only one in my clinic who will write this script. I can’t call earlier in anticipation of his absence; they will not write the script before the last runs out. In that case, I’m stuck until he comes back. Maybe the system spits out some sort of error, like the one I received today: I was told the script must be written by my original prescriber. Which is this doctor. So now they have to go back and ask for the script all over again, and he isn’t in til tomorrow, and it’s not guaranteed to go through smoothly then. There have been other errors.

Maybe the insurance says no. For any number of reasons; I’ve dealt with prior authorization errors, quantity limit errors, errors because my insurance has suddenly decided to list me as living in an assisted-living home and cannot fill a prescription if I am. Maybe the pharmacy hits a snag, like the time they would not fill a written prescription until 2 a.m. that night because the insurance company said so, even if we paid out of pocket without billing the insurance.

And I’m going to keep running into these issues, and I will run into new errors every few months. I may have solved the last problem, but there’s always something new to pop up. I can never rely on this medication being filled on-time. It simply does not happen the majority of the time. No matter how diligent I am, how patient I am, how clearly and politely I explain myself — or how despondent I get, how emotional I get when telling them but I cannot work without this medication, and I don’t have leave on this job, and I can’t afford to be fired for missing work. Or whatever other pickle I’m in at the moment. It doesn’t matter. I do everything right and there will still be regular problems in getting my medication filled on time.

I’m sure, by now, you’ve figured out that this particular medication is a narcotic pain killer — hydrocodone (generic for Vicodin). I take it for chronic pain. I have been taking it for over five years this way, with the doses varying between one-and-a-half per day and three per day. And the only medical trouble I have ever had on it is when there was an excessive delay in refill during a bad pain flare and I got to go through the withdrawal for two weeks. (And I can tell you from experience: hydrocodone withdrawal is nothing compared to Effexor withdrawal.)

Narcotic pain killers can be a valid option for chronic pain patients. They fill a void left by other treatments which still aren’t effective enough to address our symptoms, which can easily be disabling. As you can see, I take plenty of other medications. But if I want to be able to get up and do something, I still need the pain relief the hydrocodone provides. So I take it. Because I like to be able to get up and do things. Like make the bed in the morning and feed the cats and make myself lunch and possibly run errands. Or — you know — work. Those silly sorts of things.

Here’s the thing, though. In both common culture and the medical industry, chronic pain patients who take these medications to be able to perform everyday, ordinary tasks that currently-able people take for granted — like bathing or showering or washing dishes or dropping their kids off at school — are still constructed as an addict just looking to get high.

You could almost kind of expect that for the narcotics. Most people do not understand the distinction between addiction and dependence. (Which is, basically, the distinction between taking a medication for a medical purpose so that you can go on living your everyday life, vs. taking a medication when you have no medical need so that you can escape from your everyday life.) This distinction exists for a reason; developing a tolerance for a medication is not a bad thing in and of itself, and must be weighed against the benefits that medications brings to the person.

Addiction calls to mind, though, a life being torn down. Addiction calls to mind a person who is seeing the detriment of a drug outweighing the benefit. A person whose life is falling apart because of the drug.

A chronic pain patient taking a narcotic pain killer under the close supervision and guidance of a knowledgeable doctor is exactly the opposite: sie is a person whose life is coming back together because of the drug.

But this image is not easily shaken in people’s minds. And so the chronic pain patient is reimagined as the addict. Hir behaviors are twisted to fit the common conception of the addict. If sie ever lets out a drop of disappointment at having problems with accessing this medication which is helping to put hir life back together — that is seen as drug-seeking behavior. And if sie lets out any sort of relief at the feeling sie experiences after taking the pill and having the crushing weight lifted from hir muscles — that is seen as “getting a high.” Heaven forbid sie show any emotion beyond just relief — like perhaps pleasure or happiness — at being able to perform everyday functions again. And any moodiness or other undesirable behavior can be easily attributed to hir “addiction.”

What’s strange, I notice, is that this reimagining is applied not only to chronic pain patients who take narcotics — but to any chronic pain patients who takes any pain relieving drug.

Take, for example, the anti-epileptic I take. It is not a narcotic. It cannot be abused — that is, if you do not have a neurological pain disorder, it will not do anything for you. You can’t use it to get high, get low, or get anything — except a couple hundred dollars poorer every month.

The only way this pill does anything for you is if you have some sort of nerve problem. And even then, the effect isn’t a “high.” Rather, it levels your pain threshhold — brings it closer to “normal.” No artificial mood effects, no giddiness, no lift. Just level.

And I still see this medication treated very similarly. Patients who take it are described in the same terms you would describe a drug addict.

And it’s just one of many. Any drug that relieves pain for a person with chronic pain will be painted in the same strokes.

At issue, here, is the conventional wisdom that our pain is imagined, that it has no real basis, or even then that it isn’t as bad as we make it out to be. That is the belief that feeds this twisted construction.

Because if you are imagining your pain, there is nothing legitimate you could be getting out of that drug. And if you aren’t getting anything legitimate out of it, but you’re still taking it — and getting upset when you don’t have it — well, that’s classic addict behavior, isn’t it?

If our pain were recognized as real and legitimate — if those messed-up-in-so-many-ways Lyrica commercials didn’t start out with “My fibromyalgia pain is real!” — this wouldn’t happen as much. Because if our pain is real and legitimate, then it is real and legitimate to seek relief for it.

(Of course, that assumes that pharmaceuticals are accepted as a real and legitimate way to relieve that pain.)

But people are going to have trouble with that. They don’t want to accept our pain. They don’t want to admit that it is real. They want to keep believing that it must be imagined. Because then, they can comfort themselves, in that murky area beneath our conscious thought, that they would never end up in our situation. They could never end up with any sort of medical condition. And if they did, well, they know how to do everything right, so they would never be affected by it.

This is why they scoff at our assertions that our experiences are real. This is why our conditions are jokes to a great many people. This is why “fibromyalgia is bullshit” has been the leading search term to my blog. This is why they seek so desperately to deny that these drugs — any drug — could be having a legitimate effect on us. This is why they treat us like addicts. Because they can see how we might reasonably be having real pain, and they can see how these drugs might reasonably be legitimately relieving it, and they can see how we might reasonably be upset if we are consistently denied access to the one thing that allows us to live our lives the way we want to.

And if all that is reasonable, then — shit — they could wind up in the same place someday. And none of their can-do bootstrap individual determination could magically get them out of it.

Addicts we are, then.

The title of the Telegraph article: “Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists. Women who drink alcohol, wear short skirts and are outgoing are more likely to be raped, claim scientists at the University of Leicester.”

The researcher who was interviewed spoke out about the misrepresentations of her work (she is an MSc student and this was her dissertation, which is also apparently unfinished).

According to current.com, the article has been pulled and corrections have been issued. It’s hard to see how they can explain away something like this.

The Bad Science blog offers this update:

Via @jackofkent, here are the articles Richard Alleyne of the Telegraph has written about recently. I’m not saying anything. I’m just saying. Is all.

www.journalisted.com/richard-alleyne

From Pharyngula. H/T hearshot

(Cross-posted at Feministe.)

***

Allow me to indulge in a little bit of inside-hockey.

Hockey is a very physical sport. Part of this sport is “checking” or “hitting” – basically running into an opposing player in order to tie him up for some time so he can’t be out there making productive plays for his team. (Brooks Orpik demonstrates here, making four hits in a fifteen-second timespan in what has been called “The Shift.”)

And there is a concept in hockey we call “taking the hit to make the play.” This happens when a team is trying to set up an offensive play to get the puck to the net. A player on one team will let the other team’s defenseman hit him as he passes the puck to one of his other teammates so that, in a reverse-psychology sort of move, that defenseman is tied up in finishing his check, instead of out there defending the puck from his teammates.

So basically, you are accepting that physical hit because you know it will increase your offensive chances.

***

Things got a little out of hand in the comment thread on my post about the painkiller ban proposal.

I am still adapting to writing for a larger site. It is important to me that PWD feel safe commenting with their experiences. IME, they are much less likely to contribute if they have to carefully moderate their tone and make sure not to offend anyone who has privilege over them. They need to be able to speak candidly about what is going on in their lives without modifying their framing to be acceptable to the masses. And, as has been often discussed on Feministe, while “diplomacy” and 101 education are valuable things to do, if we allow it in every thread, it makes it impossible to take our discussion to a more advanced level.

I focus on making space for PWD. People who are currently not disabled are welcome as long as they realize that they are not the focus in this space. They, their needs, their ideas, their conceptions, are not the center in this space. They get every other space in the world for that. Every other space in the world is specifically built to suit them. If they are willing to relinquish that focus for a time, to listen to PWD, to do their due diligence in educating themselves on the background issues, and treating PWD with respect and accepting when PWD say they are doing something wrong or harmful — then they are welcome.

If they would rather insist that their ideas are more important, more valuable, more reasonable — if they would rather argue with PWD, if they would rather assert their understanding of the issues as clearly better/more reasonable/more in-touch/more important — if they will not listen to what PWD are telling them, accept criticism, and bite their tongue for one minute in their entire life to give deference to how PWD define their space and their experiences — then they are not welcome.

I am sure most of you are familiar with this framework. This is a feminist site. If we were speaking about men and women, rather than abled and disabled, would not most of you advocate the exact same definition of space?

Yesterday, we saw a lot of the latter comments in a thread where people with chronic pain were very clearly communicating the effect this policy would have on them. We saw comments that explained why the policy was being considered — as though the “why” hadn’t been laid out in the original post, reasonably, without argument from emotion.

And I responded angrily. The development already had me quite upset. PWD have to jump through so many hoops just to get barely-adequate care in this society. There are new restrictions every time you turn around. Commonly, you have to go through a dozen steps to get a product or service that’s watered-down and half the quality of what an abled person can access in one step. This is the second shift for the sick. It is very hard for many abled people to understand exactly how much we take on when we become disabled. The onus of access lies with the disabled person to correctly maneuver all the complicated and sometimes contradictory regulations, to take all the necessary steps in the right order at the right time, without mistake, because — like those long math problems in second grade — if you screw up one tiny thing, everything else might come tumbling down with you.

We had commenters “helpfully” inform us that we could just get a script for the narcotic agent alone and take Tylenol with it — and then come back defensively when PWD responded by saying but that puts an unfair burden on us when we are carrying such a heavy burden already.

I wish I’d had the energy to moderate that thread calmly, evenly, without emotion. To carefully explain to people why I believe what I do, why certain things are harmful even if they don’t seem so from the outside, why this regulation would be wrong and discriminatory, and why it is evidence of a larger problem in the structure of our society. To explain all of this in a measured, reasonable tone, with background and sourcing.

Academically.

I didn’t have that energy. I have chronic pain conditions. I am already pushing myself so hard to be able to write what I want to write while I’m guest blogging here, and handle the comments, on top of handling my life. Yeah, you know, I have one. I have to take my 14.5-lb feline leukemia positive cat into the vet for an exam and vaccinations to make sure he doesn’t catch some random infection and die. And take his 10lb sister in too to make sure she’s vaccinated, so she doesn’t end up catching it from him and getting sick herself. I have to help my husband prepare dinner. I have to clean the filthy bathroom. I have to take a shower, something that is enormously taxing on me. I have to run household errands. And, you know, visit with the in-laws for the holiday. All these things sap my energy.

And when my energy is not tip-top, my coherence suffers too. I have trouble putting words together. I get flustered.

So I’m not going to be able to respond reasonably every single time. Them’s the breaks.

Anger. Anger is a feminist issue. The anger argument is a tactic that the privileged party uses to shut down complaints from those lacking privilege. We recognize this when it is a man telling a woman she is too angry, hysterical, hostile, harridan/harpy/banshee/we all know the slurs. It is wrong. It is a way to simply dismiss the woman without having to actually pay attention to what she’s saying. It is taking advantage of the privilege you have over her.

I don’t give a flying shit whether that’s what you intend to do when you pull the anger argument on someone — anyone — a person of color, a disabled person, a queer person. This is well recognized in feminist theory; the argument that the unprivileged person is “too angry” and that people would be more receptive to their arguments if only they would state them sweetly, “you catch more flies with honey than vinegar” –

Don’t tell me you don’t recognize what bullshit that is when the non-privileged person is complaining about something that harms them, and the privileged person cries that they just can’t listen to you until you put it in such a way that soothes their ego.

Oops, I’m getting angry and unreasonable again, aren’t I?

So I responded angrily, mockingly, to comments that I thought were unproductive. I’ll give you a tip right now: last year I made sure to be calm and patient with a set of difficult commenters on one of my guest posts, and it went on for a hundred or so comments, before he gave up and began saying that I and other posters must just be depressed because we disagreed with him.

It did me a lot of good to engage patiently with that guy, mm? He walked away with respect for my argument, did he? No. He didn’t. He walked away the same as the opposing commenters walked away on yesterday’s post.

Anger is valid. Anger is a rational emotion in response to a world that is unjust. And to deny a person anger is to deny their humanity. It denies them the full range of human experience. It denies them the ability to process events in a natural, human way.

I wish I had been well enough to comment calm and patiently on yesterday’s post. I am being honest here. I wish I had been able to just explain diplomatically why I see things the way I do. Because that can be a valuable thing to do.

However, doing so can also transform that commenting space to one that – again – centers around the privileged person’s conception of the world. It forces other commenters to carefully frame their comments in a way that is palatable to the privileged person. And thus it completely shuts the door on a more advanced conversation about the issues affecting them.

No offense, but I’d rather shut the door on the privileged people’s protestations than on PWD’s ability to explore political theory relating to them. Sorry.

Oh: and pandas are cute.

***

My writing is, as a commenter described at one point, is a messy marriage of personal and political.

I write from a personal perspective, but I draw political conclusions from my experiences and observations, and those of other people like me.

It may not be a style of writing that appeals to everyone. It may not be palatable to the masses.But it is important.

I entertain abstract, academic style discussions. But I connect them to reality on the ground. This is vital. We can have as many cute little reasonable debates as we like, but if we never stop to pay attention to what people are actually experiencing in this world, what fucking good are we doing?

We all have different roles. And I know mine.

I bring my personal experience to the table. And there is a reason for it. And I am reminded of it every time a reader comments or emails me to tell me how similar their experiences are, and that they’ve never heard anyone affirm them before. They have never read something in a political context – and make no mistake, feminism is a political theory – that addresses their life.

People with disabilities are largely segregated from wider society. Institutionalization is alive and well today. And barriers to access keep many PWD stuck at home, unable to participate in all different aspects of society.

And many of us are out there, mixed among the wider population — but invisible. Our disibilities are not readily apparent. And therefore our experiences are invisible as well.

My writing aims to make those experiences visible. To expose them to the rest of the world. To force them in the faces of able-privileged folk. So they see that we exist. So they can no longer walk around under the impression that we are not among them.

When our experiences are invisible, our needs are not addressed. Society is already built around the needs of the currently able, to the exclusion of the rest of us. We have made some strides, but there’s still a long way to go. And part of that is making the rest of society realize that people with disabilities are all sorts. We are in wheelchairs and walkers, we use canes. We use medication and TENS units you can’t see. We use braces. We are on bed rest. We have assistant, we walk alone. There may be a visible physical difference or a noticeable behavioral difference. Or we may look and act just like an abled person.

Most of society has trouble recognizing this wide range of disability. When disability is recognized at all, it is within the narrow narratives that PWD have come to recognize: the pitiful/tragedic story, how awful it must be to be “half a person“, or the inspirational/supercrip story, watch in amazement as sie overcomes hir disability! There really isn’t room for any other kind of story in wider society — and yet our stories are so diverse. And so important.

That is why I tell my story. It is only one story. But there are many people like me – and they’re out there writing too. And I want to make sure our stories are visible. And my goal is to make them so visible that they can no longer be ignored.

Everybody needs to be exposed to the reality of living with a disability. Everyone needs to be exposed to what actually happens, in practice, in our lives. All the theoretical discussions in the world aren’t worth shit if we’re still left to die on the streets in large numbers.

Unfortunately, able-privileged spaces (that is to say, almost every space in the world) tend to entertain only those theoretical discussions. The academic, the abstract. To the exclusion of what is happening on the ground. Because that’s messy and hard to reconcile cleanly in a calm, level, reasonable way.

That’s why I tell my personal stories. Because there are lessons to be drawn from them.

The thing is, when I tell my personal stories, I expose myself to a society that is ignorant at best, actively hostile at worst. I expose myself to all the biases contained therein. I expose my self to the public, and everything it can bring.

I take the hit to make the play.

***

I handled yesterday’s thread imperfectly. And it exposed me to a set of people who took offense at my anger – yet found it completely appropriate to make insinuations about my character, my state of mind, and even my sobriety – in one case stating “…this kind of vehement, angry response in a discussion that is relevant to one’s ability to obtain an addictive substance seems eerily familiar to me, as someone who has lived with an addict for nine years. When a rational person suddenly behaves irrationally when his supply is threatened…”

You can find the discussion yourself, at the web site of one of the key commenters in that thread. Right now, I’m just hurting. I tried. I messed up. But fucking hell, I am putting myself on the line in hopes that maybe, in some small way, I can advance the conversation on this issue so that other people currently harmed by certain attitudes might some day see a better world — and maybe find a way to cope in the meantime.

And it hurts.

I’ll leave you with the words of Cara and Abby Jean.

The thing is

The thing is, most of us feminists know well enough that when an anti-choice man comes into a pro-choice woman’s space and tell her that she’s wrong on the subject of her own reproductive rights, there is, no matter his phrasing, nothing “polite” or “reasoned” about what he is doing.  Most of us feminists know perfectly well that the man is still arguing that the woman, the woman to whom he is speaking as well as all women, does not have a right to make decisions about her own body.  Most of us feminists know that when that man gets a negative response, and he counters with an argument about how the woman shouldn’t take it so personally, he is displaying privilege.  Most of us feminists know that there is nothing “abstract” about a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, and that it affects real women’s lives.  It’s not generally lost on us that most of those who spend time treating the “abortion debate” as an excuse to show off fancy rhetorical skills are men.  We generally know that when women point out that hey, this actually affects our lives, we are shot down with the admonishment to not be so “emotional” on the subject.  And we generally know that this is wrong, and hugely misogynistic.

But ah, it’s called “privilege” for a reason, isn’t it?  And so for many, many feminists, these simple, basic understandings that we lament so many men not getting, go out the window when talking about a different oppressed group.  And white feminists will tell women of color to stop being so emotional about the “objective” debate regarding whether or not something is racist.  And cis feminists will tell trans women to stop being so emotional about the “objective” discussion of whether or not their gender identities are legitimate.

And temporarily able-bodied feminists will tell women with disabilities to stop being so emotional about the “objective” discussion on whether or not their experiences are valid, and whether or not there is real reason for their concerns about decreased access to needed services.

And then they will fail to see why what they’re doing is wrong.  Because, well, that anti-choice guy, he’s an outsider.  But us, we’re all feminists around here!  And no other identity could possibly matter!  So we’re all friends!  And how could you dare treat the privileged, ignorant, sticking her foot in her mouth “friend,” the same way that you treat the privileged, ignorant, sticking his foot in his mouth “enemy”?  It’s so unreasonable!  They were just making a reasoned argument and demonstrating their rhetorical skills on this fascinating matter!  STOP BEING SO IRRATIONAL.

I am a person who is privileged in virtually every way other than her sex.  And this is exhausting, infuriating, and wildly depressing to me.  I can’t even begin to imagine the feelings of those women facing further oppressions, who are the actual objects of these patronizing diatribes about reason and logic, from supposed “friends” who know enough to know better.

it is so hard…

it is so hard for women to talk about their own lives and experiences without being attacked. even sharing those things with an audience expected to be mostly sypmathetic, or at least expected not to fashion the author’s own words into a weapon to attack the author herself, is a risky and sometimes very dangerous act.

a lot of these problems seem to stem from a reluctance to give any deference to the person’s own account of their lives and experiences. we think that our academic skills, our research and our logic, can give us full and complete insight into and understanding of an issue – regardless of whether it is something that could ever affect our lives.

but there are things that you cannot understand until you have lived them, cannot learn unless you are taught by people who have lived them. whether it be the amount of hassle and difficulty caused by adding another separate medication to an already complicated pain management regiment for a person with a disability, or how the timing of bus transportation can dramatically increase child care costs for working single mothers – these things are learned most effectively from those who have experienced them.

so to enter a space where a person is talking about their own experiences and to tell them they are wrong, that they will not be affected that way, that it is not that big a deal, and that you know so because of your research or your logic – that is the opposite of learning. that is affirmatively shutting down discussions which could lead to learning. and it makes it much less likely that the person with experience – the person without whom you cannot learn the essential details of the issue – will be willing to participate in such a discussion in the future.

The reason they give, at the end of the article: “the benefits of using the medication for pain relief at recommended doses outweighs the safety risks at this time.” If nothing else, it is somewhat encouraging. If this is their thinking on Darvon/Darvocet, we can hope that similar thinking will guide their decision on Vicodin/Percocet.

***

And according to the New York Times, the FDA

… is not required to follow the recommendations of its advisory panels, but it usually does.

Emphasis mine. In other words: the ball is rolling.

Vicodin and Percocet are two commonly-prescribed narcotic painkillers. They combine hydrocodone or oxycodone (respectively), the narcotic agent, with acetaminophen, brand name Tylenol.

Acetaminophen is coming under fire because abuse of the drug can lead to liver damage. The safe limit for acetaminophen has generally been regarded as 4,000mg per day. That translates to two extra-strength Tylenol (500mg each), four times a day (eight pills total). The dose of acetaminophen in various combination drugs varies, usually 325mg but ranging up to 750mg.

The panel voted against a ban on over-the-counter cold, flu and sinus relief medications, the vast majority which contain acetaminophen. Apparently these medications aren’t a concern, despite containing just as much acetaminophen and being available over-the-counter, where consumers do not have a doctor and pharmacist counseling them on how to take the medication.

This is not to deny that many practitioners — including, infamously, dentists — throw out prescriptions without a second thought. But the number of such practitioners is much lower than commonly perceived, and restrictions on narcotic painkillers will have a negative effect on chronic pain patients, who have to jump through an increasing number of hoops to obtain effective treatment.

I’m sure many people will jump in the comments to “inform” me that narcotic use for chronic pain is dangerous and inadvisable. This is simply wrong; when there is a medical professional overseeing a patient’s pain management regimen, carefully monitoring the use of such drugs, these pain killers can make an enormous difference in a patient’s quality of life. Dosages will have to be watched, as patients develop a tolerance to narcotics over time, but this does not preclude the use of narcotics whatsoever.

In medical terminology, there is a distinction between addiction and dependence. Generally, addiction occurs when a person takes a drug for which they have no medical need, whereas dependence is a patient taking that same drug for a medical purpose. Another way of putting it is that an addicted person uses a drug to escape from life, whereas a dependent person uses a drug to get on with their life.

With knowledge of the potential for dependence in mind, painkillers are a viable treatment option for chronic pain patients. Many patients do not respond to other available treatments (whether pharmaceutical or otherwise), or they do but those improvements ultimately still leave them in considerable pain. The range of available treatments today may not work for every patient — there may be other conditions and considerations that would make one drug dangerous, or another drug might trigger severe side effects, or another drug may just plain not work for them. Every body is different; every person’s body chemistry will interact differently with a certain drug. Considering this, it is important to leave open the option of using narcotic painkillers for chronic pain patients.

They are, obviously, not a first line treatment! Trust me, we know that. But that doesn’t mean it cannot therefore be an available treatment at all.

One article attempts to assuage the concerns of such patients, in a somewhat patronizing tone. A doctor says that practitioners can simply prescribe acetaminophen-free narcotics and advise the patient to take a Tylenol with it. If a practitioner is going to advise that much to a patient, why can’t sie just advise, “Don’t take more than X per day, and check with us before taking any over-the-counter medication,” in the first place? If it’s as simple as telling a doctor to advise a patient on how best to take the medication — why can’t they just do that, instead of taking away an important treatment option for patients?

It is telling, I think, that they voted to ban the pain killers but not the Nyquil. They see narcotic users as other people — the poor people, the drug addicts and traffickers. But the family next door uses Nyquil. The family next door is trusted to be responsible. The Other People are not.

I have been using Vicodin as a part of my pain management routine for almost seven years. As I wrote in a letter to my doctor earlier this year:

The adjustments we made to my other medications were the driving force behind my ability to take on an increasing amount of work – from six hours a week as a restaurant greeter when I met [my doctor], to 20-30 hours a week retail sales, and now to a full-time nine-to-five clerical job. Up until two months ago, for all the change that I went through physically, my hydrocodone usage only went up a small amount – from 1.5/day average to 2/day average.

And I do not rely solely on medication to treat my pain and fatigue. I practice good sleep hygiene: I make sure to go to bed around the same time every night and wake up around the same time every morning, allowing myself 8-9 hours of uninterrupted sleep. (I know that is actually more than recommended for healthy adults, but because research shows fibromyalgia symptoms seem to stem from an interrupted sleep cycle, making the sleep less restful, I need a little more to make up for it.) I make my sleeping environment comfortable in terms of light, sound, and temperature. I maintain a very careful balance of physical activity and rest. I do my best to get light but regular low-impact exercise – I’ve done everything from light walking to weight lifting to Pilates. I am careful to identify things that trigger pain, such as clothing that is too restrictive around the shoulders and hips or certain chemical odors, and then eliminate them from my life to whatever extent possible. I have been through cognitive-behavioral therapy; I have been to stress-management workshops; I know breathing exercises and other coping strategies. I have an entire collection of heating pads at home – portable ones, electric, moist microwavable pads – which I use quite frequently. Dr. H recently helped me procure a TENS unit to treat my recurrent back pain, which has been the single biggest factor in my ability to work this new full-time job. It reduces my pain significantly and thus reduces my use of the pain killers.

I have also tried a variety of other techniques and treatments that just ended up not working for me. Those listed above are those that turned out to work, and each is an important and indispensable part of managing my chronic pain.

Vicodin is only one part of my pain management routine. But one that would significantly affect me if it were taken away. I would have to quit my job. I would do a lot less work around the house — and my husband already does more than half, even when I’m not working. I would be confined to my house, as the amount of trips outside (grocery shopping, doctor appointments, etc.) would be significantly harder on me. As I explained a bit further down in that letter:

I explained to him that, for everything my other medications do for my pain, there are many times where if I want to be able to get up and do something, I need the pain killers. It not only kills the pain, so to speak, but it gives me energy – to try to describe it more accurately, it lifts a weight from my body, so that I can move more freely. Without it, unless I have been doing absolutely nothing but resting for days previous, just moving, lifting my legs and reaching my arms and pushing my body through the air, is cause for a sort of generalized, all-over ache. I feel it in the skin and muscles of whichever part I am trying to move. With the pain killers, that feeling is gone. I can stand up and walk; I can reach to take something off a shelf; I can write; I can lift and carry, and the only pain I will feel is if I actually do strain anything unnaturally.

So whether I’m wanting to fill the cats’ dish with kibble, or gather my dirty clothes to take down to the laundry room, or go out to the grocery store for some milk and bread, I need those pain killers. Whether I’m wanting to sit in the shower for fifteen minutes, or dry my hair, or prepare myself a meal, I need those pain killers. For these activities, I don’t need them every time. But I also cannot go without them every time. I need them some of the time, to keep that careful balance so that I am not so overwhelmed with pain that I find myself unable to do those things at all.

You can see how this would extend to work activities. If I want to get myself ready in the morning so that I am presentable and professional; if I want to alphabetize the files and begin to put them away; if I want to walk around to the various places I need to go inside my workplace throughout the day, fetching applications and delivering mail – to do these things, I need the pain killers. And because this work is regular and sustained, I will need them more regularly than I do for the home care tasks mentioned above.

This letter was written after a nasty incident with another doctor in my clinic. She gave me all of twenty seconds to explain why I was there before launching into a very loud diatribe about how I was crazy and ruining my life, and she was going to send me to rehab. (If you want that story, it’s highlighted in blue here. The yellow blocks are the purely-necessary background, since the letter is so long.)

That left me with no option but to go to the emergency room to ask for a Vicodin script. The experience was humiliating. Nurses outside my exam room joked to each other “We should put a sign on the door that says ‘We are all out of Vicodin, go somewhere else.’” The doctor who saw me gave me a long and patronizing lecture, telling me that I should be seeing a pain specialist and not having my primary doctor coordinate my care, guilting me for using the stuff at all, with many dramatic sighs and furrowing of the brow.

Before he gave me my prescription, I asked if he had a recommendation for a pain specialist, and he gave me one. I called them up. They requested that I send over my medical records before they would make an appointment, because the doctor sat down to read them for every new patient so that he could establish a customized treatment plan. I did as they requested and two days later, I got a call. His receptionist told me that they were not going to schedule me an appointment, because the doctor said “There’s nothing else we can really do for you” and said to continue doing what I was already doing with my primary doctor.

In other words, I was doing it right.

This is the kind of regular obstactles that are set in the path of chronic pain patients who use these medications. And it seems like every time we turn around, there’s another restriction.

It is good that they are turning their attention to the dangers inherent in acetaminophen. But there are ways to address this without making life that much harder for another set of people. Am I going to have to take a higher dose of narcotics now because they want to “protect” me from the danger? I don’t particularly want to.

Hat tip to Annaham.

(Cross-posted at Feministe.)

I am lucky that my husband is employed by the state, and represented by a strong union, so his health care benefits are good.

I was upset when I had to transition from one side of provided-by-the-state care to the other, because it was considerable work for me and for my health care providers, but over time I have come to be immensely grateful for my husband’s benefits. Rather than filling 30-day supplies of my medications at retail pharmacies and, every month, running into some hang-up or another that left me without one of my medications, or having to space out my medications, for days or weeks at a time, I now receive all but one of my medications in full 90-day supplies (including four packs of birth control pills, not three!) with no hassle. I order the medications online, and if the prescription is run out, my doctor is notified, and he sends a new one in electronically, and everything proceeds as normal. My medications arrive in the mail within days. It is the easiest it has ever been for me.

So now I am free of what was probably the biggest burden I had to bear in obtaining reliable health care. The only medication I still receive a 30-day supply for is my Vicodin, which is not considered a “maintenance medication” (despite filling the same function as my Lyrica, tramadol, Effexor, cyclobenzaprine and Mircette) and thus must be filled retail. Even that process has been considerably smoothed since the insurance switch, though not devoid of problems entirely.

And now I never have to deal with obtaining a referral for anything that wasn’t a yearly checkup with my general provider. And I have a single insurer, rather than feeling guilty every time I handed over my four insurance cards to my doctors (my retail employer’s scammy discount non-plan, my Medicare plan, the separate HMO for my MAWD and then the MAWD itself) and knowing the billing hell they were going through just to get payment for their services.

Alas, though: my troubles are not over. My husband’s insurer, like so many other employer-based insurance groups, has become enamored of these “incentive programs” that are supposed to, you know, “provice incentives” for patients to “lead a healthier lifestyle!” Mainstream conservatives and liberals alike seem to love these things. It’s a way to pretend you’re addressing the God-awful fucked-up shabby mess that is the American health care system and its soaring costs, but without actually, you know, doing anything to make these patients healthier. Actually paying for the health care they could use? Pfah! No, just “incentivize” them to exercise more or stop smoking.

These “incentive” programs, more often than not, do not take the form of an actual positive incentive for such “good” behavior. More often, patients feel the effect of a negative punishment for not being the Super Fit And Healthy Ideal Able Body. They end up paying more in health care premiums (by losing out on a “discount” for being a successful participant) or losing their health insurance altogether. Or, they simply feel the burden of having to jump through hoops no able-normative person would ever have to — the second shift for the sick.

These incentive programs would not be worth the money and effort if there were not a stick behind that carrot, a way to enforce good health on the people. It should go without saying: health is not something that should be enforced.

My husband’s ensurer has a yearly health survey that all participants — including every covered family member — must participate in to be eligible for the lower premium. This is not a five minute survey; it is fairly involved. And I am always nervous about answering questions from my health insurance provider: more often than not, when I inform them of this problem or that — even those insignificant in the grand scheme of things — it results in a loss of coverage, increased cost, or additional steps I must complete to continue receiving the care that I do.

This nervousness comes, especially, from my time spent uninsurable on the individual market due to preexisting condition. When I was younger, I created and held steadfast to a very important rule with my own family: Information Equals Ammunition. In the insurance market, this rule is sadly just as applicable.

Every year, after taking the survey, my husband is informed that he is dangerously underweight and action needs to be taken to correct this state of being. My husband is 5′9″ tall and weighs around 120lbs. This is his natural state. He eats a healthy diet, he walks to work and back every day and gets a fair amount of exercise beside that. He inherited his very lanky body frame from his mother, who is even skinnier than he, and jokes that when she was pregnant she never actually gained weight; at the end of her pregnancies, she looked just like she does now, but with a basketball contained in her tum.

When my husband played football in high school, he was actively trying to gain weight both through diet and muscle-building exercise — and he plateaued at 140lbs. Now that he is not weight-lifting on a regular basis, he hovers around 120lb. This is a BMI of 17.7, barely more than I weighed when I was a teenager — the difference being that I was significantly undernourished, and he was more-than-properly-taken-care-of.

So once a year, he gets yelled at a bit about his weight. He is healthy in literally every other way, his one and only health concern being a minor bit of TMJ pain which he now has completely under control. But he does not fit the widely-understood able-bodied “norm,” and so Something Must Be Done!

I take the same survey, and of course I am provided with tips for stress reduction and admonishment to see a pain specialist. I am now very slightly overweight, so of course I am also admonished to “park further away!” and “take the steps instead of the elevator!”

Recently, I have been receiving messages on our home phone from our insurance company, encouraging me to call them for the opportunity to participate in an unnamed program, for unnamed rewards. These messages piss me off, so I ignore them, even though I know there is a strong possibility that it might mean our premiums would go up. I planned to contact them at some point or another, but it was not high on my list of priorities, and still they kept calling every other day.

Then I received a letter, in a tone that can only be described as a lament, that I had not responded and would I please pretty please call them, this time finally informing me that it was for their “Healthy Back Program.” Oh great, I thought. And I caved in and called.

The woman who answered gave me the spiel I expected. And my reply, in a sweet voice, was (closely paraphrased): “Yes, I have chronic pain from fibromyalgia and endometriosis,” and she replied with a somewhat disappointed “Oh” — but I interrupted to continue: “I went in last year for lower back pain, and I spent the entire year going through various programs and treatments to help it. I had to go under for a laparoscopy which led to being diagnosed with endometriosis, and I’ve now been through physical therapy and even have a personal TENS unit to address the pain.”

“Well, unfortunately that means you are not eligible for our program, because your pain is chronic…”

Mm-hm. I am sure you can hear my disappointment.

This is the same health insurance company which paid for all these tests and treatments and has on record exactly what my condition is, what the background is, what medications I am on and which treatments I am partaking in. I provided this information in the health survey. It is very clear that I have chronic pain conditions. But because I even mentioned low back pain — a common focal point for people who like to cry about “overdiagnosis” and “overtreatment” — I was immediately flagged and referred to this oh-so-special program.

It’s just one more little thing I have to fend off to be able to continue on my treatment course. Just like every time I visit a new doctor, counselor or other practitioner and have to patiently go over every disclaimer about why I am on this Vicodin and why I have this symptom and why this and why that, and that yes I am being closely monitored by competent doctors and am following my treatment course as prescribed would you please leave me the fuck alone so we can get on with things.

And it’s exhausting, always having to be at-the-ready to explain these things. It’s just exhausting in a way that no able-normative person will ever fully understand, period, and I am confident in asserting this. It just drains you, even though each of these encounters is small and relatively easy when considered individually. But it accumulates, it weighs on you, and the knowledge that you always have more to come — that is the worst of it.

This is what people with disabilities go through in a health-obsessed culture, a culture that sees personal health as a responsibility to the collective, and any person who in any way deviates from the designated health “norm” (which changes regularly and is not as science-and-reason-based as these people like to think) is failing their family, community and nation, that they are dragging them down — being a burden.

And we all know what the result is when disability, or any health abnormality, is constructed as a burden.

Cara posted about it at Feministe. And we do love Cara, but the thread there (and at Hoyden About Town) quickly devolved into fail, several directions of fail in fact. I just want to walk you guys a little further in one of those directions with me.

Candace left the following comment:

As a PWD, just know that I agree with almost all of what you’ve said, Lillith. I’ve seen sooo many instances of abuse, most often of people carrying their many shopping bags out of the huge mall and then pulling out of their accessible parking space.

I understand why it is so viscerally frustrating to watch seemingly able-bodied people act totally able-bodied while also visibly taking advantage of privileges meant for disabled people. I think everybody gets that, on a deep level. But this feeling comes from many places within us, and uncomfortable though it may be to admit, most are rooted in internalized ableism.

Coldneedles responded:

I have chronic fatigue syndrome. I don’t currently need accessible parking, but I can imagine it in the future because I’ve been declining quite rapidly. I could then very well be your so called “abuser” of the system.

Want to know why?

Well, if I live by myself I will need to go shopping at some point. To do frivilous things like buying food and clothing. I will calculate that I will suffer more if I don’t carry heavy bags. because then I will need to come back and use my precious energy on more driving, walking and even getting presentable so I can go out. Once I get back from the mall I will collapse into bed and not be able to do anything for the rest on the day, possibly even the next two will be affected.

But you wouldn’t see that. Neither would you see the things I have to do to make sure I can go- resting before hand, taking medication, taking rest breaks in the mall itself.

Would it be better if I was denied an accessible parking space, merely because I can technically carry heavy bags? Even if that meant I could not go to the mall to supply my basic needs? Even if that meant public places were inaccesible to me?

Coldneedles, you are not the only one.

Before I moved out here to Pennsylvania, I spent a year living on my own in southern California, attending Cal State Fullerton in Orange County. Ultimately, that didn’t work out for me, but I put up a good fight before bowing out.

I spent my first six weeks in the dorms before being kicked out, because they provided no priority access to housing for students with disabilities or distant students (CSUF was four hours from my hometown of Visalia), with 800 bedspaces for a school of over 38,000 at the time. And then I moved to an apartment about five miles away, in Orange. I began school that year in June, and was without a car until the end of September, leaving me dependent on the public transportation system. In Orange County, that meant the buses. I’ve written about the experience before, here.

So to get food, I had to use the buses. The nearest bus stops were about a mile away from my apartment either way. Then it was a short ride down the street — about a mile — to the nearest grocery store. Then, the walk around the grocery store, and then making my way back to the bus stop — through the bus ride — and the walk back to my apartment from there — now carrying all those groceries.

My disability is, and was, invisible. I managed to make those trips for those first few months. I wouldn’t've made it as long as I did if I didn’t eventually get that car, though.

I had to make a calculation, every time: 1) how much can I reasonably carry? and 2) how often can I make this trip?

If I carried less, that made the trip easier. But it meant I was going to have to make that trip again much sooner, and overall more often. Which would end up dragging down my physical health much further. But there was a limit on how much I still could carry. And if I tried to overstuff my tired arms to keep from returning too soon, it made my condition considerably worse in the short-term and only marginally better in the long-term.

This also meant I had to buy many more processed and boxed foods, because I couldn’t get too much that could be outside the refrigerator or freezer for more than the hour or so it took me to get home (between bus connections and the walks), and because I only had so much energy to prepare food for myself when I was devoting all this energy just to buying the food and getting it home. And, of course, that meant poorer nutrition, which didn’t help my physical state much either.

It was a calculation I was destined to lose, pretty much.

So yes, you might have seen me — a tall, slim, healthy-looking 20-year-old woman with no visible deformities who walks upright with a normal gait — carrying bags of groceries and walking a considerable distance with them, including up the flight of stairs to my second-story apartment. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t disabled.

You also didn’t see me slump those bags to the floor at the doorway, with only just enough care to keep them out of the door’s way so I could slam it shut as I slumped my tired body to the floor/couch/bed, and resting a few minutes before putting away what had to be kept cold but leaving the rest for several hours later, when I had rested more and finally recovered enough to get up and move around again.

This is a calculation I go through every single day of my life. How much work do I take on, and how do I pace it?

Take today. The cats’ litter box desperately needs changed, but I don’t have any litter left. And I need new tights for a job interview tomorrow morning. So I had to go out. And I went to Wal-Mart. Because Wal-Mart had both tights and kitty litter. And it wasn’t going to do workers any better for me to drive to PetSmart and then to JC Penney or Kohls, the two choice’s I’d've had otherwise, than to get those things at Wal-Mart. So I went to fucking Wal-Mart.

And when I got there, I took a normal parking spot. And it was a fucking mistake. I do my best not to use my disabled placard unless I know that I absolutely need it, because there are never enough spaces, and I don’t know who else might come along who might need that proximity parking more than I do, and I feel guilty about it. Plus I like to avoid the glares from people when they see that young slim white chick step out of her bright red two-door with a sun roof and a spoiler on the back (which was the best car available to us in a hurry when I totaled our old beige sedan a year and a half ago) with that blue disabled placard hung from the rear view. The less I deal with that shit, the better.

So I parked about fifteen spots farther away than I would’ve parked with the disabled placard. And I got out of my car and walked in the door. And there were no carts.

I laughed about it with the couple right in front of me. They picked up a basket. I didn’t bother, because the litter wasn’t going to fit in it.

I could have walked all the way to the other end of the store to get a cart, or gone exploring the parking lot for a stray one. But that was a lot of walking I honestly did not feel I could do — so I decided I’d just get the cat litter last so I didn’t have to carry it around the store. And that was going to be a serious physical burden on me. But it was the least physical burdensome option I had available to me right then.

So I walked over to the “intimates” section in the middle of the store and grabbed a box of pantyhose, then trekked back to the side of the store I started at.

I also need some new hair stuff (which is as much a matter of comfort as it is of looks). And I know my husband hates sitting there while I look over all the different stuff that’s available and compare ingredients and compare prices and so forth. It can take me a little while. So I figured, because the hair-stuff aisle was right next to the cat-litter aisle, I would use this time to do my comparison shopping. No one else was in the aisle when I walked around the corner, and I kneeled down where the stuff I wanted to look at was, and started looking.

At that point, a middle-aged woman pushing a somewhat older woman in a wheelchair came in. And behind her, another woman pushing another woman in a wheelchair. The second said “excuse me” and I looked up, ready to straighten and move out of the way, but it turned out she was merely teasing the first couple of women, whom they apparently knew.

The assistant women (so to speak) strolled the older women down the aisle, asking “Do you prefer any certain brand?” and picking one thing up to show them, and so on. And it made me grateful that, at least for now, I can do that sort of comparison-shopping without having to ask someone else to fetch the things for me — because I know myself, and I know I’d feel too guilty and “prideful” asking for something like that. Those are the sort of situations where I throw my hands in the air and deal without — whether it’s something Really Important that is actually going to affect me quite negatively, or whether it’s looking for new hair-stuff, or whether it’s trying on clothes so I can look the way *I* want to — because that little voice in the back of my head starts repeating, “burden”… and I don’t feel like I have a right to any of those things, the minute someone else has to do anything for me to have it.

And I couldn’t help but feel guilty, in the middle of this conversation: I, the slim young girl, standing there between two boomer-age women in wheelchairs, trying my best to give them space and not get in their way — and I just wanted so much to be known as disabled, too.

I was finished perusing, for the most part, so I rounded the corner back to the cat litter and grabbed the small box — which costs me more money, but I can’t handle the giant pail, even if my husband carries it in and out for me, because it’s too heavy to lift and pour from when I’m actually doing the box. But the “small” box was still 21lbs.

And as I shoved the pantyhose under my left arm, and picked up the box of cat litter and started walking, the first couple of ladies also rounded the corner. And I had to say “excuse me” because we almost ran into each other.

And oh God: having just wanted to connect to these two women, to be recognized as disabled, too — here I am carrying a very heavy box of cat litter in my arms, without a cart or anything, right in front of them. And I thought: if I had made any mention of my disability before, what would they be thinking of me? Right now, it was just “able-bodied young girl.” But if I had, would it now be, “Faker“? “Abuser“? “Oh my God, I can’t believe she has the nerve to claim to be disabled, there she is carrying an awkwardly shaped twenty pound box with no assistance, just look at her“?

Me, a few days ago on a “good day” with my hair done and dressed up, and then today, with my hair pulled back in the first shirt and pants I picked up.

I made a beeline for the checkout lines, trying to maneuver between crowds of people without having to stop or stray too far from my path. And there was only one express checkout line open on this side of the store, and there were four people waiting in that line and nowhere to set this box down. So I went to the nearest regular line, where I could set the litter box down on the belt behind two women’s cartfulls of groceries, and stand there longer than I’d objectively have been standing in the checkout line — but without somewhere to set this box down. (Lifting from the ground is simply not feasible for me, period.)

These are the sorts of little tradeoffs people with chronic illness make all the time. I was so flushed and in so much pain at this point, standing there for five minutes longer actually hurt me considerably. But it was less hurt than I’d've sustained the other way.

So I waited, then it was my turn, and when the cashier didn’t give any indication of an intent to move the litter from the belt to the bagging area, I laughed lightly and said “Yeah, leave that there. I just couldn’t stand in the express lane holding this, I needed to set it down. There were no carts when I came in…”

Why did I feel like I had to justify myself?

So I swiped the credit card, put the bag with the pantyhose in it over my arm, took a breath and hefted the box up to my chest again. And I made a straight line toward the exit. And now, there were eight or so carts in the cart area. So I plopped my purchases down in the cart, to take out to my car. Which was about five times as far a walk (from store entrance to car) than if I’d have used that disabled spot…

And when I got to my car, of course, guess what was waiting there for me?

So: I was a seemingly healthy twenty-three-year-old who drove herself to the store, picked up that twenty pound box and carried it to the checkout line and then out the door. Can you imagine what people would say if they saw me carry that box straight to my blue-line parking spot?

I am a disabled woman. Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

The subcontext here is incredible. Jess uses a wheelchair. She’s happy and perky and having fun. Katie is visibly healthy. She has low self-esteem and her self-hatred keeps her from even being able to greet Jess when she comes to the door. Instead, she slouches to the ground in despair.

There is a reason they put Jess in a wheelchair. In doing this, Dove sets up a contrast: the physically disabled girl who feels good enough about herself to go about her life; the able-bodied girl who hates herself so much she can’t even go out with the people least likely to judge her at all.

The only way this contrast is meaningful is if it rests on the assumption that the physically disabled girl has reason to think less of herself.

Dove, here, is deliberately driving home the message: It’s such a shame that the “normal” girl thinks less of herself than does the girl in a wheelchair!

The shame conveyed here is that each girl does not recognize her true place in the social order. The normal-bodied girl is pretty, but can’t see her prettiness in the mirror. The girl in the wheelchair does feel good about herself. This is out of order, backwards. The girl in the wheelchair should be the one who sees herself one step lower; the normal-bodied girl should recognize her innate goodness in being able-bodied and conventionally attractive.

The dissonance Dove deliberately draws here relies on the recognition that Jess is diminished by her disability, but Katie is so dragged down by her poor self-esteem that she ends up in an even lower place than Jess. This is not right! This is not how things should be!

How should they be, then?

Of course, the commercial is also contemptible for the simple reason that it uses the girl in the wheelchair as an object to develop the human character of the able-bodied girl. In this setup, Jess is not a character; she is a tool. We don’t see Jess’ character explored, developed, reflected upon. She is introduced for only one reason: to act as a foil to Katie. To demonstrate just how low Katie has sunk.

Because you know it’s a fucking shame when she falls even lower than the cripple.

DIsability, here, is set up as an awful tragedy, the lowest a person can sink in life. This is what the title communicates. Disability is a reason to be sad, upset, mournful, pitied. This is what Dove purports to save young women from — a life of suffering. This is the reason Katie is to be pitied: she has fallen into the state Jess should be in.

Finally, the issue of appropriation. I’ll make it simple. Never, ever, ever, ever appropriate another group’s cause. White folk, you are simply not allowed to flip a situation to make it on a black person to try to communicate how outrageous it should be. Abled folk, you are simply not allowed to purport yourself disabled to communicate how tragic something against you is. Period. (The comparisons are slightly different in effect and implication, but my point applies to both.)

This assumes that to be disabled (black, gay, female, etc.) should always be understood to be a bad thing. It assumes that discrimination against disabled/etc. folk, or other forms of oppresion against them, are always taken seriously. And the subtext in these comparisons just screams out: How dare *I* be treated like those people!

Like it or not, whether you were thinking it or not, when you use these tropes, you imply that wrongs against you are worse than wrongs against the other group, that people should be outraged that you have been lowered to their level. What you are protesting, like it or not, is that your privilege over them has been violated.

Seriously, there is never a good reason to use the comparison trope. So just don’t do it. Ever. Period. End of story.

Via Wheelchair Dancer

It is a given that, when there is cause to mention my fibromyalgia to anyone who did not formerly know of it, there is a high probability that a person will “helpfully” “suggest” some miracle treatment they’ve heard about, or know someone who knows someone who’s tried, etc. Honestly, you get all kinds of suggestions, from warm water pool therapy to probiotics to eliminating aspartame from your diet to … yes, my friends, pot.

Marijuana has been shown to have analgesic properties, you know! There’s no way a chronic pain patient has ever heard of that before! (Honestly, I think  these sorts of pot evangelists latch on to the idea of someone they know who might need pot for a medical purpose! because it legitimizes their own use in their minds. But that’s not what I wanted to write about.) Anyway…

I’ve never smoked pot. Or tobacco. Not one sip of alcohol has ever passed my lips. I’ve never tried any of the recreational drugs that are so popular on college campuses.

Make no mistake: I take drugs. Oh, do I ever! But I take them by necessity. I do not take them for fun. I would rather not have to swallow 14 pills/day (minimum) to be able to function on a basic level. Honestly, I hate taking most of them. A couple of them, fortunately, offer significant benefit with no downside beside the price tag. But others have unpleasant side effects and addictive properties. I have a long-time love/hate relationship with Vicodin in particular (pros: allows me to get out of my bed/chair and do things; cons: digestive issues, artificial mood high/”manic” phases, problems with focusing and retaining information, problems relaxing, probability of developing a tolerance a.k.a. dependence*). While there are incredible benefits in taking these drugs, there are also considerable downsides that can’t be ignored.

So the last fucking thing I want to do? Is take more drugs. For the hell of it. I take more than enough medication that I fucking hate taking, for reasons too varied to fit in one blog post. I have a fucking awful relationship with taking medicine. Me and taking medicine don’t get along, yo. I don’t think about it on a daily basis, but it’s sitting there under the surface every time I pop those pills in my mouth. I don’t think it’s something any fully healthy person can ever understand that inner conflict. And y’all know I will stand up to anyone who tries to judge me for taking this shit. I would not be where I am in life right now if I did not have all these drugs to rely on. But that doesn’t mean I’m totally ok with taking them.

That means I have zero interest in taking any drugs for any reason other than it will help me do more than I can do right now. (And even then, I’m not terribly excited about it.) Especially when those drugs could have serious and potentially fatal interactions with the drugs I’m already taking.

This is not a judgment on anyone who does use those drugs: the social drinker, the recreational marijuana user, even the beleaguered cigarette smoker. There are real downsides to every drug, but that does not erase that they can be enjoyable and beneficial for folks who use them responsibly. And this is yet another time to emphasize that a person can, in fact, hold two ideas in one’s head at the same time: I can vehemently reject recreational drugs for myself while being perfectly content with my friends smoking a bowl or heading out for a drink. I make no judgment, moral, character or otherwise, on recreational users. The only judgment I make is on my life and my needs.

Here is the thing about these “suggestions”: they’re not just unhelpful; they’re insulting. They rest on the assumption that there’s no way I could have a basic understanding of my own body, that there’s no way I’ve ever heard of this treatment before, that there’s no way I could have tried it already, that there’s no way it could be a bad choice for me individually for any of a million different reasons. This is not what’s running through a person’s mind as they make this suggestion, but if that person stopped to think for half a second, and reflected on these assumptions, they would most likely decide against making the suggestion. Because there is no way that a person could recognize my individual humanity — recognize that I have my own individual body which has its own ways of working and its own needs and its own history — and still make that suggestion.

Consider, for example, my family background, which is a major factor in my decision to stay far away from pot and alcohol. My three siblings were a generation older than I, old enough to have children who were the same age as me. (My oldest brother is in his 50s. I’m 23.) My sister lived sixteen hours away in northern Oregon; my two brothers lived in town, and I spent a good amount of time with them (including several years actually living in their respective homes as one brother was going through jail).

My entire immediate family is mentally ill. Both brothers have been diagnosed with schizophrenia with psychotic episodes. My mother fits every criterion for borderline personality disorder, though she has never seen a mental health professional in her life, and the suggestion that she might need to would be met with accusations of a conspiracy to run her out of town. (This is not an embellishment; it was a regular pattern throughout my childhood.) One brother and my sister have bipolar disorder. And all four (my mother, sister and two brothers) suffer clinical depression and anxiety to varying degrees. My sister is the only one to seek any treatment, and even then only intermittently.

And I’m sure you can guess where this is going.

My brothers drank. Casually, throughout the day, totaling at least a six-pack each on a normal day, for awhile. It went up and down throughout my childhood, and once in awhile one brother or t’other would swear off the stuff, declare himself clean, but be back to it a month later. And yeah, you know, anyone drinks that level, they’re going to get drunk. But my brothers didn’t just “get drunk.” They got… well… crazy. The worst incidents I can remember as a kid always involved alcohol. Severe paranoia, apparent hallucinations, imagining things that didn’t fit in reality at all. Psychotic episodes. Several times, they were targeted at me, as young as six and continuing into early adulthood. I was never physically assaulted, fortunately, but I can’t exactly say I was unaffected.

Given my experiences as a child, suffice to say, I don’t want anyfuckingthing to do with alcohol.

And, of course, marijuana can exacerbate schizophrenia. (Please, please take note of the word exacerbate, not create, and don’t lecture me in comments.) Um, severely.

And I am keenly aware of my relation to these four people — immediate relation — and the severity of their conditions. (It waxes and wanes, over the years, as any condition does, but it is quite severe during the bad times.) And I am also keenly aware of the tendency of these two drugs to tap into a predisposition to these conditions. And, though I seem to be ok so far (getting away with “mere” anxiety disorder), I’m not going to make the mistake of assuming I’d be any different. Schizophrenia, in particular, tends to lie dormant in women until their twenties and early thirties. And I have to live with that hanging over my head (and my husband’s) for some time yet.

Given all that, do I want anything to do with pot? Well. No.

Do you think any of that flashed through the mind of my eager acquaintance when they decided that all I might need is a small toke? I don’t think so.

That’s my individual story. I’m one person. I don’t know what the hell is going on in the life of the next chronic pain patient you might meet. That’s the point. You just don’t know. You don’t have the slightest concept of what their background is or how their body works or what they’ve tried before. So why do you assume it’s totally benign to throw this in their face? Why are you acting as though you know their body, their history, their experiences better than they do?

Do I have the time to detail everything above every time somone “helpfully” informs me that marijuana can be good for pain relief? Should I have to reveal all this stuff to total strangers, or even acquaintances, coworkers, casual friends? Even if all this stuff wasn’t there, and I just didn’t feel like using it: why can’t I have that decision respected?

Drugs are not, and never will be, an enjoyable experience for me. They are a necessary… well, not evil, but certainly not altogether positive. Either way, they are a necessity for me to be able to live the life I want to live: to be able to do the normal things most people take for granted. You know what doesn’t feel like a nice, relaxing escape for me? Yeah, I’ll let you answer that for yourself.

Bottom line: Respect every person’s sovereignty, every person’s ultimate control over their own life. We’d all appreciate it.

The specter of “addiction” is weilded against pain patients — acute and chronic — and make no mistake: anyone who speaks threateningly of “addiction,” when you are in real pain, doesn’t have the faintest understanding of the interesctions between substance abuse and chronic/acute pain treatment. Dependence is a real issue in pain patients, and as such, they must be monitored closely by a medical professional who knows wth they’re taking about. But the possibility of dependence does not automatically exclude controlled substances from the list of possible treatments. It is one of many issues which must be handled with care and nuance; the possibility of dependence should inform the decision, not make it. Each individual patient will have to make decisions with hir MP based on all the factors in play, including what type of pain (which can change which drugs are in play), how severe, how long it is expected to last, the patient’s physical and mental condition(s), interactions with other drugs, how certain drugs have worked (or not) on the patient in the past, and so forth. Anyone who automatically skips that conversation to get into scare tactics and character insinuations about addiction is not worth the trees that were killed to make fancy sealed papers hanging on their office wall.

When you do something so incredibly fucking stupid and offensive, I don’t give a shit if you apologize. I don’t even pay fucking attention. I don’t care what kind of apology or nonpology it is or how much you care or how much other people find it convincing.

Because fact is, if you “apologize” and then go on with business trying to ignore whatever issue you displayed astounding ignorance on, you don’t deserve forgiveness, I don’t care how awesome you may be in other areas.

The only way you’re worth our attention is if you use that moment of stupendous foolishness to educate yourself and turn around and use that knowledge for something. To fight for the people you wronged.

And we can tell when its genuine, folks. We can tell when it’s done out of foot-dragging obligation/image maintenance vs. sincere desire to better oneself/one’s world. To leave things better than you left ‘em.

You can’t cut off my leg, but then give me a really smashing manicure and try to call it a day. What you do to make up for things matters.

Absence of idiocy is not enough.

That is all.

ETA: Of course, Jezebel didn’t even make a sincere attempt to apologize; this post seems to imply they at least did that much. They didn’t. And it wouldn’t have mattered if they did. Because in the meantime, there has been an absence of sincere attempts to make something good out of it. Instead, there has been an attempt not to make one’s own self look bad again. That is what I’m getting at.

See, I hold doors open for everybody. I make a point of it. I think it’s just a nice thing to do. But I notice it plays out a couple ways:

Script #1.

Me: [opens the door for a woman]
Woman: [smiles, or says] Thanks! [and walks through door]

Script #2.

Me: [opens the door for a man]
Man: [stops in his tracks]
Me: [smiles, nods in recognition]
Man: [puts arm on door behind me, stands in place waiting for me to go in, perhaps saying] You don’t have to do that! [or] Oh, let me get that for you!
Me: [frustrated, but smiles, says] Thanks! [or nods in recognition as she walks through door]

A few men will follow Script #1, and it usually makes my day when they do. But no woman has ever followed Script #2. I suspect this is for two reasons: one, women are afraid to violate another person’s personal space, presuming they hardly have any right to the space they’re in themselves; two, men see a woman performing a man’s job and presume to take over it for her, thinking this the kind and proper thing to do.

And Script #2 bugs the living hell out of me. I am trying to do a nice thing for you, like leaving a seat vacant on the bus so no one who needs it has to ask someone to move for them, or offering a drink to any person visiting your home, or leaving space for the car in the next lane with their blinker on to merge into your tightly-packed lane. This nice thing is not predicated on your race, gender, physical ability or presumed class. It is predicated on the idea that if we all do nice things for each other once in awhile, the world becomes a much nicer place to live.

But the person in Script #2 does not see things this way. The person in Script #2 thinks that I, a weakly woman, am only holding open that door reluctantly, just waiting for some strong man to relieve me of the awful burden of gripping a door handle or strategically placing my hip or foot in front of the open door. I would be ever so insulted were he to simply accept an offered favor and walk through the door, perhaps with a nod or smile acknowledging the favor. It is his sworn duty to nobly take upon himself this burden, doing for me a great deed and leaving me eternally obligated.

Or, you know, not. Because it’s just a door, not the cure for fucking cancer.

Bonus:: when a male friend insists on paying for your meal. It’s ok to counteroffer once, and only once. As in: 1) I pull out my card; 2) you say “No, no, it’s on me;” 3) I say “No, that’s alright, but thanks!” and 4) you leave it the hell at that. You do not continue to insist on the matter. One offer is broad generosity. Double insistence is presumption and paternalism. There is no reason to offer more than once if the offer comes from pure generosity and not internalized misogyny. Period.