The title of the press release: “Promiscuous men more likely to rape”

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.)

UPDATE, July 7: Via Lauredhel, the FDA has made a decision regarding pain pills Darvon and Darvocet, which are pain killers containing a different ingredient (propoxyphene, a pain killing ingredient related to methadone but less addicting) with similar concerns (accidental overdose). They have decided against a ban, but are imposing stronger warnings on the products.

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.

Oooooh boy, Dove, you have no idea what you’re getting into here, do you?

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

In honor of 4:20; fashionably late.

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.

---

* Repeat after me: De-pen-dence. Not “addiction.” Physiologically, the two can be identical. But a person is addicted when they have no need for the drug; they are dependent when there is a need for the drug for medical reasons.

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.

---

Addendum: This post took me a good four days to complete. It’s a very deeply personal subject to me. It is definitely scattered, definitely defensive in tone. But I don’t feel I have the energy to rework it to be more coherent without also destroying the heart of it. I meant to get across the insult and violation of privacy I feel when someone lobs the pot “suggestion” at me, to continue exploring how these “suggestions” affect people with disabilities and chronic illness, to make clear why no, not all things are good for all people, and that right to refuse, that sovereignty, must be respected. I do feel I must add that intellectually, I know that there is nothing “wrong” with taking prescription (or any) drugs, but unfortunately it’s not so easy to accept that emotionally (much how the fat-accepting person still has trouble with body-negative thoughts). But my decision to stay away from recreational drugs is, well, fraught, and I don’t think a lot of people understand that — understand how using drugs can be so exceptionally not fun for somebody who has to rely on drugs to be able to brush hir teeth and get dressed most days, much less anything more involved than that. So: it is definitely a “brain fog warning” post, definitely a harsh tone, but it came directly from the heart, so it stays as it is.

A Desperate Plea to Mr. Matthew Yglesias

Dear Matthew,

Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop using large-size portrait photography to illustrate your blog posts.

I sit at my computer, for the most part, either casually or barely dressed. And though I am safe at home, my lizard-brain is still always at ready for potential offenders. So when I see sixty-five kilopixels of Bobby Jindal staring at me from my computer screen, I squirm in extreme discomfort. There is a creepy man staring wide-eyed into my face. (…if I’m lucky) It skeeves me out.

Your posts are good enough to stand alone. If you must employ graphical illustration, there are plenty of other photographs of Bobby Jindal that do not stare intently at my body from behind my LCD. If you must use mug shot style portraits, at least make them small enough (a hundred pixels length tops?) that my lizard brain does not mistake them for potential real, live persons who may be paying me undue attention.

As it is, I usually have to skip the posts, or at least enough of the posts to scroll down far enough to hide the offending eyes, which bear these illustrations. This does not serve your interests, does it?

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Signed,

A Long-Time Fan Who Has Finally Had Enough, Dammit

P.S. I do kind of get a kick out of the Hoover pixxxxx. Subtle and snappy way of making your point. Kudos.

Your progressive media, folks.

One day my husband is dragging me (who likes to play sports, but has no skill at playing sports, and had zero interest in pro sports whatsoever) along to a playoff game, the next thing we know I’m a rabid Penguins fan. I “accidentally” bought a six-game mini-plan last season (long story), which didn’t help matters. I got to watch Malkin step up the points race while Sid was down with a high ankle sprain. I developed a quick appreciation for Marc Andre Fleury, the deft and nimble crosseyed French-Canadian crack monkey, my one and only celebrity crush (seriously, watch that man move — the splits, the dives, the spins, the full-getup-and-skates hops — and watch his dark eyes dart around behind his face mask, always searching — and tell me that isn’t impressive as hell). I got to be a part of the incredible energy in Mellon Arena during the final games of the season. It’s a drug. And I got hooked.

I don’t know what it is about the game that draws me. It’s not for a lack of other sports in the household — hubby is a baseball stats geek, and also watches football, basketball, and NASCAR — none of which interest me much. (Surprisingly, the most tolerable of those four is the last one.) But for whatever reason, now, the sound of skates on ice, and the silly epic-sounding Penguins intro music, gets me in that same giddy mood children get in on Christmas morning.

One of the things I appreciate most about hockey is that it didn’t seem to have the exclusive atmosphere of, say, your football or basketball. There are no cheerleading squads or “dancers,” and the ads during the TV broadcasts tend to be pretty mild. No soft porn, GoDaddy, macho-man robots, local radio-sponsored hot babe contests, and the like. There is an element of performed masculinity, as in just about any mainstream pro sport. I mean, fighting is pretty much a central tenet to the game. But — and I’m having trouble articulating the distinction here — while there is definitely quite a bit of feminist analysis to be done on the game, the players, the culture, the advertising, and so on — there isn’t quite the same constant reminder to women that this isn’t for you.

It’s hard to watch football and not be bombarded with messages that are explicitly and enthusiastically geared for men. Not men as humans, but men as men. And not even men as men, in an affirmative, appreciative way — but men as not-women, in a taunting, exclusionary way. It is telegraphed quite clearly that women’s only place in the game is for men’s consumption.

I never much got that sense in hockey — or NASCAR, surprisingly, as I said. The culture was definitely geared toward men, but it didn’t shut the door on women. And I appreciated that. “Honorary man” still isn’t good enough, but it’s a hell of a lot better than “man’s property.”

In football, women are a part of the game as bikini-clad cheerleaders. In racing, women are part of the game as on-the-ground reporters. And while the latter sport is hardly innocent (trust me, I’ve hardly a lack of criticism for the sport), that difference does send a message to the fans at home.

All of this is a lengthy introduction to my home team’s latest marketing project: Hockey ‘n Heels.

I mean, the program itself doesn’t sound so bad, right?

One (1) game ticket in the Club Level Seating for three (3) games which includes event ticket, event premium item and buffet dinner

Locker Room Tour

On-Ice Demonstrations with the opportunity to sit in the Penalty Box/Player Bench

Attend a morning skate

Meet and greet with players after the morning skate

Limited Edition Framed Art Piece

Sounds pretty cool. And really, I don’t see how this would appeal any differently to women than to men, or children, or hockey-lovin’ aliens from outer space. At least it isn’t a hot stone massage and black-and-gold manis and pedis. It’s cool, exciting, relevant stuff. Actually hockey-related. Nothing any female hockey fan wouldn’t love.

Why, then, the stupidass name?

I don’t know about anyone else, but I’ve never seen anyone standing in line to get in to Mellon Arena wearing four-inch Manolos. Pretty much everybody comes wearing some sort of Penguins jersey, shirt, jacket or sweater, possible a Penguins baseball cap or beanie. Most people are in jeans or shorts. The women who wear Pens gear tend to wear oversized men’s sizes. They look frumpy. They look “ghetto.” And they don’t give a shit! They’re showing team spirit, dammit.

I have seen a couple men in business suits, but I haven’t seen a single pencil skirt yet. And I’d say it’s somewhat impractical to mount the steep steps up to your seat inside the arena if you’re wearing shoes that double as an assault weapon.

OK, there’s nothing wrong with heels. I understand a lot of women love them. I love my skirts. I wear makeup (sometimes). I like getting all dressed up. I’m pretty cool with flowers and I like to bake. Hell, I actually like doing the laundry! All of which are trappings of femininity, some of those things perfectly harmless were they not bound to gender roles. And I don’t think it’s really feasible for most women to completely eschew anything that could possibly be “tainted” by the patriarchy. So this isn’t a criticism of heels themselves.

It’s just out of place, is all. I see a hell of a lot of women in those stands. Most of them are jumping and screaming and enjoying a beer just as much as the men.

But they needed a clever name that would capture female fans. Thus, heels.

When I see or hear an advertisement for this program, it just reminds me that I’m not a “real” fan. I’m not “supposed” to be making a damn fool of myself, shouting criticism from the sidelines, quoting stats in conversation with my husband, biting my lip when the game gets particularly tense, and jumping to my feet every time the horn sounds for a goal. That’s what men do. Women sit pretty, toss their hair, and giggle politely when men do something stupid. They’re not supposed to enjoy the game, because women don’t like sports for sports’ sake. They just get dragged along by their husbands. The only way to get them interested is to appeal to the girly things they actually like to do. Don’t cha know.

Ugh. I don’t know what else to say. I’m disappointed. If I had money to throw around, maybe I’d offer them a considerable sum just to change the fucking name. It’s patronizing. Shame.

a husband who will:

1) go to sleep around 11 p.m. as usual; 2) wake up at 2 a.m., 3) fumble into pants and shoes, and 4) drive a mile and a half to your pharmacy; 5) pick up and pay for your medication; 6) drive home; 7) get a glass of water, 8) wake you up, and 9) make you take your dose; 10) get undressed and 11) go back to bed; 12) wake up at 6 a.m. to get ready for work.

I have not yet received my Flexeril in the mail. It should come in a couple days, but I’ve been out since Saturday. I’ve coped alright until today. Early in the afternoon my back spasms returned with a vengeance. For about two hours I sat through continuous spasms without stop, every ten seconds, bam bam bam bam one right after another. They subsided some after many painkillers, but a couple hours later I had a strange nervous attack. My whole body shook and swayed, and my vision went really screwy (inability to focus or control aim).

I ended up at MedExpress, where we waited a half hour and paid $25 to walk back out with a prescription for a week’s worth of the Flexeril to tide me over til my shipment came. Husband drove me to CVS, where we dropped off the script and wandered around for a few minutes waiting for my name to be called. When we went to the counter, we were informed my insurance wouldn’t pay for it. Well, duh. I said that I wanted to pay cash for it and the pharmacist told me that my insurance wouldn’t allow the prescription to be released until 2am tonight.

… wait, what?

What the hell was the point of this whole endeavor? To make me suffer through 30 minutes of Wolf Blitzer and deprive my already stressed husband of another hour of sleep? To further drain my already anemic checking account?

I give, I give! Uncle! Here, I only got $14, you can HAVE IT, just leave me alone already!

Why didn’t the pharmacist just tell me “You can’t fill this if your insurance has already paid for this month’s supply”? I mean, I told her what was going on when we went to the dropoff counter. Can my insurance really tell me I’m not allowed to have medication that a doctor prescibed me except when they pay for it, under their terms?

I just don’t get it. There’s a disconnect here. As long as my insurance isn’t paying for a treatment, they shouldn’t have any fucking say over what I can have, when, where, how much, for how long. I’m sorry, they just shouldn’t. And my pharmacy should not be complicit in denying a suffering chronic pain patient much-needed treatment.

Especially a medication as tame as fucking flexeril.

As far as I see it, the only parties who should be involved here are me, my doctor, and my pharmacy. Unless I choose to involve them, my insurance should not enter the picture. If they do, they should only be allowed to assert control over treatments they are paying for. If they wanted to dock me a dozen pills from my next fill, fine. Or if they wanted to charge me however much to make up for the “extra” medication I’ll end up having. Or if they ant to prevent me from refilling until however-many-days after what it would’ve been without today’s script. All of that is — well, it whiffs of bullshit but I can understand it, at least. But how did we make the jump from that to this? Can someone point out the missing piece here?

Hell.

You’d think, in a situation involving a patient, a nurse, a doctor, a pharmacist, and an insurance agent, at least one of those would be in it for the betterment of the patient — right? ‘cuz I’m batting oh-for-four right now.

Catblogging will return on Friday.

***

My body is mine.

There are seven tumors in my breasts. They are benign.

Two of them are palpable on the surface at one o’clock on my left breast. The size of ping pong balls.

I don’t bother to self-exam anymore. I know they’re there. I don’t want to be reminded.

***

You know the slur idiot-savant?

I know its counterpart. They are called parent-saints.

There is a reverence simply unparalleled in this society (with the possible exception of professional athletes) reserved for these people.

What earns them such a status? They didn’t terminate the pregnancy instantly upon learning of the disability.

There are no standards beyond that. I do not exaggerate. It does not matter how a parent treats a disabled child. They might even beat them, and their actions will be excused because after all: they are dealing with a heavy burden, so who are you to judge?

And that’s it. Upon knowledge that a child has a disability, that child is no longer a child. Sie becomes a burden. In familiar words: dead weight. Hir humanity is erased altogether. Sie has no curiosity, no sense of mystery or delight, no joy or sadness, no hurt or relief. Sie learns nothing, hir growth only physical. There is no sentience.

And so the relevant facts about hir have nothing to do with how hir environment affects hir. They have entirely to do with how sie affects her environment.

Which is why “choosing” to keep a disabled child is cast as such: an active choice. Because the default assumption is that such a child is not worth keeping.

After all, no one wants to be saddled a dead weight.

The attitude toward those sainted persons is summed up thusly: “I don’t know how they do it; I wouldn’t be able to. There has to be a special place in heaven reserved for them.”

It is such a drag on a person’s life to deal with any person with a disability, any person who does so must have supernatural patience. Love is not an issue, of course; love requires more than one person.

Parents of children with autism, muscular dystrophy, Down’s syndrome, and others. Anything that requires assistive equipment any more complicated than a pair of glasses, and anything that renders a child unable to speak clearly and “articulately” in their region’s preferred language. It is not limited to these, but these are conditions that earn a parent a sympathetic eye.

Do not leave these assumptions unquestioned. Sarah Palin’s refusal to terminate her Down’s child will be invoked as a shorthand for her upstanding moral character. Don’t buy it. She did not do so out of respect for the disabled as equal persons of equal worth. She did so out of allegiance to a philosophy that would deny women the ability to make their own choice to carry to term and keep a child with a disability or to safely terminate a pregnancy likely to result in disability. On that note, even those in feminist circles will frame Palin’s circumstance pretty much exclusively as a question of awoman’srighttochoose. DON’T BUY IT. For better or worse, with a few but only a few exceptions, the only time disability issues are picked up on mainstream feminism’s radar screen is when it involves a disabled woman who becomes pregnant in questionable circumstances. Sometimes it is a case of rape, and sometimes it is a case of upper-class white abled feminists plowing right past said woman’s agency to insist she must have been raped and/or coerced because of her “diminished mental capacity” (whether or not her disability is mental in nature, and even then, whether or not her “capacity” is “diminished,” and even then, whether it has any bearing whatsoever on her right to control the direction of her own life). DON’T BUY THAT EITHER. Women are damn well entitled to a well-defended and highly-accessible right to reproductive justice. That includes disabled women, and that includes any woman’s right to choose to continue or cease a pregnancy likely to result in a disabled child, depending on that woman’s own personal considerations. THAT IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE AT STAKE, and GODDAMMIT, THAT IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE! Why the HELL is a woman who does not faint at the idea of a disabled child someone who deserves a Goddamn crumb of praise?

It’s like people see the ideas “disabled child” “pregnancy” “conservative politician” together and obviously the issue at hand is every woman’s right to be free of a dependent with any sort of “defect.” Just like every woman’s right to kill a mosquito that lands on her arm.

Don’t let this opportunity pass. “Liberal” men and “feminist” women, consider your privileged asses called out. You should know better. And I, we, any person with a shred of human decency, should expect better of you.

***

I was enjoying some much needed heat therapy and electrical stim at therapy today, lying on my back on the you-call-this-padded? exam table in a room of about eight others, all of us closed off individually behind hospital curtains. Usually I am one of two or three people in the room, but I came at a busy time today and that was the last table.

My physical therapy office shares space with an acupuncture/holistic therapy group. And, um, they had a rather loud patient in the curtain-cube across from mine. She was screaming at length about how her doctor put her on some medication for an infection but she’s going to taper herself off of it, medication don’t do nuthin, etc. etc.

When I laughed and told my therapist — quietly — “I think most people would be scared when they saw my medicine spinner” — she reacted negatively to my twelve-pills-a-day and Ol’ Screamer caught wind and bellowed louder and more defensively. THATSTUFFISNOGOODFORYOUDON’TYOUKNOW and so on.

I’m kinna’ tired of it. My therapist has been amazing but I was let down a little by her reaction. Look, I know I pretty much funnel 75% of my paycheck to Big Pharma. I know most people are only accustomed to the occasional Z-Pack. But most people don’t live every day in my body. And damn it all, I know the difference between my-body-now and my-body-then. I took about a third of the medication I currently take a couple years ago, and I couldn’t work any more than 8-10 hours a week, tops. Then when I got on my current regimen, I was able to up that to 20-30 hours in a retail environment. And back when I took none of it? Oh yeah, that time in my life, you know, the time I almost failed out of high school and had to drop out of college (whether fifteen units or five) twice, all within a span of 18 months?

Yeahhh, that.

I’m sick of placating. So, to those people, kindly accept my Gayest Look.

This public service announcement was brought to you by … oh hell, I’m going to bed.