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?

From the O-R: K***** Y****, 13, and his sisters K****, 9, and K********, 4, tend to their patch of tomatoes this afternoon at (the garden)… K***** also is a garden guardian who waters all of the plants on a regular basis.

Look familiar? My thoughts are conflicted in that post, about the real root (so to speak) of our modern issues with connection to our earth, but make no mistake: this garden is an unequivocal positive for the people who use it, and it makes me inordinately happy that it is here.

There are two things going on here:

* Professor Gates, who has a cane so that he can move independently, could probably have made it down the stairs on his own. That’s not to say without pain or difficulty — but he wasn’t helpless. The reaction to this photo presupposes that the crippled man must be completely unable to help his own damn self, and that it is noble when the able-bodied officer presumes to “help” him. Do you see what this does? It removes Prof. Gates as an agent; it makes him, instead, an agency-less object, existing for the purpose of the able-bodied man: this time, as a signifier of character (taking on that noble burden).

* Speaking of noble burdens: the race of the men involved cannot be ignored. Sgt. Crowley is a white man helping a crippled man. In the right wing’s reading of this photo, Sgt. Crowley becomes a symbol of whiteness: an example of the way in which white men are Good, in which Good is defined as the way white men do things. Think boot straps: this fantastical myth is all about the inherent goodness of the white man, who does things the right way, in contrast with the minorities, who are too lazy, selfish, etc. to bother. Sgt. Crowley presuming to help Prof. Gates stands in contrast with President Obama, who is walking ahead, minding his own business. This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is seen directly in front of the white man taking on the noble burden, and thus becomes an indictment on the character of the shiftless, self-absorbed black man.

Who was it for?

Of course it was reported as a sort of reconciliation: a way to help Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley make up. But that wasn’t what it was.

To sum: Prof. Gates arrived home after a long and tiring flight, and couldn’t get in his house. Someone called the police, thinking that a stranger was breaking into his home. Police arrive when Prof. Gates was already in his home and calling a locksmith. Prof. Gates shows ID to Sgt. Crowley proving this is his home, may have been “belligerent” in doing so. Sgt. Crowley responds by luring him to his front porch, where he is handcuffed and arrested for disorderly conduct. Outrage ensues; charges are dropped. (Police insist the original caller reported that black men were breaking in; recordings prove that she said nothing about race at all.)

Journalist asks Obama about this during a health care press conference. Obama says a few predictable, innocuous things, then says that it is obvious that the police “acted stupidly” in arresting Prof. Gates in his own home for no crime committed, then makes a simple comment about the inarguable history of racial profiling in this country.

Sgt. Crowley objects loudly, saying the President is “way off base.” Sgt. Crowley is obviously very upset, and the police force is standing in solidarity with him. The country is beginning to criticize Obama for admitting the troublesome racial aspects of the story; the conventional wisdom is becoming that Obama bit off more than he could chew in “bringing race into this” — and white America will make sure that he is taken down a notch for it.

So Obama invites the two men to the White House for a beer. The country reacts with mild derision — but the attacks begin to fade. The issue is neutralized.

See what’s going on here? White man does something unfair to black man. Black man protests that this was unfair. White man’s sensibilities are offended at the accusation that he could ever be An Unfair-ist, makes this into an argument about whether or not he is a Good Man (being unfair would necessitate that he is a Bad Man). All his friends know that he is, in fact, a Good Man, and they stand up to say as much. Black man looks around, realizes that the numbers are not on his side. That everyone has ignored the unfair way he was treated, and his family and friends have been treated throughout history. That there is unrest among them, and he may face very real consequences if he presses the issue any further.

So the black man backs down. Makes conciliatory noises. To soothe the white man’s feelings. So that the white man won’t cause him any more trouble.

What was this beer summit about? Did Obama really think he was going to solve the issue of racial profiling and police officers behaving unethically by inviting two men out for a beer? Of course he didn’t. That wasn’t the purpose.

The purpose was to get the offended white man (and his white friends) to shut up and stop causing the black men trouble.

And I don’t blame him.

Quick, think of a disease or condition that affects only men and is considered by a large portion of the population to be fake, created by the pharmaceutical industry, or psychosomatic.  *Sound of crickets.*

An excellent look at the gendered construction of medical conditions at the Women’s Sports Blog.

Most of the language about credulous patients being duped by Big Pharma is directed at women and conditions they suffer from disproportionately.  Women are, after all, emotional and have the ability to create amazing physical symptoms solely from their minds.  At the same time, women’s bodies are considered to be in a constant state of abnormality relative to men’s bodies.  The word ‘hysteria’ is etymologically related to the Latin word for uterus, which was long considered to be the site of women’s mental health problems, and hence its removal is called a hysterectomy [...]

‘Just get out and exercise’ or ‘just change your diet’ is fairly lousy advice for anyone who hasn’t been able to get out of bed. But as a society we still maintain the illusion that changes in hormones, brain chemistry, or the like are failures of self-control or willpower.

She also discusses the disproportionate burden laid on mothers of disabled children. Read the whole thing.

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.

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.

My job situation is still shitty, and I’m currently part-timing at a retail pharmacy as a cashier. (Sample day: Mid-20s white guy “discretely” [read:blatantly] takes a picture of me on his cell phone as I am kneeling down assembling a battery display; someone shits in the toilet paper aisle [seriously! a person! took the time to unbutton their pants and all!]; I set alarm off while fetching pushcart from back room.) “The injustices of retail,” I said to my coworker, as I nursed the scratch on my finger from pushing that toothpick in a little too hard.

But honestly, I still do, and always have, appreciated working with the public. It’s the kind of thing that reeks a little too much of bullshit to say in an interview (“Really! I love when people show visible surprise at the revelation that I can do third-grade math!”) but, well, it’s true. I like people. I am, fundamentally, the kind of person who likes spending time with people (though my severe social anxiety always masked it). I’m not a butterfly by any means — good God, I can’t stand parties, pubs, or the mall at Christmastime, and I always need time to recharge after any extended social time — but I do enjoy interacting with a variety of different people, and there are days I go home smiling because of it.

Today I met a man named Robert. He stopped by to ask how long a sale price on a can of Folgers was supposed to last, and we ended up chatting for a good ten or fifteen minutes — the line piled up behind me, but I didn’t give a damn. Robert was in a wheelchair, for whatever reason, and was there to pick up his medication, whatever it was. He got his “paycheck” on the third of every month, and only the third (read “paycheck,” there, as Social Security disability check) but right now he was fighting with Verizon, who apparently shorted him half a hundred dollars worth of minutes on his phone, and he was going back-and-forth with them to get the situation righted, and anyway he wouldn’t be able to come back for his coffee til then. I was nodding and exclaiming the whole time as he was describing how much fighting he had to do — to get his transportation to the doctor, to work, to the grocery store; to get his medicine filled correctly and on time; to keep his welfare benefits flowing smoothly (there is apparently a very common mistake that gets made on his account every couple months, and he then has to make a dozen calls here and there to get things patched up, and then a few weeks later some new worker makes the same mistake again, and…) etc. etc. etc.

God did I identify, and I didn’t have to deal with the half of what he did. The fatigue and the worry and the energy and the stress and the wasted time — and when I related as much to him (having by this point unfolded my stool and sat down over the counter) he laughed it off — “Oh hell, I’m used to it by now — doesn’t bother me.”

I hope I never get to that point. No one should ever have to get to that fucking point. No one should ever have to spend half their waking hours, no fucking exaggeration, correcting other people’s mistakes just to keep the basic necessities of life covered — and then getting attitude from those same people for being a pain in the ass to deal with.

This is a serious time sink for the ill and disabled. It is time that could be spend — you know, maybe working? bootstraps and all — could be spent writing, could be spent playing board games, or taking a bath, or spending time with loved ones, or going out to eat — or any number of other things that are totally productive, constructive, positive things to do — which, to varying effect, do make contribution to wider society.

And it’s a lot of time. This is why I call it the second shift: much like the second shift of professional women, who arrive home from work to do the domestic work their husbands do not do: this is a disproportionately larger share of time spent fighting, always fighting, pushing determinedly (or tiredly) through near-constant resistance.

Resistance — truly the best word for it — it is as though “normal,” “healthy” folk are able to move throughout the world uninhibited, like pushing your hand into thin air — but sick people, disabled people must move through a world which is set up to prohibit their full participation — like pushing your hand into a thick heavy bog.

That is privilege. The ability to swim through your sea with nary a care, completely obliviously unaware of the freedom of movement you are so fortunate to have, while the rest of us have sand bags tied to our limbs, anchors roped round our waists, our feet set in cement blocks… and to look back at us and ask, “What’s taking you so long?”

It’s exhausting. I cannot convey in words how exhausting the fight is. Always on the defensive, always saddled with the knowledge that your basic needs require a struggle, while everyone else’s basic needs are pretty much a given so long as they put in at least a half-assed drop of effort. It’s not even just time spent, it’s energy.

Look at it this way. How do you build muscle? You subject your muscles to resistance, just enough to create thousands of tiny little tears in your tissue, which your body then, with rest and nutrition, repairs — which leaves you stronger.

But this does not mean that all resistance therefore makes you stronger. Because the more you pile on, the more tiny little tears you make. And the less time you have to rest, to eat and drink well, to tend to your bodily health, the less of those tiny little tears get repaired. And you find yourself, now, with millions of tiny little tears, and not enough time or fortitude to repair even only the thousands you had before this overload.

Which means you don’t get stronger. You get weaker.

“What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.” What unadulterated bullshit. And it has the bonus effect of implying that those who do not feel stronger after a difficult incident, those who feel fatigued and despondent, those who see themselves as in a worse place than they were when they started — it implies that those people are choosing their fate. It implies that those people get something out of their misery.

Say, all you sick people out there: does any of this sound familiar?

What’s taking you so long back there?
I get it –you must just get off on being a victim.

Robert and I wrapped up our chat — turns out he lived in Anaheim for awhile, and also attended Cal State Fullerton; what a small world! — and I moved on to the next customer, affecting the smile and the sing-song customer service voice. Hi! Do you have your [Pharmacy Name] card with you today?

But it was nice, if only for a moment, to connect with someone. To, prompted by the unspoken invitation of a new friend, reach down into myself, and connect with the real person deep inside.

Maybe our struggles make us stronger; maybe they make us weaker. It doesn’t matter. We work with the tools we are given, and we still make something whole and beautiful, something worthy, something satisfying. Why do we have to come out of every fight bigger and “better”? Why can’t we be broken and hurt? Why can’t we cry, why can’t we curse, why can’t we be angry and disappointed and let down sometimes?

Right — because we wouldn’t want to make the rest of you face up to the damage you do to our lives. We wouldn’t want to “burden” you, wouldn’t want you to have to do anything to maybe reduce a little bit the fighting we have to do to live our lives. We wouldn’t want to make you have to think about how your actions and attitudes affect other people — wouldn’t want to make you uncomfortable.

When we are allowed to be angry, to be sad, to be bitter and disappointed, we are allowed to be human. When we are denied these emotions, we are denied our humanity. We are denied the full range of human experience.

It is fundamentally unfair — to weigh a person down disproportionately — to pile more and more shit atop their back — and then to grow indignant when that person lets out a sigh under the pressure — much less looks straight at you and lets rest the responsibility where it belongs. But this is how we treat each other — immigrants, queer folk, the disabled, those of color, the poor and disadvantaged — because we are fundamentally uncomfortable owning up to our own power.

Life would be so much better if we realized how much power we all have over each other — and how much power everyone else has over us — our interdependency. It is the concept out of which disability grows. And life would be so much better if we could look at this fact and see, not

scary,

or

unknown,

but

opportunity.