http://www.theroot.com/print/50815
I've not much to offer, as ever-it's Friday and Comic Relief! But I read this article and had a mixed reaction. I'm glad he's owning his own privilege, but...as a white person, I can't say that I'm antiracist because, like it or not, I benefit from white privilege every day. I benefit from other people's oppressions. And this man benefits from being a man, so really? Are you a feminist when every day you benefit from a misogynistic society?
Also..'feminists don't hate men. We looove men'. Um...it's NOT ABOUT THE MEN. Sometimes I DO hate men, as it's very tiresome being seen as nothing more than a walking uterus/sperm dump. This shouldn't prevent men from listening to me because occassionally I am angry.
I don't know, in many ways I do get what he's saying, but...blah.
18 March 2011
16 March 2011
Ye Olde Dichotomy; Also Some Facts
It's one of those weeks when I don't have anything insightful to say. The stuff that I'm actually inspired to write about is too personal for me to put on the blog right now; regular politics and feminism-related stuff seems trivial when the big news stories are related to Japan's disasters (about which I have nothing new to add. Donate, if you are so moved! Don't be a dick, even if you are so moved!); I'm not in a place where I feel like sharing a book review or TV analysis.
But one of my rules was that I am not going to hold myself to such high standards that I never get anything written. So ... yeah, I didn't really come up with a contingency plan for when I'm actually uninspired.
Being uninspired to me comes in two flavors. There is the level of "I don't really have anything to say that is interesting, or original," and that has to do with my own high standards, and my rules about writing that you shouldn't chatter on paper to no purpose because the internet has plenty of that already. Then there's the deeper level of "I just don't feel like giving anything of myself to other people right now," that sort of a protective, metaphorical fetal-position type feeling. When the first one is troubling me, that's something I need to find a way to work with, if I'm going to commit to writing on a deadline. With the second -- which is what I've got at the moment -- well, that's also something I'm going to need to get past, but it makes it harder to choose a topic when one is unassigned.
So. Here are some interesting trivial facts you may not know. They do not relate to any particular topic.
1. When Disney started marketing the princess line, they had to contend with the fact that Roy Disney (nephew of Walt) was dead against princesses from different stories interacting with one another in any way. That's why when princesses appear on the same product, they are never making eye contact with one another but always staring off into middle distance in different directions.
2. "To be or not to be: that is the question" is not a standard iambic pentameter line. Neither is "Now is the winter of our discontent" and neither is "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" They're standard variations -- the first has a feminine ending, the latter two open with inverted feet -- that are used often, but they are not good examples of the base iambic pentameter style. If you need one (why would you?) go with "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun."
3. There is no direct evidence for the existence of the Oort Cloud, a three-dimensional sphere of space junk that supposedly sits about 50,000 AUs from the sun. Scientists just decided that comets had to hang out somewhere when they were on the far reaches of their orbits. It's like Aristotle's logic about the Prime Mover, transposed to modern science.
4. It is constitutionally legal in the U.S. to sterilize the so-called mentally unfit. Buck v. Bell was never overturned. It is no longer common practice (or generally legal) on the state level; the Supreme Court will never get the chance to overturn it unless someone sues after having the procedure done, so it being illegal at the state level actually indirectly protects its official constitutionality.
5. In 1965, Yves Saint Laurent designed a knitted white wool wedding dress inspired by Russian nesting dolls. It sort of looks like a phallus crossed with a wedding cake.
That's all I got. Go forth, Google, and check my facts.
But one of my rules was that I am not going to hold myself to such high standards that I never get anything written. So ... yeah, I didn't really come up with a contingency plan for when I'm actually uninspired.
Being uninspired to me comes in two flavors. There is the level of "I don't really have anything to say that is interesting, or original," and that has to do with my own high standards, and my rules about writing that you shouldn't chatter on paper to no purpose because the internet has plenty of that already. Then there's the deeper level of "I just don't feel like giving anything of myself to other people right now," that sort of a protective, metaphorical fetal-position type feeling. When the first one is troubling me, that's something I need to find a way to work with, if I'm going to commit to writing on a deadline. With the second -- which is what I've got at the moment -- well, that's also something I'm going to need to get past, but it makes it harder to choose a topic when one is unassigned.
So. Here are some interesting trivial facts you may not know. They do not relate to any particular topic.
1. When Disney started marketing the princess line, they had to contend with the fact that Roy Disney (nephew of Walt) was dead against princesses from different stories interacting with one another in any way. That's why when princesses appear on the same product, they are never making eye contact with one another but always staring off into middle distance in different directions.
2. "To be or not to be: that is the question" is not a standard iambic pentameter line. Neither is "Now is the winter of our discontent" and neither is "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" They're standard variations -- the first has a feminine ending, the latter two open with inverted feet -- that are used often, but they are not good examples of the base iambic pentameter style. If you need one (why would you?) go with "My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun."
3. There is no direct evidence for the existence of the Oort Cloud, a three-dimensional sphere of space junk that supposedly sits about 50,000 AUs from the sun. Scientists just decided that comets had to hang out somewhere when they were on the far reaches of their orbits. It's like Aristotle's logic about the Prime Mover, transposed to modern science.
4. It is constitutionally legal in the U.S. to sterilize the so-called mentally unfit. Buck v. Bell was never overturned. It is no longer common practice (or generally legal) on the state level; the Supreme Court will never get the chance to overturn it unless someone sues after having the procedure done, so it being illegal at the state level actually indirectly protects its official constitutionality.
5. In 1965, Yves Saint Laurent designed a knitted white wool wedding dress inspired by Russian nesting dolls. It sort of looks like a phallus crossed with a wedding cake.
That's all I got. Go forth, Google, and check my facts.
11 March 2011
Links & Leeks
All right. It's 5:30 on Friday afternoon and I've had one beer so far, which is in no way enough to take the edge off the week I've had. So here are your links for the week, and if they suck do me a favor and don't tell me about it for twenty-four hours.
Feministing notes that the Obama administration has rescinded the federal regulation commonly called the "Conscience Clause". This has been mentioned before (STILL need to do a proper post about it, but don't hold your breath, I've got eight million Deep Thoughts I feel the need to share and this is only one). I will go ahead and say "Yay!" because this is practically speaking, a great step for feminism and equal rights.
Keep up with the whole Prop 8 debate over at the SCOTUSblog. (Yeah, I'm just going to keep posting those updates until stuff stops happening about it.)
Sociological Images has an article about how video game characters' breasts have gotten bigger and bigger as the games go through new versions and get more popular. (I'm tempted to joke that this is a link that women and men will find interesting. But that would be insulting and sexist. I will say merely that it includes some telling images.)
Okay, Arizona, I admit that I'm not particularly in touch with your culture. But after the shooting of several weeks ago, your new gun legislation baffles me (and this Slog writer, apparently).
This blog/FAQ post by an abortion doctor is a must-read, in my opinion. It's candid, fascinating, and both thoughtful and thought-provoking. (It's over at The Hairpin; I'm not sure what the status is on this writer and whether she has her own blog.)
Yes Means Yes has done two great posts recently about the studies done on men and women's different responses to offers of casual sex. Full disclosure: I haven't read through these fully yet (see above re: the week I have had) but I feel pretty confident recommending anything posted on that blog; I don't always agree with everything but I'm always interested.
And, because I don't have the energy to link to some of this week's more depressing stories (oh, you want your day wrecked? Okay -- TRIGGER WARNING ON THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH AND THE LINK: you know the story that recently broke about the 11 year old gang rape victim? Guess what she's being called! Gin and Tacos calls it a failure of journalism; I call it misogyny.)
That's all I've got for now. What are you reading?
Feministing notes that the Obama administration has rescinded the federal regulation commonly called the "Conscience Clause". This has been mentioned before (STILL need to do a proper post about it, but don't hold your breath, I've got eight million Deep Thoughts I feel the need to share and this is only one). I will go ahead and say "Yay!" because this is practically speaking, a great step for feminism and equal rights.
Keep up with the whole Prop 8 debate over at the SCOTUSblog. (Yeah, I'm just going to keep posting those updates until stuff stops happening about it.)
Sociological Images has an article about how video game characters' breasts have gotten bigger and bigger as the games go through new versions and get more popular. (I'm tempted to joke that this is a link that women and men will find interesting. But that would be insulting and sexist. I will say merely that it includes some telling images.)
Okay, Arizona, I admit that I'm not particularly in touch with your culture. But after the shooting of several weeks ago, your new gun legislation baffles me (and this Slog writer, apparently).
This blog/FAQ post by an abortion doctor is a must-read, in my opinion. It's candid, fascinating, and both thoughtful and thought-provoking. (It's over at The Hairpin; I'm not sure what the status is on this writer and whether she has her own blog.)
Yes Means Yes has done two great posts recently about the studies done on men and women's different responses to offers of casual sex. Full disclosure: I haven't read through these fully yet (see above re: the week I have had) but I feel pretty confident recommending anything posted on that blog; I don't always agree with everything but I'm always interested.
And, because I don't have the energy to link to some of this week's more depressing stories (oh, you want your day wrecked? Okay -- TRIGGER WARNING ON THE REST OF THIS PARAGRAPH AND THE LINK: you know the story that recently broke about the 11 year old gang rape victim? Guess what she's being called! Gin and Tacos calls it a failure of journalism; I call it misogyny.)
That's all I've got for now. What are you reading?
07 March 2011
Back to Politics: Why Being a Republican Means Cutting Planned Parenthood Funding
I love Yes Means Yes generally – I own their book too; you should get it; it’s good – but this post especially made me smile.
After weeks of thinking about the conservative social movement, and how it relates to abortion in particular, I came to a very obvious conclusion that nevertheless felt groundbreaking for me.
Morality and consequences go hand in hand, and to try to limit behavior using one without the other is difficult, bordering on impossible.
Think for a moment about training people to do things: raising children, teaching classes, leading groups. There are a lot of different ways to do that. You can offer positive reinforcement, when someone does something you like. You can offer negative reinforcement when someone does something you don’t like. You can delay the reinforcements to the end of an arbitrary schedule, shifting them into rewards and punishments. You can refuse to associate with people who don’t do as you say. You can convince people to want to do what you say, or figure out what their motivation is behind their actions and use that to your own advantage. You can ignore behavior you don’t like (with the optional bonus of praising behavior you do like, when it appears). (Want to read more about that and how you can use it to your advantage? Don’t Shoot the Dog! by Karen Armstrong.)
All of these things (and modified forms) are what we use to get other responsive creatures (animals, friends, children) to do as we wish. Now let’s take that back out into social policy.
There is certain behavior that we want, that benefits society. Part of that is raising kids in stable and loving homes, with parents who are active and invested. That’s one of those great constants that liberals and conservatives agree on, mostly because if anyone comes out against it, everyone on the other side accuses that person of loving child abuse and being all about the whole serial killer thing.
So the disagreement comes from two places. One place is what constitutes a stable and loving home. The historical stereotype of that place is one where a mother and father are legally committed, have sex, make babies, raise babies together on account of the whole committed thing, and hopefully pay attention to said babies or get ruthlessly judged by the neighborhood carpool. Liberals often deconstruct that by saying that none of those elements individually (man and woman, legal commitment, sex, raising babies together, etc.) is actually a magic element that makes sure the kids are happy and stable. Conservatives often use that stereotype as an example of something that’s been historically successful, and therefore encourage families to be as much like that stereotype as possible, at least from the outside. They argue that those individual elements are necessary for a strong and nurturing home.
I could go on tangents about that all day. What I want to talk about is behavior, and how you influence people such that they choose that kind of relationship for their family.
What we want is stable homes for children. Historically that mandated controlling sex, on account of the whole sex makes babies thing. So in order to control the outcome, it was necessary to control behavior.
Sex is a very hard behavior to control. It’s hard to control on an individual level, and it’s hard to control on a group level. There are a lot of positive reinforcements built into the body related to having lots of sex as often as possible (either because God wants to tempt us or because evolution favors organisms that enjoy procreation). To control it, you need something stronger.
That’s where consequences and morals come in. What I realized after thinking for about it for a while is that neither of those things is individually strong enough to control sexual behavior. That may be obvious – actually, it should be obvious, because very often the two together aren’t enough to control sexual behavior – but it put some things in perspective.
Stay with me for a second here. Consequences (by which I mean pregnancy, in or out of wedlock), with no moral stigma, are not enough to control behavior. First of all, the consequences come a lot later than the decision; second of all, people deal with consequences all the time. Maybe they’re inconvenient or difficult or unfortunate, maybe they’re wonderful and sweet and charming, but people find a way of dealing with them because that is the only option. Moral stigma makes consequences a lot more difficult, and it shores up the decision-making part of the process; it takes up the slack.
Now let’s look at the other side, which happens to be the world we live in now. Birth control, abortion, reproductive health, gay sex – all of these take the immediately visible consequences away from sex outside wedlock. (There are diseases, but many of them are not immediately discernible to the general populace. Babies are, especially in smaller communities.) Suddenly, there aren’t visible consequences, and that takes away one of the two major cornerstones of attempts to control sex. If even both of them together exert only a very tenuous control over sexual conduct (and it is tenuous, even for people for whom both of those are very strong motivators), think for a moment about what happens when one of them is removed.
Yeah. So what does this mean? Of course conservatives want to limit access to abortion, birth control, and reproductive rights. If we get the consequences back, it’s hella easier to control the behavior than if we’re just relying on morals! Especially since those damned liberal jackasses are all “morals should be an individual decision,” like whatever, let’s see them run the country and drag their opponents through the mud if they’re not willing to judge like an angry God!
The funny thing is that they’re using their moral convictions as arguments about bringing consequences back in. As in, they are explicitly using that language. That’s why feminists are all throwing out words like “paternalistic,” because the double-whammy of you-shouldn’t-do-this-because-it’s-wrong and here-are-the-consequences-for-doing-that is how you raise children. That's why it sounds condescending when people are like, it's wrong that you had sex (I'm judging you; there are morals at work) and you have to keep your baby and carry it to term and take care of it (there are physical consequences at work). The unspoken addendum is, next time I hope you'll show better judgment and make a wiser decision!
The thing about raising children is, often (not always) getting angry is a negative consequence. Children get very upset when their parents are mad. Thus the moral judgment is itself a negative consequence in addition to the physical consequence of "baby." That doesn't necessarily hold true politically. Republicans getting angry at women, or gay people? Pshh, when are they not? This isn’t a parent-child relationship, and a lot of liberal people have figured out that the trick is to not care. Not care and fight back.
So what is the only way of reestablishing that control? By removing the factors that limit or remove physical consequences, because if the moral judgment doesn't help people decide, then having to change diapers for twenty-nine months will, by golly. Bye bye, Planned Parenthood funding.
After weeks of thinking about the conservative social movement, and how it relates to abortion in particular, I came to a very obvious conclusion that nevertheless felt groundbreaking for me.
Morality and consequences go hand in hand, and to try to limit behavior using one without the other is difficult, bordering on impossible.
Think for a moment about training people to do things: raising children, teaching classes, leading groups. There are a lot of different ways to do that. You can offer positive reinforcement, when someone does something you like. You can offer negative reinforcement when someone does something you don’t like. You can delay the reinforcements to the end of an arbitrary schedule, shifting them into rewards and punishments. You can refuse to associate with people who don’t do as you say. You can convince people to want to do what you say, or figure out what their motivation is behind their actions and use that to your own advantage. You can ignore behavior you don’t like (with the optional bonus of praising behavior you do like, when it appears). (Want to read more about that and how you can use it to your advantage? Don’t Shoot the Dog! by Karen Armstrong.)
All of these things (and modified forms) are what we use to get other responsive creatures (animals, friends, children) to do as we wish. Now let’s take that back out into social policy.
There is certain behavior that we want, that benefits society. Part of that is raising kids in stable and loving homes, with parents who are active and invested. That’s one of those great constants that liberals and conservatives agree on, mostly because if anyone comes out against it, everyone on the other side accuses that person of loving child abuse and being all about the whole serial killer thing.
So the disagreement comes from two places. One place is what constitutes a stable and loving home. The historical stereotype of that place is one where a mother and father are legally committed, have sex, make babies, raise babies together on account of the whole committed thing, and hopefully pay attention to said babies or get ruthlessly judged by the neighborhood carpool. Liberals often deconstruct that by saying that none of those elements individually (man and woman, legal commitment, sex, raising babies together, etc.) is actually a magic element that makes sure the kids are happy and stable. Conservatives often use that stereotype as an example of something that’s been historically successful, and therefore encourage families to be as much like that stereotype as possible, at least from the outside. They argue that those individual elements are necessary for a strong and nurturing home.
I could go on tangents about that all day. What I want to talk about is behavior, and how you influence people such that they choose that kind of relationship for their family.
What we want is stable homes for children. Historically that mandated controlling sex, on account of the whole sex makes babies thing. So in order to control the outcome, it was necessary to control behavior.
Sex is a very hard behavior to control. It’s hard to control on an individual level, and it’s hard to control on a group level. There are a lot of positive reinforcements built into the body related to having lots of sex as often as possible (either because God wants to tempt us or because evolution favors organisms that enjoy procreation). To control it, you need something stronger.
That’s where consequences and morals come in. What I realized after thinking for about it for a while is that neither of those things is individually strong enough to control sexual behavior. That may be obvious – actually, it should be obvious, because very often the two together aren’t enough to control sexual behavior – but it put some things in perspective.
Stay with me for a second here. Consequences (by which I mean pregnancy, in or out of wedlock), with no moral stigma, are not enough to control behavior. First of all, the consequences come a lot later than the decision; second of all, people deal with consequences all the time. Maybe they’re inconvenient or difficult or unfortunate, maybe they’re wonderful and sweet and charming, but people find a way of dealing with them because that is the only option. Moral stigma makes consequences a lot more difficult, and it shores up the decision-making part of the process; it takes up the slack.
Now let’s look at the other side, which happens to be the world we live in now. Birth control, abortion, reproductive health, gay sex – all of these take the immediately visible consequences away from sex outside wedlock. (There are diseases, but many of them are not immediately discernible to the general populace. Babies are, especially in smaller communities.) Suddenly, there aren’t visible consequences, and that takes away one of the two major cornerstones of attempts to control sex. If even both of them together exert only a very tenuous control over sexual conduct (and it is tenuous, even for people for whom both of those are very strong motivators), think for a moment about what happens when one of them is removed.
Yeah. So what does this mean? Of course conservatives want to limit access to abortion, birth control, and reproductive rights. If we get the consequences back, it’s hella easier to control the behavior than if we’re just relying on morals! Especially since those damned liberal jackasses are all “morals should be an individual decision,” like whatever, let’s see them run the country and drag their opponents through the mud if they’re not willing to judge like an angry God!
The funny thing is that they’re using their moral convictions as arguments about bringing consequences back in. As in, they are explicitly using that language. That’s why feminists are all throwing out words like “paternalistic,” because the double-whammy of you-shouldn’t-do-this-because-it’s-wrong and here-are-the-consequences-for-doing-that is how you raise children. That's why it sounds condescending when people are like, it's wrong that you had sex (I'm judging you; there are morals at work) and you have to keep your baby and carry it to term and take care of it (there are physical consequences at work). The unspoken addendum is, next time I hope you'll show better judgment and make a wiser decision!
The thing about raising children is, often (not always) getting angry is a negative consequence. Children get very upset when their parents are mad. Thus the moral judgment is itself a negative consequence in addition to the physical consequence of "baby." That doesn't necessarily hold true politically. Republicans getting angry at women, or gay people? Pshh, when are they not? This isn’t a parent-child relationship, and a lot of liberal people have figured out that the trick is to not care. Not care and fight back.
So what is the only way of reestablishing that control? By removing the factors that limit or remove physical consequences, because if the moral judgment doesn't help people decide, then having to change diapers for twenty-nine months will, by golly. Bye bye, Planned Parenthood funding.
06 March 2011
something to keep in mind
As you probably all know, I've been dealing with depression. Or Depression (capital D now that I'm on meds for it)
Over my birthday (happy birthday me!) I actually ended up getting a little depressed, and it was weird because it wasn't my usual brain-chemical depression, it was my good old friend Low Self-Esteem. I haven't seen this particular friend so cleary for such a long time that it took me two whole days to realize who it was that had me feeling so fragile the whole time.
With that being the background, here's what I came to say:
Everything takes practice.
When you have overcome a challenge, it is a victory. When you fail the same challenge later, your previous victory is not erased.
when you continue to flail and fail and spin out of control, it does not take away the fact that you have been here before, and you got out ok.
you will get out ok again.
this all takes practice.
Even after mastering the challenge and beating it time and time again, if you fail one time - it's ok. Everything takes practice.
Even if you are a pro, sometimes you still fuck up and that's ok.
This is true for probably mostly all things: Playing musical instruments, cooking, coping with mental illness, irrationalities, insecurities, inanities and insanities.
It's ok to be a beginner, an intermediate, a pro.
It's super-great if you get to pro right away. good on ya.
it's totally fine to start as a noob.
It's totally fine to take your time getting better.
It's totally fine to be really good, not practice, and then realize you suck a bit more then last time you tried it.
****
In short - it's been awhile since I've seen my insecurities so clearly - I'm not going to beat myself up for being back where I started. I'm going to give myself credit for the work I know I've done. I'll bookmark the fact that I still have more work to do.
And now, fuck this shit, I'm-a go watch Rupaul's Drag Race.
Over my birthday (happy birthday me!) I actually ended up getting a little depressed, and it was weird because it wasn't my usual brain-chemical depression, it was my good old friend Low Self-Esteem. I haven't seen this particular friend so cleary for such a long time that it took me two whole days to realize who it was that had me feeling so fragile the whole time.
With that being the background, here's what I came to say:
Everything takes practice.
When you have overcome a challenge, it is a victory. When you fail the same challenge later, your previous victory is not erased.
when you continue to flail and fail and spin out of control, it does not take away the fact that you have been here before, and you got out ok.
you will get out ok again.
this all takes practice.
Even after mastering the challenge and beating it time and time again, if you fail one time - it's ok. Everything takes practice.
Even if you are a pro, sometimes you still fuck up and that's ok.
This is true for probably mostly all things: Playing musical instruments, cooking, coping with mental illness, irrationalities, insecurities, inanities and insanities.
It's ok to be a beginner, an intermediate, a pro.
It's super-great if you get to pro right away. good on ya.
it's totally fine to start as a noob.
It's totally fine to take your time getting better.
It's totally fine to be really good, not practice, and then realize you suck a bit more then last time you tried it.
****
In short - it's been awhile since I've seen my insecurities so clearly - I'm not going to beat myself up for being back where I started. I'm going to give myself credit for the work I know I've done. I'll bookmark the fact that I still have more work to do.
And now, fuck this shit, I'm-a go watch Rupaul's Drag Race.
I Think I Might Leave the Country Again
Face, I'm not sure you've met palm. Let me introduce you. (Thanks -- I guess -- Slog.)
UPDATE: It's been pointed out to me that the video is only available in the US and thus our international readers are KSOL. Allow me to explain. (If you haven't seen Jon Stewart before, he's a leftist political commentator/comedian.) The U.S. is in a budget crisis and all sorts of ideas are being flung about to try to fix that. What's on the docket now is cutting pay and benefits for teachers, because, you know, they don't do anything important. Teachers usually make roughly $50,000 a year, often less. The same political commentators that suggest cutting these people's salary and benefits on the grounds that they are paid by taxes, and so the government has every right to give them a pay cut. They are at the same time saying that Congress should not make any ruling about any kind of restrictions on CEO pay and bonuses for the guys on Wall Street, who, you know, got us in to the financial crisis in the first place and were bailed out by government money. Justifications included the ideas that CEOs work harder than teachers, because teachers get summers off; in order to attract "real talent" it's important to pay CEOs "what they're worth;" and $250,000 a year -- a CEO's salary -- isn't really that much when you have kids to send to college. Stewart, in what has become his trademark, doesn't so much take the time to logically refute this nonsense as he does just sort of put on the air with a "Really? I'm really hearing this?" look on his face.
04 March 2011
Wow. It's been a while, guys. I can only apologise for the intrusion of real life, and depression edging its wicked way back and everything else etc etc.
This won't be a long post, alas. I'm pretty tired and I don't have much to give to you guys in ways of thought processes. I just want to give you these images; you may have seen them, I don't know. I just appreciate the signs.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-best-walk-for-choice-signs-from-around-the-cou
On another note, I just want to appreciate all of you contributers. Some I know personally, some I don't, but all of you have shown love, appreciation, support and intelligence over the last 8 or so months I've been a contributer to this blog. So thank you. <3 Women like you make me very very happy indeed. :)
This won't be a long post, alas. I'm pretty tired and I don't have much to give to you guys in ways of thought processes. I just want to give you these images; you may have seen them, I don't know. I just appreciate the signs.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-best-walk-for-choice-signs-from-around-the-cou
On another note, I just want to appreciate all of you contributers. Some I know personally, some I don't, but all of you have shown love, appreciation, support and intelligence over the last 8 or so months I've been a contributer to this blog. So thank you. <3 Women like you make me very very happy indeed. :)
03 March 2011
Links & Larks
Yep, good news. I'm not going to break my new rule the same week I make it. Go me! (Links list might be slightly longer than usual -- I've been saving them up for a while.)
Caudoviral gave us a great shout-out last week, because he is awesome. Go read his blog about biology and sciences, which is full of cool and interestingly explained articles and things you didn't know about medicine. (Full disclosure: yeah, we're friends; no, I wouldn't say his blog is awesome if it weren't.) (Caudoviral)
Caudoviral gave us a great shout-out last week, because he is awesome. Go read his blog about biology and sciences, which is full of cool and interestingly explained articles and things you didn't know about medicine. (Full disclosure: yeah, we're friends; no, I wouldn't say his blog is awesome if it weren't.) (Caudoviral)
In less-awesome news, the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood. I’m sorry; did I miss the memo? Do we want everyone to drop out of college all full of babies because the pill costs $70/month at Wal-Mart and no one can get it for $20/month at PP anymore? Is that how we’re going to fix the economy? Really, John Boehner? This page has a link to a petition where you can tell the Senate to cut this crap out immediately, plus a bunch of fun ideas for protest signs. (Bitch Magazine)
Keeping up with the Prop 8 debate? A review has been set. On the one hand I am absolutely opposed to Prop 8 in every respect and I wish they would get this matter of basic human rights settled already; on the other hand I’m kind of finding the legal ins and outs really interesting. (Yeah, I read Supreme Court decisions for fun when I was in high school.) (There’s a more recent update – about the Court’s unwillingness to speed up the schedule – here.) (SCOTUSblog)
Speaking of marriage, feminists caused your divorce! Did you know? Bitch has something to say about that. (Bitch Magazine)
It’s preaching to the choir, I know, but this post is an insightful and eloquent report of the way the conscience clause can be horribly misued and in fact lead to the deaths of women with no benefit to the fetus. I have a lot I want to say about that when I can find the time to put it into words (I am actually much more conflicted about it than I thought I was); meantime read Thomas’s clear and straightforward view. (Yes Means Yes)
On a similar topic, two reporters (or a reporter and an intern, rather) at Slog did some interesting investigative journalism, going to crisis pregnancy centers in the area. Their findings were interesting -- much of the information given about abortion was (surprise!) inaccurate. (Slog)
Elsewhere on Slog: whether you saw the Oscars or not, I think you should read Lindy West’s recap of the ceremony. (Actually I think you should read everything Lindy West writes, because she is awesome. And besides being funny and feminist and interesting, she gets a million bonus points for this.) (Slog)
Speaking of movie stars giving each other awards, someone made a word map analyzing word frequency in the Oscar acceptance speeches. Did it seem to anyone else as if the ladies were all “Oh, I can’t believe you’re giving this to ME” and the dudes were all “Yep, I’m awesome and I own it”? Maybe it’s my feminism, ruining everything and wrecking your marriage. (OverthinkingIt)
While we’re Overthinking things, I kinda wish I’d written this awesome post comparing Clueless and Mean Girls to each other... and to political revolutions and their effects. (OverthinkingIt)
This article on the sexiness of ladies who read is about 80% charming, but I think it says a lot about me that my reaction to the first half was “Don’t buy her a coffee and hit on her, she’s trying to read. She’s busy!” (The Monica Bird, and thanks, caudoviral!)
And just for fun, go read this Married to the Sea comic. I should analyze why I like it, I suppose, lest I like it for the wrong reasons, but that would kill the frog.
28 February 2011
Old Rule Out. New Rule.
For two weeks I haven't been posting, and I have an entire browser window with a dozen tabs to links I think are interesting and feminist and relevant.
I haven't been posting because I've fallen prey to that evil beast that stalks bloggers: real life. Seriously, folks, I am never effing home anymore basically ever. I sleep here, and sometimes grab a bite, but as often as not I'm gone for ten or twelve or fourteen hour stretches, and it's getting worse. And what I should do is bring my laptop and blog on the public transportation system that seems to be my second home (I spend so much time on it because it takes FLIPPING FOREVER to get anywhere) but my laptop is heavy and I have enough crap to carry around. And part of taking flipping forever to get anywhere on this particular public transportation system is that you spend most of that time switching over (train to train, bus to train, train to bus, etc.) and typing while doing that is a bitch.
So, this is my never-mind-post, right? No. This is where the stubbornness that saw me through my junior year of college comes out and makes itself felt. I promised myself I'd write on this blog when I started it, and damn it, I am going to pursue that goal even as its inherent stupidity is made plain to me by my own insane schedule. I am inspired by this post at OverthinkingIt. I am going to write MORE OFTEN.
What that actually means for me is that I'll be writing less. What I've been trying to do is write one big Essay-Full-of-Thought every Monday. To do that I really have to find time to write something Sunday, and right now Sunday is the only day of the week that I even ever occasionally get off. Sometimes I only get it half-off. (It's okay; I get Friday kind of half-off too, or I can at least sometimes work from home on Friday.) (My schedule sounds like some sort of high powered lawyer's. In actuality I work a bunch of days, but still spend most of my time getting from job to job, and thus manage to work a ton and yet be a woman of very little money.) (Moving on, because no one cares about my financial problems.)
The point being, even when I have Sunday off, I don't have time to put all the crap I'm thinking about into words. I am thinking about a ton of crap -- stuff I'm reading (Son of the Shadows sucked me much more in this time than when I tried to read it in college and I may actually make it through the whole series this go-round, but I have a new detective series too, and switching back and forth is giving me whiplash); stuff I'm watching (The Good Wife is rocking my world -- how much do I love feminist TV? Rizzoli and Isles rocked my world too -- but this week's Castle did not live up to last week's potential); stuff I'm doing in real life (my hang-up right now is the academic achievement gap; it's getting my focus professionally and creatively and in my non-fiction reading); stuff I'm finding online (Rachel Maddow is doing some absolutely amazing coverage of what's going on in Wisconsin, and if you haven't seen it yet I cannot recommend it highly enough). In short, it's the old Patricia C. Wrede quote -- "Getting the ideas is easy. The hard part is writing them down."
Now, for me, what I really see coming into play is my perfectionism tendencies. I must write a BRILLIANT POST THAT CHANGES THE FACE OF BLOGGING FOREVER. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I do not have time to hold myself to that standard. I am sorry. I am next scheduled to have some free time in early June, and I will go back to changing the Internetz forever then.
Until then, what I have time for is this. At some point near the beginning of the week, I will put up a short post -- not one of my epic tangents where I ramble on for fucking years about all the implications of everything, but just -- I thought this, and it was cool. I am going to stop waiting and letting things percolate until I have LOTS to say about them; I am going to stop feeling that some things are Beneath Me and Not Worth Blogging About (get ready for a slew of Castle posts, everyone; I've only been holding off because I have mixed feelings about how much I adore that show); I am going to stop feeling like an English teacher may come and grade me at any moment (I practically am a goddamn English teacher; it is time to get over my fear of them). Then, at some point near the end of the week, I will put up a list of links that I think are cool and say interesting stuff, written by people who have more time and/or intelligence and/or commitment and/or eight million other positive adjectives than I do right now.
After three months, I will evaluate this method of posting. If it works, it stays. If not, I'll go back to being epic or come up with a third option.
I haven't been posting because I've fallen prey to that evil beast that stalks bloggers: real life. Seriously, folks, I am never effing home anymore basically ever. I sleep here, and sometimes grab a bite, but as often as not I'm gone for ten or twelve or fourteen hour stretches, and it's getting worse. And what I should do is bring my laptop and blog on the public transportation system that seems to be my second home (I spend so much time on it because it takes FLIPPING FOREVER to get anywhere) but my laptop is heavy and I have enough crap to carry around. And part of taking flipping forever to get anywhere on this particular public transportation system is that you spend most of that time switching over (train to train, bus to train, train to bus, etc.) and typing while doing that is a bitch.
So, this is my never-mind-post, right? No. This is where the stubbornness that saw me through my junior year of college comes out and makes itself felt. I promised myself I'd write on this blog when I started it, and damn it, I am going to pursue that goal even as its inherent stupidity is made plain to me by my own insane schedule. I am inspired by this post at OverthinkingIt. I am going to write MORE OFTEN.
What that actually means for me is that I'll be writing less. What I've been trying to do is write one big Essay-Full-of-Thought every Monday. To do that I really have to find time to write something Sunday, and right now Sunday is the only day of the week that I even ever occasionally get off. Sometimes I only get it half-off. (It's okay; I get Friday kind of half-off too, or I can at least sometimes work from home on Friday.) (My schedule sounds like some sort of high powered lawyer's. In actuality I work a bunch of days, but still spend most of my time getting from job to job, and thus manage to work a ton and yet be a woman of very little money.) (Moving on, because no one cares about my financial problems.)
The point being, even when I have Sunday off, I don't have time to put all the crap I'm thinking about into words. I am thinking about a ton of crap -- stuff I'm reading (Son of the Shadows sucked me much more in this time than when I tried to read it in college and I may actually make it through the whole series this go-round, but I have a new detective series too, and switching back and forth is giving me whiplash); stuff I'm watching (The Good Wife is rocking my world -- how much do I love feminist TV? Rizzoli and Isles rocked my world too -- but this week's Castle did not live up to last week's potential); stuff I'm doing in real life (my hang-up right now is the academic achievement gap; it's getting my focus professionally and creatively and in my non-fiction reading); stuff I'm finding online (Rachel Maddow is doing some absolutely amazing coverage of what's going on in Wisconsin, and if you haven't seen it yet I cannot recommend it highly enough). In short, it's the old Patricia C. Wrede quote -- "Getting the ideas is easy. The hard part is writing them down."
Now, for me, what I really see coming into play is my perfectionism tendencies. I must write a BRILLIANT POST THAT CHANGES THE FACE OF BLOGGING FOREVER. Well, ladies and gentlemen, I do not have time to hold myself to that standard. I am sorry. I am next scheduled to have some free time in early June, and I will go back to changing the Internetz forever then.
Until then, what I have time for is this. At some point near the beginning of the week, I will put up a short post -- not one of my epic tangents where I ramble on for fucking years about all the implications of everything, but just -- I thought this, and it was cool. I am going to stop waiting and letting things percolate until I have LOTS to say about them; I am going to stop feeling that some things are Beneath Me and Not Worth Blogging About (get ready for a slew of Castle posts, everyone; I've only been holding off because I have mixed feelings about how much I adore that show); I am going to stop feeling like an English teacher may come and grade me at any moment (I practically am a goddamn English teacher; it is time to get over my fear of them). Then, at some point near the end of the week, I will put up a list of links that I think are cool and say interesting stuff, written by people who have more time and/or intelligence and/or commitment and/or eight million other positive adjectives than I do right now.
After three months, I will evaluate this method of posting. If it works, it stays. If not, I'll go back to being epic or come up with a third option.
22 February 2011
role-ing around
So, quick background to what brings me to this post:
after a year of struggling with depression, I finally decided to take anti-depressants, and so far the results are AWESOME.
The first two days I took my new bitty pills, I was having a REALLY hard time. I thought it was a reaction to the meds. An hour after I took the first one I was spacey, panicky, and generally not a happy camper. The second day it was the same. By the third day I realized it was not the pills, it was my mental reaction to taking them. In that week I came to terms with the fact that for a long time I had ignored: I had Depression. It wasn't simply an illness like having a flu, it was like having diabetes. Or, really, it my case, it was like having Asthma.
See, I have Asthma. I've had it since before I can remember. I have had to tote around an inhaler for always. And I probably always will (even though I don't use it much anymore)
My mom reminded me that I used to be very mad about this as a child. I hated having to carry my inhaler, I hated having to stop playing tag when I couldn't breathe, I hated not being like everyone else. It was something I eventually got over - I mean, after you finally accept you can never have the puppy you've dreamed of, there's not much else to DO but get over it and avoid playing tag. (exercise induced as well as allergic to fur, superawesomefuntastic)
I now have to accept my depression as something that I will always have. Like my asthma and non-often-used inhaler, I won't necessarily always be on meds, and I assume I'll eventually get over it, but accepting myself not as "Me, who happens to be depressed" but as "me, who has Depression" was really REALLY hard for me.
There's something very scary about having a behavior be not just a behavior but a facet of yourself. It's scary because I feel like the terms are less mine. My "just feeling depressed" was something I defined, in a sense. "This is me depressed" is something I could observe and control. "The girl with Depression" (always a capital D on that one) was something that a large group of people had and now I was one of them - and I no longer controlled it and it was no longer mine. It was ME, not MINE, and suddenly doctors are involved and I'm altering brain chemicals and it's never just going to go away. I'm stuck with it. It's me.
I think when one has a new role or facet of one's self, there's always this period of submerging one's self into it. I wanted to talk about my depression. I wanted to talk to other people with it. I wanted to find my place among this club I was suddenly a member of. It was both scary (like being invited to a party where you didn't know a damn person) but also comforting (hey, I was invited to a party!)
There are other parts of myself that I'm discovering that are becoming facets of myself rather than behaviors: my sexuality and love life is, at the moment, quite fluid. (also, a LOT more fun then my Depression, just sayin') and having that fluidity be more then just behavior is helpful to me as a whole.
I want to tie things together, but I think I kind of suck at that, so I want to throw some thoughts and questions about this out there:
what are behaviors in your life, and what are roles for you? are you a picky eater or a Picky Eater? For me, I do not cook. And I always defined myself as Someone who Can't Cook. And I took that as a role. But I realize now I CAN cook. I'm fucking capable of cooking, I simply don't do it much, so I don't have practice. Having that be a behavior and not a facet of myself is relieving. That behavior as a role was confining - now it's a thing that can be changed. I have control of it.
What roles in your life are fluid and what roles are permanent?
Are you a Student? or are you simply going to school? Are you Broke? or do you just not have money right now? Do you have Depression? or are you depressed?
What roles hurt you and what roles help you?
Does being Gay bring you comfort or would you rather just not talk about what gender you'd like to bone? Does embracing your illness empower you or does it make you The Victim?
If a certain role hurts you, can you change it to behavior so you can take control of it?
For me, embracing Depression as something I am is simply a truth. I am getting comfortable with it, and it helps tremendously that I am feeling better. But, like asthma, I will have to deal with this for a long time. and It will require care and sacrifice.
after a year of struggling with depression, I finally decided to take anti-depressants, and so far the results are AWESOME.
The first two days I took my new bitty pills, I was having a REALLY hard time. I thought it was a reaction to the meds. An hour after I took the first one I was spacey, panicky, and generally not a happy camper. The second day it was the same. By the third day I realized it was not the pills, it was my mental reaction to taking them. In that week I came to terms with the fact that for a long time I had ignored: I had Depression. It wasn't simply an illness like having a flu, it was like having diabetes. Or, really, it my case, it was like having Asthma.
See, I have Asthma. I've had it since before I can remember. I have had to tote around an inhaler for always. And I probably always will (even though I don't use it much anymore)
My mom reminded me that I used to be very mad about this as a child. I hated having to carry my inhaler, I hated having to stop playing tag when I couldn't breathe, I hated not being like everyone else. It was something I eventually got over - I mean, after you finally accept you can never have the puppy you've dreamed of, there's not much else to DO but get over it and avoid playing tag. (exercise induced as well as allergic to fur, superawesomefuntastic)
I now have to accept my depression as something that I will always have. Like my asthma and non-often-used inhaler, I won't necessarily always be on meds, and I assume I'll eventually get over it, but accepting myself not as "Me, who happens to be depressed" but as "me, who has Depression" was really REALLY hard for me.
There's something very scary about having a behavior be not just a behavior but a facet of yourself. It's scary because I feel like the terms are less mine. My "just feeling depressed" was something I defined, in a sense. "This is me depressed" is something I could observe and control. "The girl with Depression" (always a capital D on that one) was something that a large group of people had and now I was one of them - and I no longer controlled it and it was no longer mine. It was ME, not MINE, and suddenly doctors are involved and I'm altering brain chemicals and it's never just going to go away. I'm stuck with it. It's me.
I think when one has a new role or facet of one's self, there's always this period of submerging one's self into it. I wanted to talk about my depression. I wanted to talk to other people with it. I wanted to find my place among this club I was suddenly a member of. It was both scary (like being invited to a party where you didn't know a damn person) but also comforting (hey, I was invited to a party!)
There are other parts of myself that I'm discovering that are becoming facets of myself rather than behaviors: my sexuality and love life is, at the moment, quite fluid. (also, a LOT more fun then my Depression, just sayin') and having that fluidity be more then just behavior is helpful to me as a whole.
I want to tie things together, but I think I kind of suck at that, so I want to throw some thoughts and questions about this out there:
what are behaviors in your life, and what are roles for you? are you a picky eater or a Picky Eater? For me, I do not cook. And I always defined myself as Someone who Can't Cook. And I took that as a role. But I realize now I CAN cook. I'm fucking capable of cooking, I simply don't do it much, so I don't have practice. Having that be a behavior and not a facet of myself is relieving. That behavior as a role was confining - now it's a thing that can be changed. I have control of it.
What roles in your life are fluid and what roles are permanent?
Are you a Student? or are you simply going to school? Are you Broke? or do you just not have money right now? Do you have Depression? or are you depressed?
What roles hurt you and what roles help you?
Does being Gay bring you comfort or would you rather just not talk about what gender you'd like to bone? Does embracing your illness empower you or does it make you The Victim?
If a certain role hurts you, can you change it to behavior so you can take control of it?
For me, embracing Depression as something I am is simply a truth. I am getting comfortable with it, and it helps tremendously that I am feeling better. But, like asthma, I will have to deal with this for a long time. and It will require care and sacrifice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)