"Traditional Marriage," My Ass

As many of you probably know, Prop 8 has passed in California--this will amend our state Constitution under the guise of "protecting traditional marriage" to thereby restricting gays and lesbians from marrying.

I have a problem with this. First of all, the "think of the CHILDREN!!11" rhetoric that the Yes on 8 folks brought out during their campaign was not only ill-argued, but idiotic. Honestly, I couldn't give less of a shit about parents who want to "protect" their kids from the supposed onslaught of homosexuals and "gay marriage being taught in schools" (I'm still trying to figure out what that even means). If you want your kid to grow up to be a bigot, that's your deal. I do not have a responsibility to your child or children to uphold the "traditional" nuclear family, or claim that I support it, because I really don't. The thousands of people whose marriage rights y'all have just denied? They don't owe it to you, either.

I do not support the "traditional" family structure (which, I am assuming, equals mom, dad, 2.5 kids, a dog and a white picket fence) because it perpetuates a standard that many of us--of all sexual orientations--cannot or do not wish to live up to. I refuse to bow to a traditional institution (heterosexual marriage) that says, basically, that I should put my limited energies into being a consumer, wife, and mother, just because that is what women are supposed to do. Perhaps this worked in the 1950s, but for the vast majority of people, this system is outdated and rather ridiculous. "Traditional" marriage is so tied to notions of the nuclear family, religion and consumerism that it needs to be deconstructed and re-assembled as something that will work for a wider variety of folks; I think gay marriage is a good start to such deconstruction.

When did marriage start becoming everyone else's business but that of the people who are marrying?

Getting your activism on: There will be protests all around the country for marriage equality TOMORROW, November 15th, 2008. Click here for a massive list of demonstrations, state-by-state.

Howl-O-Ween

Bad pun nonwithstanding, here is Winston in his costume (photo credit goes to my partner, Liam):



Happy Halloween, everyone!

The New York Times is Like That Friend That You Hate

Well, the NYT has, hilariously, done it again with their dismissal of people with fibromyalgia--this time, in a troubling article entitled "Half of All Doctors Routinely Prescribe Placebos".

But when asked how he treated fibromyalgia or other conditions that many doctors suspect are largely psychosomatic, Dr. Schreiber changed his mind. “The problem is that most of those people are very difficult patients, and it’s a whole lot easier to give them something like a big dose of Aleve,” he said. “Is that a placebo treatment? Depending on how you define it, I guess it is.”

Yeah, sorry we're interrupting your golf game with our neediness, Dr. Arrogant. Aleve also happens to contain naproxen, which is commonly used in anti-inflammatory medications used to treat arthritis. The problem is that anti-inflammatory meds do not usually work work on people with fibromyalgia. Not only does Dr. Schreiber apparently need more info on fibromyalgia, but he paints those who have the condition with a very broad stroke. Nice.

Also, if you're just prescribing placebos left and right and don't actually want to help people, why on Earth are you a doctor?

In my un-humble opinion, the Times is a bit like that friend you hang out with, but whom you find as annoying as all get-out. Sure, he's got occasional flashes of insight, but most of the time, you hate hanging out with him because he's either arrogant, dismissive, or totally hammered--and more often, he's all three of these wrapped up into one awful package. But you feel sorry for him. You want him to be a better person, and you suspect that his other friends either encourage his stupidity or don't notice. So you keep hanging out with him, in the hopes that you might have some sort of tiny effect, even though you probably don't.

Oh My, I Haven't Updated in Nearly a Month!

Ooops. I'll try not to let that happen again.

I started a cartoon/art blog, in between being insanely busy with school, work, managing the fibro, and other things. The cartoon blog is called Cheese and Dog. I've been sort of lazy with updating it as of late (sound familiar?), but this will change soon.

I am currently watching the documentary Taxi to the Dark Side. It is very good.

Stuff I Could Do Without

This is a meme that's been making the rounds lately, and since I just got back from a somewhat relaxing vacation and need to post something, here 'tis.

TEN THINGS THAT ANNAHAM COULD TOTALLY DO WITHOUT (ranked in order from least annoying to most egregious, though there are some near the middle of the list that rankle me equally):

10. Lint and other unsavory things that have somehow made a permanent home on my kitchen's linoleum floor (and won't budge)

09. Winston, ever the scamp dog, crapping in the house for the 3,347th time

08. Mysterious headaches and/or stomachaches

07. Epic, painful-to-witness stupidity from people whom I thought were above all of that (Shakes has a great explanation of such an incident here)

06. Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin

05. John McCain

04. This kind of shit

03. Having that "sinking" feeling and not knowing why

02. Being out of pain meds when I really, really do need them

01. Terrible fibro pain--culminating in an attack where my body feels like it is under a crapton of burning coals--right before school and work start up again!

The 9/11 Post

The more I attempt to think about 9/11, the less I am convinced that things "changed forever" on that day for the country.

Certainly, those who lost someone on that day had their lives irrevocably affected, as have those who have lost someone because of the dubious wars that directly resulted from 9/11. I don't dispute that at all. What I do dispute is the assertion that "9/11 changed everything" or "united us all as Americans."

What I have noticed is that the people in power have made changes to things that now piss a lot of people off; those in power have, effectively, missed their chance to make changes in our society that will actually make things better for people. Eradicating sexism, racism, homophobia, poverty, and related evils are just not important; "stronger" security checkpoints at airports and color-coded alert charts (to let us know how freaked out we should be) are more important.

I have seen no such "unity" in America. If you do not support or contribute to the people in power in this country, they do not care about you. One example of this was Hurricane Katrina and the aftermath. Those who have the most power in this country do not care about helping anyone but their own. If you are female, if you are not white, if you are not 100% heterosexual, if your gender identity is outside of the two options prescribed by society, if you are poor, or ill, or disabled, or do not subscribe to the doctrines of uber-fundamentalist Christianity, if you are for reproductive choice, if you are fat, if you are a feminist/womanist, if you do not have health insurance or need health care that is not rudimentary, if you require federal assistance/welfare, if you do not support the theory of intelligent design, if you work for the public school system, if you are an immigrant, if English is not your first language, if you are a war veteran, if you are unemployed, if you are lower or middle-class, if you are an intellectual, if you are a scientist who does not bow to governmental or corporate pressures, if you are a person who is perceived as being "too entitled" or "too angry" for being a non-white/woman/homosexual/disabled/poor person--those in power right now do not have your best interests at heart. American "unity" is, at best, an aspiration; at worst, it is a complete lie. Supporting only the incredibly wealthy and the lucky is not unity: it is treasonous to the true spirit of this country.

The myth that we are a "post-race" or "post-gender" society has also grown since 9/11. The one problem with this myth is that it is simply untrue. Any member of a minority group who has come of age in American society knows this. Unfortunately, the "post" myth is spread far and wide by those in power and those who support them. Take, for example, Sarah Palin. She may be female, but she is not a feminist. She is acceptable as a female candidate for a powerful international position because she does not threaten the status quo: she is pretty, she is intensely right-wing, and she presents herself as "just a hockey mom." She fulfills several stereotypical white female roles: mother, accidental-public-figure-but-not-really and masturbation fodder. She is a shining paragon of unattainable femininity and female power, without any of that messy, entitled feminism stuff. She is radical in the sense that her policies are arch-conservative. She is a lion in a zebra suit.

The same lions in zebra suits are running the country now, and using 9/11 over and over again until we don't dare question that it was a day that "changed everything." Sadly, it feels like very little has changed. We are still as selfish and faux-innocent ("Why do they hate us?") as ever. We can go fight a war based on extremely dubious premises, but we cannot care for our own people in their times of need (see: economic recession, Hurricane Katrina). We can talk out of our asses about human rights in other countries, yet we can still torture people, or detain them, and it's okay because we are America. We can use 9/11 as a political and rhetorical tool, yet accuse our ideological opposites of doing the same crass thing.

Welcome to America: We almost learned a great big lesson, once. Unfortunately, it didn't ever stick.

Sarah Palin

I posted this as a comment on a friend's Livejournal, but I am reposting it here because I: a.) need to update; and b.) feel strongly enough about this latest gaffe by McCain to write about it.

I'm betting that all of the Republican dudes are gonna be foaming at the mouth and/or crotch because Palin is not only female and ultra-conservative, but she's good-looking. Because apparently, a woman's first measure of how well she'll do in any field--particularly if it's a field in which she is in the public eye--is whether or not she's fuckable (Palin is a former beauty queen, and some internet d-bag has already provided a VPILF macro. CLASSY!).

The very sexism that doomed Clinton's run from the start (and I'm not a Clinton supporter at all, I'm just one of those humorless feminists, as y'all well know) is probably going to work very much in Palin's favor. That makes me sad, but not at all surprised.

The Outraged Commentary Pretty Much Writes Itself

Wow! I didn't think I'd be feeling uber-white shame this week, but PUMA PAC has changed that! Thanks, PUMA PAC!

This is the sort of thing that makes many people of color NOT WANT TO TRUST WHITE FOLKS.

I AM Entitled, Actually...

First, a question: Is there something in the air that has brought the concern trollz out in full force lately around the internet, particularly in progressive and/or feminist blogs?

Cara at Feministe did a great job of analyzing this horrific story about a woman with MS who was forced to crawl off of the Delta flight she was on after it landed, due entirely to the incompetence of the airline's employees.

From the second comment, the faux-cern started:

However, you also hear about these things all the time, so can you really blame people for being cold and weary of being “called into action”? And it’s not like all disabled people are saints- I’ve encountered a few that acted like they deserved more entitlements than the rest of the world just because they happen to have a mild defect that puts them in a wheelchair.

Really? I can't remember the last time I heard about something so epically horrendous. Maybe it's because I myself have a disability and have seen (and experienced) the disrespect/hatred that some able-bodied folks level at PWDs. Such treatment happens on a much smaller scale most of the time, and that is why most people don't hear about it.

Truly, this comment sounds like it was written by someone with almost zero experience with disability, chronic and/or dangerous health conditions, or actual people with disabilities--except for, ya know, all of those people this commenter has met who were in wheelchairs and acted so awful and angry and entitled and what have you, all because of their mild defects. They must have a lot of nerve to suggest that they deserve to be treated like normal human beings!

If you are sick of being "called into action," then you have a choice: Stay in your house and avoid human contact altogether. That way, you won't have any of us pesky, entitled disabled people whining for assistance and special treatment!

Here's the thing: I have a disability. I am also human. Like most other disabled folks, I am not a saint. I am certainly not a Super-Crip--I'm not here to make folks like the above commenter feel inspired and/or grateful to be alive and able-bodied. Like other human beings, I experience complicated, occasionally "messy" feelings such as anger. Like most human beings, I also realize that there are times and places for these feelings. However, I am still entitled to my feelings, and I am entitled to being treated like a human being instead of a (sometimes) walking stereotype--whether that stereotype is the Saint Crip, Super Crip or Token Crip.

All of us disabled folks are entitled to human treatment. We are not here for your inspiration. We are not here to make you feel better about yourself, or more superior to others because you can count us as "examples" of human potential. We are not here to make you feel like a hero because you're "just trying to help" by pushing our wheelchair, or recommending some weird-ass treatment for our condition(s) that totally helped your co-worker's brother's girlfriend. You are not superior to us, and we are not superior to you, though you may wish that one or the other could be the case.

We are human, and many of us would like to be treated as such, instead of dismissed as too much of some human quality, or qualities--too angry, too entitled, too un-able.

I Am the Worst Blogger Ever

[This has been cross-posted to my Livejournal, and I felt like posting it here.]

There's an interesting post over at Feministe right now about low-wage work, struggling to get by, and related topics. There are some brutally honest (and heartbreaking) responses in the comments.

And then one person, who goes by the handle "Sensible," jumps in with this doozy:

Over the past few years, I’ve made between 18 and 24k and I live well. I live in a high COL area and spend nearly half my net income on rent and must tolerate a roommate. But I have enough left to eat grass-fed steak twice a week and wild-caught fish the rest of the week. Thanks Trader Joe’s! I even manage to save some money each month.

I don’t know why people are whining so much. I don’t want to live this way forever but as a young, healthy person, it’s fine. Living well is all about figuring out what things you value and spending money on them. For everything else, just skip it.

Because I'm an asshat, and because the above made my blood boil, I responded with this:

Maybe they’re “whining” because they are barely managing to survive and yet working their asses off?

Hmmm, so sorry that we’re not all like you due to various factors, Sensible. Not all of us are “healthy” (I include myself in this category, since I have a chronic illness, but am lucky enough to have insurance *and* I’m young–-youth is NOT a guarantor of perfect health!), and not all of us can afford to “figure out what things [we] value.” As many others in this thread have attested, when one lives paycheck-to-paycheck, much of that money is automatically allocated to things like food and rent.

Of course, there is no response yet. "Sensible's" comment really got on my nerves, and even though I posted the above response a few days ago, I am still thinking about that comment. I know my response was more biting than it needed to be, but I'm so sick of people assuming that just because they themselves can live on x, y, or z amount per year and still be thriving/very healthy/able to eat steak, everyone else can (and, it is implied, should aspire to do so) as well.

It feels kind of weird that comments like these really get to me. Is anyone else bugged by comments like "Sensible's," or comments/attitudes like it?