I find little credibility in the One True Cause argument. Someone else has probably come up with a better name for it, but a quick tour through Derailing for Dummies has left me unsatisfied. Make no mistake, I find D4D otherwise very useful and like it quite a lot! Give me a minute, and I think you will find that "One True Cause" is used frequently as a derailing and discrediting tactic.
To clear this up, I do not mean "cause" as in cause and effect, although that is also a logical fallacy. I am using "cause" in One True Cause or 1TC or OTC to mean a situation, bigotry, societal failure, civil rights issue... the sort of causes we gather around to solve, resolve, improve, remove, make better. The intent is to make your cause less worthy of time, attention, and effort than their cause.
The One True Cause is this: why are you talking about/working on/devoting time and energy to X cause when Y cause is more important, more universal, more pressing and/or more personal? The OTC shares mental real estate with the Oppression Olympics, although the person committing the logical fallacy need not believe or be touched by either cause, they just want to be done with yours.
A recent example I have seen is this paraphrase of mine: how can you talk about Glenn Greenwalt's pal getting detained and the chilling effect it may have on free speech when Greenwalt is a lying jerk and other people have been treated worse? Here, I respectfully posit that one can care about the assault on free speech via detention of loved ones no matter how much one may dislike the people in this particular story and even still care about the dishonesty and ethical questions raised by the same persons. I can think that GG looks like a lying jerk and still beat the drum of free speech.
A common OTC argument is often brought up regarding US drone bombing. We mustn't concern ourselves with the innocents murdered in the never ending search for "top Al Qaeda" operatives because that would diminish our ability to kill the "right" people in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan... over there. Except that innocents murdered in a bloody attempt to exact justice is how this all started, whether you think it started with 9/11 or the use of Afghani people as chess pieces to fight a Cold War with the USSR, or, or, or...
Admittedly, it may be hard to drag our focus from getting through our own days, fighting the oppressions heaped upon us, scraping to put what we can on the table at dinner time for our loved ones to give a damn about people exploded out of existence while doing the same damn thing over there... someplace far away, some place filled with brown people struggling the same struggles and (just like us) never earned the need to fear random death from above.
As a disabled person raising a ruckus, I see the One True Cause fallacy all the time. How can I complain about the lack of accessibility at the local Pride Fest when that just give critics more fuel to try to shut it down? Well, I can tell you that as bisexual woman with disabilities I could not cross streets because beer booths had deliberately blocked curb cuts. How can I, a poor white lady, spend time on race issues when I should be focused on poverty? Well, my daughters go to the same schools that are neglected because there are not enough white faces in those schools for the people in power to care about them. Even if they went to lily white schools, better education for "inner city" or "deprived" schools means more skilled workers and smarter citizens which increases economic opportunity for everyone.
Often One True Cause is used with some legitimate feeling, worry that this other cause will suffer if people are not singularly devoted to it. People and their issues can be complex, and OTC often ignores the intersections that exist in social justice, in caring about freedom and real opportunities for all peoples. But just as we can love our parents, our significant others/spouses, our children, and our friends and extended family - I believe that we can care about more than one cause with legitimate depth of feeling and commitment. Some of us must do so, whether we ever wanted to or not. Just inside our walls here at home we are directly concerned with disability, neuro-atypicality of various types, feminism, poverty, school quality/funding, the Affordable Care Act/healthcare accessibility in general, religious freedom, racism (our neighbors and our children's peers are more melanin gifted than our family), QUILTBAG rights and issues...
OTC is just one more minor oppression. OTC is other people telling you what causes they think you should support. OTC is just one more way to exert control, but worse since is is usually done by social justice folks to other social justice folks. So it is likely to be listened to, likely to bypass the filters we put in place when we are dealing with folks that could not care less about making the US a more just place. This often comes from people we respect, trust - folks we value in some way.
So you see, we had to learn to juggle many interests and that is just a brief overview. OTC has no place in our social justice cosmology. OTC is different than picking the battles that mean something to you: I get that. One True Cause desires to denigrate other causes (others' causes?), and that is not cricket. On a good body day, I can actually chew gum, pat my head and rub my tummy all at the same time. But do not hold your breath waiting for a good day, I have less than a handful of those a month right now. The ones I get - I know how to spend them!
I am PatientC. Welcome! This is a disability oriented blog where issues and intersection are discussed at my whim and with varying degrees of humanity, snark, and intensity. Content can be adult at times, farcical at others.
Showing posts with label social commentary. Show all posts
Showing posts with label social commentary. Show all posts
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Words and Political Correctness
I had the opportunity the other day to participate in a terrific community discussion about political correctness, specifically referencing things like A-line ribbed tank tops, the use of the word "rape" in a gaming environment and others. And I want to explore the idea of political correctness here. No links or anything, just trying to iron out some ideas and see what they are.
I want to set some hyperbole aside. When we talk about social political correctness, we are not talking about laws at any level. There are no Jack Booted Language Police. We are simply dealing with social norms. And those can very from nation to nation, culture to culture, house hold to house hold. And just like every other social norm, we are all constantly juggling one to another as we go through our days and our lives.
No law, no physical impediment keeps you from using a politically incorrect word or phrase or idea in conversation or media. The gripe is that if you do value your right to a word over the potential offense or harm it may cause, your may be viewed as someone that does exactly that. The problem is not the use of this word or that word. They can still be used. The only penalty is that your peers may, may see you as someone that values their right to a word over their hurt, offense, or harm.
The social price of political incorrectness is being thought of as an asshole.
I want you, Gentle Reader, to know that I did not start over here, although I wish I had. I started over there, demanding my rights to words and other people's right's to words. I am a greater fan of the 1st Amendment than the 2nd Amendment - and I value them both quite highly.
I had not considered every one else's right to exist at least with my indifference, if not any benevolence. But those other people, they should not have to guard themselves every time they are among other people. They should not walk in fear that I may throw them back to an abusive marriage or a sexual assault just because they had to go to the store. They should expect the world to be as indifferent, neutral, or benevolent to them as you expect it to be for you.
What happens when you are brought to someone else's pain is that you are being trusted with it. If I say to you that a particular phrase or word is upsetting to me, you have two decisions to make:
- You either believe, or not. I have a responsibility to be honest, and I will probably even try to be patient if my situation is not one that you could have been expected to be tuned into. But then you either believe me, and take me at my word that something is offensive to me personally or maybe I say that as one of their number, some of these folks are offended by that. You can educate yourself as much as you like later, that would actually be great. But in this moment, it is simple trust issue.
- You either care, or not. While that may sound cruel to the person being asked to stop offending, upsetting, or harming - I guarantee that it is less cruel then being asked to forgive or ignore someone while they knowingly do harm to you whenever, however they see fit, forever. Because whatever burden you carry is simply unimportant to them.
That is it.
- If you believe and care, you work to change a language habit (you do not really "lose" a word in any actual sense), and you show a wounded someone that there is at least one person out there not willing to knowingly hurt them further.
- If you care but don't believe, you start asking or teasing about exactly that harmful thing, maybe discounting the very idea, or act like the stated harm is over-reacting. Hey, maybe you ask friends and strangers around you if this thing "is really offensive?" Because: 1st Amendment. You may change your language use if you do research that confirms, or other people concur.
- If you do not believe and do not care, then you will change nothing about your habits, maybe dig into the wound a little bit, you know, to prove it is not there. Because: "plenty of people go through more and aren't crying."
- If you believe and do not care, then hopefully you are apathetic, but maybe you dig into that wound often and deep, you know, to help them "get over" their sensitivity. Maybe you envision yourself as some sort of Devil's Advocate. As if the person trying to trust you has not had enough of true adversaries.
I have said before, and I truly believe it: "Political correctness is a quick and easy guide to avoid being seen as an asshole if you are not, in fact, an asshole."
I truly do not understand how being conscientious of another person's history, or that of a group of people, is walking on eggshells, or some other surrender of personal power. Why is it a problem to have to think about these people with a problem? Surely they have to consider you. Why is it not a instead a strength to be in a more grounded, solid group free or nearly free of such angst, pain, distrust, suspicion and harm?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Poverty and Rand
The following contains my ramblings on some posts elsewhere about Ayn Rand, her views on poverty, and particularly how her ideological followers (whether they call themselves Objectivists, Randians or not) view and treat poverty. I have edited these slightly to make them make sense on their own, and for some grammar errors, or for clarification. Additions will be marked {thus}.
If you want to see a simulation of how an Objectivist society would go down, play Bioshock.
Enjoy!
~~~
When I first read (Ayn) Rand as a teenager, I loved her "perusing your own skills/ideals/whatnot to your own perfection" world view, but even then had trouble with her economics. As an adult, I do think there are things in her writing worth considering. My enormous trouble with her comes not from the fact that she has a economic ideology that I vehemently disagree with, but from what she does with it and how she expresses it. She had a fanatical hatred for the poor, calling them parasites and insisting that the world would be better off if they were removed from it (not lifted out of poverty by opportunity). That is more than a simply economic philosophy. She had a pathology about it. The irony is that when in dire straits herself she made use of the same safety net that she pontificated so loudly against.
And do not get me started on her Objectivist followers, they are such a hot mess it would take days to spell out everything wrong with their stances.
~~~
{On hating someone for being poor and apparently slothful.} Okay, but does that make any sense, either? Hating someone for something like that? And the very idea "people who were happy to remain poor" is bizarre, it makes no sense and has no reality in it whatsoever. But she did seem to think that such existed, and were a blight.
You are fine - I did not see it as semantics. And this is why it is important to really analyse literature, particularly when the author is openly promoting a particular world view. The saddest thing about Rand (besides the hypocrisy of her later life) is that it is really difficult to have a conversation like this where we talk about the ideas and do not degrade each other.
~~~
You cannot expect people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have no boots.
In one hundred percent of my lived experience and anecdotal experiences I have been able to pursue, there is always a reason for not being able to take advantage of an opportunity. No one, I assert, no one is "happy" being poor. Some are making the best of their circumstances, and good for them if they can. Usually, people making that claim have no idea of the chasm between being on state sponsored assistance and becoming self-sufficient. Often, the job openings available cannot help bridge that chasm. But now we are getting past common perceptions of poverty and getting into the reality of it, and I do know know if this is a venue where that is desired, or if it is a part of the conversation worth getting into right now.
~~~
Eh, given that most state's assistance is not enough to live on, let long live a life of leisure, I have a hard time believing that. Are their some cases of welfare fraud? Sure. But the myth of the Welfare Queen, living a life of luxury courtesy of the state is just that: a malicious, ridiculous, and downright stupid myth. But the Randians eat it up and have made it a central pole in their tent of misguided self righteousness.
~~~
Ah, I see now. Thanks for the discussion, but you have some dead give a ways in your last two posts that lead me to believe we are not going to actually get anywhere with further discussion.
Because we could get into the weeds and prove that if you have children to care for, or conditions that require constant medical coverage, or any number of situations that make the gap between getting your first couple of paychecks and when the state cuts you off simply too wide for too many people - but you illustrate above that such would not really mean much to you. {I have done the math before, for multiple states - usually the new aid for an additional child will not even cover diapers, let alone be "extra money" in any way.}
I have lived, and am currently, living these situations. I am finding this a unique phenomena, the linking of morality to financial success or lack of it. It is bizarre. Not to knock you, specifically, I mean that it is a weird cultural thing.
~~~
{The conversation mostly devolved at that point. Reading the above, the poster took what I said and turned it into a tirade against them. It was a beautiful illustration of both missing the point, and turning logic into a personal attack. The poster also was apparently unaware that I am disabled, that that, yes indeed, they were talking about me. But this issue was bigger than that.}
Hmm, in my two paragraphs I do not see any twisting or manipulating - or even any of the extrapolation that would allow such. Hell, I did not even say that you were one of the people comfortable punishing poor people, only that perhaps you could educate me on their mindset. You do protest too much, I think.
And it is about me. It is about you. It is about everyone. It is about the poor. It is about the people that have been poor. It is about the people that will be poor. It is about everyone. And so, yeah, I am pretty damn uncomfortable with blanket moral judgments towards "the poor" as a group. Especially "slothful" - because that has to come from someone that has never been poor, because being poor is damn hard work. I do find it a convenient landmark, though, because the people that throw the word around obviously are completely disconnected from the work of just being poor. The running around, the appointments, the paperwork, the requirements just to receive any kind of aid - they do make you work for it. Hell, Disability alone takes an average of two to three years to resolve a case.
Most USian households are one paycheck, one health calamity, one car accident, from suddenly being poor. Do they deserve your moral indignation? No, they do not. But it is far too common to find your own "Welfare Queen or King" and decide that this morally bankrupt person is the face of the poor. Never mind that most aid is given to white house holds that simply had that one paycheck calamity. Or were downsized. Or became disabled. The true face of poverty in the US is us, you and me, not your "morally bankrupt" scapegoats. Much like in war, the dehumanization of the poor allows us to treat them as this other deserving of what ever they get. lucky for the scraps thrown their way.
There is a preponderance of evidence supporting the fact that we are the face of poverty. Or more appropriately, that you cannot generalize the way you would like to. If I thought I could change your mind, LMGTFY {Let Me Google That For You}, but you can easily do so if you want. You could have done so before this discussion, or during it.
Side note: I do not know about all states, but in mine if you are working on a 4 year degree you are disqualified from receiving help maintaining your household from the state. I know that for a been there, done that fact. Because your full class load keeps you from looking for full time work - so you are not eligible for aid. How is that for irony? Again, the result of policy makers having no contact with reality.
If you want to see a simulation of how an Objectivist society would go down, play Bioshock.
Enjoy!
~~~
When I first read (Ayn) Rand as a teenager, I loved her "perusing your own skills/ideals/whatnot to your own perfection" world view, but even then had trouble with her economics. As an adult, I do think there are things in her writing worth considering. My enormous trouble with her comes not from the fact that she has a economic ideology that I vehemently disagree with, but from what she does with it and how she expresses it. She had a fanatical hatred for the poor, calling them parasites and insisting that the world would be better off if they were removed from it (not lifted out of poverty by opportunity). That is more than a simply economic philosophy. She had a pathology about it. The irony is that when in dire straits herself she made use of the same safety net that she pontificated so loudly against.
And do not get me started on her Objectivist followers, they are such a hot mess it would take days to spell out everything wrong with their stances.
~~~
{On hating someone for being poor and apparently slothful.} Okay, but does that make any sense, either? Hating someone for something like that? And the very idea "people who were happy to remain poor" is bizarre, it makes no sense and has no reality in it whatsoever. But she did seem to think that such existed, and were a blight.
You are fine - I did not see it as semantics. And this is why it is important to really analyse literature, particularly when the author is openly promoting a particular world view. The saddest thing about Rand (besides the hypocrisy of her later life) is that it is really difficult to have a conversation like this where we talk about the ideas and do not degrade each other.
~~~
You cannot expect people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have no boots.
In one hundred percent of my lived experience and anecdotal experiences I have been able to pursue, there is always a reason for not being able to take advantage of an opportunity. No one, I assert, no one is "happy" being poor. Some are making the best of their circumstances, and good for them if they can. Usually, people making that claim have no idea of the chasm between being on state sponsored assistance and becoming self-sufficient. Often, the job openings available cannot help bridge that chasm. But now we are getting past common perceptions of poverty and getting into the reality of it, and I do know know if this is a venue where that is desired, or if it is a part of the conversation worth getting into right now.
~~~
Eh, given that most state's assistance is not enough to live on, let long live a life of leisure, I have a hard time believing that. Are their some cases of welfare fraud? Sure. But the myth of the Welfare Queen, living a life of luxury courtesy of the state is just that: a malicious, ridiculous, and downright stupid myth. But the Randians eat it up and have made it a central pole in their tent of misguided self righteousness.
~~~
Ah, I see now. Thanks for the discussion, but you have some dead give a ways in your last two posts that lead me to believe we are not going to actually get anywhere with further discussion.
Because we could get into the weeds and prove that if you have children to care for, or conditions that require constant medical coverage, or any number of situations that make the gap between getting your first couple of paychecks and when the state cuts you off simply too wide for too many people - but you illustrate above that such would not really mean much to you. {I have done the math before, for multiple states - usually the new aid for an additional child will not even cover diapers, let alone be "extra money" in any way.}
I have lived, and am currently, living these situations. I am finding this a unique phenomena, the linking of morality to financial success or lack of it. It is bizarre. Not to knock you, specifically, I mean that it is a weird cultural thing.
~~~
{The conversation mostly devolved at that point. Reading the above, the poster took what I said and turned it into a tirade against them. It was a beautiful illustration of both missing the point, and turning logic into a personal attack. The poster also was apparently unaware that I am disabled, that that, yes indeed, they were talking about me. But this issue was bigger than that.}
Hmm, in my two paragraphs I do not see any twisting or manipulating - or even any of the extrapolation that would allow such. Hell, I did not even say that you were one of the people comfortable punishing poor people, only that perhaps you could educate me on their mindset. You do protest too much, I think.
And it is about me. It is about you. It is about everyone. It is about the poor. It is about the people that have been poor. It is about the people that will be poor. It is about everyone. And so, yeah, I am pretty damn uncomfortable with blanket moral judgments towards "the poor" as a group. Especially "slothful" - because that has to come from someone that has never been poor, because being poor is damn hard work. I do find it a convenient landmark, though, because the people that throw the word around obviously are completely disconnected from the work of just being poor. The running around, the appointments, the paperwork, the requirements just to receive any kind of aid - they do make you work for it. Hell, Disability alone takes an average of two to three years to resolve a case.
Most USian households are one paycheck, one health calamity, one car accident, from suddenly being poor. Do they deserve your moral indignation? No, they do not. But it is far too common to find your own "Welfare Queen or King" and decide that this morally bankrupt person is the face of the poor. Never mind that most aid is given to white house holds that simply had that one paycheck calamity. Or were downsized. Or became disabled. The true face of poverty in the US is us, you and me, not your "morally bankrupt" scapegoats. Much like in war, the dehumanization of the poor allows us to treat them as this other deserving of what ever they get. lucky for the scraps thrown their way.
There is a preponderance of evidence supporting the fact that we are the face of poverty. Or more appropriately, that you cannot generalize the way you would like to. If I thought I could change your mind, LMGTFY {Let Me Google That For You}, but you can easily do so if you want. You could have done so before this discussion, or during it.
Side note: I do not know about all states, but in mine if you are working on a 4 year degree you are disqualified from receiving help maintaining your household from the state. I know that for a been there, done that fact. Because your full class load keeps you from looking for full time work - so you are not eligible for aid. How is that for irony? Again, the result of policy makers having no contact with reality.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Help for ALL Surviving Domestic Abuse
Republicans Back out of Domestic Violence Help
All they had to do was renew the damn bill.
In a discussion online about this article it was mentioned that undocumented working women that were being abused would be "rewarded" by the proposed changes. I got really angry and responded:
... REWARDED?!? REALLY? What kind of "reward" is it when you have to get your ass jacked, sometimes for years, before you can get it? And lawbreakers?!? Give me a goddamn break! We have protections in place for mass murderers on DEATH ROW but some lady that came here for a better life and can't navigate the multi thousand dollar convoluted piece of shit we call an immigration system is fair game?!? Holy hell!
So then I took a deep, cleansing breath while waiting on a reply. I am not posting the other side of the conversation here because it was casual and there was no shared understanding at the time that I might extrapolate on my responses for my blog.
Okay. Human rights are not contingent on being a citizen. Full stop. And there is nothing about DV/DA help that actually makes one a citizen. So no crime is "washed away." Offering a minuscule number of undocumented women visas only gives them a bit of temporary help, moving one issue out of the current stressors while one works ones way out of the living hell that is domestic abuse and/or violence. It will not make these women citizens, not by a long shot, and to argue that it is a reward of any kind is disingenuous at best, and out and out lying manipulation at worst.
I am so fucking tired of people acting like a accident of birth that put them within the fabricated and stolen USian boarders some how makes them special or better than other people. Or that other human beings are some how less human or their suffering is less important because their moment of birth put them (usually, in these arguments) south of an artificial line made of murder and theft. The fact that we are having these "rights of birth" arguments in a country founded on the idea that birth status does not make one better or worse than any other person is disgusting.
My point above, about mass murderers, is not to say the people in our prison system should not be protected from the tyranny of the system or their peers. They should be subjected to the cruelty of their sentences but not a jot more. My point was to juxtapose one "law breaker" with another, highlighting the differences in protection each receive. One has been convicted of taking lives, the other committed, or their parents committed, a crime of geography.
But there is nothing in our laws that makes one birth better than another, something that seems to be missing in every one of these arguments I have seen. If your main focus regarding help for the survivors of domestic violence is illegal immigration, I have not no help for you. I believe that this serves as an illustration of exactly how much some people are being distracted from the issues at hand. All people surviving domestic abuse, assault, and violence deserve help. No one deserves to live in fear: man, woman, child, citizen, non-citizen, cis or trans, disabled or TAB. This is about human rights, and and what we do about it will show who we are as a country.
All they had to do was renew the damn bill.
In a discussion online about this article it was mentioned that undocumented working women that were being abused would be "rewarded" by the proposed changes. I got really angry and responded:
... REWARDED?!? REALLY? What kind of "reward" is it when you have to get your ass jacked, sometimes for years, before you can get it? And lawbreakers?!? Give me a goddamn break! We have protections in place for mass murderers on DEATH ROW but some lady that came here for a better life and can't navigate the multi thousand dollar convoluted piece of shit we call an immigration system is fair game?!? Holy hell!
So then I took a deep, cleansing breath while waiting on a reply. I am not posting the other side of the conversation here because it was casual and there was no shared understanding at the time that I might extrapolate on my responses for my blog.
Okay. Human rights are not contingent on being a citizen. Full stop. And there is nothing about DV/DA help that actually makes one a citizen. So no crime is "washed away." Offering a minuscule number of undocumented women visas only gives them a bit of temporary help, moving one issue out of the current stressors while one works ones way out of the living hell that is domestic abuse and/or violence. It will not make these women citizens, not by a long shot, and to argue that it is a reward of any kind is disingenuous at best, and out and out lying manipulation at worst.
I am so fucking tired of people acting like a accident of birth that put them within the fabricated and stolen USian boarders some how makes them special or better than other people. Or that other human beings are some how less human or their suffering is less important because their moment of birth put them (usually, in these arguments) south of an artificial line made of murder and theft. The fact that we are having these "rights of birth" arguments in a country founded on the idea that birth status does not make one better or worse than any other person is disgusting.
My point above, about mass murderers, is not to say the people in our prison system should not be protected from the tyranny of the system or their peers. They should be subjected to the cruelty of their sentences but not a jot more. My point was to juxtapose one "law breaker" with another, highlighting the differences in protection each receive. One has been convicted of taking lives, the other committed, or their parents committed, a crime of geography.
But there is nothing in our laws that makes one birth better than another, something that seems to be missing in every one of these arguments I have seen. If your main focus regarding help for the survivors of domestic violence is illegal immigration, I have not no help for you. I believe that this serves as an illustration of exactly how much some people are being distracted from the issues at hand. All people surviving domestic abuse, assault, and violence deserve help. No one deserves to live in fear: man, woman, child, citizen, non-citizen, cis or trans, disabled or TAB. This is about human rights, and and what we do about it will show who we are as a country.
Monday, July 18, 2011
SmartAss Politics, I Have Them: Fathood
As I was writing about my politics as one piece, I noticed that it grew pretty big very quickly. I am breaking it down into parts, which will hopefully be less irritating, and allow me to explore each piece a little more coherently. I started writing about the politics of fathood a while ago, in response to someone being Wrong on the Internet. The timing of that incident has long past, but my views are still the same. So, come, and share them with me!
Wall of Text version: I am a big liberal, you may want to get used to it. I hold the lofty belief that the world would be a better place if we could all be the people we want to be (without causing harm to another, or hindering their ability to do the same), as determined by our own ideals. I also believe that a representative government has a duty to make sure that we all have the opportunity – an equal opportunity – to do so. While I am talking about my beliefs, I want to include that government should maintain a social safety net for those neglected, ignored, and/or abused by that society.
I believe in the use of the word “fat” as a value-neutral term.That is easy for me to say because I am not considered fat. I have been fat - or at least reacted to in a manner that suggested the other person thought I was fat. I have considered myself fat (hello there, body image issues, how have you been?). I have never been called fat by anyone since I left my parents home. As an adult, I have weighted from 105 to 175 pounds at different points in my life. I am personally uncomfortable using the term fat because I do not believe that the use of it as a value-neutral term is wide-spread enough for me to assume that it is being heard in a value-neutral way. Do you find yourself asking WTF is this “value-neutral?!?” I say this: fat is a descriptor, like brunette, tall, or tan; rather than a judgment indicating lazy, gluttonous, jolly, etc… And while that is what I mean when I say “fat” I shy away from using the term at all for fear it read as a judgment even though such is not my intent.
Here is an interesting article: New York Time: Body Mass Index Can Be Misleading.
I believe that the BMI can tell you that you are obese, and yet your cholesterol, blood pressure, and heart health may indeed be fine. I mean that you can be heavy and healthy at the same time. I know for a fact that your BMI can be “ideal” and you can be an internal mess – that is where I find myself lately. So my “The BMI does not indicate health” stance does go both ways. Any meaningful use of the BMI must take into consideration the origins and original purpose of it, along with its inherent flaws.
I know I am going to fuck up being a good ally on occasion. I hope it is a rare one. Not only is it the right thing to do, but this issue challenges a lot of people that I care about deeply.
Now, articles agitate folks every so often, and I do not want to get into that one way or the other but I am glad that the discussions happen. I lay clam to being fat accepting, but there are people you should be reading if you want to really get to know what that means. The Fat Nutritionist is a good start.
First, Do No Harm is a place where people can go to talk about fat-phobia they are subject to from medical professionals. I have seen this in action. I have watched my husband’s knee and back concerns blown off by tying them to his weight (he had bulging disks, and a torn meniscus/missing cartilage in a knee).
Now, of course there are intersections between disability and size-acceptance, and s.e. smith talks about that really well here.I love s.e. smith, as you all will probably figure out sooner or later.
I am sure this topic will come up again in the future, but this looks like a good start.
Do you have a Health at Every Size or fat acceptance link or story? Share it below!
Wall of Text version: I am a big liberal, you may want to get used to it. I hold the lofty belief that the world would be a better place if we could all be the people we want to be (without causing harm to another, or hindering their ability to do the same), as determined by our own ideals. I also believe that a representative government has a duty to make sure that we all have the opportunity – an equal opportunity – to do so. While I am talking about my beliefs, I want to include that government should maintain a social safety net for those neglected, ignored, and/or abused by that society.
I believe in the use of the word “fat” as a value-neutral term.That is easy for me to say because I am not considered fat. I have been fat - or at least reacted to in a manner that suggested the other person thought I was fat. I have considered myself fat (hello there, body image issues, how have you been?). I have never been called fat by anyone since I left my parents home. As an adult, I have weighted from 105 to 175 pounds at different points in my life. I am personally uncomfortable using the term fat because I do not believe that the use of it as a value-neutral term is wide-spread enough for me to assume that it is being heard in a value-neutral way. Do you find yourself asking WTF is this “value-neutral?!?” I say this: fat is a descriptor, like brunette, tall, or tan; rather than a judgment indicating lazy, gluttonous, jolly, etc… And while that is what I mean when I say “fat” I shy away from using the term at all for fear it read as a judgment even though such is not my intent.
Here is an interesting article: New York Time: Body Mass Index Can Be Misleading.
I believe that the BMI can tell you that you are obese, and yet your cholesterol, blood pressure, and heart health may indeed be fine. I mean that you can be heavy and healthy at the same time. I know for a fact that your BMI can be “ideal” and you can be an internal mess – that is where I find myself lately. So my “The BMI does not indicate health” stance does go both ways. Any meaningful use of the BMI must take into consideration the origins and original purpose of it, along with its inherent flaws.
I know I am going to fuck up being a good ally on occasion. I hope it is a rare one. Not only is it the right thing to do, but this issue challenges a lot of people that I care about deeply.
Now, articles agitate folks every so often, and I do not want to get into that one way or the other but I am glad that the discussions happen. I lay clam to being fat accepting, but there are people you should be reading if you want to really get to know what that means. The Fat Nutritionist is a good start.
First, Do No Harm is a place where people can go to talk about fat-phobia they are subject to from medical professionals. I have seen this in action. I have watched my husband’s knee and back concerns blown off by tying them to his weight (he had bulging disks, and a torn meniscus/missing cartilage in a knee).
Now, of course there are intersections between disability and size-acceptance, and s.e. smith talks about that really well here.I love s.e. smith, as you all will probably figure out sooner or later.
I am sure this topic will come up again in the future, but this looks like a good start.
Do you have a Health at Every Size or fat acceptance link or story? Share it below!
Friday, June 17, 2011
SmartAss Recommended Reading (Part One)
When I was writing this post, I talked about some of the web sites I visit. I thought it would be good to share with you some more of the folks that I let into my brain pan whenever I have adequate ability to absorb information (sometimes solid, sometimes that ability can elude me). Here, in no particular order, are more works I enjoy, find edifying, or within find fellowship – you may want to seek them out too!
Warning: the below links contain rational thought and a penchant for social justice. You will be exposed to people of all genders, many races, and many schools of thought if you click on the below links.
Gratuitous warning for all SmartAss Recommended Reading: including a link below does not mean I endorse every piece on each web site. You know that, but I wanted to spell it out. I know that some blogs have done some questionable things – some have risen above, learned and grown; some, maybe not so much. That is what it means to be a whole person – to learn and grow and be better. But even then, I read the things that strike me as right-minded and take the few mistakes as object lessons.
Womanist Musings
Shakesville
Tiger Beatdown
This Ain’t Living
Red Vinyl Shoes
Yes Means Yes
Wheelchair Dancer
Flip Flopping Joy
Geek Feminism
The Angry Black Woman
Disability Voices
Warning: the below links contain rational thought and a penchant for social justice. You will be exposed to people of all genders, many races, and many schools of thought if you click on the below links.
Gratuitous warning for all SmartAss Recommended Reading: including a link below does not mean I endorse every piece on each web site. You know that, but I wanted to spell it out. I know that some blogs have done some questionable things – some have risen above, learned and grown; some, maybe not so much. That is what it means to be a whole person – to learn and grow and be better. But even then, I read the things that strike me as right-minded and take the few mistakes as object lessons.
Womanist Musings
Shakesville
Tiger Beatdown
This Ain’t Living
Red Vinyl Shoes
Yes Means Yes
Wheelchair Dancer
Flip Flopping Joy
Geek Feminism
The Angry Black Woman
Disability Voices
And of course, SexGenderBody, with a fantastic blogroll I am happy to join.
I enjoy a lot of reading, when my brain will let me.
Leave your own great reads or your own great writings in the comments section!
I enjoy a lot of reading, when my brain will let me.
Leave your own great reads or your own great writings in the comments section!
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
SmartAss Commentary: Liberal Crip Goes to the Gun Show
The Indy 1500 has a terrible web page – there is very little you can do there but find out the dates of upcoming shows, sign up for a mailing list and $1 off $10 admission, and see some photos of previous shows. However, it is a decent show as far as I can tell. I had a decent time there. I want to talk about my own gun history, some of the social issues at the gun show, and the accessibility for people with disabilities.
I should probably spell a few things out here before we get started. I am a Second Amendment liberal. I believe in both state protection via police and sheriff departments and self defense. I find the arguments about the intent of the Second Amendment to be more semantic than practical. When the Bill of Rights was created, the gun was simply a tool of survival in early American culture, as in many others. Small, unfunded local defense militias depended on each member to have their own arms. They did, both for hunting and defense. So I find that if a person has a solid answer to the separation of militia and culture – that answer may well be their opinion on the matter rather than a historical fact.
I grew up around gun folks. My mom’s first husband (my adoptive dad or ADad*), her father and several of her brothers all served in the military. The first gun stories I heard were from ADad as he explained the AK scar he acquired in Vietnam. He was shot in the shoulder by a [enemy combatant – I will not use the word he used] and he returned fire, killing the man. My mother was very anti-gun. My grandfather and multiple uncles were enlisted military men. My husband was a military kid, and very comfortable with guns. My boyfriend grew up in a rural social network that was also very easy with firearms – his father was a police officer and is now a correctional officer.
I am intimidated by guns. I am also proficient in their use. I am not a pleasure shooter – you know, the folks that can relax by going to the range for an hour. I cannot get away from their purpose. When aiming at a target, all that is on my mind is why I would be doing this for real – to end the life of another living being. The moral weight and sadness of that is always on my mind if a gun is around. There is no pleasure for me in being able to put six forty-four caliber bullets in a three inch diameter circle. I can, and do, shoot very well. I hope to never actually need to do so. I do have fun with AirSoft weapons, though – they shoot soft BB-type ammunition powered by gas or springs or batteries.
Now that you know some of my gun history, time for the gun show! (Do I kiss my wimpy biceps here? Probably not…)
Admission was $10, you received a $1 off coupon if you were on their mailing list. Security appeared heavy, but was actually very light. Police were all over the place, as security and patrons. Loaded weapons were not permitted, although we were simply asked if we had any. D had a pistol that needed the sights repaired, and he was directed by the ticket takers to a booth where his pistol was strategically fitted with plastic zip strips to prevent it from being useable. If a patron was found to be carrying a firearm without this treatment, the penalty was immediate ejection from the premises.
Recording devices were not allowed. Although that made writing this piece much more difficult, I followed the rule. Honestly, other than catching someone in the act and ejecting them, there seemed to be no other way of enforcing that rule in this day and age of cell phone cameras, PDAs, and micro cameras.
The building itself (a part of the Indiana State Fairgrounds) was perfectly accessible. Accessibility issues included florescent lights, no scent policy, lots of random noise (no, no gunfire, except on the soundtracks of some videos being shown), and no quiet areas. While some of the table-made aisles are more narrow than others they are still passable in my manual wheelchair… except when some jerk vendor decided they need to set out yet more product, and pushed out over the ends of their tables, or shoved their long gun cases 6-12 inches out into the walk way, or put up spinning displays that eat half of the available aisle space. Arg!
I should probably spell a few things out here before we get started. I am a Second Amendment liberal. I believe in both state protection via police and sheriff departments and self defense. I find the arguments about the intent of the Second Amendment to be more semantic than practical. When the Bill of Rights was created, the gun was simply a tool of survival in early American culture, as in many others. Small, unfunded local defense militias depended on each member to have their own arms. They did, both for hunting and defense. So I find that if a person has a solid answer to the separation of militia and culture – that answer may well be their opinion on the matter rather than a historical fact.
I grew up around gun folks. My mom’s first husband (my adoptive dad or ADad*), her father and several of her brothers all served in the military. The first gun stories I heard were from ADad as he explained the AK scar he acquired in Vietnam. He was shot in the shoulder by a [enemy combatant – I will not use the word he used] and he returned fire, killing the man. My mother was very anti-gun. My grandfather and multiple uncles were enlisted military men. My husband was a military kid, and very comfortable with guns. My boyfriend grew up in a rural social network that was also very easy with firearms – his father was a police officer and is now a correctional officer.
I am intimidated by guns. I am also proficient in their use. I am not a pleasure shooter – you know, the folks that can relax by going to the range for an hour. I cannot get away from their purpose. When aiming at a target, all that is on my mind is why I would be doing this for real – to end the life of another living being. The moral weight and sadness of that is always on my mind if a gun is around. There is no pleasure for me in being able to put six forty-four caliber bullets in a three inch diameter circle. I can, and do, shoot very well. I hope to never actually need to do so. I do have fun with AirSoft weapons, though – they shoot soft BB-type ammunition powered by gas or springs or batteries.
Now that you know some of my gun history, time for the gun show! (Do I kiss my wimpy biceps here? Probably not…)
Admission was $10, you received a $1 off coupon if you were on their mailing list. Security appeared heavy, but was actually very light. Police were all over the place, as security and patrons. Loaded weapons were not permitted, although we were simply asked if we had any. D had a pistol that needed the sights repaired, and he was directed by the ticket takers to a booth where his pistol was strategically fitted with plastic zip strips to prevent it from being useable. If a patron was found to be carrying a firearm without this treatment, the penalty was immediate ejection from the premises.
Recording devices were not allowed. Although that made writing this piece much more difficult, I followed the rule. Honestly, other than catching someone in the act and ejecting them, there seemed to be no other way of enforcing that rule in this day and age of cell phone cameras, PDAs, and micro cameras.
The building itself (a part of the Indiana State Fairgrounds) was perfectly accessible. Accessibility issues included florescent lights, no scent policy, lots of random noise (no, no gunfire, except on the soundtracks of some videos being shown), and no quiet areas. While some of the table-made aisles are more narrow than others they are still passable in my manual wheelchair… except when some jerk vendor decided they need to set out yet more product, and pushed out over the ends of their tables, or shoved their long gun cases 6-12 inches out into the walk way, or put up spinning displays that eat half of the available aisle space. Arg!
TL;DR: the building and the planning covered some accessibility basics, but some of the vendors were terrible about it!
There were several areas where one could buy snacks and drinks. Two were permanent booths, and one was more of an open café - larger with displays and seating.
Not every person at the gun show is straight off of People of WalMart. Most folks are dressed in casual middle class or rural attire. The clear majority of attendants were white males. Attendants that appeared to be African American or women were not the majority, but were numerous enough to not be surprising - which may surprise some of you. Obviously disabled folks like me were numerous in chairs or scooters, and there were a comforting amount of cane-users. A lot of families were in attendance. The vendors were overwhelmingly male, around middle-aged and white.
I have never been to a gun show that did not have some vendors peddling hate. I have spent entire gun shows feeling like I would get shot if I talked about my politics. I was really surprised at the small amount of hate on sale at this gun show. While one pro Nazi booth is too many, there was only one at the show. I saw maybe three booths with small collections of Nazi memorabilia. I sat and stared at the Nazi booth for a while, dumbfounded. This booth was shoved into a corner where it was easily avoided, we almost missed it. They had mouse pads, t-shirts, bumper stickers, jewelry and accessories.
There were several areas where one could buy snacks and drinks. Two were permanent booths, and one was more of an open café - larger with displays and seating.
Not every person at the gun show is straight off of People of WalMart. Most folks are dressed in casual middle class or rural attire. The clear majority of attendants were white males. Attendants that appeared to be African American or women were not the majority, but were numerous enough to not be surprising - which may surprise some of you. Obviously disabled folks like me were numerous in chairs or scooters, and there were a comforting amount of cane-users. A lot of families were in attendance. The vendors were overwhelmingly male, around middle-aged and white.
I have never been to a gun show that did not have some vendors peddling hate. I have spent entire gun shows feeling like I would get shot if I talked about my politics. I was really surprised at the small amount of hate on sale at this gun show. While one pro Nazi booth is too many, there was only one at the show. I saw maybe three booths with small collections of Nazi memorabilia. I sat and stared at the Nazi booth for a while, dumbfounded. This booth was shoved into a corner where it was easily avoided, we almost missed it. They had mouse pads, t-shirts, bumper stickers, jewelry and accessories.
There was a lot less First Nations appropriation than I expected from my previous experience. The generalized, white washed “Native American Aesthetic” is very popular among the survivalist, hunter, preparedness, and gun cultures. There was one booth that was using a dream catcher motif to raise money for disabled children to enjoy outdoor sports and experiences, I think.
Of course, there was a Tea Party presence, but far less than I had feared. One vendor had walls of vitriolic bumper stickers accusing President Obama of just about every thing you can imagine. Someone had passed around flyers I saw at several booths with showed a picture of the President and the First Lady saying “I’m with stupid.” There was one booth selling anti-UN pins, copies of the national and state constitutions with wild interpretations of them. I have copies of them, and may write about those booklets specifically at some point.
You have not really thought this stance through, have you?
(Picture description: a small, round lapel pin or button showing the blue UN emblem, surrounded with a red circle and divided by a red line from upper right to lower left. The intended message is clearly "NO UN.")
As a liberal, all the hate, appropriation and ignorance made me feel threatened, angry, sad, and deeply uncomfortable. Parts of it were like walking back into the Bush administration, were disagreement was equated with treason and only violent, blind patriotism was an acceptable response to any slight at all. But it was much, much better than my previous experiences at gun shows. I do not think that some improvement is enough, to be sure. It does make me happy to see improvement though, and I want to encourage that improvement.
I did not patronize the hate-booths, and still felt fairly free to shop. I picked some targets for AirSoft practice, some great medical stuff (a brass mortar and pestle, glass bottles and tubes, and first aid supplies), two really well priced pieces of luggage, and some camping supplies. I did pick up some of the materials, including the more fantastic stuff to share with you. This included a flyer for an organization that is fighting for you to keep your right to .50 cartridges, an application for the Sons of Confederate Veterans (yes that is exactly what you think it is), the Indiana Citizens Volunteer Militia, advertisements for NRA courses and retreats, flyers for militaria shows, Indiana Gun Owners pamphlets, and material on the Oath Keepers…
*I have a total of three dads: my biological father, or BDad; my mother’s first husband who adopted me when I was five, ADad, and my mother’s second husband (now divorced), ExSDad (ex-step-dad). Also, my mother’s first husband remarried, so I also have a step-mom out there, SMom. Of the five, ExSDad and I have the best relationship, and he is the one I would call in an emergency.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Not a Junkie
Thank you to Blurbette and #TeamAfterParty for bringing this simmering topic back to a brain boil.
Days like today find me feeling like a junkie. At least, I think that other people may see it that way. See, the doctor that signs my pain prescription took a long vacation around the holiday, a vaction which happened to include the day my Rx needed to be filled. So, I was, of course, left waiting. I have only rarely experienced any sense of urgency from medical professionals regarding pain treatment.
After years of fighting and enduring, I did finally get my health pros to take my pain seriously. My GP/gateway provider was particularly hesitant. He did decide (eventually!) that my pain is indeed real, and I am not seeking to sell my pills on the street. Even so, my ability to live my day to day life with at least some freedom of pain is not, and has never been, a priority for anyone with a sheepskin.
The difference between opiate dependence and opiate addiction is not obvious to the casual observer. One of the reasons I hate being called an addict is that addiction is a whole different experience, and I do not want to appropriate that experience set as my own when my addictions are mild: caffeine and nicotine.
I am dependent. This means that I require opiates to modulate my pain (it is long past being negated through most anything) and get through even a vaguely normal day. I acquire them through completely legal means, and there has never been any solid inquiry regarding my integrity. By “no solid inquiry” I, of course, mean other than the default suspicion that accompanies using opiates in the first place!
I take a very strong opiate, and still I do not have pain free days.
People dependant on opiates go through withdraw just like addicts do. The difference between dependent and addicted is not a physical one, in my experience, but a moral one. Unless you are willing to break the law and either buy off the street, or doctor shop, or whatever – there is nothing you can do but wait for the duly appointed authority figure in the matter to get off their DAMN ASS and take care of business.
It is not as if I am the one that insists that I need opiates to control my pain. I tried, both through my own suggestion, the suggestions of friends and strangers, and my DEA worried docs’ suggestions just about every non-opiate pain killer out there. I have also, a very few times, drunk myself into a stupor as a last resort escape from consciousness, if not pain. My liver is still not happy about any of that. To be honest, if killing a chicken in the light of the full moon could relieve my pain, I would probably do it. Nothing works but opiates, and I had a truckload of Nancy Reagan to get out of my damn head before I could even begin to be okay with that.
Extreme, unrelenting pain is insane making. No, I am not taking a poke at folks that qualify as insane – I mean that extreme pain can cause symptoms similar to several diagnosable mental illnesses. Pain can lead to shortness of temper, irritability, paranoia, loss of cognitive function, loss of memory, compulsive behavior, self-harm (in my opinion, this is an attempt to set off the CNS’s pain gate function), loss of physical ability, and unpredictable bouts of extreme anger, frustration, guilt, morose, ennui, and pissed-off-ness. Yeah, ahh, those would be, you know, industry terms…
As I write this, I am coming up on missing my first dose. Within a day after that, if it goes that far, I will have extra super flu-like symptoms (lupus is kind of like having the flu all the time anyway), I will hate the whole damn world, and my vocabulary with mainly consist of the kind of language people use when they tell the Aristocrats joke. It is all I can do right now to try to accomplish all the things that will need to be done for a little while in case I need to retreat to my bed, curl up under a blanket I will then play Too Hot Too Cold with, and spit random curses at the world.
There are a lot of side effects I experience that I am not, and will probably not go into here or with much of anyone that does not need to know. And my experience with this may not the same as anyone else’s, let alone everyone else’s.
Oh, and every six months I have to go though a “Do you still really need these pills?” appointment. Look, if I was all better one of the first things I would do is call all the docs that have been humane, recognized my humanity and sing their praises; then call the other docs and describe, in loud detail, what anatomically impossible feats I would like them to perform for me.
***
As of today, the day I post this, everything is fine. If you were kind enough to have a thought about my well being… well, first, bless you heart! Caring about people on the internet! You are an exemplary human being, Gentle Reader. Second, I am okay. This article was written early, in order to make sure I had something to post even if my doc did not get back to me in time to take away my short term ticket to hell. My doc was still gone, but my old doc is in the same office, was in attendance, and she did come through. So I am okay, and no more likely to explode at anyone than I am on any other regular.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
To Violently Induce Empathy
I originally wrote this in May, 2010, when I felt particularly injured by people in my life that just were not getting it. I think that acknowledging when I feel like a bitter, embattled bad crip is important. While I was busy drawing analogies, I lost site of how violent this post really is, so you have been warned.
Originally posted elsewhere on May 7, 2010
Originally posted elsewhere on May 7, 2010
I needed to get this out of my head.
Some days I am almost fine. I get up early, I get stuff done, maybe I go out, and maybe I fuck. These days are rare.
Some days I am incapable of almost anything. I stay in bed, or turn the couch into my bed, and veg out to news so I do not feel totally disconnected from everything. I do not fuck with anything on these days, nor do I appreciate getting fucked with by anyone. I can barely move, I can barely read, I have almost no recall and can barely follow a conversation. If I am actually trying to do something while like this, then I place a great amount of importance on whatever that may be, and even then I will probably screw it up.
Most days I am somewhere in-between and either blow all my spoons far too early, or end up doing very little "in case" I need my spoons later that day.
Only if I place a great deal of trust in you will I tell you what kind of day today is when you ask "How are you?” I am so tired of being shut down by people that ask how I am but do not really give a damn.
I "pass" most of the time. People do not know I am disabled unless I tell them. Yes, even with the cane -- this is weird to me. So when I go out with the wheelchair it is almost always a gimp circus. People think that since I do not look disabled (whatever the hell that is supposed to mean!), that I must be faking or something. Fates forbid I actually stand up out of my chair for any reason.
I am tired of being a "good cripple."
Don't touch my wheelchair without gaining my permission first. Do not imply it must be nice to "sit around" everywhere. Yes, I can make those jokes, and you can laugh when I do if you want to laugh. Do not explain to me how good I have it, or how bad you feel for me. Just like I do not get to appropriate the experiences of a person with Autism, you do not get to appropriate mine with lupus/SLE and chronic pain (and SI joint dysfunction, and compressed disks, and non-specific brain damage, and...). Do not lecture me about my behavior, my drugs, or my coping mechanisms. Do not excuse places that are not accessible to me, or accessible to the people that society has labeled the same as me.
Do not "congratulate" me when I am not in the chair. I know you mean well, but just stop it. I may be having a good day, or I may be someplace that simply would not accommodate what I actually need that day.
Do not tell me you know "how I feel" unless you really want to. While there would be no complete equivalent, I could give it my best effort...
I cannot fuck with your genes to make your body attack itself, but I can take a baseball bat to your chest, your lower spine, your SI joint. If it is a rainy day or the weather fronts are changing, I will just wail on every joint you have from your knuckles to your toes to your spine. I will wrap your head in batting so tight that the very thought of light in your eyes will make you cry. I will stuff your ears so that you can barely hear, and cannot make sense of the things you do hear -- only later to remove it all and subject you to such noise that you long for the stuffing. I will knock your legs out from under you when you try to walk, move everything so that it is just out of reach, and recite long numbers as you try to remember your address or someone's birthday or phone number.
I will alienate your friends and family, canceling important events without notice or apparent cause. If they will not come see you, then fuck them because that is the only way you will socialize most of the time. I will make you doubt yourself, the people around you, your ability to do or think a damn thing, and then make you feel bad for being angry about your situation. I may let you go out every once in a while, but I will fill that time with so much fear, doubt, and shame that you will wish you stayed home. Your doctors will become your only major contacts outside of your home, and even then I will not always let you go -- and only the really good ones will even listen to you, let alone believe you.
Whatever heaven you believe in help you if you dare shut me down and try to pretend everything is okay. I do not get to do that, so neither do you.
Most folks that will actually read this never have to worry about any of it. You are kind folks that express sympathy without pity, and accommodate without fanfare -- and as you can probably see, that means a lot to me. This just would not leave my head and I needed to rant.
I will alienate your friends and family, canceling important events without notice or apparent cause. If they will not come see you, then fuck them because that is the only way you will socialize most of the time. I will make you doubt yourself, the people around you, your ability to do or think a damn thing, and then make you feel bad for being angry about your situation. I may let you go out every once in a while, but I will fill that time with so much fear, doubt, and shame that you will wish you stayed home. Your doctors will become your only major contacts outside of your home, and even then I will not always let you go -- and only the really good ones will even listen to you, let alone believe you.
Whatever heaven you believe in help you if you dare shut me down and try to pretend everything is okay. I do not get to do that, so neither do you.
Most folks that will actually read this never have to worry about any of it. You are kind folks that express sympathy without pity, and accommodate without fanfare -- and as you can probably see, that means a lot to me. This just would not leave my head and I needed to rant.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Slurs Are Slurs But Are Not Other Slurs
So, Glee is doing things again – or so I thought. Sigh. I have not talked about Glee here because I do not watch it. Yes, I am aware of it as a subcultural phenomenon. That fact actually upsets me somewhat – I find their treatment of the issues of people of disabilities to be atrocious and disgusting. I know stupid, hateful people I can hang out around if I want to feel that way, thank you very much. So no Glee here, outside of watching clips to share solidarity with the people that are hurt when they watch it.
On Twitter I saw that Elon James White had tweeted about an article describing Glee’s latest screw up.
I completely agree that these slurs are not equal.
Now normally I am in the first wave of people to jump on Glee’s ass and point and laugh at the hole. This is not Glee’s project, though, it is the R-word’s project, part of the foundation that supports the Special Olympics, so I took a breath, went to their site, combed through it, and thought about it some more…
My brain pan, let me open it for you.
First, I think that both the creators of the clip and some of the people decrying it seem to be ignoring all of the intersections at play. There are people with intellectual disabilities or neuroatypical lesbians, gays, Germans, Latina/Latinos, and blacks; I want to acknowledge that here.
Second, I went through their available content, and I think their point is poorly made but valid. The point is not a moral equivalency, but a resultant equivalency, I think. I believe that what they wanted to do was show people that may not otherwise consider it that this slur also delivers that sick, just punched in the gut feeling. That this word instantly conjures up a history of discrimination and oppressive so odious that even now people refuse to acknowledge that it even exists... if they even know about it in the first place.
Third, it is hard not to feel alienated by the line of reasoning used by some critics. Apparently, some folk feel that “retarded”, and likely also “lame,” “gimp,” “crip,” etc., are just not “as bad.” This is exactly the same wrong reasoning the commercial itself uses! The fact that there is no moral equivalency works both ways – it is hate speech. It hurts. That purpose is to wound. Do not try to feed me that “Oh, but I don’t mean it that way!” bullshit – if it was not meant negatively, you would not be using it to describe something you view negatively, okay? Okay.
For those of you thinking that “retard” and “retarded” simply do not have the same impact because they lack history, you are mistaken. Retard is a word that went from a specific diagnosis to slur in our most recent century – but discrimination against folks with mental disabilities has a long and sordid history. This is just one of the more recent slang insults used in conjunction with a fear and hatred that is so old and so widespread that the origins of it may never be found (the above link sites the first technical writing about it to 5 B.C.E.).
(I am not even going into all the bullshite that still happens today to people with disabilities: the discrimination, the forced treatment, the "good cripple" and super-crip memetic weapons, the "mercy" killings, the astonishing rape, abuse and murder statistics, "angel babies," and so on and so on... The fact that this is still mostly invisible disgusts me.)
People perceived as being outside of some generally accepted social norm of mental capacity and thought have been discriminated against forever – tactics have extended to banishment, forced sterilization, torture, and even death. And until fairly recently (historically speaking) other “trouble makers” such as homosexuals, uppity women, and political minorities (to name but a few) have been labeled mentally incompetent in order to silence and discredit them while also subjecting them to the same treatment.
Forth: remember what you learned about the Holocaust? Do you remember learning about the six million Jews, a terrible atrocity that should have never been allowed to happen, right? Right. But you should have also been told that the grand total of people slaughtered was closer to ELEVEN TO SEVENTEEN MILLION. I am not even going into the military and civilian deaths caused by the war itself; just about purposeful exterminations at this moment. All those other people included, but are not limited to the following: homosexuals, political dissidents, other religious dissidents, Romani, and… people with disabilities! It is a sorrowful thing to see all of those people forgotten almost every time the Holocaust is mentioned. I will never, ever degrade the suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust – I want people to remember that they were not alone.
Are disability slurs the same as racial slurs? No.
Are sexual orientation slurs the same as disability slurs? No.
Each slur is unique, designed to hurt one specific group of people in specific ways - to justify atrocious treatment with little to no guilt on the part of the abuser.
Do they all carry long, dark histories of discrimination, oppression, and murder? Do they all carry the inherent intent to dehumanize, to "other", to separate?
Yes.
They are all wrong.
Thank you for sticking with me through this piece, I appreciate it. Please do not see my limited linking above as a indicator of sparse information - there is plenty out there if you make even a basic effort to look for it. I am just out of spoons...
On Twitter I saw that Elon James White had tweeted about an article describing Glee’s latest screw up.
I completely agree that these slurs are not equal.
Now normally I am in the first wave of people to jump on Glee’s ass and point and laugh at the hole. This is not Glee’s project, though, it is the R-word’s project, part of the foundation that supports the Special Olympics, so I took a breath, went to their site, combed through it, and thought about it some more…
My brain pan, let me open it for you.
First, I think that both the creators of the clip and some of the people decrying it seem to be ignoring all of the intersections at play. There are people with intellectual disabilities or neuroatypical lesbians, gays, Germans, Latina/Latinos, and blacks; I want to acknowledge that here.
Second, I went through their available content, and I think their point is poorly made but valid. The point is not a moral equivalency, but a resultant equivalency, I think. I believe that what they wanted to do was show people that may not otherwise consider it that this slur also delivers that sick, just punched in the gut feeling. That this word instantly conjures up a history of discrimination and oppressive so odious that even now people refuse to acknowledge that it even exists... if they even know about it in the first place.
Third, it is hard not to feel alienated by the line of reasoning used by some critics. Apparently, some folk feel that “retarded”, and likely also “lame,” “gimp,” “crip,” etc., are just not “as bad.” This is exactly the same wrong reasoning the commercial itself uses! The fact that there is no moral equivalency works both ways – it is hate speech. It hurts. That purpose is to wound. Do not try to feed me that “Oh, but I don’t mean it that way!” bullshit – if it was not meant negatively, you would not be using it to describe something you view negatively, okay? Okay.
For those of you thinking that “retard” and “retarded” simply do not have the same impact because they lack history, you are mistaken. Retard is a word that went from a specific diagnosis to slur in our most recent century – but discrimination against folks with mental disabilities has a long and sordid history. This is just one of the more recent slang insults used in conjunction with a fear and hatred that is so old and so widespread that the origins of it may never be found (the above link sites the first technical writing about it to 5 B.C.E.).
(I am not even going into all the bullshite that still happens today to people with disabilities: the discrimination, the forced treatment, the "good cripple" and super-crip memetic weapons, the "mercy" killings, the astonishing rape, abuse and murder statistics, "angel babies," and so on and so on... The fact that this is still mostly invisible disgusts me.)
People perceived as being outside of some generally accepted social norm of mental capacity and thought have been discriminated against forever – tactics have extended to banishment, forced sterilization, torture, and even death. And until fairly recently (historically speaking) other “trouble makers” such as homosexuals, uppity women, and political minorities (to name but a few) have been labeled mentally incompetent in order to silence and discredit them while also subjecting them to the same treatment.
Forth: remember what you learned about the Holocaust? Do you remember learning about the six million Jews, a terrible atrocity that should have never been allowed to happen, right? Right. But you should have also been told that the grand total of people slaughtered was closer to ELEVEN TO SEVENTEEN MILLION. I am not even going into the military and civilian deaths caused by the war itself; just about purposeful exterminations at this moment. All those other people included, but are not limited to the following: homosexuals, political dissidents, other religious dissidents, Romani, and… people with disabilities! It is a sorrowful thing to see all of those people forgotten almost every time the Holocaust is mentioned. I will never, ever degrade the suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust – I want people to remember that they were not alone.
Are disability slurs the same as racial slurs? No.
Are sexual orientation slurs the same as disability slurs? No.
Each slur is unique, designed to hurt one specific group of people in specific ways - to justify atrocious treatment with little to no guilt on the part of the abuser.
Do they all carry long, dark histories of discrimination, oppression, and murder? Do they all carry the inherent intent to dehumanize, to "other", to separate?
Yes.
They are all wrong.
Thank you for sticking with me through this piece, I appreciate it. Please do not see my limited linking above as a indicator of sparse information - there is plenty out there if you make even a basic effort to look for it. I am just out of spoons...
Thursday, May 26, 2011
On Race (with Fabulous Web Sites!)
First things first – I am white. I am super white. You can see blood vessels right through my sometimes nearly-translucent skin. Yes, sometimes I look like Rand McNally took LSD and decided to get into body painting. I am a shade of white sometimes referred to lovingly as “fish-belly white.”
I am anti-racist.
I am also a recovering racist.
Now, I did not have any of that extra-stupid obvious racism. I was not raised that way, contrary to numerous efforts by my mother’s first husband. (To be honest, I think a lot of that was just to get a rise out of me. That does not change the fact that even being in a position to decide to use racism ironically is okay – it is a glaring sign of privilege.) I had relatives that I almost never saw because they tried to take my toddler self down to our town’s courthouse to attend a Klan meeting – and my mother was completely not okay with that. So I only saw them at family reunions, where they would do things like pass around stickers with an “obviously” African American silhouette enclosed by a circle with a line across it. Yes, some of them are the caricatures of human beings you think of when you think of the classic racist.
So, instead, I grew up virulently anti-racist instead. I can be contrary like that.
So, to even think of myself as a racist means thinking of me as one of those people. That is really, really uncomfortable. When I say I am a recovering racist I mean that I am always looking for and fighting those subtle (to a white person), pervasive pieces of meme that are always ready to steal and keep brain space. You know, the things you can think and still not actually consider yourself a racist: that positive stereotypes are okay, that if no one of a particular group is around then it is okay to smack talk them, that you “don’t see color,” that you got where-ever you are on effort and merit alone, that perhaps “previously” oppressed folks should just get over it and live in the supposed meritocracy of the now, that some people are now unfairly advantaged over white people, that now a days it is all about class (denying racism rather than acknowledging the intersections). I am always fighting the idea that white people are somehow the default, standard human being. This is amazingly present once you notice it, white folks.
I am anti-racist.
I am also a recovering racist.
Now, I did not have any of that extra-stupid obvious racism. I was not raised that way, contrary to numerous efforts by my mother’s first husband. (To be honest, I think a lot of that was just to get a rise out of me. That does not change the fact that even being in a position to decide to use racism ironically is okay – it is a glaring sign of privilege.) I had relatives that I almost never saw because they tried to take my toddler self down to our town’s courthouse to attend a Klan meeting – and my mother was completely not okay with that. So I only saw them at family reunions, where they would do things like pass around stickers with an “obviously” African American silhouette enclosed by a circle with a line across it. Yes, some of them are the caricatures of human beings you think of when you think of the classic racist.
So, instead, I grew up virulently anti-racist instead. I can be contrary like that.
So, to even think of myself as a racist means thinking of me as one of those people. That is really, really uncomfortable. When I say I am a recovering racist I mean that I am always looking for and fighting those subtle (to a white person), pervasive pieces of meme that are always ready to steal and keep brain space. You know, the things you can think and still not actually consider yourself a racist: that positive stereotypes are okay, that if no one of a particular group is around then it is okay to smack talk them, that you “don’t see color,” that you got where-ever you are on effort and merit alone, that perhaps “previously” oppressed folks should just get over it and live in the supposed meritocracy of the now, that some people are now unfairly advantaged over white people, that now a days it is all about class (denying racism rather than acknowledging the intersections). I am always fighting the idea that white people are somehow the default, standard human being. This is amazingly present once you notice it, white folks.
I recognize my race privilege.
I have had fights with people over “gypsy” stereotypes. I have walked away from unacceptable caricatures of people of Asian descent. I have cursed people out over generalizations regarding immigration. I live in a neighborhood with a proud African American history (the first in our county to “allow” black home ownership). My kids are sometimes the only white kids in their classroom. I do not ask the neighborhood moms about their hair, and do my best to answer their daughters when they ask about my daughters’ hair. I remind my husband that to the neighborhood teen boys, he is a stereotypical villain (over 40 white male, heavy, loud and blond). I do not do this for cookies – I do it because it is the right thing to do.
I do it because it is the shit we should never have to do if we truly lived in a US that was not racist.
I am not perfect, and I will fuck up. Hell, I may have fucked up in this very entry. I am, and will be, working on it.
I spend a lot of time on this issue, and there are some places that I want to point you towards so you can too. I know that you cannot walk around all privileged and expect people to be willing to take time out to educate you – but there are folks that put terrific stuff out there, and I appreciate it so much.
Elon James White is amazing, and so is his crew at the Brooklyn Comedy Company. My daughters and I never miss an episode of This Week in Blackness. The BcCo podcasts are so wonderful that they draw a fantastic audience, too: Blacking It Up, the White House, and the JTMSCast.
Dammit, I am out of time to write for now, but I have to get posting again, so I plunge forward. Just know that I am not giving any of these folks the space or accolades that they are rightfully due!
I have read Racialicious for quite a while now, and they address so much that you better settle in and plan on spending some time there. You will leave a better, more educated person for it. I am new to Jack and Jill Politics, and they are really on top of all of today’s relevant news. They talk about a lot more than the intersection of race and politics, and do it all so very, very well. My most recently added must reads include Angry Black Lady Chronicles, which are amazing, and Angry Black Bitch, which is fantastic.
If any of you Dear Readers go to these sites – please use your manners.
Oh, and avoid articles about “black Twitter.” Seriously.
And hey, Team Voltron: shout-out to the chatroom!
I am not perfect, and I will fuck up. Hell, I may have fucked up in this very entry. I am, and will be, working on it.
I spend a lot of time on this issue, and there are some places that I want to point you towards so you can too. I know that you cannot walk around all privileged and expect people to be willing to take time out to educate you – but there are folks that put terrific stuff out there, and I appreciate it so much.
Elon James White is amazing, and so is his crew at the Brooklyn Comedy Company. My daughters and I never miss an episode of This Week in Blackness. The BcCo podcasts are so wonderful that they draw a fantastic audience, too: Blacking It Up, the White House, and the JTMSCast.
Dammit, I am out of time to write for now, but I have to get posting again, so I plunge forward. Just know that I am not giving any of these folks the space or accolades that they are rightfully due!
I have read Racialicious for quite a while now, and they address so much that you better settle in and plan on spending some time there. You will leave a better, more educated person for it. I am new to Jack and Jill Politics, and they are really on top of all of today’s relevant news. They talk about a lot more than the intersection of race and politics, and do it all so very, very well. My most recently added must reads include Angry Black Lady Chronicles, which are amazing, and Angry Black Bitch, which is fantastic.
If any of you Dear Readers go to these sites – please use your manners.
Oh, and avoid articles about “black Twitter.” Seriously.
And hey, Team Voltron: shout-out to the chatroom!
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
On Planned Parenthood, O’Donnell, and Beck
So, unless you store your head under a USian rock, you know that Planned Parenthood was, and is, under attack by the right wing here in the US. You also know that the Democrats to an all-to-rare stand on that issue and the EPA. Online, and in the news, there were plenty of well-spoken, well-written testimonies about Planned Parenthood. Out of all of them, I found Lawrence O’Donnell’s piece on The Last Word to be remarkable, and perhaps able to reach both those directly and indirectly concerned with Planned Parenthood.
Blog note: I am an avid (rabid?) watcher of MSNBC. It is on most of the time in our home. I am also someone that often criticizes the station when I feel it gets things wrong, or when it adds to the oppression of some to the benefit of others. I am also one of those never-satisfied liberals that always thinks that we (humans) can and should do better in all things. That the fight to acknowledge each others humanity is ongoing and it is the one fight, above others, that is worth fighting, always. So, potential bias and definite perspective stated, we should move on…
The Last Word piece is here, and you should watch it: “Rewriting Lies on Planned Parenthood.” The original lie came from John Kly, and was definitely worth rewriting. Our host offers up insight on how the echo chamber works, and how it can ruin a person’s perceived integrity. What I noted with great interest was what came next – a reading of a letter from a friend dependent on Planned Parenthood. What was in the letter mirrors the feelings and needs of thousands of women in the US. O’Donnell’s reaction rang true to me and I have great respect for the courage it takes to show those moments of vulnerability. Our culture does not encourage those moments, and actively discourages them from men in particular.
Of course, the piece did not go without some criticism. This is Glenn Beck, and Lawrence O'Donnell’s response to Beck’s response to O’Donnell: “Defending Planned Parenthood.” According to Beck, only “prostitutes” that need “400 abortions” use PP. O’Donnell is able to put that down with ease, and far more grace than I could have mustered, to be sure. Other noteworthy content includes a meta commentary on the nature of commentating on television which would be well worth watching by itself.
Planned Parenthood’s response to Glenn Beck’s hateful claim is here: Planned Parenthood Press Release.
Although I want to dedicate an entry to it shortly, here is my CrowdRise Planned Parenthood fundraiser: Lizz Winstead’s “Planned Parenthood, I am here for you!” Tour.
Blog note: I am an avid (rabid?) watcher of MSNBC. It is on most of the time in our home. I am also someone that often criticizes the station when I feel it gets things wrong, or when it adds to the oppression of some to the benefit of others. I am also one of those never-satisfied liberals that always thinks that we (humans) can and should do better in all things. That the fight to acknowledge each others humanity is ongoing and it is the one fight, above others, that is worth fighting, always. So, potential bias and definite perspective stated, we should move on…
The Last Word piece is here, and you should watch it: “Rewriting Lies on Planned Parenthood.” The original lie came from John Kly, and was definitely worth rewriting. Our host offers up insight on how the echo chamber works, and how it can ruin a person’s perceived integrity. What I noted with great interest was what came next – a reading of a letter from a friend dependent on Planned Parenthood. What was in the letter mirrors the feelings and needs of thousands of women in the US. O’Donnell’s reaction rang true to me and I have great respect for the courage it takes to show those moments of vulnerability. Our culture does not encourage those moments, and actively discourages them from men in particular.
Of course, the piece did not go without some criticism. This is Glenn Beck, and Lawrence O'Donnell’s response to Beck’s response to O’Donnell: “Defending Planned Parenthood.” According to Beck, only “prostitutes” that need “400 abortions” use PP. O’Donnell is able to put that down with ease, and far more grace than I could have mustered, to be sure. Other noteworthy content includes a meta commentary on the nature of commentating on television which would be well worth watching by itself.
Planned Parenthood’s response to Glenn Beck’s hateful claim is here: Planned Parenthood Press Release.
Although I want to dedicate an entry to it shortly, here is my CrowdRise Planned Parenthood fundraiser: Lizz Winstead’s “Planned Parenthood, I am here for you!” Tour.
I had more to say, but I think I am out of spoons.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Stating the Obvious on Medical Costs
In editing this piece, I realize that it is fairly hot and heavy handed. I simply cannot apologize for my vehemence, but now you know that it is there.
Many don’t take prescriptions because of the cost
I saw this on abbyjean's Tumblr.
Wow, LA Times, really?!? Gee, next they will find out that people break compliance with follow up or specialist visits due to money or circumstance. Holy fuck, do folks really have their heads buried quite that deeply up their own asses?
Yes, people want to follow up with their doctor’s orders, recommendations, prescriptions, suggestions, and referrals. This is why low income folks have such terrible compliance levels. Fucking hell. I can think of three big roadblocks right off the top of my head: no money, no time off from work or childcare, and no ride. We can dig deeper: some people are neglected and abused, at home and maybe at previous providers. Have you shamed a patient away because they were fat, slutty, or sloppy*? Did you do it with some snide comment in the hallway you thought they couldn’t hear?
We want to get better, just like everyone else does, dammit! There’s just a lot in the way that you cannot see, because you see a diagnosis waiting to be made, not a whole person. Can you just take one damn minute before you put your hand on the blasted door knob, and deliberately employ a gestalt point of view for just sixty bloody seconds? Are they seeing you on Medicare, Medicaid, or their own dimes? If the patient has transportation programs, sliding scales, pharmacy discounts, and/or drug manufacturer discounts available to them do they even know? Because it is just as bad as having no options if you do not know they exist.
Sure, maybe you and your staff just cannot handle trying to keep track of that on top of every thing else you have to manage. I get that, I really do. So help the economy by hiring someone to do it for you – all they would need is a high school degree, some empathy, and some tenacity. With the additional people you can help, maybe it will even cover an additional employee.
* Fat, slutty, or sloppy were just a few adjectives I have heard office or hospital staff use regarding patients. I offer no judgments to folks that are fat, appear to numerous sexual partners (people suck), or folks who have a hard time bringing themselves around to what their community considers acceptable appearance standards. Neither should their damn medical professionals!
Many don’t take prescriptions because of the cost
I saw this on abbyjean's Tumblr.
Wow, LA Times, really?!? Gee, next they will find out that people break compliance with follow up or specialist visits due to money or circumstance. Holy fuck, do folks really have their heads buried quite that deeply up their own asses?
Yes, people want to follow up with their doctor’s orders, recommendations, prescriptions, suggestions, and referrals. This is why low income folks have such terrible compliance levels. Fucking hell. I can think of three big roadblocks right off the top of my head: no money, no time off from work or childcare, and no ride. We can dig deeper: some people are neglected and abused, at home and maybe at previous providers. Have you shamed a patient away because they were fat, slutty, or sloppy*? Did you do it with some snide comment in the hallway you thought they couldn’t hear?
We want to get better, just like everyone else does, dammit! There’s just a lot in the way that you cannot see, because you see a diagnosis waiting to be made, not a whole person. Can you just take one damn minute before you put your hand on the blasted door knob, and deliberately employ a gestalt point of view for just sixty bloody seconds? Are they seeing you on Medicare, Medicaid, or their own dimes? If the patient has transportation programs, sliding scales, pharmacy discounts, and/or drug manufacturer discounts available to them do they even know? Because it is just as bad as having no options if you do not know they exist.
Sure, maybe you and your staff just cannot handle trying to keep track of that on top of every thing else you have to manage. I get that, I really do. So help the economy by hiring someone to do it for you – all they would need is a high school degree, some empathy, and some tenacity. With the additional people you can help, maybe it will even cover an additional employee.
* Fat, slutty, or sloppy were just a few adjectives I have heard office or hospital staff use regarding patients. I offer no judgments to folks that are fat, appear to numerous sexual partners (people suck), or folks who have a hard time bringing themselves around to what their community considers acceptable appearance standards. Neither should their damn medical professionals!
Friday, April 1, 2011
SmartAss Commentary: Niaspan Commercials
Niaspan
Oh, how I loathe these commercials for Niaspan. Have you seen these? Wow, these pieces of passive-aggressive, sly, guilt-ridden pabulum are just stunning.
Here is the “brother” version. There is at least one more, but I cannot find a link for it. It is not quite as bad, but still not good. Scratch that, there are three total, and they can be found on the Niaspan homepage here.
I find these commercials to be full of coddling, wheedling, coercive, bullshit. It is hard enough to manage a chronic illness/injury/disability – we really do not need to be badgered by our friends and family. I think the idea that these are “interventions” kind of trivializes the actual purpose of an intervention, you know – giving a loved one a chance to stop and think about what they are doing to themselves and the people around them. To let them know that they are loved and supported, and that this will still be true if they try to change their lives for the better. It is usually reserved for exceptionally destructive behavior.
Take the brother commercial – the speaking brother is chastising the audience brother about the fact that he is not taking Niaspan. Never mind the facts that the brother has made the diet and lifestyle changes that are necessary for his condition. Oh, no – he isn’t doing enough because he isn’t taking this pill! What if he is already taking niacin? Or what if he has a contra-indication, like liver trouble? The speaking brother apparently does not care. He has decided what is best, and damn anything else.
The daughter commercial does not specify what other changes the audience dad has made. But she is going out on an awfully long limb for something that “might” work.
The sister commercial is mind boggling. “I know one more pill… I get it, I do,” No she does not, or she would not follow that with, “I am not taking ‘no’ for an answer.” The gall on display is stunning. Of course she knows best, how it could be any other way is beyond her grasp.
These commercials are demeaning to health care customers. They play into the all-to-common assumption that we, as individual patients, are either too stupid or too lazy to consult with our doctors, do our own research, and make our own decisions.
If you do have a friend or loved on that is dealing with cholesterol issues, it is totally okay to offer your support. As with other health issues, save your advice for when you are asked for it. No, we do not want unsolicited advice – by definition. If we wanted it, we would seek it out and ask you.
While looking for links to the commercials themselves, I found some folks that despise this almost as much as I do at CommercialsIHate.
Niaspan on Wikipedia is here. (This entry is actually about Niacin. Niaspan is apparently prescription strength, time release Niacin.)
Oh, how I loathe these commercials for Niaspan. Have you seen these? Wow, these pieces of passive-aggressive, sly, guilt-ridden pabulum are just stunning.
Here is the “brother” version. There is at least one more, but I cannot find a link for it. It is not quite as bad, but still not good. Scratch that, there are three total, and they can be found on the Niaspan homepage here.
I find these commercials to be full of coddling, wheedling, coercive, bullshit. It is hard enough to manage a chronic illness/injury/disability – we really do not need to be badgered by our friends and family. I think the idea that these are “interventions” kind of trivializes the actual purpose of an intervention, you know – giving a loved one a chance to stop and think about what they are doing to themselves and the people around them. To let them know that they are loved and supported, and that this will still be true if they try to change their lives for the better. It is usually reserved for exceptionally destructive behavior.
Take the brother commercial – the speaking brother is chastising the audience brother about the fact that he is not taking Niaspan. Never mind the facts that the brother has made the diet and lifestyle changes that are necessary for his condition. Oh, no – he isn’t doing enough because he isn’t taking this pill! What if he is already taking niacin? Or what if he has a contra-indication, like liver trouble? The speaking brother apparently does not care. He has decided what is best, and damn anything else.
The daughter commercial does not specify what other changes the audience dad has made. But she is going out on an awfully long limb for something that “might” work.
The sister commercial is mind boggling. “I know one more pill… I get it, I do,” No she does not, or she would not follow that with, “I am not taking ‘no’ for an answer.” The gall on display is stunning. Of course she knows best, how it could be any other way is beyond her grasp.
These commercials are demeaning to health care customers. They play into the all-to-common assumption that we, as individual patients, are either too stupid or too lazy to consult with our doctors, do our own research, and make our own decisions.
If you do have a friend or loved on that is dealing with cholesterol issues, it is totally okay to offer your support. As with other health issues, save your advice for when you are asked for it. No, we do not want unsolicited advice – by definition. If we wanted it, we would seek it out and ask you.
While looking for links to the commercials themselves, I found some folks that despise this almost as much as I do at CommercialsIHate.
Niaspan on Wikipedia is here. (This entry is actually about Niacin. Niaspan is apparently prescription strength, time release Niacin.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)