Not exactly, Dr....

Today my doctor called me back and was off in her ideas and suggestions to me, and mostly the timing of them, in a way that was kind of hilarious to me. She was just so out of context.

Basically, a few months ago, I was having problems with insulin absorption from my pump sites, resulting in high and up and down blood sugars, occasionally ketones, and therefore feeling shitty, physically and mentally/emotionally. Went on shots for a few months, which was better but made exercise, especially longer workouts, really hard to manage. Three weeks ago I started back on the pump, and overall things have been going well, but I've been having a lot of lows. These are mostly exercise related, since it's been easier to do a lot more of that with my pump back than it was for me on shots. Also, it is summer and I tuned up my bike.

But anyways, I said something about being able to exericse more, and she was like, yeah, it must be easier and you must feel much better without all that ketosis! Ha ha ha. That was um, about 16 weeks ago that my pump wasn't working and I had ketones. A lot has happened since then. If I had ketones for all that time, she definitely would've heard from me again. Slash I would be REALLY frustrated and sick and ended up on sick leave from my job or something. What I meant was because of the pump vs. shots in the last 3 weeks making it easier to exercise, not the no longer having ketones thing from bad pump sites months ago.

I don't fault her for that; it wasn't like she was being negligent to my health. And some of the things she said may be relevant if problems come back (hopefully they won't). I hadn't asked for continued help because I was doing better, and she was actually calling me back about something else, a basic logistical question about getting my next A1C (that's a routine diabetic blood test, for you folks that have internal automatic pancreases and are challenged on this lingo).

My diabetes is mine; it's a little weird to negotiate intrusions on that. Usually I think I am right to react in a way that let's people know this is my business and my body when they are intruding in a way that I find unhelpful or annoying. This doesn't mean it's off limits and noone can talk about it except me (in fact, I like it when friends or acquaintances are comfortable talking about it), just that I get to make the decisions, and be the expert. It's my body, and I have a lot of experience dealing with it, and generally know what I'm doing (or if I don't, probably you don't have the magic-bullet solution either).

With my doctor (and I mean my doctor that manages my diabetes, not all of the assorted people related to me that are doctors and bubbling with ideas about parts of my diabetes that they sometimes have no idea about), I definitely see the need for this shift, letting her in, it just is funny to figure out sometimes. Back when I was having the absorption problems, I felt like I was a little kid regressing and begging for her to hold my hand when I read her all my numbers and got help on dosing - it felt kind of wrong, even though it was probably necessary.

She has knowledge and skills that are different and help me, whether it is her training/experience or just another perspective from someone else familiar with the issues. She recognizes my expertise on my own body, because she is a good doctor and respects me*, but also because she is forced to because I just know so much more than her about what's going on. She needs my knowledge and assessments and details to even think about understanding anything or making treatment recommendations. I think this is one thing that might differentiate the relationship between type 1's and their healthcare providers (and maybe other folks with chronic issues and their providers?) and the way a lot of other people's relationships are with their healthcare providers. It is so constant and intensive and hundreds of decisions are necessary day-to-day, when the doctor isn't around, that the person with type 1 has to be recognized as an expert. Of course, I think healthcare would work a lot better for most people if providers ALWAYS recognized (and respected) the patient as the expert on their own body. And probably their are a lot of doctors that are bad at this even with type 1's, and don't do this even when it is painfully obvious that it's the case.

*hopefully this is how she treats all her patients, and this respect isn't just from me being well-read on my issues and considering nursing or medicine as a profession

EDIT: Another diabetic blogger just posted a news story that's a lil' empirical evidence for what I just wrote about, that obviously the person with diabetes is the expert over the doctor. Interestingly, this study on insulin dosing was with type 2 diabetics, who usually (not always) have less intensive medication and testing regimes than type 1's.

fuck you, bush

Bush vetoed the embryonic stem cell funding bill for the second time.

I'm not that into exclusively cure-focused diabetes research as much stem cell research is. And I also am not so into the recent stem cell research findings that came out a few months ago in which they were able to reverse early stages of Type 1 with intensive chemo to kill the immune system and then a stem cell transplant (more on these things soon, I have posts on them that I just haven't finished). However, I think this research should happen, and especially for issues besides diabetes that are less treatable. But mostly, the justification he has just really bothers me.

This 'destroying human life' bullshit that he says pisses me off. It's like, what about my life? You're choosing balls of cells over me? If you want to talk about ethics, let's bring this into focus. I am here, a person, living right now, as are millions of other diabetics and people with other conditions that could benefit from stem cell research. If you care about preserving human life at any ridiculous cost, why not work on those cases that are already a real live life? Instead of those potential little things sitting in freezers not going anywhere. What, it's not worth 'saving' damaged goods like us?
EDIT: As 'Artificially Sweetened' reminded me, the bullshit here is especially obvious when you remember he didn't give a shit about the value of each and every human life, of US troops or Iraqi civilians, when we went to Iraq and bombed everything.

By the way, these vetoes were 2 out of only 3 that Bush has done his whole time in office. Boy, he must really love those frozen balls of cells that are just sitting in freezers (I'm probably going to get on the anti-abortion anti-embryonic stem cell research hit list for saying that, oops) , good thing he's SAVING all of them. He's saving their little lives. What a savior, don't you just love him?

low creativity?

p.s. : Sometimes I think I have more lucid, creative thoughts when I'm low. Like I think of all these random interesting ideas, or even can synthesize thoughts better than usual. When I was walking home and low (sometime between the 72 and the 55), I had a few ideas about some stuff I've been stewing over and trying to write about all week. This is when I'm just starting to get low I guess, before I get too cranky, although sometimes I thin it happens even when other forms of coordination/strength are starting to go. Anyone else noticed something like this?

Maybe it's like being high or something, an altered brain state gives you a new creative perspective? Lowered inhibitions to think more freely (especially about stuff I'm trying to write and therefore may have anxiety around)? Or maybe it's just the adrenaline rush.

72

Tested my blood sugar before leaving work tonight: 72. That should be a number I'm really happy about, on the low range of my goal, perfect at a time when I probably will eat a meal soon-ish. It used to be. However, with all the yo-yos I've been having, especially around exercise, and without my pump (I am on shots for a few months to give my pump sites a break; scar tissue was causing really crazy/bad absorption), 72 makes me not happy.

On the pump, I would've turned my basal rate down or off for a while, and probably been fine. Maybe had to eat a little bit of something, maybe not. But on shots...

72 usually means that if I don't do anything, I will get low by the time I'm home or during the trip home, which usually includes almost a mile of walking to and from trains. If I had planned on biking all the way home, forget it. I'd have to get on the train unless I felt like eating a ton of food and risking getting low in a place that I don't feel so comfortable stopping by myself and want all of my strength (mental and physical) and biking abilities that make me safer.

So tonight I ate a fruit leather (bougie hippie natural version of a fruit-roll up) before I started walking even though I didn't really want to. I prefer not spend my food money, appetite, and calories (yeah, I wanted to leave that last one out of this story but I'd be lying) on eating dried fruit or gatorade instead of yummier, healthier, cheaper, more fun real food. That I could eat when I actually am wanting to eat instead of having to.

And I still was low (55) when I got home.

That's not a terrible low, but not where I want to be. Enough to make the walk home less fun, and make me cranky enough that I might pick a fight with family or friends trying to interact with me while I'm low. Also, lows, even really mild ones, don't facilitate good, conscious eating. It's more like grabbing whatever I see and inhaling it standing up instead of enjoying a thought out, balanced meal that I enjoy. And feeling low certainly isn't going to have me actually cooking anything for dinner. Besides being frustrating in and of itself, this is also frustrating and ironic because part of my up and down roller coaster blood sugar issues are because of this very thing - not planning or counting (carbs) well enough, not scheduling sit-down meals on a consistent schedule enough.

I've pinned the problem with not having a pump and exercise or scheduling problems down to 2 major issues, at least for me:
1) Not being able to have different basal rates at different times of the day (eg lower for exercise, higher for sitting around at work). With shots (lantus), you just have one basal for all day and all night.
2) Not being able to make decisions about my insulin 0-120 minutes ahead of time, as you can with the pump. With shots it has to be the meal before and/or the lantus shot up to 24 hours earlier.

How do people not on pumps do exericse? Or... life? I don't get it. I guess the privilege of having the pump for 6 years has really pampered me. Maybe my blood sugars are more wacky and variable than other people's, and I'm sure my erratic schedule doesn't help with that. But really!? How do you do exercise unless you're willing to eat a lot of fast-acting sugar constantly? Or your exercise is a planned trip to the gym at the same time every day that isn't too long of a workout and then you make sure to not move for the rest of the day? That's not really the type of exercise I like or how my life is and I want it to be. I need and love my little walking or biking trips interspersed throughout my day to keep me happy, sane, focused, and to have the time to fit in a lot of exercise because it is part of my commute. And to not have a car, which I don't want (and probably couldn't afford now anyways).

I'm off to attempt a run, hopefully without another low or a high enough to stop me after rebounding from that 55 (and, of course, overtreating it).

For non-insulin-pumpers that need help with vocab: a glossary

Diabetes blogging community and categories

I've been thinking about splitting a separate diabetes blog off of this one. I hadn't planned on posting lots of random daily stories, frustrations (aka my blood sugars are still crazy yo-yoing with exercise, and also drinking in a way that they didn't as much with the pump, and I MISS MY PUMP!!), and successes, more on thoughts or rants about issues that come up from those stories. But it's appealing after finding this huge diabetes blog community that is exciting for me to read, connect with and be a part of.

My pseudo-academic postings and non-diabetes-related rants might be boring and push away people looking for diabetes community. And non-diabetic people here for the other stuff might not be interested in the minutia of my daily issues, and won't get those thrills of connection and intimate familiarity with stupid mundane things that I know I get when reading other diabetes blogs. Maybe I would be able to build more of an interactive community, get more comments, if I split them.

But, let's face it. I can't even keep up with one blog, let alone two. And I don't really like the idea of splitting myself up into separate categories like that anyways.


Edit: I've added more links to other blogs I read sometimes, including a separate list of diabetes ones.

beautiful

(critical mass last friday)

thanks for the images

p.s. yay summer!

work less, live more!

I know I've been gone awhile; it's amazing what having a life and some warm weather will do for your time spent online. I have been busy here and also traveled for work and then to see friends, which was wonderful. I'm going to try to get back to blogging, I have a bunch of ideas ruminating....

One thing that came up a lot while I was catching up with people on my trip was jobs. Some of us have recently entered the full-time work world, some of my friends are preparing to do that after they graduate this month.

Basically, I think working a lot of hours sucks in a way that is not recognized or articulated often enough, especially if you are in a middle or upper class position (by salary or by other means) that you have enough resources that you could maybe avoid it. A lot of people have to work more than 40 hours a week to get by, but for the people that don't have to do this to make ends meet, then why do they do it??!?

Some careers require it, at least in some form of training/internship/gatekeeping phase (paralegals before they go to law school, residents who have finished med school but are not yet fully trained doctors) - but recognize that it could be otherwise? Working 40 or 50+ hours a week is taken for granted by a lot of people in the "professional" world. A lot of people talk seriously about wanting to make enough money or more money; less often do I hear people seriously considering working less or challenging the idea of working all the time when planning career choices in the short, but especially the long term. I

I find it's hard for me to fit in working 40 hours a week, commuting, enough sleep, exercise and generally taking care of myself and still have much time left over for a social life or other things I want to do. I feel like I am a little slower than many people at getting everything done, but it still seems like an issue. It's hard for me to imagine having any quality of life while working more and/or having other big responsibilities like a lot of people that work that much have like school or kids on top of all that. That is one reason why I don't at this point see myself wanting kids - your entire life gets taken over! This time issue is also another major reason why I'm considering applying to nursing school instead of medical school - med students and residents sometimes work 80 hour weeks. I can't imagine doing this and being able to take care of myself. Or be happy/sane/have any friends. Which is important to me.

I think part of what has gotten me thinking about this is recognizing the need to take care of myself, and that is not as deceptively easy as it might seem when you are stressed or working a lot or taking a lot of classes. Another part has been the anti-work politics and ideas that surfaced at my school, both in and out of class. This is a broader idea of challenging an industrious work ethic and work being inherently virtuous, but is also linked to the idea of a shorter work week.

The fact that in most other industrialized countries, especially Europe, they have a shorter work week and more vacation time (I only have 2 weeks a year, what is that?!) makes it seem more plausible to me, and not a totally wacky idea that we could work less. There's a "take back your time" campaign that looks interesting, although they are quick state that they are not anti-work.

Drug prohibition is stupid aka GIVE ME MY SYRINGES, JERK!

Today I tried to buy 10 syringes without a prescription and was denied. I had left a box at work in a building locked over the weekend, and I needed more. I knew from working in HIV prevention/surveillance about the IL law that allows people over 18 to buy (and possess) up to 20 syringes without a prescription. Although it is limited in it's ability to increase access to clean syringes (cost, needing an ID to prove age for undocumented immigrants, trans people, young people, and poor people, and the issue of pharmacies actually complying), I think it's a great step in the right direction because it supports harm reduction and drug decriminalization.

Moralizing is stupid and an obstacle to accessing dignified healthcare and other services. The U.S. war on drugs is racist, harmful domestically and in other countries (like Colombia), and ineffective. Yes, non-prescribed injectable drugs can be harmful, but dirty needles are harmful too, and forcing someone to use them doesn't help anything! Several studies have shown that pharmacy sales of syringes without a prescription did not increase illegal drug use, and decreased high-risk behaviors for HIV. Sharing syringes is a major source of HIV and Hepatitis C infection:

• In the U.S., about 50% of all new HIV cases can be traced back to injection drug use (in people that use, their partners, or their children).
• Sharing syringes is the leading source of Hepatitis C infection.
• In Illinois, 70% of AIDS cases among women and almost all pediatric AIDS cases are associated with sharing syringes (including sharing of syringes by the mother of the child who is then exposed at birth).
  

I think that, among many other things, a fundamental disrespect of or apathy towards the lives and well-being of people affected by these issues is at the root of policies refusing to provide access to clean syringes. In addition to moralizing anti-drug sentiments, racism, classism, and sexism play into this. The Chicago Department of Public Health reports that the 2005 HIV diagnosis rate in black females was more than 15 times that of white females.

Despite citing the law and threatening to report her to the AIDS Foundation of Chicago syringe access project, the pharmacist still refused to sell me the syringes. She acknowledged that the law exists but said, "it's at the discretion of the pharmacist." Even when I appealed to the fact that I am diabetic and needed them for insulin, offering to show her my medic alert bracelet and blood test meter, she refused. I think that people that need clean syringes to prevent HIV/Hepatitis C infection when they use syringes for other purposes not sanctioned by laws and/or medicine (illegal drugs, unprescribed hormones) "deserve" them just as much, but my diabetes is seen as more deserving by many people so I tried that appeal.

It was pretty incredible to have someone look at me and say, no, I am going to deny you access to the supplies that you NEED to stay alive and healthy. And have them have the power to make that decision. I guess a lot of people face this kind of cruel denial on a routine basis, from lacking funds or other issues with our fucked up health care system.

(I did get the syringes from another pharmacy without a problem).

Thanks to the diabetes art pool for the image.

The Science of Sleep

I saw the Science of Sleep last weekend. I liked it - weird and abstract, and I might not have liked it if I was in a different mood, but I enjoyed it. One of the friends I saw it with, an artist, loved it, and the other HATED it ("Half a star! Or less!"). I thought the shifting between and blurring of Stephane's "real world" and dream world which takes form of his own TV show was interesting, but I could see how it would annoy some people looking for a grasp-able storyline. I think if I saw this 5 years ago I might have been annoyed.

The movie critiqued the world of 9 to 5 work and repetitive jobs in a really imaginative way. All of the hyperbole you might come up with in your head about how your boss is driving you into the ground, and how you resist or dream of resisting, is manifested in fantastical scenes. It's funny, and pretty. The movie also did a good job of capturing that ridiculous/stupid feeling you get after embarassing moments.

At the end, we see how much the main character (Stephane) is being a selfish asshole. It made me mad at him, but I think it made me appreciate the movie more. I'm not into gooey cute romances or perfect happy straight couples/resolutions (although this movie was so twisted up onto itself there was no way it could've resolved anything if it wanted to). Also, I think it was good because it showed how being so self-involved in your fantasy world, while interesting, is self-centered and sometimes annoying, which I think some pretentious art misses.

Friday pet blogging: Bad dog caught green-headed.

Last week, I found Zack sitting like this, staring at the wall, trying not to look guilty:

Who me? I didn't do anything! I'm just sittin' here...

Hahahahaha. He raided the trash as usual, but this time he got the swingy-lid stuck on his head. This dog will eat anything, with tissues or any other paper products with snot or other secretions on them and cat litter being near the top of the list. Sad thing for him was that all this garbage can had in it was a piece of junk mail.

Friday petblogging

Ok, I know. It's Saturday. But I'm always a little behind the curve.

Meet Zack:



Zack really likes bathtubs. Not for baths, but to get that yummy water he loves extra fresh, straight from the source. This picture is from when we first moved in to the new place. The first thing he did when we got there was check out the bathtub situation.

And the kitties, wrestling:




I was inspired to start petblogging this week by the hilarious result of Zack being a naughty dog, but I can't find the camera to upload that picture. So you'll just have to come back next week to see it!

What you get when you "hold your nose and vote for someone." Or, painful reminder that Democrat does not equal less classist or anti-immigrant.

"Dr. Robert Simon, chief of Cook County health services, said the county should fly illegal immigrants living at Oak Forest Hospital back to the countries they came from."

He goes on to actually defend this comment, discussing the logistics and viability of this idea and that it should be done "humanely." Wow. This is what I get for thinking that I had to vote for the icky corrupt Democrat (Stroger) because the Republican (Peraica) opponent had to be avoided because he was so anti-immigrant and anti-poor people and would hurt the county health system. The Democrat appoints an outspokenly anti-immigrant anti-poor people doctor to run (or more like destroy) the county health system. This is the same doctor that said several years ago that he didn't come to County to take care of homeless people: "You can give them any opportunity in the world, and they would not take advantage of it. They could do things for themselves, but they won't. So who the hell cares about them?". The news article also has Simon lamenting that taxpayers are spending $800 a day to take care of patients at this facility, including undocumented immigrants. I am lamenting that taxpayers are paying Simon $1893.15 a day (he makes $691,000, that's if he worked all 365 days a year, which he doesn't) to increase the classism, racism, injustice, and all around bad policy already rampant in our healthcare system.

This is just the latest in a series of barabaric cuts devastating the healthcare safety net (already overburdened) for tens of thousands of people that mostly can't get healthcare elsewhere. The Movimiento 10 de marzo/March 10 Movement (immigrant rights/legalization group) and the nurses' union are both demanding Simon be replaced.

Genocides

I've thought before about the use of the words genocide and Holocaust and what that means. One thing that has bothered me is using the Jewish Holocaust as THE genocide, the untouchable end-all be-all of genocides and bad things. Though it was huge, extremely intentional, and horrendous, the way it is discussed is a problem for a few reasons. One of these is as justification for Israeli violence toward Palestinians. Another that I have wondered about is whether it is "the ultimate" in genocides because it was a group of now-white (and in the U.S. often middle and upper-class) Jewish people being killed. There were also a lot of Roma killed in the Holocaust, as well as non-Jewish queers, socialists, and differently-abled people killed, but the mainstream discussion often leaves this out or only gives it a brief token mention.

I heard a snip of an interview on the radio this morning about the use of the term/category "genocide." This guy, Brendan O'Neill, discusses how the current use of the word/concept genocide helps us imagine this distinction between an enlightened, civilized first world and a barbaric, backwards third world. He also says that the way it is used helps ahistoricize conflicts, especially in Africa, by portraying them purely as senseless killing with no reason or context. Not that I think the killing can be justified, but I agree with O'Neill's point that it is a problem that it is taken out of context and the history is erased, so we just see this irrational, crazy killing with no reason, rather than with all the historical issues and conflicts, including the role of the West and imperial powers in helping create the climate for these conflicts in the first place.

The reporter brings up the idea of invoking the word genocide as a strategic weapon to draw attention to areas of the world that people here might normally ignore or not care about. I think this is an important question to consider; do people (especially powerful white people) in the U.S. care less about the suffering and deaths of brown people and could using this powerful word/symbol help them see people as people in a way their racist lens might normally not allow? In the past I have thought about this but been skeptical because I can't see how involving the U.S. army or other military forces could do anything except make things much worse. I am not against any outside intervention (and though problematic, I think sometimes the U.S. Jewish "It could be us/never again" thought is part of my consciousness that I do not want to silence), but I really think U.S. military forces, as some have called for, could only make things worse. I don't know about UN/international peacekeeping forces, I really don't know enough about them, but I am pretty skeptical.

However, O'Neill brings up a different problem with this "strategic weapon" to make people pay attention. He does a great job of flipping the reporter's question on its head - saying that is exactly why it concerns him as an anti-imperialist - that it is a "weapon" to demonize the third world. I remember an e-mail I got from a leftist U.S. group (possibly True Majority?) promoting awareness and action on the Sudanese genocide with an animation of animalistic, crazy-looking Janjaweed killers in Sudan. People probably do seem brutal and less human when they are killing other people. But this animation drew heavily from longstanding racist images/ideas of violent, irrational, animal-like brown men.

In the article "Pimp My Genocide", O'Neill discusses the implications of pandering to the idea of the worst most victimized to gain genocide status. He speculates that this has actually prevented some groups from signing peace deals to maintain their genocide victim status. The article further explores the question: "Why is genocide all the rage, whether it’s uncovering new ones in Africa and Eastern Europe, or rapping the knuckles of those who would dare to deny such genocides here at home?"

According to O'Neill, "Genocide-mongering is a new mode of politics, and it’s being used by some to draw a dividing line between the West and the Third World and to enforce a new and censorious moral consensus on the homefront... the labelling of today’s brutal civil wars as ‘genocides’ by Western observers, courts and commentators is a desperate search for a new moral crusade, and it has given rise to a new moral divide between the West and the rest, between the civilised and enlightened governments of America and Europe and those dark parts of the world where genocides occur...

...In some circles, ‘genocide’ has become code for Third World savagery. What do the headline genocides (or ‘celebrity genocides’, perhaps) of the past two weeks have in common? All of them – the Serbs’ genocide in Bosnia, the Sudanese genocide in Darfur, the Turks’ genocide of Armenians – were committed by apparently strange and exotic nations ‘over there’. Strip away the legal-speak about which conflicts can be defined as genocides and which cannot, and it seems clear that genocide has become a PC codeword for wog violence – whether the genocidal wogs are the blacks of Sudan, the brown-skinned, not-quite-European people of Turkey, or the Serbs, white niggers of the post-Cold War world. "

O'Neill also critiques leftist anti-war activists' use of the word genocide to throw back at the Bush/Blair administrations and what they are doing in Iraq.

P.S. This may be the first (and possibly the last) time I've heard someone use "liberal" and "western pity" critically on NPR.

Hear the radio interview here
Read O'Neill's article here


More of the good stuff from O'Neill's article:

"The discussion of every war in Africa as a genocide or potential genocide shows that today’s genocide-mongering bears little relation to what is happening in conflict zones on the ground. There are great differences, not least in scale, between the wars in Rwanda, Darfur and Liberia; each of these conflicts has been driven by complex local grievances, very often exacerbated by Western intervention. That Western declarations of ‘genocide!’ are most often made in relation to Africa suggests that behind today’s genocide-mongering there lurks some nasty chauvinistic sentiments. At a time when it is unfashionable to talk about ‘the dark continent’ or ‘savage Africans’, the more acceptable ‘genocide’ tag gives the impression that Africa is peculiarly and sickly violent, and that it needs to be saved from itself by more enlightened forces from elsewhere. Importantly, if the UN judges that a genocide is occurring, then that can be used to justify military intervention into said genocide zone.

Hardly anyone talks openly about a global divide between the savage Third World and the enlightened West anymore. Yet today’s genocide-mongering has nurtured a new, apparently acceptable divide between the genocide-executers over there, and the genocide-saviours at home. This new global faultline over genocide is formalised in the international court system. In the Nineties, setting up tribunals to try war criminals or genocidaires became an important part of the West’s attempts to rehabilitate its moral authority around the globe."

discomfort with anger, civility, and diabetes

I have been meaning to write something about diabetes and class. And then I was going to write something just about diabetes and things I've been thinking about my experiences since I've had to life more within them (and more constantly) lately with the problems I've been having. But then I got lazy. And then I got into an argument with my dad, so this is what I wrote instead. There's a lot of other things I want to bring out eventually, but too tired now.
PS I don't hate my dad, and this isn't meant to be a personal attack. I'm just frustrated and it illustrates really well what I think happens in a lot of situations.

my dad is so into civility and doesn't like anger. so frustrating to communicate with. since he can't deal with anger, frustration, or conflict, he can only discuss things on his terms or not at all. I asked him (i worked so so hard to be nice and "rational" and articulate cuz i knew this would be an issue) to stop 2nd-guessing me when I say i know what the problem is and my pump isn't working after another incidence of him continuing to second and third-guess me even after i spend a lot of time/energy laying everything out. and i said my anger was healthy and necessary and part of life.

now he says he won't discuss my diabetes with me anymore if that's what i want. it's not, i just want to discuss it without being constantly 2nd guessed. or if i "all i want do to is express my anger" (cuz clearly that's incompatible with conversation or intelligent exchange, of course). i was trying to stay understanding and communicate well with him, but it didn't work. he legitimately has some emotional issues with avoiding conflict i think, but still not fair and a cop-out. he got just what he wanted - this conversation about my diabetes doesn't occur unless it is on his terms, unchallenged. and it's so about upholding a fucked up civility - keeping me from getting angry or us from getting in a conflict under the guise of trying to avoid somethign that upsets me (which is there no matter what, by the way, and it's his reaction, not my diabetes itself that i was upset about in that moment), rather than actually addressing my concerns and engaging with me.

really chicago tribune, really?

what a gross, manipulative, racist, ridiculous statement in the first place. and then they made it a headline (Chicago Tribune, Sept 12):

"U.S. in 'struggle for civilization'"
"Bush says nation's safety depends on victory in Iraq"

Way to make the colonial racist ideology (civilized/uncivilized needing saving, inferior cultures/races, inherently violent peoples... without discussing the U.S. actions and violence people might be reacting to) really painfully obvious. And also to continue manipulating people's emotions and linking September 11th to Iraq, which has been discredited sooo many times even in the mainstream media... but apparently the Tribune missed that...

wrong BZZZZZZZ

your supervisor at your new job, who isn't that old and in fact you think is/looks on the young side for such a supervisor, is being really nice and offering to let you borrow her music. shes showing you what she has, and says, blah blah blah "old lady music." also keep in mind that you are trying to not appear ridiculously young or unprofessional, as you feel, in this job.

correct response: that's ok, i like a lot of different kinds of music!
incorrect response: that's ok, i listen to my mom's music all the time! (to which your supervisor sorrowfully responds, oh, wow, i guess i am old enough to be your mom)

guess which one I chose?

Rape in fiction. and non fiction also.

Theangryblackwoman recently had a good post about fucked up uses of rape in fiction and tv/movies. It made me think about some stuff I've been discussing (and sometimes arguing about) lately with some friends and my mom. She brought up some great points (I suggest you go check it out), including:

"...I am tired of seeing rape on my TV and in my fiction because it’s never addressed, it’s used, and used badly, and used for all the wrong reasons. Because it’s used and abused by writers and filmmakers and media people we run the risk of trivializing rape. Or, worse, seeing it as something slightly arousing...That point comes when it stops being about helping, informing, or supporting women and becomes more about how many people they can shock and how many ratings points that will generate. And that is really disgusting..."

"In other media, particularly in SF/F media, rape is thrown in as a plot point, or for a bit of easy characterization. As I said above, if you see a character raping someone, that is usually an indication that the character is meant to be evil. It’s quick and easy for the creator to do this. I wonder if they even consider the implications of it?

Another way creators use rape is to show that a character (99% of the time a female one) is ’strong’. She may have been raped, but that didn’t reduce her to a snivelling mess, oh no! She got angry! She got strong! She got even! Thus passively putting down any woman who was actually raped and did not react in that way. This is also quick characterization, and it’s just as cheap and lazy as ‘he’s a rapist so we know he’s the bad guy’.

The problem with this use of rape in fiction and media is twofold. It’s cheap and lazy, as I said, and it’s also using rape instead of addressing it. When we see rape in media, we see it used as a way for men to exert their power over women, or used as a way to tell us something about a character, or used to drive a plot in a certain direction, or used to highlight vulnerability, depravity, and power struggles FOR ENTERTAINMENT ."

She also brings up the idea of "eternal rapeability" of female characters, that they are always rapeable, and that this is a stupid shortcut for character development to show how feminine or innocent or good these characters are.

Here are the comments I left about the post - I'm just going to paste 'em in for the sake of sleeping because I have to go to work in less than 6 hours. Here it is:

I like your point that in addition to it being a lazy and abusive characterization technique it is “also using rape instead of addressing it.”

One day I sat down with my sister while she was watching Law & Order Special Victims Unit, which is basically all about women who have been brutally raped and/or killed. It really pissed me off. It was very gratuitous, and the entertainment/plot of the show was centered around rape - what the hell? It also bothered me because it seemed to reinscribe women as helpless victims, again and again and again. And also white women as delicate, innocent, pure victims of violence that everyone should be enraged or mourning over. Like we are powerless and should never walk around at night or talk to strangers. This also helps reinforce the power of men as saviors/protectors/avengers, which is messed up, and police/violent state power as the solution. So you need the violent state power, that is what protects rather than threatens people, and that it should be embraced and thanked rather than questioned.

Another offender: the movie El Leyton, used a rape like it was a normal sex scene - meant to be titillating and passed off as acceptable and that the women actually wanted it.

Another thing that irks me about almost all portrayals of rape, fictional and nonfictional, is the emphasis on huge scary violent stranger rapes. People touched on this (comments 7-9), but it distorts the idea of rape into only such an event rather than focusing on acquaintance rapes (it’s estimated that 80% know their attacker). This is really harmful for a lot of reasons: -inhibits discussions of effective prevention strategies
-prevents discussions of harmful versions of masculinity and our rape culture
-gives everyone a “not me” attitude (both those at risk of perpetrating and being violated)
-makes survivors feel like they haven’t actually been raped, or it’s their fault, or that they can’t talk about it because it will give their friend/acquaintance/loved one a demonized Rapist reputation
-limits mobility & independence of women/people read as women at night
-encourages car culture (rather than walking, public transit)
-encourages/allows racialized and racist fantasies of men of color attackers among many white women (and family/friends), with a lot of help from the news media. This kind of racism can be particularly difficult for people to recognize or challenge because there is this ultimate (hysterical) justification of rape, so therefore nothing, even racist and inaccurate ideas, can be challenged

P.S. I really need to become more concise, look how long just that comment was!

el embarazo milagroso, or, get in my BELLY!

Starting, especially creating, things is usually overwhelming for me and I procrastinate. And then I don't do things that I wanted or needed to do. So I'm going to start with something that seems easier to write, a story about what happened today.

Today, I was wearing an outfit that shows my belly when it's been more than 3 seconds since I adjusted it (too big skirt + too small short-style shirt + big belly = lots of hiking up & down), probably inappropriate for my second day of work in an office. Oh well. Anyways, after waiting too long for the train, I get on, and am standing with about 15 other seat-less people in the car. A woman looked at me and quickly offered me her seat. I told her I was fine, but she was already standing up. So I sat down, thinking that my feet were tired and she probably was just positioning herself to get off the crowded train at the next stop. But she doesn't get off, several more stops go by, and as soon as another seat opens up she rushes for it. I think she thinks I'm pregnant. I'm young, my disproportionate belly is hanging out (and I think my pump was hidden), and why else would she be so insistent?
Then I start to think... on this crowded train, do I now have to play the part? Slash would it be fun to do so and mess with people? I start thinking about the conversations that would happen when somehow someone asks and I either lie and say that I am or come clean that I'm not, it's just a big belly and now I'm enjoying this seat, HA jokes on you. And I was thinking why I might want or not want to say that to someone, or tell this story in general. I would not be afraid to say it because I am embarassed that my belly was fat/round/disproportionate enough to be mistaken for a pregnancy. On good days, I actively like my shape. How it looks aesthetically/beautywise and the idea that I can take up space and mess with ingrained values of thinness and other related issues. On pretty bad days, I might not feel those ways, but I wouldn't feel actively embarassed either.

I would hesitate to say it to someone because I would be worried/mad about them feeling sorry for me, bad, or embarassed for the situation (or that I was trying to elicit that reaction and some pity or reassurance for it). This would imply that I was either making a negative comment about myself or trying to mitigate an insult that had been thrown at me. That I did not want to look pregnant or fat. This runs on the basic common assumption that looking fat = bad. That it's something to avoid. Even if you disagree with that assumption, it's hard to break out of it, or even to see that it is there, because its so a part of the way we think that it seems natural.

This might lead a compassionate listener to be uncomfortable if they thought I was telling a story that was painful to me or that I was being self-deprecating by assuming that someone thought I was pregnant. It might also lead them to deny that my belly looked pregnant as a consolation that the supposed insult was not accurate, so therefore not hurtful.

I wanted to avoid bringing up exclusive to certain people/classes theory, but this really makes me think of the Butler essay on speech and some other stuff we read in critical race theory. The idea that it can be useful/powerful to not automatically assume injury from phrases that have historically been hurtful. If you don't automatically take it as an insult, it gives you room to step back and question why it's harmful - like that assumption that fat=bad, and then possibly not take it as harmful. reclaim it. if you don't believe in the anti-fat idea that its based on, then it might not hurt if someone class you that. also, another related point that is that making this insult into a big deal puts emphasis on the harm this one individual is doing to another; the problem is a mean/rude person rather than a larger system of power and ideas in society that is the problem.

however... it's also really important to consider the current situation. and that it can be tiring or impossible to fight things and go against the grain all the time. one person can't just undo all the societal stuff because you want to, it still is in you and affects you. so, you might not always want to try to deal with rethinking all of these things that have a hurtful social meaning. the compassionate listener trying to make you feel better according to the rules/assumptions of the current social reality might be just want you want or need.

(and people that I talked to about this, I promise I'm not talking about you! or annoyed with at all! I was thinking about this before and also the way we're socialized I think its hard not to act in certain ways).

Either way, for some reason the idea is in my head and I shift my notebook so that it's not squashed against my body. I also became aware of carrying myself carefully walking off the train.

Enough rambling. I am way too long-winded. This is partly why I worry about blogging - maybe this is just stupid and unthoughtful self-centered stuff. I didn't go into class, gender, race, and sexuality assumptions that are a lot of the reasons that made this a more interesting/funny story to me because it's based on it being strange or funny that I would be pregnant.

I wanted to start this to encourage myself to think critially and write, or to keep thinking critically and practicing writing. I also want to get feedback from, dialogue with, but especially be challenged by friends and other people reading this. I think I'm wanting this partly because I had a lot of these things in school and I feel like I've had a lot less since I graduated. I want to keep doing it for my own sake, and to not lose sight of my politics/goals/ideals while having less directed time to think about it and possibly working in jobs not entirely in line with them.
I'll figure out more/write more later about what I want this blog to be. Actually, maybe I won't. Just writing would be better.