Dru Blood - I believe in the inherent goodness of all beings: all my isms Archives

DruBlood

Home
Dramatis Personae
Archives
Contact

Feed the Bleed

Full Bleed Fundraiser

Amazon wish list
Cole’s birthday - 10/24
Monk’s birthday - 12/2
Dru’s birthday - 1/5

Search

Syndicate this site (XML)

Special thanks

adam host
julie template queen
kd general lusciousness
pea guru

Powered byMovable Type 1.5

read this.

April 20, 2008

I don't really have anything to add to this LiP Magazine article, Uh-Obama:

Note, never has a white politician been confronted with questions about his or her ability to transcend race, or specifically, their whiteness. And this is true, even as many white politicians continue to pull almost all of their support from whites, and have almost no luck at convincing people of color to vote for them. In the Democratic primaries this year, Obama has regularly received about half the white vote, while Hillary Clinton has managed to pull down only about one-quarter of the black vote, yet the question has always been whether he could transcend race. The only rational conclusion to which this points is, again, that it is not race per se that needs to be overcome, but blackness. Whiteness is not seen as negative, as something to be conquered or transcended. Indeed, whereas blacks are being asked to rise above their racial identity, for whites, the burden is exactly the opposite: the worst thing for a white person is to fail to live up to the ostensibly high standards set by whiteness; it is to be considered white trash, which is to say, to be viewed as someone who has let down whiteness and fallen short of its pinnacle. For blacks, the worst thing it seems (at least in the minds of whites) is to be seen as black, which is no doubt why so many whites think it's a compliment to say things to black folks like, "I don't even think of you as black," not realizing that the subtext of such a comment is that it's a damned good thing they don't, for if they did, the person so thought of would be up the proverbial creek for sure.

Posted at 5:11 PM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Imus

April 10, 2007

I am tired of reading reports about Imus' racist comments that are couched in this language of "black people are angry."

Seriously...what the fuck is up with THIS:

"[Howard Kurtz was quoted on NPR as saying] he thinks Imus is NOT bigoted, and he thinks most listeners understand that, but several major groups of black and women journalists have called on the networks to fire Imus..."

Relegating the offense Imus' racist bullshit inspires to the realm of "women and minorities" is just the same bullshit racism that makes it ok for someone to make the fucking comments in the first place. And what the fuck is up with this "Oh, he's an ass to everyone, therefore it's ok." bullshit? I am going to start walking around and kicking everyone in the shins, and no one better arrest me, because I'm not kicking any one racial/political/cultural/orwhathaveyou group any more than I am another!

Shit fucking A. It is all OVER the media, too, this "Well, what do you have to say to these black leaders" line.

I guess I am just glad I am a woman, and am therefore justified in my anger. Oh, thank you, holy media...for giving me something to be justifiably pissed about!

frickin' frackin' fuckin' a!

Posted at 8:36 AM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Why We Banned Legos

March 1, 2007

"Why We Banned Legos" is an article in a magazine I subscribe to called Rethinking Schools. I wish the article was accessible online without fee, but unfortunately it is not, so I will attempt to summarize it here.

Basically, a group of teachers in an after school program at a school in Washington State were struck by the social dynamics surrounding the construction of a Lego town. They found that kids were excluding other kids and hording "cool pieces" in an insidious way that wasn't always vocally objected to (in fact, many of the excluded kids seemed resigned to exclusion, in spite of the fact that they later proved that they wished to participate and did not know how to break through the invisible wall). So, the teachers banned the Legos and created a unit study to examine the issues of wealth, power, privilege, and inclusion with their students (ages 5-9).

The original article goes on to describe a fascinating and well-organized exploration of this concept designed by the teachers. Students were asked to voice their opinions about property rights, ownership, and power...and they examined those opinions by taking field trips and playing games that were geared towards helping the children question the notion that power can somehow be benign and that really brought the idea of meritocracy into sharp focus for these children.

However, the reinterpretation of this article is somewhat staggering and reveals much about how strongly we want to protect the idea that the capitalist system of meritocracy. An article was sent to a homeschooling list I subscribe to that basically completely misinterprets the lesson in such a way that it could only have been intentional. I responded to the article thusly:

I suggest you read the actual article on which this editorial is based before leaping to the conclusion that the crafters of this lesson were in any way advocating that landowners be stripped of their property rights so big businesses can have them. I have this issue, and I have only skimmed the article, but I find the article below to be grossly slanted and inaccurate.
[...]

In fact, now that I think about it...it would be a really good homeschooling lesson on media to read this editorial and then go back and read the actual article about the lesson to note the evident slant of the editorialist.

Of course, the response to this was to skip right to communism. One of my fellow listmates said, basically, that while he believed the article wasn't supporting the usurpation of property by big business, he did feel that the lesson was promoting communism, to which I replied:

I imagine the responses on this list will also be useful in a study of media, as well as individual responses to the media. It is interesting to me that Brad has immediately decided that the only possible system of shared wealth is communism, and therefore declared any questioning of how property rights are handled in our society to be answered before they are even asked.
I think critical thinking would encouage children to experiment with several alternative methods of creating equity, and from what I have read in the original article, it looks like that is exactly what the children were encouraged to do.

Of course, all of that was before I actually read the article. hahaha. I had skimmed it, but had not had time to sit down and read it. Later that night, I did so, and found the lesson to be quite well-planned and executed, and nothing at all like it had been described by the author of the editorial linked above. So, this morning when I found another response that insisted the lesson was an insidious method of brainwashing our children to accept the tenets of communism (evil, evil communism!) I responded:

If you read the article, you would find that property rights were a very minute portion of the lesson. The main objective of the lesson was to encourage egalitarian and inclusive behavior among the children, while at the same time exploring the larger issues of power and privilege. Also, there was a lot of discussion and insight in the article about how we tend to assume that power is benign if it is not misused in such a way that would spark verbal protest. There was a really interesting portion of the lesson where arbitrary point values were applied to legos (to mirror how privilege based on skin color, family of origin, and other factors give some of us an unearned advantage over others), and those who "won" were allowed to make rules for the next round of the game.
Additionally, there is a huge leap from discussing equitable sharing of resources by a community and stripping individuals of rights to give them to corporations. The point of the experiment, and I think the objective of a communal social order (of which communisim is ONE example), is to distribute wealth and power in such a way that all members of society have an opportunity to participate. Perhaps we haven't seen such a social order yet in our lifetimes, but I am not sure why anyone would object to exploring how power and privilege operate in our society to give unearned advantage to some and undeserved disadvantage to others.

Later, someone equated the lesson with that urban legend that has a child skipping to school with all of her wonderful school supplies, only to get there and find that she is FORCED to dump her supplies in a communal bucket and comes away with *gasp* INFERIOR CRAYONS! Evidently, those individuals who send their children to public school to mix with the masses are very indignant about this concept of forced sharing. I gotta say, if you hate it so much, keep yr kids home. You won't hear me complaining about the taxes I am forced to share with the school district in spite of the fact that I have chosen to not participate. We LIVE in a society. We all benefit from its resources, and those resources include the other people in our communities. If you can't bear the thought of your child going to school and sharing his or her crayons, honey, I dunno what to tell you! At any rate, my response to the idea that "social engineering" was overtaking our schools was this:

That would be an interesting thing to discuss, but it does not have anything to do with the redistribution of legos that were already assumed to be a shared resource. I am curious how you think this experiment, and the exploration into how power and resources are shared, is equivalent to social engineering, and yet the very world we live in and are shaped by is not.
In fact, I think that's an interesting thing to think about. Do we all just assume that the way we live and the society we are shaped by is natural? And therefore any attempt to question and/or reorganize the order of things is somehow unnatural, or "engineered?"

And then I decided to explore further, and read a discussion about a reaction to the article (there is very little actual reading of the article in any of this. Mostly, people were just responding to the slanted reactions to the article, which led many to believe that the teachers noted that students were not behaving appropriately and therefore they simply yanked the legos away in a reactive manner, rather than the actual reality that the teachers got together and planned a very sophisticated lesson surrounding the removal and subsequent reestablishment of lego privileges, which encouraged the children to examine the issues of ownership, power, inclusion, and equity.

Boy, do I ever NOT have my finger on the pulse of America. What I read on this board shocked me. People are actually decrying the lesson these teachers were attempting to teach, and basically saying "children will be children" and therefore should not be encouraged to examine the power dynamics that come into play when groups of children exclude other children. In fact, I imagine that many of the people on that board believe that it's probably preferable that children learn to grab what is theres without considering how their unearned privilege influences their "rights" of ownership.

While I realize there are many within the public school system who are trying desperately to counteract this idea that the distribution of wealth and resources in this country is somehow equitable and meritocratic, I am frankly somewhat appalled by the response to this article by people who are allegedly parents of children. Are there really that many people who are so opposed to their children learning that perhaps our system is less equitable than those in positions of privilege would lead you to believe that they need to demonize an earnest attempt to point out the inherent inequities of our system and work with children to combat those inequities in the classroom?

Obviously I am in total support of any curriculum which moves our children towards examining "rights" that are essentially extensions of unearned privilege. I am concerned, however, that this is such a controversial thing to stand for. If we can't even address these issues with something so benign as Legos without a firestorm of opposition, how on earth do we address global poverty, hunger, and health care crises?

Posted at 9:43 AM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Comparitive Oppression

October 1, 2005

I just read the most entertaining blog post that I will never link to. It brought up some good points, but it was seething with a sexism that will never be admitted to, and this is the week I have decided to stop banging my head against walls, so I'm not going to go there.

However, I feel like I need to say something about oppression in the wake of last week's brouhaha over parenting, and the right for parents to participate in public spaces with their children. There seems to be a humongous lack of understanding of what I meant by oppression. Did I mean that someone telling my my child is a fucking brat who needs to be controlled is oppressive? No. That's fucking rude, but it is not, in itself, oppressive.

What is oppressive is the sexism that is inherent in singling out the behavior of marginally controllable human beings as a means of allowing or disallowing full participation in public spaces. What's further oppressive is in denying that, as things stand currently, whether we like it or not, the people who are generally tasked with the charge of these marginally controllable human beings are largely female. What's most oppressive of all is the notion that any person whose body is the sole or major means of nourishment and/or comfort (which, by the way, is one of many strategies that can be used to exert a modicum of control over the aforementioned only marginally controllable human beings) should be disallowed or even be made to think twice about providing said nourishment and/or comfort.

I am not arguing about the oppressiveness of a "lifestyle choice" but about the oppessiveness that is inherent in the patriarchy. Nor am I saying that this oppression negates the equal and opposite oppression of women who choose not to have children. Unfortunately, our society is an equal-opportunity oppressor.

And, look, griping about my anger doesn't earn you any anti-feminist points from me, either. Using "anger" as a means of discounting my points is the first line of defense of most sexists. Just as it's the first line of defense of most racists.

Which brings me to racism which, yes, is another form of oppression. Or, as some might argue, it's the same form of oppression in different garb. Believe it or not, racism can exist and can be fought against at the same time as sexism. And there are sexists of color and feminist racists. I know that exists, too. I know it's out there. It's pervasive. It exists outside of me, and it exists within me. Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I call it out when I see it, and when someone calls me on it, I do a fair amount of self-examination and I cop to whatever it is I discover I need to cop to. I feel like I've always been pretty up front about my participation in the system of privilege and my own privilege...enough so that if anyone wants to actually question me directly, I am prepared to listen, to examine, and to answer.

So, go ahead. Take your best shot.

Posted at 12:32 AM • Comments (6) • TrackBack

Progressives, Sexism, Accountability, and Moral Authority

August 15, 2005

Hi David,

You know I have to tell you that, as a progressive, it is imperative that you understand that all men (and most women) have issues with internalized/unexamined sexism...regardless of how cool they are; no matter how liberal or radical their politics. It really bothers me that you aren't open to seeing how that played out in your acceptance of a woman as a passive participant* vs. a woman as an active resistor. You need only acknowledge that this is so**, and accept that, like all people who are raised in a society that promotes sexism (and racism)(and war**)...you yourself cannot help but be affected by that sexism (and racism)(and war**). I've addressed this issue time and time again, in fact, with regard to racism. If you were to call me out on something that I have said that has been racist, I would hope that you would hold me accountable for that behavior and those words just as I am attempting to hold you accountable. That's our job. That's how we learn to communicate and live together. That's why we are progressive...and THAT is why we have the moral authority.

I've also noticed a shift in your responses. It's subtle, but it's there. I'll have to address it later, as I am at work and have little time...and I wanted to mostly explain my comments about sexism to you because your whole "I am NOT EITHER a sexist" is a trigger for me. You ARE sexist. I AM racist. All I ask is that you think about how your words can be viewed through that lens...and that you acknowledge that...because we can't move forward until we understand where we are starting from.

I have mad respect for you and for The Bellman. I do, indeed, want to support you David. I do, indeed, want to be on the same side. However, I can't abide having someone demand that I "drop it" as if I'm a dog holding a bone. I will drop it exactly when you acknowledge it. I will move forward exactly when you catch up.

Seriously.

livelifelove
Lainie

*I have to say, too, that I am not intending to diminish Ms. Parks' role at all by stating that she was more passive than Ms. Sheehan. I would, however, hope that we have become more accepting of women as active resistors through the years.

**Ironically, this is so in parallel with what Ms. Sheehan and her fellow military families are requesting of George Bush with regard to the war that I don't even think it's a coincidence. I think it's universal. I think it's all the same thing.

If you have any comments, please feel free to email me. I will post them if I feel they are worth posting...even if I disagree.

Posted at 1:28 PM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

I have a challenge for you.

August 3, 2005

Marginally inspired by this post, a few comments on which made me think of this Crass lyric: "They sell us love as divinity, when it's only a social obscenity. Underneath we're all lovable." My challenge is this...as you go about your day/week/month, look at/listen to strangers that you pass on the street, ride the train with, see in restaurants, talk on the phone with, etc. and try to imagine how they might be lovable.

That is, if you don't already do this.

Try it. It's truly very fun.

Posted at 12:53 AM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

An interesting look at age of consent...

January 18, 2005

SistersTalk

Let's review the 11 states that passed laws banning gay marriage between consenting adults. I want to look at the age the law allows grown men to have sex with teenage girls in these same states

[link via, and further information at BlogSisters]

Posted at 10:21 AM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

Blogging Ethics

March 4, 2004

OK, let's go there...since aaron's going all gentle art on us, and there have been a couple of things on his blog of late that have made me think about this topic, most notably his link (or non-link) to Michele's public de-linking (or, more accurately, denouncement) of a BLATANTLY (and disgustingly, I might add) racist blogger, and the ensuing conversation about respect and politics and getting along.

I love that. I do. I love respect and getting along. However, there's respect and getting along, and there's sacrificing respect for the sake of getting along, you know?

So, I'm wondering, what are the ethics of blogging when encountering oppressive language? And by oppressive I don't merely mean a litany of racial slurs. There is plenty of language that is equally oppressive but far less overt.

I ask, because I have seen instances where people I respect (or once respected) have not only engaged in linguistic oppression (which, in the internet, might just as well be out and out oppression) and have not been called out on it. I really have tried to make it a point to point this out as I see it, but it's not always easy, and generally causes a huge stink. But I have a real problem with seeing words like that go unchallenged in this medium, where all things are not equal in spite of what we'd like to believe.

The problem is that oppressive language can sometimes be justified by "political difference" or even defended (falsely, in my opinion) by calling the opponents of the statement "Politically Correct" or by proudly proclaiming itself "Politically INcorrect." And thus derailing a discussion about what's acceptable into an argument about whether the person who initially engaged in the use of oppressive language is actually him or herself BEING oppressed by the so-called "thought police."

Ach. This is very roundabout.

Specifically, as this applies to me, my website here is my space, and I definitely will not allow oppressive language to happen here unchallenged. Including my own. I expect/demand to be challenged when I use oppressive language, and I strive to respond in the spirit of my tagline, assuming that those who point it out are inherently "good" and are striving to help me improve my method of communicating in an inclusive way (this ethic, of course, allows for me to be as angry as I want to be towards people who attempt to carry on oppressive conversations with me, or with people who are acting counter to their inherent goodness - which leaves me a lot of leeway for, you know, being human and stuff. I'm certainly no Pollyana.)

So, of course in my space, I get to make my rules, right? That's not the difficult part.

The difficult part is when you go to the space of someone else. I mean...it might be a LITTLE more clear when you are talking about the direct words of the author of the space, but what about the comments on another person's blog. Just because I feel responsible to interrupt oppression in the comments of my blog, do I have the right to assume that others feel and uphold the same responsibility? Do I have the right to "call out" oppressive language in someone else's space?

I hate to use Michele as an example, because we have had our differences in the past and will no doubt continue to have our differences. She has called my beliefs stupid and wrong-headed and I have done the same of hers. And whatever. But what really gets to me sometimes is not only that I disagree with her words, but I disagree with what I feel is oftentimes rampant linguistic oppression in her comments. People saying things and espousing views that I feel are damaging and counter-productive to the goal of encouraging free speech among those who are in the minority. And it goes uninterrupted, and is sometimes even encouraged. I'm not going to pull up examples, because I think we've all seen examples of this in various locations, and I don't want to pick on Michele any more than I already have.

So, my question is, what is the solution? I see people requesting and demanding more respectful interactions on the internet, but I also see that respect is more than just a two-way street. Our discussions here are not private conversations, so respect on the internet is not only something that requires consciousness of the people participating in the discussion, but also of the people who might be viewing the discussion - both as it happens, and at some point in the future. And I think we do need to be aware/conscious of and respectful towards those silent participants.

What do you think?

Posted at 10:08 AM • Comments (5) • TrackBack

Classist Bullshit

June 27, 2003

...is what I wrote in my notebook while listening to the keynote speaker at today's festivities. She was talking about her wonderful community technology program in Palo Alto CA, and about how parents of the children in her community are "ill-equipped" to provide them with the tools they need to achieve "prestigious" jobs. And how the children she works with talk about how they want to become janitors and landscapers like their parents, and doctors and lawyers like the people they see on TV.

What the fuck?

Is this a progressive event, or is it an event that perpetuates the stigmatization of certain career choices?

Which is not to say that I don't see the value in promoting education to enhance choices among children in economically depressed areas, but can we not also be mindful of the vocabulary we use to discuss career choices and opportunities so we are not continuing to oppress those who either have no choice or actually choose to be janitors and landscapers?

I have a lot to say on this subject, but I've just been called back to session. I'd love to hear what everyone thinks about education and career options and why some careers are set up to be less worthy than others. Because I keep encountering this wall within my organization...and it frustrates me to no end. Obviously, our society is set up to make so-called "higher" education unachievable by all, so why do we then conclude that those who do not obtain a degree are somehow unfit or unworthy of decency, not to mention unable to turn around and provide their children with information necessary for them to make their own decisions about what to do with their futures.

No parent who cares about their children is "ill-equipped" I don't fucking care if you never even went to school, if you have a child and you love that child, you are perfectly equipped to find ways to help that child become whoever that child wishes to become.

OK...these are rough thoughts...more later. Please feel free to discuss for now, I'm not sure when I'll be back.

Posted at 12:52 PM • Comments (2) • TrackBack

Privilege and my educational choices (part one: the decision)

June 13, 2003

I'm feeling like I need to further clarify some things about privilege and the part it plays in my life due to the educational choices I have made. Or at least think them out a bit more, as I'm not sure that I have complete clarity on this issue.

The decision I made to not attend college was a completely conscious and political decision borne of many many circumstances in my life at the time college was becoming a consideration. I remember very clearly my junior year of high school, after having taken the PSAT test, I returned from spring break to find BAGS AND BAGS of mail from colleges, offering to give me the experience of my life.

It was still pretty much assumed at that time, by my family at least, that I would be going on to college and getting a prestigious degree in a prestigious line of work earning a prestigious sum of money that was suitable to my prestigiously-inclined grey matter. They had decided that I was to be a lawyer or a doctor, or, failing that, a veterinarian.

I had not decided, and I was just beginning to evaluate my relationship with money, which was very much influenced by being the "poor folks" in a wealthy neighborhood.

In short, I was gaining a certain amount of awareness of consumerist society, and I was feeling a great deal of rebellion against it, but I wasn't really sure what to do about those feelings, as consumerism was not questioned in my family, and we could and probably have spend hours and hours talking about not only the television shows we watched, but also about the commercials between the television shows...and all that entails.

At any rate, I think it was at a very crucial point in this evaluation that i came upon a piece of mail from Northwestern University in Evanston, IL. Northwestern was where my friend Pam was going to school. It had a cool radio station, and from what I knew it was very very expensive.

The brochure from Northwestern was the single greatest concrete factor in deterring me from the path of college. On the front of the brochure was a string that led you into the fold out describing all of the excellent features of the university and all of the opulence and beauty of the campus...and at the end of the string was what ostensibly was to be the pot of gold at the end of you college education rainbow...a bundle of money. Fastened, of course, with the string you had been following through the brochure.

Something clicked in me when I saw that image. I am not sure I can really describe it, and i'm not sure I've even figured out entirely why I was so incredibly put off by the idea that a college education was the equivalent of money. I don't THINK I was sophisticated enough to understand that classism is frequently perpetuated by the myth that only college graduates are qualified enough to perform certain duties and functions (which is what I wholeheartedly believe today, and I'll probably talk about that more later), but I think there was something in the idea that it was expected that my educational goals were somehow all related to money that turned me off, then and there, to the idea of going to college after graduating.

My family was pissed, but I was convinced there was a better and more pure way of learning and/or living.

(to be continued)

Posted at 12:09 PM • Comments (5) • TrackBack

Privilege and Victimhood

June 13, 2003

I'm supposed to go to an NCBI meeting today, which is one of my favorite monthly gatherings of people, and it relates to what I brought up last night about privilege.

One of the things that I like about NCBI is that privilege, prejudice, bias, *ism, is all brought up in a non-confrontational, non-blaming way. We are encouraged to examine how privilege or the lack of privilege has played a role in our lives, and we are then given the opportunity to share this with the other members in a safe space. In fact, there is an exercise called "first thoughts" which is designed to force you to belch out your *ism on whatever topic is being addressed, even if it's internalized oppression against your own "group."

I'd be interested in hearing how a LACK of privilege has affected some of you. I'm sure there are many instances where I have been in a position of "under" privilege (and an equal amount of, if not more, instances where I have been overprivileged as all fuck) and sometimes it's helpful to share those so people can see where I'm coming from. That's another basic tenet of NCBI - the power of sharing stories to help each other understand how power and prejudice work to oppress us all.

Lemme start by sharing a pretty painful experience from m's birth, which is a pretty clear example of how power plays into privilege as well as oppression, and how strong women can easily become victims, and how it is NOT the responsibility of women to constantly have to stay on top of relationships where it is easy for power to turn into oppression. The whole idea of "blaming the victim" comes up a lot when talking about privilege.

I had m in a hospital, which I thought would work out OK since I was strong in my conviction to pursue a natural birth, I had been assured by all the representatives of the hospital that my wishes would be respected, and I was well-educated, I thought, on all that could go wrong in my pursuit of my goal. I'll spare the details of the birth, except to say that it was the single most disempowering experience of my life. I was raped. And I say that with the full understanding that people who have been raped by force by a man in a private setting might cringe, thinking I am using the word lightly, but I assure you I am not. What I experienced in that well-lit hospital room was rape in the truest sense of the word, and I was tremendously traumatized.

Six weeks later, I was at my OB/GYN's office for my post-partum exam. I was visibly still suffering from trauma. I had the baby with me. I was almost unable to make it through the appointment without bursting into tears. My GYN noticed NONE of this, in spite of the fact that I'm sure she witnesses post-partum depression and PTSD in her patients all of the time and should most certainly be prepared to help patients deal with it.

Instead of showing any sensitivity to what I was going through, which was something I couldn't even verbalize until years later, I was put into an exam room, told to strip, and made to wait for the OB to examine me. She came in, fiddled around with my stitches, and told me we would "have to do something about birth control now."

I should have just asked for a prescription for the pill. A prescription is easily discarded. But I refuse to take the Pill due to the fact that I don't want to pump any more chemicals through my body than currently course through, so I told her my birth control method of choice was a diaphragm. I had never used a diaphragm before, but I figured - after having a child - it would be simple enough. Especially considering that my experience of childbirth was one of unnecessary exposure, vulnerability, and powerlessness. I was prepared to strip and allow just about anyone to stare at my genitals on suggestion at that point.

However, I wasn't anticipating that I would have to be "fitted" for a diaphragm, and when my OB told me this, I stammered "um, no...really. Not right now. I'm not even having sex yet, and I really don't want to mess with that area. I'm still recovering." What *I* meant was that I was still recovering emotionally...and of course what *she* thought I meant was that I still needed to recover physically.

"Everything is looking fine down there! I'll just pop this in and you can take it out and see if you can put it in properly."

I'd like to believe it was because she had other patients waiting in other exam rooms that she was so cavalier and dismissive of my apparent angst about this procedure, but regardless of the reason, she proceeded to insert the diaphragm into my vagina AGAINST MY WILL, perfunctorily, as I'm sure she has done on several occasions, and left the room.

The minute she shut the door, m started wailing, which I believe was completely empathetic, as I had totally crumbled inside and the tears were coming to my eyes, too. I felt totally and completely violated, and yet, through the tears and the clenched chest and the feelings of complete lack of control and power, I somehow managed to fish the diaphragm out...and then CRAM IT BACK IN.

Why I responded this way is totally unknown to me, but it gives me a great deal of empathy for women who are victims of rape who COULD HAVE defended themselves and chose not to. I COULD HAVE run out into the OB's office in my paper gown, waving that diaphragm around like a weapon and screaming that I had been abused, but by this time, I was so resigned to powerlessness, that I did what I thought I had to do in that situation to get out of there safely.

The doctor came back into the exam room, said nothing of my blotchy, red face or my sniffles, yanked the diaphragm out of me, congratulated me on my accuracy, wrote a perscription, pinched m's cheeks, and sent me on my way without a word about what must have been a great deal of fear and resentment and resignation written all over my face. It was all so matter-of-fact that I didn't even think about complaining. (By the time I realized I had a valid complaint, it was many years later, and I wrote a letter, but I got no response.)

My point here is that people who have power (which is pretty much anyone, depending on the situation - which is to say, most of us enjoy power in some aspect of our lives) have the responsibility of being careful about how they weild that power, and of examining closely how the power they hold in their relationships affect others. This could be a doctor, a boss, a partner in a marriage, a parent...a teacher...any relationship where there is an imbalance of power. It's imperative that the one who holds the power is in tune with the person over whom they hold it...and it's wrong-headed to place that responsibility on the shoulders of the person who does not have the power. Yes, it would be a wonderful thing if all power relationships had an atmosphere of safety for the person with less power, but there's no way to set that up, as different people have different experiences of life and are made to feel disempowered or unsafe by different things.

For a long time, I blamed myself for the position I was in during m's birth. If only I had chosen homebirth over hospital birth (a 1500 dollar homebirth seemed way too expensive compared to a 10 dollar hospital birth. I chose a homebirth the second time around, because I was privileged to have the money to do so, and it was so much less emotionally expensive, in fact, I think I came out ahead on the homebirth - and I can examine how my midwife treated her power in another post. And why it's so important to fight for the right for a woman to birth at home, regardless of her income level), if only I had yelled out during the birth, if only I had stood up for myself like I know I was capable of doing...if only....

And I finally came to terms with the fact that this kind of self-blame is exactly what helps to perpetuate the myth that women create their own victimhood. That women are their own sole salvation, and that those who hold power over women aren't responsible for using that power wisely and with self-awareness. That I wasn't merely "playing the part of a victim." That I was, in fact, A VICTIM. And, yes, I had to consider how I could avoid being a victim the next time, but I also had to allow myself to forgive MYSELF and come to terms with and to honor the fact that I did not "avoid" victimhood the first time, because it was unavoidable.

Posted at 8:39 AM • Comments (5) • TrackBack

More On Adultism

June 4, 2003

Pea had a post awhile back that had some excellent links on adultism, and then Lisa posted a prime example of adultism in action, and she's totally my hero for the way she handled it. I meant to post this stuff about a month ago, but for some reason it never got past the draft stage.

Rock on, mamas.

Posted at 9:54 AM • Comments (0) • TrackBack

DruBlood

Feed the Bleed

Search

Archives

Categories

Special thanks

read this.

April 20, 2008

Imus

April 10, 2007

Why We Banned Legos

March 1, 2007

Comparitive Oppression

October 1, 2005

Progressives, Sexism, Accountability, and Moral Authority

August 15, 2005

I have a challenge for you.

August 3, 2005

An interesting look at age of consent...

January 18, 2005

Blogging Ethics

March 4, 2004

Classist Bullshit

June 27, 2003

Privilege and my educational choices (part one: the decision)

June 13, 2003

Privilege and Victimhood

June 13, 2003

More On Adultism

June 4, 2003