Crazy Bitch

Missing the Point

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 18:48:00 +0000

Well, it appears feminism is still pretty well misunderstood. This article in the NY Times pissed me off today. It pits second and third wave feminists against each other and suggests we need to kiss and make up.

The focus of the article is Jennifer Valenti, founder of Feministing and author of Full Frontal Feminism, and Marcia Pappas, head of the NY state chapter of NOW. Ms Pappas released a statement this week indicating that she (and in her capacity, the NY state chapter of NOW, and by extension, a significant proportion of feminists) felt betrayed by Ted Kennedy in his decision not to back Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. She accused him of not being able or, perhaps, willing, to handle a female president. The brief article compares the women, who have very similar backgrounds, and contrasts them, highlighting where they appear not to agree.

So, two women with similar backgrounds disagree and the NY Times needs to comment on it? Is this news? There are as many different types of feminisms as there are feminists and not all will agree all the time. Radical, liberal, cultural, Black, Jewish, eco, post-modern, socialist - and that just scratches the surface. The Times article seems to be looking to reinforce the so-called "rift" between second and third wave feminists. Third wavers have been accused of not paying proper respect to the second wavers for all the progress they stimulated, that they wouldn't have the opportunities they have without the hard work the second wavers did. They're accused of being privileged and ungrateful and abandoning much of what are seen as the basic tenets of feminism (i.e., wearing heels and make-up - seriously). Second wavers are often painted as bitter, resentful old bitches who are jealous of the youth and opportunity in the third wave movement.

Wow, pitting two groups of women against each other. What gain could that possibly have? If we pit them against each other, maybe they'll get so caught up in their un-ignorable need to be catty, they'll forget about fighting the patriarchy?

The answer, however, is not to encourage these girls to sit down and work out their differences. They both serve in different capacities. I think we're fortunate to have so many different women working for us. The more diversity among the leadership, the more women will see someone like themselves and feel better about themselves and possibly see themselves as having options. Isn't that part of the goal?

Ongoing Cesarean Controversy

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:29:00 +0000

Birth experiences are as varied as the women who have the babies. My own experience with Miss Thang was at times the most amazing and spiritual event and, at other times, completely miserable. I'm not even talking about pain (back labor). I labored for 28 hours before a completely unsurprising Cesarean birth (I had gestational diabetes and prepared myself for that possibility, though it didn't happen for the reasons I expected) and I had some pretty poor care (in terms of the way I was treated) except the nurse who helped me with the epidural, she and the anesthesiologist were two of the brightest spots of the whole experience). I had some really rotten nurses who pretty much treated me like a piece of meat - like they worked at Sizzler and I was a crappy steak. Oh, and the surgeon who helped get my baby out had absolutely no bedside manner, though she was an amazing surgeon. I was in the hospital for five days, the lactation consultant actually made everything worse and we were so sleep deprived (ever spent time in a hospital? they don't let you sleep) Mr B ran a red light at a huge intersection on the way home (we were fine, if a little shaken).

I have never regretted having a Cesarean birth. A lot of women feel like they did the whole birth thing wrong if they end up having a Cesarean, but I'm fine with it. Yes, I had gestational diabetes and that made it a possibility, but I've never wasted a moment feeling bad about it.

Why am I babbling so about this? Because 25% of births in the US are Cesarean and there are significant risks to both the mother and fetus/infant in the event of a Cesarean birth. I'm not going to go into the details of that, but it is a disturbing trend. Many people think that it's because American women can't be bothered to be inconvenienced by the messy birth process and prefer to schedule birth like a hair appointment. It turns out, this may not be the case. Nobody is really disputing the 25% figure, the question is whose idea is it? Are women requesting them or does it originate with the doctors? Research is starting to show that women are not requesting them in the rates originally thought. Ourbodiesourselves.org has an interesting collection of articles relating to this topic.

So, that leaves the medical community. According to this essay from the Annals of Family Medicine, one of the reasons for the rise in Cesareans was that doctors became concerned about complications arising from breech births (fetus coming out butt first) and Cesareans appeared to be less risky. More recent follow-up studies indicate that this may not be the case and now we have scores of physicians who are reluctant to deliver breech babies vaginally.

Another group of women who physicians are now reluctant to deliver vaginally are women who have already delivered via Cesarean. There is apparently increased risk of uterine rupture (along the scar) during vaginal birth after Cesarean (VBAC). Newer research suggests that fetuses can cope with such a rupture until an emergency Cesarean can be performed. Unfortunately, most hospitals lack sufficient staff to for this to become the norm. It also may be the case that repeat Cesarean births may be more risk to the mother (infection and hemorrhage) than VBAC.

So, here we are, another women's health issue where our choice is limited because someone else thinks they know what's best for us. Another women's health situation where the doctors' knee-jerk response is to do something that makes their lives easier; to hell with the patients (without whom they wouldn't have a job). I find it really hard to trust the medical community when they're constantly coming back and contradicting themselves. Now, I understand how the research process works and that there's always new information coming in, but what I don't understand is why so many women need to be guinea pigs. That's what all the women in the new research have been - guinea pigs. Does this happen to men with issues of the magnitude of childbirth? I can't really think of anything. The first birth control trials were held in Puerto Rico in the 1950s. The women were not told they were guinea pigs and they were given pills with three times the doses recommended today. This was a conscious decision by the doctors in charge because they wanted to make sure it was a success (success being defined here as women not getting pregnant while they took the pill). Two women died during the trial, apparently healthy women; no autopsy was performed to find out the specific cause of death.

Men get to make decisions about the things that affect them most. When do we get to know what that feel like?

Just Good Cinema

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 17:17:00 +0000

My vote for most amazing movie of the year, the most deeply affecting, is Juno. BitchPhD articulates very clearly why this film is a triumph in the creation of female characters, but everyone will probably take something different from the film.

Sometimes Two Heads Aren't Better Than One

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:15:00 +0000

Wow, I can't believe it's been that long since I've posted. Sheesh. It's been frightfully busy at work. I've basically taken on twice the workload (with increase in pay, thank you), but there's also driving involved and I'm just plain pooped! There really isn't enough time sometimes.

I am not a close follower of presidential politics. I stay informed, but I don't get off on watching every little sound bite and analyzing the day's races. This race in general is of particular interest to me because it's the first time women's issues have ever been primary during an election. White, middle-aged wealthy men don't care about teenage girls' reproductive rights or whether they get paid the same as the boys at McDonald's.

That said, there's this YouTube video of Hillary Clinton getting heckled:

"Iron my shirt." Isn't it pretty fucked up that that's the best he could do? I imagine he had this fantasy of "puttin' that bitch in her place," but he really just came off sounding like a dumbass. Is he criticizing her for anything in particular? No. He's trying to tell the world she has a vagina and isn't acting the way a person with a vagina is supposed to act.

I'm still not sure where this fear comes from, this fear that propels people to try to tear apart an entire gender. People really can't give a legitimate answer why Hillary deserves vilification. She isn't squeaky clean, but she doesn't eat babies (as far as I know). So, why the 'tude? Why is she the object of so much vitriol? Why is it so nasty? When a man is criticized, his performance is generally on the line. When a woman is criticized, her character is more often impugned.

Why her, in particular? This country has elected far less qualified individuals, they just all happen to possess penises and I can't figure out why that makes a person qualified for that job. I mean, there's that old joke that God gave men two heads and only enough blood to run one at a time, so wouldn't a president capable of maximum blood flow be the clear choice? Is it womb envy? Is the patriarchy so terrified of the awesome power that is Woman that it must tear her down at every opportunity, lest she come to her senses and rise up and take back the world?

Hoo! Sorry, I got a little carried away with the drama. Nobody really knows why this continues to happen. Stereotypes are notoriously resistant to amendment. Hell, when we get confounding information about a stereotype we hold, we create a subgroup rather than adjust our perspective. We really need our convenient mental categories. But why do they have to be so damaging?

Someone please explain this to me.

Confession Time

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:27:00 +0000

Hi, my name is Crazy Bitch and celeb gossip is my guilty pleasure. I'm not sure why because there's a part of me that would be perfectly happy if all celeb gossip dried up today. It's brain rotting garbage and perpetuates so many evil ideas about women and men. I've watched that TMZ TV show a couple times and I can't figure out why it even exists (it seems I only like to read the gossip blogs because I've never really liked any of the gossip shows).

Why am I bringing this up now? Well, I take pretty much everything I read in the blogs with a grain of salt. A big one, like the salt licks you can leave for deer. Today, however, one of the blogs printed a quote from Adrian Grenier, who is on the HBO show "Entourage," which I've never watched. Supposedly he had an exchange with a woman in a bar and after asking her all of two questions, closed with "So, how about we go home and I fuck the shit out of you?" Her response was reportedly "No thanks." Gee, how could a girl turn down an offer like that?

I don't know that this actually happened as reported, but I imagine it's an exchange that's played out in bars all over the place with different men and women in the starring roles. Grenier's proposal, while perhaps not consciously intended as such, is really quite violent. He's essentially suggesting that they go to a place that's unfamiliar to her and he spend a few minutes doing something to her using language that implies that her needs aren't even secondary. He's going to do his thing to her, donate some DNA and have done with it, from the sound of things.

There may be other contexts where such a suggestion would have a slightly different meaning. For example, whispered into the ear of a partner during a boring party could yield completely different results. Sometimes things change when the person in question is known to the intended woman and a guy might be able to say something like that and have it come out sexy rather than disgusting.

I wonder how many people have had success with a line like that and what the result was?

Tit Wrap

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:30:00 +0000

Sorry I've been absent. Work has gotten a little hectic temporarily and there just doesn't seem to be enough hours in the day to get everything done without making myself nuts (which I've so far avoided).

What the hell is that picture? Well, it's a breast cancer awareness basket. Yes, a basket in the shape of a pink ribbon. This is awareness run amok, my friends.

I was a the grocery store with Mr B today and saw breast cancer awareness wrapping paper. I don't remember exactly what it looked like, but I think it was kind of gold with shiny foil-y leaves, I don't think it was holly, but something bushy with pink foil berries on each. It wasn't ugly paper, it just seemed pointless. "Hey look," I said to Mr B, "tit wrap." He laughed.

Pink marketing seems to be out of control. You can find a pink stand mixer, golf clubs, golf tees, t-shirts, scarves (really ugly ones, too), scrapbook paper, slippers, baking tins, cookie cutters, rubber stamps, beads, jewelry (most of it ugly), socks, teddy bears, coffee mugs, dickies (!), dog tags, sportswear, carabiner clips and coasters. There's more than that, but I'm getting annoyed typing all this.

Why does this piss me off? I mean, isn't it a reflection of attention paid to an important women's issue? Not really. One problem is there's no way for a consumer to be sure how much of their purchase is going toward actual breast cancer research or treatment. Another problem is that almost all of the items mentioned above are "girly" things, things that men are not likely to purchase. Where are the breast cancer awareness ties? What about breast cancer billfolds with a pink ribbon embossed on the front?

A bigger problem is that it's objectifying. It's a "women's issue," but what about other women's issues? Does heart disease in women get this much attention? Heart disease is the leading killer of women in the US. Can we buy little heart disease awareness cookie cutters (yes, I know we can buy heart-shaped cookie cutters, but that isn't the same thing)? And what about dickies? Can I get my dickie fix and support heart disease at the same time?

I'm just not sure it's a coincidence that so much attention is being paid to this particular part of a woman's anatomy. I'm glad women's health issues are getting more attention, but perhaps boobs would be ok with sharing the spotlight?

Who really is the Biggest Loser?

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 04:51:00 +0000

"The Biggest Loser." Why am I watching this? For the uninitiated, it's a supposed to be a show to help people lose weight. A bunch of fatties are rounded up into teams and each team has a different trainer. The trainers seem like they really get to know and care about their teams. Every week they engage in different "challenges" that are basically ridiculous feats of strength and/or endurance that are designed to demonstrate the amazing things they can do with their changing bodies. One of the things that really bugs me is that the whole show leads up to the "weigh-in" at the end of the show - it's all about the numbers. I understand that it has to do with how the show is set up - the "winner" each week is decided by who had the highest percentage of weight loss, so, of course they're going to focus on the numbers.

In my experience, focusing on the numbers made me crazy. I used to be very focused on my weight, specifically the number. I would weigh myself at least twice a day and any time the numbers didn't go down I'd feel like shit. To me, it looks like the "contestants" on this show have to deal with the same thing, only they're doing it in front of the world. The weigh-ins are an exercise in humiliation. Everyone gets up onto this gigantic flat metal scale (that looks cold) and there's a giant digital readout next to them that flips forward and backward through numbers until it lands on the contestant's weight. So, it's basically a picture of a person and a number. To make matters worse, the men have to take their shirts off before stepping on the scale. The women don't, but they're already down to their sports bras while everyone else weighs in. The women spend more time in less clothing than the men.

Doctors are going on and on about all the awful things that can happen to you when you're fat, how fatties can't get knocked up (the doc made sure to say that even "overweight, not just obese" women can have trouble). They had a rubber heart they dipped into "vat of fat" (human fat, literally) to demonstrate how hard it is for the doctors to operate on a fat person's heart. Just gross on so many levels.

It's always about making the doctor's job easier, isn't it? That's why we often have to give birth on our backs (against gravity).

For this most recent bunch of episodes (a midseason time filler), the teams are composed of pairs of friends/family (mother/son, brothers, mother/daughter, and so on). Tonight's challenge involved each pair in harnesses and hooked up to what looks like an oversized weather balloon. They have to go across a large distance and the balloons produce wind resistance and require more effort on the part of the contestants. Not a big deal in and of itself. The problem I have is that the pair that comes in last gets penalized 2 points at the next weigh-in. They work their asses off and finish the challenge and get penalized for it. It's like that motivation-by-humiliation tactic.

Unfortunately, the show is also inherently sexist (besides the clothing thing). Men tend to lose more weight (sheer numbers) and tend to lose it faster than women. The creators of the show tried to get around this by relying on ration of weight lost to total weight. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have worked because no woman (in 3 seasons) has won. Even in the last season, 3 of the final 4 were women and the one man still won.

The only reason I do watch the show is because I find the psychological transformation fascinating. Though I don't always agree with the means, the resultant empowerment and increase in self-esteem is really cool to witness. It's really cool to watch a woman who clearly doesn't think she's worth a shit learn how to have compassion for herself, which is a far better gift than weight loss.

New Year's Musings

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:36:00 +0000

I don't usually make New Year's Resolutions. I stopped years ago after I realized I never saw them through. So, in resolving not to make resolutions (not something I did specifically, I'm speaking metaphorically) I resolved to tackle problems as I see them. This has resulted in me being unable to deny issues when I see them for very long. Not necessarily the most convenient, but it hasn't been a bad policy overall.

It isn't that I don't think that NYRs don't work. They absolutely can. The problem I have is the psychology behind them (if you can imagine that!). A lot of people make resolutions because it's a tradition. But then they feel like crap about themselves when they give up 2-3 months into the new year. People seem to experience a lot of pressure to change something about their physical appearance, usually losing weight. So, a typical New Year's Resolution is made under a bit of duress, to change something about themselves that is notoriously difficult to change, and then abandoned because it was too much to take on at once. Then the guilt and shame set in.

Oh yeah, sign me up!

Now, I don't think it's a bad idea to periodically take stock of one's . . . whatever (life, situation, job, etc) and seriously think about all of the options available, no matter how impossible they may seem. But, do it because you want to, not because you think you have to. Change things that you want to change, things that will help you be 100% yourself, not because you're worried about what other people might think. Instead of resolving to lose weight (a really ambiguous prospect that implies there's something wrong with they way you look), resolve to take better care of yourself. Find a tolerable way to eat more vegetables, find a doctor who listens to you, be pickier about who you let into your life, go to therapy and find out how you're getting in your own way (spoken by someone who just went back to therapy).

I have a few ongoing "projects" I've been working on that I'll continue to work toward in 2008. I'll get licensed in 2008. I'm working on eating more vegetables to help me get my blood sugar under better control (so I'll feel my best and stop getting sick). I'm also trying to walk more because it helps control my blood sugar and because it keeps my back from hurting. I'm trying to bring my own reusable bags with me to whatever grocery store I go to. I want to make more time to read. These are all things I want to do for me.

Make your resolutions because you want to do something for yourself in the upcoming year. The rest of us think you're fine the way you are!

Thanks to SVJ for getting me thinking about this stuff!

The Outdoor Industry Hates Fat People

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 04:01:00 +0000

I went to REI today to pick up a new water bottle. My hooded raincoat finally gave up the ghost after 4-5 years, so I thought I'd poke around and see what I could find. I knew there wouldn't be too much in my price range, but REI's usually at least worth a look.

Not one plus-sized windbreaker-type coat to be found (I didn't look at every coat in the place, so I can't say there weren't any in the whole store). There were 2 that came in size XL, but they were too generously cut through the shoulders yet I couldn't comfortably zip them up. Now, I'm not that fat and it really felt shitty to not be able to zip up a coat without holding my stomach in. I have other very cute coats that fit very well and look great, but I do like to do outdoorsy stuff and I can't wear a faux leather fuzzy leopard lined coat that doesn't have a hood while I dash around in the rain (or to the bathroom in the morning while camping). I live in Oregon and this time of the year it can rain every day for a week or more - umbrellas aren't very useful going from the car to the grocery store. I want a damn raincoat!

Yes, I could buy a coat in the men's department. I've done it before. But I'm also short, so they come down almost to my knees, the arms are too long and the shoulders are usually too broad. Why should I have to, anyway? Why can't I buy something that fits in the women's section? You can't make something that fits a fat girl by simply increasing the proportions. Often our proportions are different (Old Navy, are you listening?). I realize it isn't possible to buy something off the rack that fits perfectly, but a little more thought could go into the stuff.

Hiking and camping is still apparently the domain of skinny people.

Just a Few Little Words

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:23:00 +0000

I noticed something interesting this morning. It would be an understatement to say that I'm a music nut. Music has always been one of the most important things in my life (I'm currently devouring Jim Walsh's book about The Replacements, a Christmas gift from a musical partner in crime). Nearly every spare minute of my life is crammed with music - in the house, in the car, on the 3 block walk from my car to the building my office is in, on the bus, I've even brought my laptop to hotel rooms so I can listen to music if I want. I'm also extremely picky about what I listen to. I'm not quite a musical snob because I listen to plenty of things my music snob friends wouldn't deign to experience (Third Eye Blind, for example).

Since I've listened to so much music in my life, I love a good cover song, both studio and live (one memorable highlight, Paul Westerberg covering "I Think I Love You" the last time he played here). So, I was understandably thrilled when I found Information Society's cover of Madonna's "Express Yourself" (for a Cleopatra Records tribute to Madonna). (I was also a huge Madonna fan when her first major record came out in 1984). I've been bopping around to that and a few others I found recently (on the Madonna theme, KMFDM reinterpreting "Material Girl"). This morning I was in the car and it struck me that IS's version of that song makes it sound sexist. I assume most of the members of IS are straight guys because they changed the pronouns in the song. Here's a sample:

"Don't go for second best baby
Put your love to the test
You know, you know, you've got to
Make her express how she feels
And maybe then you'll know your love is real

You don't need diamond rings
Or eighteen karat gold
Fancy cars that go very fast
You know they never last, no, no
What you need is a big strong hand
To lift you to your higher ground
Make you feel like a king on a throne
Make her love you till you can't come down"

"And when you're gone she might regret it
Think about the love she once had
Try to carry on, but she just won't get it
She'll be back on her knees"

There's also a woman's voice that periodically comes through and says something about "one woman with many faces." If I recall, that line refers to Eve and her "blunder" and how all women are essentially similarly "defective." Not exactly complimentary.

In doing something so small as changing the pronouns, they've changed the message of the song. Madonna's version is about empowerment, about taking a different approach in a relationship. This version is about subjugation. Changing the pronouns changes the meaning because women and men, despite having very few fundamental differences, occupy different roles in our society's hierarchy (this was a recent revelation to Dan Savage, whose column I typically enjoy). The image evoked by "she'll be back on her knees" is different than the image conjured by "he'll be back on his knees."

Another one of those million little things that happen every day that reinforce the status quo and make any degree of equality seem just out of reach.

Funny For The Weekend!

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 17:30:00 +0000

LETTER FROM A FARM KID (now at Camp Pendleton, San Diego, Marine Corps Recruit Training)

Dear Ma and Pa:

I am well. Hope you are too. Tell Brother Walt and Brother Elmer that the Marine Corps beats working for old man Minch by a mile. Tell them to join up quick before all of the places are filled.

I was restless at first because you got to stay in bed till nearly 6 a.m., but I am getting so I like to sleep late. Tell Walt and Elmer all you do before breakfast is smooth your cot and shine some things. No hogs to slop, feed to pitch, mash to mix, wood to split, fire to lay... practically nothing. Men got to shave but it's not so bad... there's warm water. Breakfast is strong on trimmings like fruit juice, cereal, eggs, bacon, etc., but kind of weak on chops, potatoes, ham, steak, fried eggplant, pie, and other regular food, but tell Walt and Elmer you can always sit by the two city boys that live on coffee. Their food plus yours holds you 'til noon when you get fed again. It's no wonder these city boys can't walk much.

We go on "route marches," which the platoon sergeant says are long walks to harden us. If he thinks so, it's not my place to tell him different. A "route march" is about as far as to our mailbox at home. Then the city guys get sore feet and we all ride back in trucks.

The country is nice but awful flat. The sergeant is like a school teacher. He nags a lot. The captain is like the school board. Majors and colonels just ride around and frown. They don't bother you none.

This next will kill Walt and Elmer with laughing. I keep getting medals for shooting. I don't know why. The bulls-eye is near as big as a chipmunk head and don't move, and it ain't shooting at you like the Higgett boys at home. All you got to do is lie there all comfortable and hit it. You don't even load your own cartridges. They come in boxes.

Then we have what they call hand-to-hand combat training. You get to wrestle with them city boys. I have to be real careful though, they break real easy. It ain't like fighting with that ole bull at home. I'm about the best they got in this except for that Tug Jordan from over in Silver Lake. I only beat him once. He joined up the same time as me, but I'm only 5'6" and 130 pounds and he's 6'8" and near 300 pounds dry.

Be sure to tell Walt and Elmer to hurry and join up before other fellers get onto this setup and come stampeding on in.

Your loving daughter,
Alice

(found at gcfl.net)

The F Word

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:01:00 +0000

In time for the holidays, here are some links that will make you feel good about yourself or give you something to think about.

In the first, kateharding over at Shapely Prose suggests that a lot of people may harbor a fantasy of being thin.

She also discusses the startling idea that bodies might all be different.

The last two are from Bitch PhD and Fatly Yours about the similarities between anti-gay and anti-fat prejudice.

Enjoy!

Listen To Your Body

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 15:19:00 +0000

More than anyone else, that's directed toward me. I'm struggling with being sick. I really hate it. After reading this post from little light, I realized it's probably because I feel so vulnerable and powerless. Guilty, too. I have a wonderful partner. We've been together for 11 years and we have a 4-year-old daughter (Ms Thang) together. Whenever I get sick it all falls on his shoulders - cleaning, figuring out and making dinner and taking care of Ms Thang (tending to her thousands of requests per hour, helping her clean up after half her dinner ends up on the floor and the bath). Now, for a normal cold, I'm completely out of commission for about a day, 50% for another day or two, 75% for another day or two and then I'm ok. During those days, I'm home for some or part of the day and will do light housework so things don't get too overwhelming for him (yes, I occasionally do too much for others - I'll yap about that some other time). As I write this, I'm realizing that I'm also dealing with side effects from last night's cold medicine - I'm really out of it and my forearms and hands feel like they have more energy stored in them then I can possibly use (the latter is called akathesia and is extremely uncomfortable). So, I have that going for me, too.

Obviously, if I'm writing about it, this has proven not to be a normal cold. Well, it started that way at the beginning of December. Then I got better. For a while. Then I got sick again, got a sinus infection and took antibiotics to get rid of it. I think I'm actually on round three by now and, though I didn't get a sinus infection, this time it's moved into my lungs, which is highly unusual and somewhat troubling. My doc, a naturopath, gave me a bunch of stuff that prevented the sinus infection that has become standard and now I'm on the second round of stuff from her that is supposed to help me kick this completely. I really prefer this approach to something like antibiotics, but it gets really expensive. I've spent over $100 on various herbal and homeopathic supports (vs. $5 for a prescription of azithromycin), which I really believe in after having very good experiences using them to help my body heal itself (this doc has never steered me wrong and I trust her completely - her solutions usually have much more long-term effects and go farther to solve the actual problem), but $100 in the week before Christmas hurts a little financially.

I'm also pissed because I feel like I'm being denied the Christmas experience. I'm not religious, but I freaking love Christmas. I decorate my house, Mr Bitch puts lights up outside, I'm a freak about Christmas music and I love wrapping presents. I'm way behind on my shopping, I haven't bought any new Christmas music and I haven't wrapped a single present and I hate it. I'm also planning to have a bunch of people over Christmas Eve and now there's a chance it won't happen and that makes me feel really sad. Not just because I've been really isolated since being sick, but because having a too-small house full of people eating, talking, laughing and listening to music is one of the most fun things I can do. It's a lot of work, so I usually only do it a couple times a year, but this year I may not get to. I'm not good at patience.

I feel like I'm whining, so I think I need to move on. I can say that I do have a pretty good idea of why I keep getting sick, which means there's something I can do about it. That always makes me feel better. It's a long-term solution that requires a lot of investment at the front end and there are also some food issues wrapped up in it. I've been insulin resistant for years and it's apparently entwined with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which is a whole other can of worms that I'm not interested in dissecting today and probably won't in this forum, anyway). The solution is very simple - keep my blood sugar within normal limits. When I do this, my immune system is rock solid, when I don't I start getting sick a lot. Hmmmm, interesting. The funny thing is that before I started getting sick this year I was starting to exercise again and adjusting my diet (not going on a diet, but making long-term changes) to start getting my health under control again. Too little, too late, I suppose (for this round, though not in general).

I'm really trying to take each day in stride, but that's so damn hard for me. I generally have a lot of energy and schedule my days in a way that usually requires a good amount of energy and I resent having to power down for a while. The vulnerability piece is there, too, but I think that's too deeply rooted to allow for more focused examination.

I think I may have the motivation to get back on the horse, though. Message received.

Seriously Funny

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:49:00 +0000

In addition to being a crazy bitch, I've also been known to be a crafty bitch, so I got a huge kick out of this:

Women of the World

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:23:00 +0000

Barbara Walters's response to Rush Limbaugh's comments about Hillary Clinton:

What's Wrong With the Way We Look?

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:21:00 +0000

No, that isn't the imperial plural. Nor is it an entreaty to flood me with mail about what's literally wrong with the way I look.

This caught my eye a couple days ago. It's a series of pictures of celebrities before and after Photoshop. Faces have been smoothed out until they look like plastic (Britany Murphy looks like a RealDoll (Google it if you're not sure - but be warned, it's really weird and very NSFW) in her after pic), breasts are made to look perfectly symmetrical and full (Penelope Cruz, Katherine Heigl), butts are slimmed (Kelly Clarkson) or plumped (Eva Longoria) and there is nary a hair out of place. The thing that really fries me is that every one of these people look anywhere from fine to amazing before Photoshop. Oh, and there's only one dude pictured and all that was done to his picture was to smooth out some lines and erase a red mark on his forehead.

There are so many things going on in these photos, I'm not sure where to start. Interestingly (and rather sadly), it's a clear example of the disconnect between femininity and physical activity - women who are more than just a little toned are viewed as unfeminine. So, how can these celebrities work out like crazy (like most people would have to in order to maintain a red-carpet-ready physique) and not build muscles? The answer is that they do, it's just airbrushed away. It's very obvious in the Cameron Diaz picture. In the before picture she has ab cuts visible just above the waistband of her jeans. In the after picture, they're gone. Eva Longoria's arms were subjected to similar distortion.

Why? Are women really the weaker sex? If that were really the case, wouldn't those pioneer women have been incapable of the backbreaking physical labor required to raise children and maintain the home (often including working with Pa in the fields)? How would women be able to carry water across long distances (because when that particular chore needs doing, guess who does it?) if they were so weak?

It seems that women are perceived as weak when it's necessary for their appearance to be pleasing to someone. Female bodybuilders used to be criticized by judges for looking too "masculine," meaning their bodies became indistinguishable from male competitors and this somehow rendered them inferior female competitors.

What can we do about this disconnect between femininity and physical activity?

So What Else Is New?

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:11:00 +0000

Rush Limbaugh hates women.

I know, not exactly a startling revelation. This is the man who once suggested that women aren't fit for combat because:

"If combat means living in a ditch, females have biological problems staying in a ditch for 30 days because they get infections and they don't have upper body strength. . . On the other hand, men are basically little piglets. You drop them in the ditch, they roll around in it, it doesn't matter."

Now, that's offensive to men and women, as far as I'm concerned. Mr Bitch is no piggy. If you tried to drop him into a ditch, it would look something like what happens when you try to put a cat in water.

Yesterday, on his talk show (to a reported 14.5 million listeners), Rush asked whether Americans will want to watch a woman age before their eyes. He asked this question in response to a picture published of Hillary Clinton looking kind of wrinkled and rather like a woman her age (60) who hasn't gone under the knife or needle.

WTF kind of question is that? How is that pertinent to her qualifications to run this country? Maybe we should take her measurements, too. This is a perfect example of the "men age like wine and women just age" double standard. Nobody asked if we wanted to watch an idiot do stupid shit before our eyes either time Bush ran or if we wanted to watch Nixon get uglier, because it didn't matter. Limbaugh even said that when men age they look "more authoritative, accomplished and distinguished." So, a man who displays signs of aging can be, according to this logic, assumed to be a better authority figure, have accomplished more and is "marked by eminence". Wrinkles + penis = eminence. Wrinkles + vagina = hag.

With these two examples of Mr Limbaugh's attitude, it's very clear that he, like many other Americans, believes that gender is fixed and innate, that men and women are fundamentally different. (Why this automatically puts women on the bottom of this particular dichotomy, I'm not sure.) By this logic, men and women are simply "wired" for different roles in our world. Women are supposedly naturally caring and men are the breadwinners. This is called a "legitimizing myth" and it's one of the things dominant groups use to maintain their powerful position. They provide what sound like reasonable arguments for keeping another group down. If men and women are fundamentally different, then women should stay in the kitchen and not worry about things like careers (or politics). It's called a myth because there's no basis in fact. That's right, there is no research that demonstrates that gender is firmly anchored in chromosomes, nor is there any that shows that men and women are fundamentally different. Fathers without partners manage to be just as nurturing as women and women have, time and time again, fulfilled a myriad of traditionally masculine roles.

I'd also like to take a moment to thank Hillary for resisting societal pressure to have plastic surgery or other so-called "procedures" (Botox, I'm lookin' at you). Our culture so reviles age, but I think most women get better with age. With age comes wisdom and wisdom can't be purchased, implanted or injected.

PS My grandpa, with whom I was not close, was a genuine old fart, union-supporting democrat. When Rush became House Speaker he made bumperstickers on his ancient (and very cool-looking) printing press that read "Flush Rush."

PPS Rush also apparently needed to weigh in on the Swedish army's decision to remove the penis from the picture of a lion on the coat of arms. He called it an example of "chickification."

Crying Is Good For Both Men and Women

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:32:00 +0000

Jeez, I guess I've been out of commission for a bit. I think I'm done with illnesses (mine as well as family's) for a while, so I should be able to post more often.

One of the more frustrating double standards we have in our culture is the one about emotional expression. Essentially, emotions acceptable in women are pretty much everything but anger. For men, anger is really the only acceptable emotion and it isn't often thought of as "emotion," for example, angry outbursts by men aren't typically thought of as "emotional displays." This double standard is extremely limiting for both men and women, as the ability to express a full range of emotions is a sign of good mental health.

It's also physiologically healthy to cry. In addition to the simple catharsis of a good cry, it turns out we really do cry out our emotions. According to a 1999 study (yes, it's old, but I don't remember anyone really talking much about it), tears contain substances that protect the eyes as well as proteins from stress-related hormones. Dr William Frey, a US biochemist, has found a number of interesting things about tears. Identical twins aren't more similar in their crying than fraternal twins (twin studies are the gold standard in genetics research - you have an automatic control group perfectly matched on nearly all dimensions) and women's crying has nothing to do with hormone fluctuations.

Frey investigated the contents of so-called "emotional tears," tears released during emotional crying, "continuous tears," tears released to keep the eyes lubricated and "reflex tears," those that occur in response to an irritant. It turns out there really is a difference in the tears produced in response to something upsetting as opposed to chopping onions. These tears contained prolactin and ACTH, both physiological indicators of stress (prolactin promotes lactation in women, but also appears at higher concentrations during stress; ACTH - adrenocorticotropic hormone - stimulates the adrenal cortex, something that happens during stress). The buildup of stress hormones has been correlated with depression, anxiety, sleep problems, fatigue, headaches, backaches, skin complaints and even IBS, chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia. So, holding onto those tears may help you feel "stronger," but it may be doing more harm than good. This may be one of those times in our society where what's truly best for us isn't in line with what we believe will induce positive perception by others.

So, here we have another way in which our society's limiting of normal expression could be damaging to your health. Woo hoo!!

Wow. . . just. . . wow

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 04:51:00 +0000

I'm so mad, I don't know whether to spit, scream, cry or throw up - or maybe a little of each. According to this ABC News article, a 22-year-old Halliburton employee working in Iraq was gang-raped by a bunch of her co-workers and Halliburton and the US government are trying to cover it up. I know this kind of shit has happened before and will happen again, but I'm having an especially visceral reaction to this one.

Jamie Leigh Jones will have a chance to tell her story on "20/20" (not sure when) and most women who go through similar ordeals never have a chance like that (being white probably helps). Unfortunately, due to the fact that US contractors in Iraq are relatively safe from US law, and they definitely wouldn't be tried in an Iraqi court, there is little likelihood those men will face justice.

This woman (who was younger than 22 at the time) was drugged and repeatedly vaginally and anally penetrated against her will, and it sounds like she was physically and emotionally abused in other ways, as well. What about civil court? Well, you try going up against one of the biggest and most notorious corporations in the world and see how far you get! KBR, another company involved and connected to Halliburton (I'm sorry I don't have more details, business structure is somewhat elusive to me) is trying to ensure the case is heard in arbitration - meaning there wouldn't be a recorded transcript of the proceedings and that Jones wouldn't have a voice of her own. Halliburton has won 80% of it's arbitration cases.

This is yet another case of men who really believe it's acceptable to treat a woman as though her sole purpose is their sexual fulfillment. They drugged her and completely stripped her of her humanity and treated her worse than a blow-up doll.

Where, exactly, does this extreme hatred for this woman come from? I mean, you don't do something like that to someone you like, right? So, how did this woman go from co-worker to sub-human? Or, was she viewed, on some level, as sub-human all along? Women considered attractive frequently report feeling like they're treated like public property - that, somehow, a bunch of people agreeing that a woman is attractive is sufficient to view her as separate from her Being (similar, I think, to pregnant women being fair game for judgment and unsolicited advice). Was there something different about her, or did those men have the same attitude about all of the women with whom they worked? How is this OK, and how is this not reflective of the patriarchal structure of most of our world? This doesn't happen with anywhere the same frequency to men, and on the occasions that a man is similarly victimized, it's inspired by homophobia (erroneously equated in many men's minds with "acting like a woman").

I know there aren't really answers to any of my questions, but, like so many other questions, it's important to keep asking them.

Still A Lot Of Work To Do

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 22:28:00 +0000

With a great blog like the f-word coming out of the UK, I guess I need an occasional reminder that not all women in the UK are like-minded. I've been sitting here for much of the day trying to figure out how to write about this Daily Mail article (as I deck the halls and take care of a sick kid and Mr CB puts up the outdoor lights). I try hard not to be judgmental, but this is pushing it for me.

It seems an 18-year-old woman from the UK has married a 30-year-old Egyptian man and his family has been very welcoming to her. Not a big deal, it even sounds like a happy story, though neither really speaks the other's language. Oh, but keep reading. This young woman ran away to Egypt to marry a man she met on a family holiday the previous year. He stood her up and the next day she met another man who proposed the next day. Shortly thereafter, her parents managed to lure her back to Britain. She saved up her allowance (yes, seriously, her allowance), bought another plane ticket to Egypt and worked in hotels until she was able to find her man again (a couple months). They are still navigating the legal hoops, but in the eyes of the family, they are married.

What does this mean for Amy, who for most of her life has enjoyed considerable freedom as a citizen of the UK? Well, since her beloved prince doesn't want her to work (because it is "not for women") she will spend her days indoors with the other wives, waiting for him to come home. Though she stated a preference to wait to have children, her husband's family (and most likely her husband) have other ideas and it doesn't look like she has much choice in the matter. What if she regrets her decision? She might not, particularly since her husband took her passport.

Wouldn't that raise some red flags for many women? I know, naive question on my part. I really want to know, though, how does one reconcile that? How is that OK? "He loves me so much he doesn't want me to leave and will make sure I can't?"

Why does this bother me so much? Because this woman hasn't a clue what she's getting herself into. Most likely, she will end up converting to Islam and will start wearing a veil and will be pregnant before she'd like to. She won't be allowed to work and won't be able to go anywhere without her husband for at least a few years. She's giving up a lot of freedom and choice for a narrow and idealized view of love and marriage. Reality is: love doesn't conquer all. It simply isn't sufficient to make a marriage work and it isn't sufficient to make a person happy (and this comes from a fairly happily married woman). Many women learn this lesson, but for this woman in particular, it's going to be a very hard lesson and she may not be able to do anything about it once she gets there.

She seems so very dazzled and overwhelmed by the attention and her sudden change in status - going from schoolgirl to wife can make a young woman think she's more mature than she is. The excitement of adjusting to new roles and a new culture can mask any gut-level anxiety, too. This young woman is young and in love and, as many of us know, that can make a person blind. But when your husband has your passport, there isn't really a lot of room for oops.

A Funny For the Weekend!

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 17:27:00 +0000

So, it isn't just us humans. . .

Angry Men and Happy Women

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 05:36:00 +0000

Some researchers at Arizona State University discovered that people tend to label male faces as angry and female faces as happy. They wanted to find out if this was a product of stereotyping or due to the influence of some other factor so they manipulated a number of different factors.

In a timed trial, people more quickly label male faces as angry and female faces as happy. Further analysis revealed that this was a very strong and very unconscious association. When they flipped the conditions and asked subjects to label faces as male or female while facial expressions were manipulated. People identified angry faces as male and happy faces as female even faster.

So what, right? Well, it's hard to say exactly why this happens, but it seems less likely that it's strictly due to stereotypes, i.e., it may be a deeper process than stereotyping. One theory is that the facial features (masculine or feminine) associated with anger - heavy brow and angular face - overlap features associated with masculinity. Features associated with happiness - soft features and roundness - overlap typically feminine features. So, it appears the anger expression makes a face seem more masculine - the more masculine a female face is, the more effectively it communicates anger.

Maybe this has something to do with the general lack of acceptance for anger in women. Historically, anger is the only emotional expression acceptable for men and the only emotion women aren't allowed to express, to the point where we get called nasty names when we display anger. Research has shown time and time again that people have enormous difficulty when they perceive someone has violated gender norms and an angry woman fits that bill rather well, doesn't she? If this isn't due to stereotyping and is a much deeper process, it would be much harder to fight against or change.

Just a thought. . .

Getting Out of Iraq Doesn't Guarantee a Better Life

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 06:22:00 +0000

Someone needs to explain to me why this is ok. Teenage girls who fled Iraq with their families in the hopes of establishing a more stable existence in Syria are being forced into prostitution. They start out dancing for men in nightclubs who throw cash onto the dance floor, but this quickly turns to arranged sex with audience members.

One young woman (16 years old) said she was left at the Iraq-Syria border by her father after her cousin "took" her virginity. These women are viewed as unclean for events not of their choosing and have no future if anyone finds out what they have done.

So, how is this ok? How can these men do this to these women and turn around and condemn them for it? I realize these are very naive questions, but I just don't fucking understand it. Even when they are "rescued" and sent to protection centers, their commitment to their families, who often aren't in a position to be able to provide support, is so strong that they will escape and return to the clubs.

Being thousands of miles away from these events, literally and figuratively, it's easy to turn a blind eye from the problems these women have - problems that seem insurmountable from my cozy spot on my couch. Unimaginable (to many) oppression, poverty, abuse, neglect. Not to mention likely depression, anxiety, and PTSD, which often are connected to nebulous physiological problems. Imagine how much more difficult day-to-day living as a woman with few options becomes when forced to deal with flashbacks, panic attacks or migraines.

We all have a responsibility to keep the flame of awareness alive. Spread the word.

Huh?

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:41:00 +0000

This is "Crotchy." It appears to be some kind of hand made toy that will be auctioned on Ebay. I'm not really sure how I feel about it. The legs and feet suggest female, whether that's the intent or not.

Art or objectification?

Don't Have a Cow

noreply@blogger.com (crazybitch) — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 02:22:00 +0000

Now, I love "The Simpsons." I've literally been watching it since the shorts on The Tracey Ullman Show. On one of the episodes tonight, Bart randomly fills in blanks on an IQ test form and is moved up into a different class when he scores well into the genius range. Suddenly, the whole family is taking part in cultural activities, such as attending an opera, which Bart and Homer mock the entire time.

Lisa has been a genius since the beginning and never receives that level of support from her family. Hmmmmm. . .