Community hubs

This is the global Feminist Blogs aggregator. It collects articles from many smaller community hubs within the Feminist Blogs network. For stories from particular places, groups, or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.

April 2006

criminalizing the mentally ill



when i was younger, i used to try and hide the fact that my mother was mentally ill. when she would show up at my school to pick me up yelling obscenities at my teachers all the while hallucinating, i would tell my friends that she was acting--it was all a part of her new role that she was taking on for a hollywood film. i could get away with this, seeing that i lived in los angeles and most children my age reveled in the fact that we lived in the city where they "made the movies we saw on television."



as a child, and an embarassed child at that, i grew to hate my mother. i would hate the fact that she went in and out of mental instituions, missing my birthdays and school performances. i hated that she cursed my grandmother for being old and frail and for taking custody of my sister and i, rather than let us become pawns of the children's court system--which we eventually did anyway. i hated the fact that the medications she took to help mediate her illness, resulted in her sleeping 22 out of the 24 hours in a day. most of all, i hated the fact that she was not there for me when i needed her--when i needed to be held, to be loved, to be coddled, to be protected--her illness prohibited her from doing so.



at my tender age of 25, i have learned to forgive my mother. i realize that it is not her fault that she suffers from a mental illness. it is not her fault that she now sits in a prison cell and will be there for the rest of her life on felony charges because our healthcare system failed her. i am not mad anymore--instead i am angry with the lack of medical attention given to poor people who suffer from the disease. i am angry with the fact that poor people are seen as criminals to the state if their family cannot afford the expensive therapy, treatments, and lengthy hospital stays required in order to help patients who suffer from schizophrenia lead a balanced life.



my mother had a hard time taking her medication and it didn't help that my family did not understand the depth and serverity of her illness. we could not offer her full support, since, we all just thought she was weak and it was her fault she was sick (because black people do not suffer from mental illness--only white people do). when my mother ceased to take her medication and began to physically threaten my sister and my grandmother, we had nowhere to turn for help. all my grandmother could do was call 911, and if we were lucky, in about an hour a group of mostly white and highly aggressive policemen would come to our house and place handcuffs onto my mother and put her in jail for the state required 72 hours. they said this was the only alternative, since, my grandmother was supporting my sister and i on her already small retirement checks and medi-cal wasn't enough to pay for institutionalized help--which wasn't a better alternative either for a number of reasons (lack of therapists who were culturally sensitive was one of the problems). by default, my mother was always taken to the los angeles county jail, which houses more than 2,000 people who suffer from mental illness--making the jail, one of the largest mental institutions in the country, although it was not designed to be as such.



like my mother, a number of people who are poor and suffer from mental illness are thrown into jails without any treatment for their mental disorders. they are usually arrested for such small "crimes" such as public urination or disorderly conduct(symptoms of their illness). this phenomenon of criminalizing the mentally ill, began to surface in the early 90's, when a number of public services geared towards poor citizens were reduced and public mental hospitals were closed due to budget cuts to "save" money being funneled to support the unnecessary wars our government has initiated and supported.



clearly, placing individuals in jail who suffer from mental illness is an inappropriate and temporary remedy because most jails are not equipped to handle mentally ill inmates. for example, if an inmate acts out, they are usually placed in solitary confinement which only adds further stress to them emotionally and mentally--resulting in the mentally ill inmate causing themselves physical harm and in a majority of cases, suicide. along with solitary confinement, mentally ill patients are sometimes placed within the general population of inmates who might harrass them and cause them physical harm, since, they do not understand the multitude of their illnesses as well. in addition to the harrassment by the general population, employees of the prison industrial complex are not trained to handle mentally ill inmates. some guards have little patience when dealing with such inmates and in reaction to this, they also participate in physical harm towards the mentally ill inmate.



moreover, with the required 72 hours of detainment that is still in effect when arresting mentally ill citizens, these inmates are not inside of the jail long enough to recieve substantial treatment and they are not offered long term treatment after they are released--which only results in the person being arrested again and exposed to another cycle of abuse and neglect within the jail. in my mother's case like a number of other people, her sickness became so bad, she committed a heinous act and as a result, will spend the rest of her days in prison. if she had gotten proper attention for her illness, a family would not be missing their mother and i will not be missing mine.



we are seeing a breakdown in our mental health system which forces mentally ill citizens into the hands of the prison industrial complex. this is an appalling state of affairs and as citizens of this country, we should be disgusted that a number of prisoners are there for being sick--it is ridiculous to even fathom the idea that we lock people up because we cannot afford to give them healthcare and because the pharmaceutical industry is more interested in making money than keeping people healthy. our country does not care about the mentally ill--walk down any street in san francisco, downtown los angeles, chicago or new york and you will see what i mean. the sad thing is that, it costs us more to place mentally ill citizens into prisons than it does to treat them outside of them.



p.s. sorry for the typos and grammatical errors--i'm in the middle of writing 3 different papers and i'm pretty much brain dead

Make Every Day Earth Day – #6

According to Ecotao:

...a great reduction in our impact upon the environment can be achieved through the adoption of a more vegetarian diet. It is quite feasible for the average westerner to reduce meat consumption to 1/10 of the current level. Ayres (1999) noted that the per capita consumption of meat doubled between 1950 and 2000. Ayres estimated that 7 kg of feed grain are required to produce 1 kg of feedlot beef. The biological conversion efficiency is generally quoted at 10%, so a ratio of 7:1 is good. By reducing meat consumption to 1/10 of the current level, we effectively free about 6 kg of grain per kilo consumed. The rate of consumption of this meat, being a tenth of the previous level, also has other benefits over and above gross consumption. Simply, the demand upon the environment from this component of the human impact upon nature, can be reduced. If the population does double, while we do manage to reduce meat consumption to 10% of the current level, the impact of this component need only be about 20% of the current level by 2100.

I've tried being a vegetarian several times. It doesn't agree with me. But, over the years, I've managed to greatly reduce the amount of meat I consume.

Explaining Some of the Right’s Reaction to Colbert’s Performance at the WHPC Dinner

What becomes a worldview most:

A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders and particularly in schizophrenia.

Explaning the Some of the Right’s Reaction to Colbert’s Performance at the WHPC Dinner

What becomes a worldview most:

A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process).

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders and particularly in schizophrenia.

Battle Fatigue.

At some point, several months ago, Monk took to referring to me as "the old battle ax." Boy, do I ever feel that one today. It was a particularly difficult day that included as it's central focal point, a NINE FUCKING HOUR standoff with one Mr. Monk. About his chores. Specifically one chore. Cleaning his room.

Folks, this is where all of that egalitarian parenting crap breaks down. Anyone can talk a good game about taking children seriously or being respectful or what have you...but really in my mind when it comes to enforcing household participation, I don't fuck around. I just don't have time to be the person who does everything around here. And I don't think it's good for my kids (or, really anyone's kids...but you raise yours the way you want to) to just assume that they can get away without doing what is expected of them. I do listen to them when they have issues or complaints to raise, but I do NOT negotiate once an assignment has been given. If it is a reasonable request, I expect reasonable compliance. That's all there is to it.

So, for nine hours today, I had to face a child who absolutely refused to do 30 minutes worth of work, and was willing to lose all manner of privileges to prove some point that I think was totally lost in the shuffle. I STILL don't even know what his point was, other than he was hell-bent on defying me and gaining steam throughout the day.

My early strategies were simple and positive. "When you are done tidying your room," I said, "I can set up the TV and game cube in there." He wasn't falling for it, or the other 3-4 positive consequences. Nor did he particularly give a shit about the negative consequences. It was a full-on stand down. And my stubborn freaking child was NOT budging.

I was determined, too. I was determined to not yell. I was determined to not "kitchen sink" him (which is an unfortunate parenting strategy that involves reeling off a list of really abstract consequences. In my darker parenting moments, these have included such marginal threats as "I am going to burn every last one of your Goosebumps books" to "You will NEVER PLAY AGAIN." - Granted, that last one is usually shrieked humorously a la Burger Meister Meisterburger from the Rankin Bass Year Without a Santa Claus cartoon, but there have been times that it has been tinged with more hopeful truth than I care to admit. Even though I just admitted it.) and I did not do either of those things.

I did, however, spend all day inwardly bemoaning my predicament, questioning myself, feeling like the worst parent on the face of the planet - not to mention the most hypocritical anarchist! Did my mom have such crises of parenting? Did she ever spend an entire day questioning whether her tactics were going to damage her child for life? At one point, I called her and asked her. "No." was her short answer. The long answer was that she had seven children, and she just didn't have time to think about her parenting. Hm.

Late in the battle, I changed tactics. After Monk escaped confinement and decided to entertain himself by tormentnig his brother yet again, I sent him to The Room Without Books. Monk told me I could never break him! That he didn't care if he never played a computer game again or ever EVER got any allowance, he was NEVER going to clean his room! NEVER.

"In fact," said my young upstart, "I'm ON STRIKE."

Damn me for talking about the general strike on May Day earlier in the afternoon!

"OK, Monk." I said, in my explaining voice. "A strike is often a very noble thing...and I can respect you taking a noble stand. However, people who go on strike have to face consequences for doing so, and they need to be very sure that they are striking for a worthy purpose." And then I paused, and added. "I'm not so sure this is a noble thing to strike about."

I skipped the speech about arbitration. I figure there will be more general strikes from Monk in the future (maude help us all) and I can slowly mete out the lessons about labor negotiations and whatnot through his teen years.

Frustrated as I was, I called all of my support people that I could think of to avoid blowing my top with this kiddo - and, more importantly, to avoid giving in. I hate being stubborn like this...but worse than the idea that I spent an entire day battling with my son over 30 minutes worth of chores is the idea that I would battle with my son over 30 minutes of chores only to give in and do them for him. I had two things that were keeping me from bowing to the pressure. First, Monk has told me before that I too frequently give in rather than sticking to it and making the kids face the consequences of their actions. He has said that he actually doesn't respect it all that much when I do that, and that it confuses him. Second, I had spent way too much time the night before reading the blog of some dude who killed a little girl in his apartment complex and was all set to EAT HER and, as ridiculous as it sounds (some of you parents out there will get this) all day in the back of my mind was this idea that "Hell no, my kid is not going to grow up to be a freaking serial killer, and if I give him this battle, he's surely going to end up on a slow slide to sociopathy."

So, the important thing was to stay insistent, but stay as calm as possible. And I did.

Until NINE HOURS LATER. My darling son emerged. I had told him earlier in the day, when I was still in the "helpful suggestion" phase, that perhaps it would be a good idea to ask his little brother for help. So, as I sat here trying to keep myself from blowing my top by playing a mindless flash game over and over and over again, Monk entered his room and said, ever so politely, to Coley "Cole, if you help me clean my room...mom will give us computer time tomorrow."

Coley, somewhat distracted by his play, just said "OK." Simple as that.

Monk then approached me "Mom...is it OK if I PROMISE to clean the room tomorrow after I feed the pets and before I have breakfast."

My heart leapt, however..."Honey, we have an appointment in the morning. That's not going to work."

Monk accepted this somewhat downheartedly, but...still...he seemed to be coming around.

"I'll tell you what," I told him. "If you go take a shower, I will tell Coley that when you are out of the shower, it will be time to clean up and get ready for bed."

Monk lit up. "OK!"

Then he did something super amazing. He went back into the room and told his baby brother "Listen, it's not fair for me to get help from you for nothing...so if you help me, I will let you have MY computer time tomorrow."

Coley agreed to this, and Monk came back into my room, beaming. I have to admit, I was beaming, too. "I'm glad you made the right choice, Monkeyman. For a minute there...I thought you were going to make the wrong choice."

"For a MINUTE?" Monk said. "Maybe I should start this thing all over again!"

I chuckled, somewhat fearfully. "Um...no no no no! OK! For NINE HOURS THERE...I thought you were going to make the wrong choice."

Both of us sort of laughed uncomfortably...I guess we were both a little battle weary.

Damn, this parenting shit is hard!

When all was said and done and the room was passably tidy, I told Monk "You know...that stubbornness will serve a purpose someday, but I just wish you wouldn't practice it so much on your allies. I wish you would reserve it for your enemies."

Monk said "Yeah! Like when I'm protesting!"

"Yeah...something like that."

Woe unto the cop who tries to drag that kiddo off to the paddy wagon. Let me tell you.

Don't you wish you could be a parent, too?

And, with that, I'm totally going to sleep.

Tagged with:

Dumb Defenses That Don’t Fly

In light of the recent Asiaphile controversy, this blog has been bombarded with several comments by those who can't get enough of the haterade. And I think I've noticed a pattern. In case you thought you were being all clever with your response to my blog, think again. I'm sorry to say that we race activists have really seen it all before.



You're (insert X ethnicity), so...

The Haterader argues that I should hate the Japanese, the Tibetans, the Koreans, the Russians, and cultivate a rabid loathing of the Falun Gong because I am Chinese. Newsflash! A) I am racially Chinese, but both my parents grew up in Taiwan. We don't exactly have a whole lot of love for Mother China. B) I grew up in Canada. I don't exactly have a whole lot of love or understanding of Taiwan. I'm part of the Asian American community, which means I have no patriotism for Asian countries.



But You Do It, Too!

Gotta love those responses that try to use misunderstanding of cultural history and poorly drawn analogies from another culture in order to rationalize their own racism. In response to "slavery sucks", this Haterader would say, "But the Chinese had slaves, too, so there's nothing racist about it!"



Ignoring, of course, the obvious fact that regardless of the colour of the person you've found who "does it, too" doesn't negate the obvious wrongness of the act in question.



But You Do It, Too! (Redux)

The Haterader points at some incorrectly interpreted act of the person of colour's argument (or blog) as a supposed example of utter hypocrisy. For instance, the Hateraders of a board I used to frequent, YellowWorld.org, would counter discussions of racism against Whites by arguing that the title of the site was, itself, racist.



This kind of dumbass argument not only serves as another clumsy attempt to change the subject and blame the victim, but is also overly simplistic as the race activist's website (or whatever) has usually been consciously chosen as a tongue-in-cheek reference to the very racism being discussed.



The (foreign country) Do It, Too!

Related to the previous category, the Haterader clumsily attempts to change the subject by lambasting a foreign country in a desperate attempt of painting you as unpatriotic if you even superficially seem to be defending aforementioned foreign country when discussing the issue in question.



But *I* Do It and I'm Not a Bad Person!

The Haterader might become offended because they take the post personally, seeing some of themselves in the post in question.



First of all, check out the nuance before you assume you are being called a racist. Race activists are usually about nuance and detail, and will generally qualify their statements because, frankly, nothing in race relations is easily categorized in good and bad terms. But more importantly, supposing that you do fall into the group being discussed, just because you don't regularly use racial slurs and drag people from the back of trucks doesn't mean you aren't in engaging in some form of racist behaviour.



You are criticizing Whites -- You're a (reverse) racist!!

Criticizing does not equal racism. White privilege does, however, equal thinking that criticism is racism.



You're Not Part of (insert group); Why Do You Care?!?

Uhm, because racism is bad and what kind of a hypocrite would I be if racism against another group were less important to me than racism in my own group.



(Insert Random Rambling Argument About Something Pretty Much Unrelated To the Discussion)

In response to a discussion on gay marriage, the Haterader may begin waxing philosophical about the classism of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. All I can say is: irrelevant. There's plenty to say about that topic, but it's really beyond the scope of this discussion and certainly does little to argue against the arguments being presented.



How Dare You Say (Complete Incorrect Interpretation of Our Argument)

Just. Read. The. Post.



"You're a Cunt"

When they've got nothing more to say, the Haterader resorts to offensive ad hominem attacks. Which of course, sends the race activist reeling and sobbing in a corner. Really.



Personally, I love discussion and I appreciate a good head-butting. I thoroughly enjoy reading dissenting opinions and appreciate having to try and defend what I have to say. But I feel that many of the tactics described in this post are ones that actually serve to short-circuit good, academic discussion on a relevant topic.



I encourage you all that if you disagree with me or anyone you come across, spend some time thinking about your rebuttal before you post. Most of the time, the knee jerk response just serves to frustrate your opponent rather than add to the debate. If you can disagree while bringing the discussion to an interesting level, than I'm certain that your opponent will appreciate arguing with you, even if they don't agree with what you have to say.

The Last Ninja

Thank you to yellowmix for letting me know about this article. Greatly relevant to my recent post on Asiaphilia, MercuryNews has posted an AP article on "the Last Ninja", one Masaaki Hatsumi, who runs a dojo in Tokyo that has become a veritable pilgrimage for non-Asians seeking desperately to learn how to climb a wall.



Again, the point isn't that non-Asians should never, ever practice "ninja", but the question of authenticity and balanced interest. Are you trying to be a "ninja" because you're fascinated with all things Asian simply because it is different and exotic? That fetishization is offensive to me because it fosters a dehumanization of people of Asian descent, encouraging the view that we as a people and a culture are only relevant so long as we can entertain the White man.



Bottom line, any person dabbling in another culture's heritage should be comfortable addressing this question, because it comes part and parcel with your act of appropriation. And to anybody who gets defensive: you're just basking in your privilege if you honestly think no one has a right to question and criticize you.



After all, part of White privilege is the belief that no matter what you do, you are always right. Again, I implore you, Asiaphile, if only you were able to carry on an intellectual discussion about accusations or Asiaphilia, and if you were aware of the politics of the Asian/Asian American community as well as our most glamourous, exotic icons, I would be cool with you. But you don't and you aren't.



So if you have no real respect for me and my Asian brothers and sisters, why should I have any respect for you?

Over My Shoulder #21: Kathie Sarachild, “The Power of History,” in Feminist Revolution (1975)

You know the rules. Here’s the quote. This is from The Power of History by Kathie Sarachild, the leading essay from Feminist Revolution, an insightful, indispensable, and sometimes infuriating anthology published in 1975 by the Redstockings; the essay is, among other things, a kind of memo on where the anthology as a whole is coming from and why the Redstockings thought it was so important to put it together:

The grass-roots appeal of feminism has been reflected in the composition of liberal feminist organizations like NOW as well as in the mass response to the radical ideas and agitation.

Yet the radical, feminist women faced opposition all the way, with constant advice from all sides that everything they were doing would have the opposite effect: that it would raise antagonism and bitterness, tat it was unrealistic and would get nowhere, that it wasn’t speaking to where women were at.

What lay behind the successful plans and strategies of the women’s liberation activists, what kindled the wonderful explosion, was simply their commitment to a radical understanding and approach to feminism, to discovering the common issues facing women and addressing them directly at their deepest level. They were not playing political games, trying to figure out whether women or men were ready for this or that, whether this or that would be understood or be popular.

This was going to be a movement in our own self-interest, as we said. This was going to be a fight for ourselves, for our own immediate lives, as well as for our dreams — a movement growing from our own experience, addressing the problems we ourselves had encountered. But a fundamental part of this effort to better understand our own situation was the radical understanding that the conditions in our own lives we wanted to change were essentially the common situation for women. This understanding of ourselves was going to be essential to the common fight because it was what put a person in touch with the common fight, connected a person directly to the common fight. We wanted to change the world out of our own self-interest, and because we had such a strong sense of this being in our interest, we felt sure we could convey this sense to all who shared the same interests.

With all our talk about self-interest, it was, of course, all along common interest that we were talking about, the common interest of women.

The intensity of our belief that our own personal interest arose out of the common situation was what made usknow that there would be no conflict between standing up for our own impulses and desires and analysis growing out of our own situation, and launching a mass movement. All the politicking, the guessing at the popularity of this or that, the feasibility of this or that with one group or another, would build nothing, really. It would fail to turn women on and maybe even turn them off. We knew this because we acknowledged our own most honest reaction.

The radical, feminist interest in developing and disseminating theory—in raising and spreading consciousness—was scorned, even attacked, by the liberal feminists and non-feminist left alike, who were always calling for action and for whom no amount of action we engaged in was ever even acknowledged. They were always posing it as analysis versus action, and priding themselves in being the activists, or the politicos, or the steady, on-going workers who accomplished tangible, concrete gains in the community, in the nation, for themselves, or what not. They always implied that the radical, theory people (as they would sometimes complain about us) didn’t take any action, didn’t produce any actual changes in the everyday lives of women.

Don’t agonize, organize was a favorite one liner. Of course, when stated as Don’t analyze, organize a lot of the punch goes out of it.

Oddly enough, there was also the totally contradictory charge, usually from the left, that the women’s liberation movement needed some theory, hadn’t produced any theory. Just as the actions of the radical feminists were not seen as actions—they were too petty, too sporadic, or what not—their analysis was not seen as analysis or theory.

What we were trying to do was to advance and develop both theory and action, and to unite them, putting theory into action and action into theory. It was this commitment to unity of the two, of course, which made us radicals, and which made us such a threat to liberals, right and left, who had a hard enough time recognizing and supporting feminism in either the realm of theory or action—and who apparently went blank or haywire when confronted with the combination.

Whatever we were doing just never seemed to fall within the range of the liberal left’s vision. But in the beginning it did fall within the range of the TV cameras and newspapers.

In fact, it was the public actions of the radicals, the consciousness-raising section of the movement, that put the WLM on the map. This was true of virtually every category of action you could name—from confrontation, consciousness-raising actions like the picketing and disruption of the Miss America Contest to developing techniques for mass organizing to producing journals, newspapers and books which were widely disseminated.

But the radical theory and strategy was not only the source of widespread mobilization, was not only what sparked the interest of the masses of women, it was also what produced the most in the way of concrete results, the most changes in women’s lives. This is another lesson of the past decade whose truth comes clear with access to an authentic history of the movement. The greatest achievements of the women’s liberation movement so far, those that have reached the masses of women as a whole—greater freedom in the area of birth control and abortion, greater freedom from oppressive dress codes, and the spread of feminist theory and consciousness—were all the arenas the radicals first addressed and in which they led.

It was in New York State, the area in which radical feminist analysis, action and organizing ideas were strongest and most advanced, that the first concrete breakthrough of the women’s liberation movement in the U.S. was achieved—the abortion law reform which for a few years turned New York State into the abortion mill of the nation and upon which the U. S. Supreme Court modeled its guidelines a few years later. It was the radical strategies of 1) opposition to reform and demand for repeal, led by Lucinda Cisler 2) mass consciousness-raising on abortion with women testifying to their criminal acts in public and in court 3) the development of the feminist self-help clinic ideas and their promotion of simpler, new abortion techniques that led to the nationwide reform in five years time.

The area of employment, on the other hand, is one in which the liberal feminist groups have concentrated and so far have led, and in which there has been as yet very little progress—for most women anyway. (See New Ways of Keeping Women Out of Paid Labor in this book.)

Knowing these things provides information, support and strength for a continuing radical approach and further radical action. But virtually none of it is known.

As soon as the movement began and proved successful, a process set in of wresting control from the women who had started out. And as certain approaches in the movement proved to be popular and successful with other women, the process began of confusing who and what had produced those successful approaches, what thinking, what inds of people, and specifically which people. There was an assault on the history of the movement—to take it over, to lasso it for one’s private ends, to slow it down, to stop it.

Many of the simplest and most powerful elements of the movement’s history I listed earlier have disappeared from sight or the connections between them have been severed. Instead, an array of secondary versions, interpretations and revisions have effaced and replaced the original record.

There are now amazingly different stories of these events, with very different beginnings and very different conclusions. One version doesn’t even have women starting the movement but history and changing times starting it instead. If history or changing times isn’t behind the changes then technology is, or the economy.

The rise of the feminist movement reflected a certain historic context, but this context had to be unlocked by analysis in order to be opened up for attack and work.

The knowledge of who started the movement contains important political lessons for women as does the knowledge of what brought women their gains. That women started the movement and gave it its strength and momentum suggests that it was necessary for women to start the movement, that men would not start the movement, that men don’t lead women to their freedom. Women must rely on themselves for that—not because they should but because they have to.

—Kathie Sarachild, The Power of History, from Feminist Revolution: An Abridged Edition with Additional Writings (1975/1979), pp. 18–21.

Further reading:

Salary.com

According to Salary.com, I'm getting paid about $10,000 a year less than the national average for the job position I hold.



Oh, gee, yay.



Why does this not surprise me?

Clawing Up From Depression, Or: Getting it All Together

Jenn and I lolled around in bed yesterday talking until nearly 2:30 in the afternoon - she's been busy running psych studies and analyzing data until 10pm, and I spend two days a week in Indianapolis, so we needed the catch-up time.



Today, I reorganized my room so it's more work-condusive - put a bunch of bins full of old novels and stories into K's old room, which we're using for storage (that's where my 30 years of National Geographics ended up). I love my new room set-up. I have the smallest room in the house, which meant that for nearly a year I've had a desk where I can't pull out the chair all the way because it kept hitting the bed.



Cleaned up my balcony garden today as well, putting all the lemon balm with the lemon balm and the basil with the basil. I'm proudest of my pot of morning glories, which look like they're boiling over the pot and getting ready to burst. I love gardening. It's incredibly relaxing watching little seeds grow up into these lush, vibrant garden that takes over the entire outdoor table.



I was walking up and down the stairs today, doing laundry (the washer and dryer are in the basement), and thinking about how much easier it was to get up the stairs, to think about doing this mundane task, and I realized again how depressed I'd been for so long, how stressed, and subsequently, how sick. After much thought, pain, irritation, and many PP visits, I've also finally decided to get my IUD removed.



I hate this idea, and put off the decision to remove it for nearly a year - but the infections and irritation aren't going away, and I only have about 7 days a month where I can have sex comfortably. When I only saw my partner once a month, I could work around this. I could justify all the pain and the stress from walking around in a constant state of discomfort. I just can't justify it anymore. I'm not looking forward to another painful, bloody visit, but once it's done, it's done. How I'll negotiate contraception in the future, I don't know, but for now, I'll take a normally functioning vagina that I don't want to claw out two weeks in every four. I can't do pain and itching anymore. It's not worth it. Jenn and I plan to part when she graduates and I get a job elsewhere next year (it's not likely we'll find good jobs in the same cities), so what I'll do after that, well, that's a time away yet.



For now, I'm just tired of hurting and bleeding all the time.



In the meantime, things are looking up. The IUD is out in 18 days, tDW is out to readers, and I'm contemplating what's going wrong in the last 40 pages of God's War that's keeping me from pushing through. As my buddy Patrick's pointed out, it's also time to start getting my application materials ready for Gaming Company, so I'm looking through short stories and getting back into video game playing (ah, research).



I'm also starting to make notes for Over Burning Cities, the next book in the fantasy saga, and going over several of the early chapters and cleaning them up.



My buddies Stephanie and Ian should be heading down here around the 4th of July, and Patrick and his family are coming down the week before Wiscon; it's going to be great to have people in the house. I'm looking forward to it.



In the meantime, Jenn and I are going to finish up another episode of Babylon 5, eat some macoroni, and then I'm packing things up for another couple work days in Indy...