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.

Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Feminist Bloggers!

Feminist Blogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of February and March.

Donations provide for the costs of running feministblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Feminist Blogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


Posts tagged Mental Health

5 Ways to Do Good in a Snowstorm


portlyn. 1.29.10

Many of us in Oklahoma are iced-in this weekend and may be wondering, what is a girl (or boy) to do with all this indoor time? I mean after you’ve exhausted your inclination toward catching snowflakes on your tongue, cleaning (blugh!), snuggling, knitting, watching TV, painting your toenails, and doing 1000s of crunches; you may be longing for that feel-good, change-the-world type of task that can be accomplished while sitting in front of your computer. Well, here ya go:

1. Sign a petition! When fast-food giants like McDonald’s and KFC reject meat because it doesn’t meet their standards, do you know who buys it? The USDA. Then they use it for school lunch programs, and all that reject meat is fed to our school children. Grossed out? Think we can do better? Tell the USDA, “I find it unacceptable and shocking that USDA standards for school lunch meat purchases do not even match that of the fast food industry’s standards.” You can help by signing this petition to tell the USDA to adopt common-sense food safety standards, practices, and testing.

2. Support students who go to college! Whether you’re at the far left or the far right end of the political spectrum, surely we can all agree that education is a good thing. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, reforming the student loan programs will save tax payers $87 billion over ten years. That money would go to students instead of to banks as subsidies. Tell your Representatives to choose Students Over Banks!

3. Get caught up on the Indian mascot debate! The latest fiasco is set in nearby Stillwell, Oklahoma.

4. Meditate! Do something good for yourself, dangit! Be kind and patient with yourself. Just try to sit and pay attention to nothing but your breath for 2 whole minutes. It’s really not that easy, especially for me because I’m a bouncy, bouncy, emotional, and fidgety type. But I promise it’s not that weird, and you won’t hallucinate divine beings, as my meditation teacher/ Episcopal nun friend Sister Ellie has assured me.

5. Try cooking and eating VEGETARIAN! Okay, this one requires you to get off your ass, but eating is pretty important. If you are like me and you just can’t commit to a life without a delicious beef burger every now-and-then, it’s okay!  Still, eating vegetarian or vegan (if you are really hard-core) is good for our health, better for our beautiful Earth, and a good way to put meaningful thought into a sometimes mundane task. Also, it can be fun and exciting to try new vegetarian recipes like the ones at Meatless Monday.

It seems like this list should be longer, but I’m getting hungry :) Any other ideas?

Yours in attempting do-goodery,

Spring

Kern Watch 2010: HB 2279 would amend OK divorce law, making divorce more difficult to obtain


hi, everyone. here’s your sally kern update for the new year! now she’s targeting divorce law, trying to save/protect traditional marriage by making divorces harder to obtain. the worst parts are that she’s doing this in the name of children’s rights (eyeroll) and that she is continuing her obsession with oppressing people who live what she’d call “alternative lifestyles,” i.e., anyone who is not heterosexual and married. from OKhouse.gov:

OKLAHOMA CITY (January 7, 2010) – Working to reduce Oklahoma’s high divorce rate, state Rep. Sally Kern has filed legislation to refine state law to encourage married couples with children to work through their problems.

“The destruction of the family is the root cause of many problems in our society,” said Kern, R-Oklahoma City. “If we can lower our divorce rate, our quality of life will improve and we will also reduce the need for many state services in this time of budget shortfall, freeing up money to go to core services such as schools and roads.”

House Bill 2279, by Kern, would amend Oklahoma’s divorce law. The bill would continue to allow divorce for abandonment, adultery, cruelty and similar causes, but would make it more difficult to obtain a divorce on the grounds of “incompatibility” if a couple has been married for 10 years or more, has children, and either the husband or wife objects to the divorce.

Under the bill, couples with children could obtain a divorce when both parties agree to it, just as they can under current law.

“No one wants to force a battered spouse to stay in a marriage, but that situation is seldom the cause of our high divorce rate,” Kern said. “Instead, we often see a husband or wife seek divorce because of so-called ‘incompatibility’ simply because they don’t want to try and address the issues that have caused their marital problems.”

In four of five divorces, one spouse does not want the divorce, according to Mike McManus, president and co-founder of Marriage Savers, a group dedicated to driving down the nation’s divorce rate and preserving families.

Kern said by making it harder for one spouse to unilaterally obtain a divorce (outside of abuse, abandonment or similar circumstances), the state would create an incentive for reconciliation.

“This legislation would not prohibit divorce, but it would slow down the process when children are involved and provide an incentive for couples to sit down and talk about their problems,” Kern said. “That process may not always lead to reconciliation, but it is important that both spouses are involved in the decision. Our current law favors only the spouse seeking divorce.”

Kern noted there is broad support for slowing down the divorce process when children are involved. A TIME/CNN poll found that 61 percent of adults favor making divorce more difficult to obtain when a couple has young children.

“Regrettably, children are the innocent victims of divorce,” Kern said.

She also noted divorce also has financial consequences for state government.

A recent study, “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing” conservatively estimates divorce costs state government up to $430 million annually (largely through public assistance programs). Research also indicates children from broken homes are more likely to be incarcerated, live in poverty and are more susceptible to substance abuse and mental health disorders.

“We cannot address our current budget shortfall if we don’t also address the root cause of many state expenditures,” Kern said. “As my House colleague Mark McCullough has argued, if we could reduce divorce in Oklahoma we would also reduce our prison population and welfare rolls while benefiting families and children. That’s a goal worth pursing.”

kern’s bill is an unfunny, lame version of California’s Initiative to ban divorce. please feel free to write her on her comments page or call her at (405) 557-7348 and tell her you disapprove. you may also reach her at sallykern@okhouse.gov. perhaps you could recommend other, more pressing issues that she could expend her energies on, such as, oh i don’t know, the economy, infrastructure, teaching wages, healthcare access improvement, the prison system, etc., etc., etc.

peace,
beamish

Unhappy Holidays


I know the Holiday Season is supposed to be joyful and merry. But, holidays always brings up mixed emotions for me. I REALLY love the extra time off work. I love that most people seem to be more happy and helpful. I love the hearty food. I love that you’re supposed to think about your loved ones a little extra.

But this is where my feelings start to get mixed up. I start thinking about family that I have lost instead of family that I still have. Just when I think I’m finished grieving or I don’t need to cry about a certain loss anymore (whether that loss be death, dysfunctional relationships, disease, etc.), the Holidays come and somehow remind me that life is not all sweet. It’s really, truly bitter-sweet.

And, apparently, I’m not the only one. I came across this article about holiday depression. And it made me feel less lonely and crazy. Also, Tim Burton’s Christmas-ish drawings make me feel better. Then again, the fact that Burton’s drawings make me feel better makes me feel worse. Ho hum:

tim burton art

The Boy with Nails in His Eyes

Stick Boy's Festive Season

Stick Boy's Festive Season

Sometimes I just want to run away to a secluded, monastic, place of my own up on a giant mountain until after the New Year and let all the Whos down in Whoville…

Spring

Insurance Company Revokes Depressed Woman’s Benefits Over Facebook Photos

A woman who was receiving extended sick leave benefits due to depression has had those benefits revoked by her insurance company. Why? Because they found photographs on her Facebook page in which she appeared to be enjoying herself:

Nathalie Blanchard, 29, has been on leave from her job at IBM in Bromont, Que., for the last year and a half after she was diagnosed with major depression.

The Eastern Townships woman was receiving monthly sick-leave benefits from Manulife, her insurance company, but the payments dried up this fall.

When Blanchard called Manulife, the company said that “I’m available to work, because of Facebook,” she told CBC News this week.

She said her insurance agent described several pictures Blanchard posted on the popular social networking site, including ones showing her having a good time at a Chippendales bar show, at her birthday party and on a sun holiday — evidence that she is no longer depressed, Manulife said.

Blanchard said she notified Manulife that she was taking a trip, and she’s shocked the company would investigate her in such a manner and interpret her photos that way.

“In the moment I’m happy, but before and after I have the same problems” as before, she said.

Even better, it would seem that the insurance company didn’t only use Facebook photos as a diagnostic tool, they also may have hacked her account to obtain them:

She also doesn’t understand how Manulife accessed her photos because her Facebook profile is locked and only people she approves can look at what she posts.

Nice work, that is.

Now, Blanchard lives in Canada (and was receiving the benefits in question not through Medicare, but through her employer’s insurance). So while indeed another example of insurance companies being evil, I have no real intent on attempting to tie this into the current U.S. health care debate.

What I’m a lot more interested in at the moment is how stereotypes about disability/mental illness are constantly utilized in attempts to expose the “fakers” — and how the fact that they’re used in this way by people in positions of authority only reinforces the idea that the stereotypes must be true.

When it comes to disability, able-bodied people tend to have an idea of what disability “looks like.” This results in proclamations about who is really disabled and who is really faking it (presumably, for all of the awesome government benefits that are inadequate to live on, and the fun social stigma). And for the person being proclaimed a faker, that frequently means not only the hurt of having their identity and lived experience dismissed, but also the denial of accommodations that they need.

Mental illness is no exception to this rule: people think they know what it looks like, that they can spot a person with a mental illness a mile away, and that if a person doesn’t live up to those expectations, they’re either seeking benefits they “don’t deserve,” or seeking attention. And with regards to depression specifically (as it’s the topic of the original article, and my greatest knowledge base), they tend to think that if someone isn’t spending all of their time crying, frowning, or refusing to get out of bed, they can’t possibly have it.

This makes me exceedingly angry. As someone who has lived with depression to varying, waxing and waning degrees for over 10 years now, I know from firsthand experience that there are a whole lot of ways to be depressed. Logically, I can only assume that there are also many other ways that I have not personally experienced. And yes, the unable to stop crying, unable to smile, unable to get out of bed kind of depression is very, very real. But it’s not the only kind. Most of the times I have been depressed, I have been able to smile, under certain circumstances. I have been able to enjoy myself, laugh, and have fun, when my mental state and the situation are right. I’ve also learned that I can be really, really good at putting on a happy face and pretending that I’m not depressed for the benefit of other people, even if I’m particularly unwell — indeed, I’ve learned that doing as much is expected of me.

And the claim that the type of depression where these things are true is not real depression is denying people — who have significant trouble finding happiness to begin with — whatever happiness they can find, in order to be recognized. It’s saying that people with mental illnesses cannot ever have fun or enjoy life under any circumstances. And it’s also telling people that their options for being believed, acknowledged, and accommodated are to “get better” or to start acting more miserable.

In addition to the emotional costs, which I clearly think are very important in their own right, there can be other major costs, as well — whether they be a loss of financial assistance, as above, or a loss of ability to receive treatment, a loss of familial support, and so on. These can all have serious repercussions on a person’s mental health, on their quality of life, and in some cases can result in physical injury or death.

Financial savings, which are obviously going to be the insurance company’s motivation, are not all this is about, here. As we can see with people defending the insurance company in the article’s comments, it’s also about separating oneself from people with mental illnesses — again, with the belief that you can size up a person’s mental health status just by looking at them — and maintaining a prejudiced worldview. And the insurance company’s decision, made from a position of presumed expertise and authority, has only reinforced the ignorant and bigoted misconceptions that people already held.

Just like the people who claim that the woman using the word rape to describe what violence her boyfriend inflicted on her is “making a mockery of real rape,” people also claim that those like Blanchard are “minimizing the realities of people with real mental health issues.” But no, actually. In both cases, the society that supports those kinds of dismissive statements is doing a fine job of that all on its own.

Funny girls cure depression!


Have you ever heard that girls just aren’t funny? I sure have. In fact, supposedly respectable magazines devote entire articles to the subject; uh-hem, Vanity Fair. In his 2007 article, ”Why Women Aren’t Funny,” author Christopher Hitchens puts forth his thesis:

My argument doesn’t say that there are no decent women comedians. There are more terrible female comedians than there are terrible male comedians, but there are some impressive ladies out there. Most of them, though, when you come to review the situation, are hefty or dykey or Jewish, or some combo of the three.

When I’m really, really depressed about lame writers, or my broken plumbing, or the state of the economy, or racist judges, or the amount of money our politicians spend on funding dumb wars, I often run to the loving arms of satire. It makes me feel happy to make fun of stuff that I don’t like. Call me juvenile; I don’t care.  Here’s a few of the folks I go to when I need some quick, surefire laughter.

If you like to giggle, you will be very pleased to meet the comic duo Garfunkel & Oates. Singing, songwriting, stand-up, acting-these gals do it all! (Thanks to Courtney for introducing me to these ladies.)

And here’s another one of Garfunkel & Oates’ great videos called Pregnant Women Are Smug :)

Then, there’s good ole Sarah Haskins, who our beloved Beamish pines over every now and again.

And if you haven’t met Nellie McKay, now’s your chance:

Who are some of your favorite funny girls?

Spring

AFCC: The Man behind the Curtain

     AFCC was at one stage a judges slush fund of where bribes perverted the course of justice in California's family Court.  Not only did it serve as a platform for corruption, but was also became the loudspeaker of Dr Richard Gardeners work in the 70s and 80s.  The trail of devastation for victims was left behind with few who held accountable and more who profited upon these ills.  Dr joan
Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

lovers in a dangerous time

I know introductions seem to be the thing, but I’m going to jump in with both feet first and we’ll go from there.  I’m Little Light, I blog here, and I’ve been a Feministe guest blogger before.  Most of you know who I am.

What I do is preach.  I wrap that preaching up in other things, but I will be the first to admit that sermons are sort of what I do.  So let’s cut to the chase, shall we?

I’m going to start my stint at Feministe by admitting something we’re not supposed to–as Empowered Women, or whatever it is in a movement like this, and especially as a woman of color in social justice work, but I don’t think anyone’s supposed to admit this:

I am not doing so hot right now.  I’m burnt out.  I’m tired and I’m scared and I’m hurting.  I’m disillusioned with online activism and it’s been so long since I posted in my actual blog–the one where it seems like every time I post, I get set on and taken apart by people who don’t respect my basic personhood and want me to know it–that last week I got a comment from a reader who thought I was dead in a ditch somewhere.

That looks like a statement of weakness, doesn’t it, to a lot of us?  That’s like saying, hey, everyone, I’m super vulnerable right now, and here’s my wallet, not in the face, please.  It’s like inviting everyone to know you’re right there and you can be hurt.  There are a lot of good reasons we avoid admitting vulnerability.  Most of us have been stomped somewhere, sometime.  Most of us, along some axis or another if not many intersecting axes, have felt the sting of oppression–most people in a social justice movement like feminism, anyway, or they wouldn’t feel the need to care.  Most of us have seen someone take advantage of that vulnerability.  We have been taught over and over again to hide it, to not show our weak spots, to hide when we’re sick or bleeding and not let anyone know lest we be devoured.  Whatever you are, don’t be vulnerable.  Don’t tell them you’re scared.  Don’t tell them there’s places to hurt you.  At best, you’re not just being fatally foolish, you’re being weak.  Whiny.  Clearly you’re expecting someone else to clean up your mess, or otherwise infantilize you.  You’re letting everyone down:  family, friends, the however-you-define it movement, yourself.  It’s, in many cultures, mine included, filthy like sin to admit your human limits and soft places.

What I am suggesting is that vulnerability is more than that:  vulnerability is strength.  Vulnerability is radical.  And radicalizing vulnerability is vital.

It is vulnerable to connect with people intimately, and in the way that is necessary to build a better world in a lasting way.  It is terrifying, and it is often hurtful, and it is very often sad.  I have poured my heart and soul into organizations and projects that I threw myself open to, only to find them going up in a storm of flames and yelling, and pretending that doesn’t hurt is just nonsensical.  How does pretending that vulnerability away make that stop?  How does it help me do things better the next time?  What’s so dirty about admitting disappointment or grief?  I can’t think of anywhere I’m more vulnerable than the one place I’m safest:  at home, with my partner, the person I trust most in the world.  The person who can hurt me more than anyone.  There is nowhere I would rather be than with this person to whom I am laid open, who knows everything about me and knows exactly where to put the knife if she were so inclined.  She is, of course, not so inclined, but that was a risk I had to take, and sharing that risk is something transcendent.  Those of you in relationships, especially really intimate ones, back me up here:  that’s one of the most miraculous things about love.  When you open yourself to loving someone and being loved, that’s one of the most frightening, unsafe things in the world.  That’s part of what makes it so exhilarating.  That’s part of what makes it so powerful.

It’s right there in that word:  compassion.  Co-passion. Shared suffering.  If you open yourself to others, if you allow yourself to care about what happens to them, to struggle with them and fight with them and build with them, you have opened yourself.  If you spend the whole time acting tough, it won’t work.  You won’t connect.  Your struggle, even if it’s “for” them, will end up being all about you and what you think other people need and want and how it will affect your career and your moment and your fifteen minutes of…well, what was it exactly?  Are we doing this “feminism” thing for our careers, to make a buck and get our faces on TV?  Are we doing this to be officially Great?  Or are we doing something about compassion, community, and shared struggle that works for all of us and isn’t for the most part glamorous?  Those connections and sacrifices aren’t easy, and neither is the courage necessary to care about each other and work together.

Vulnerability is radical, and without sharing our vulnerability, without getting all the cards on the table, I just don’t believe we can move forward together–not just as individuals getting ours and getting out, but together.  Rather than introduce myself, I’m going to show you where you can hurt me.

I am tired.  I don’t sleep enough.  I spend too much time and energy on a job that doesn’t fulfill me and not enough pursuing my genuine aspirations.  I have ugly feelings about who I see in a mirror every day.  I miss people who were never good for me.  Ever since a severe illness a couple of years back, my body has been totally shot–it doesn’t do the things I expect of it, forces me into accepting new limits, hurts.  I am struggling hard with post-traumatic stress that leaves me, many days, shaking and unable to leave the house, bursting into tears at sudden noises, waking up from nightmares that make me want to run and throw up.  Sometimes it barely affects my day and sometimes some little thing like a stray comment or a coworker handing me some paperwork from behind will get me shuddering and hyperventilating.  It makes me exhausted and angry and frustrated and I want it to go away, but it won’t, so I’m working with it instead.  I am dealing with a lot of grief right now, having lost a lot of important people in my life just as I’m planning a wedding, and for a while I insisted that it was fine, I was fine, but it’s not and I’m not.  It gets to me.  It should get to me.  I am afraid–of more loss, of losing the people and chosen family I’m open to now, of an unjust world becoming more unjust.  I should be.

See, I can refuse to admit vulnerability, but that won’t make me not vulnerable.  There is nothing that can do that, not even covering myself up with layers and layers of the armor we all use to get through the day and pretending away the ugly things and the hard parts of my history and everyone else’s.  This isn’t about complaining.  I’m just stating facts that are, yes, relevant to who I am, why I participate in feminism and the greater movement toward social justice, why and how and what I write and contribute.  Pretending it isn’t so forces me into a strange and inhuman position where we just posture at each other.  You’re not vulnerable, I’m not vulnerable, let’s have an abstract debate about theories, and hey, justify your feelings, and hey, little lady, the grownups are talking and why are you so upset and come back, we were just having a friendly little debate about ideas, and what do you mean this is real life for you?

Social justice is about theories and ideas underpinning our actions, but if those theories and ideas are to mean anything, they have to be grounded in our real lives.  They have to pay attention to what happens to us, and what can hurt us, and why some things–like a seemingly-innocent comment, like a sudden noise, like a bigoted slur, like making it through a day of work or classes when the only thing in your head is the rape you may never be over or how you’re going to be able to feed your children this month or when the water is getting shut off or just that thing your parents said that will never stop eating at you–affect some of us more than others.  A functional movement isn’t one like the one we have, where people burn out and drop out and vanish because it’s all too much and they aren’t being supported and they just can’t take it any more, where everything we do is met with all of us tearing each other apart and always always always going for the throat until we stop being people to each other and start being…adversaries?  interlocutors?  enemies?  objects?  Have you noticed who suffers when we build a movement premised on never admitting that we can hurt each other, on never admitting that we’re tired and limited and human and just aren’t up for it today?  Who stops making blog posts, who stops showing up to meetings and town halls and community projects, stops putting their work out there and speaking openly and honestly?  Who stops making friends?  Who stops taking risks?  Have you noticed what happens in a world where we do this?  Where we never talk about what we need, let alone what we want, all while we’re told all day what we should buy instead?

We fight an impossible battle against troubles we don’t even admit exist.  We focus on enemies, and neglect ourselves and our loved ones, lose track of what we’re for in a storm of obsession with what we’re against.  We don’t let it get to us, until it does.  And then we go down in flames and everyone has to start over.

Can we do something different, start from different premises?  Like:  I’m hurting right now.  Like:  I can’t do everything.  Like:  I get tired and hungry and scared and confused.  Like:  I’m grieving.  Like:  I’m human, and human beings are vulnerable, and I can be hurt, and I can hurt others.  Like:  if we’re all going to make it, we have to do this together, and that means being vulnerable, and we can either choose to avert our eyes from that fact or we can embrace it and build something more compassionate, more functional, that makes our lives different for the better.

Like:  let’s let vulnerability be radical.  Let’s embrace it.  Let’s admit that even the best things in the world are unsafe and go into it with open eyes and held hands.

We can choose make it work, or we can choose not to.  I am going to spend my two weeks here choosing to try to be as vulnerable with you all as I possibly can, and maybe some of you will feel more able to be vulnerable, too.  A dear friend told me once that writing is like getting up in front of people, pulling open your ribcage, and saying, here are my organs.  I hope you like them.

Here are my organs.  I hope you like them.  I hope for the next little while we can try something dangerous and new, and I hope that you won’t take advantage of it in the wrong ways, because yes, I’m vulnerable.  So are you.  And we have a lot of work to do.

Let’s get cracking.

E-mail this story to a friend! Print this article! del.icio.us Google Bookmarks Digg Technorati Furl Slashdot Reddit StumbleUpon Tumblr TwitThis Yahoo! Buzz

Caty Simon and the Virtues of Vice (part two)

Oh, LOL.  Sike.  Before I go, I present the conclusion of my email interview with the one and only Ms. Caty Simon. Part one is here.

Why do you think people on all sides of the issues involved have such strong feelings about Natalie Dyan and the choices she makes/made about how to make money and what to do with her own body?  I’ve heard people argue that her exploitation of the patriarchal concept of virginity serves to increase/strengthen virginity’s cultural currency rather than undermine it and thus is problematic from a feminist standpoint (shockingly, this is not my take on it.) Thoughts?

Do you think you could just post a link to my N Dylan piece? I feel like I’ve said all I have to say about that. [Yes, you can read said piece here]

As you know, I’m in favor of decriminalizing prostitution and all drugs.  Some people in the sex workers rights/decrim movement seem to distance themselves from drugs–which is understandable given the stereotype of sex workers as drug addicts, but also problematic as plenty of sex workers (like plenty of the population in general) do use illegal drugs. I noticed some local NYC harm reduction trainings recently by sex workers orgs.  Do you think there’s a shift happening, that sex workers rights organizers are moving towards addressing drug use (in a non-paternalistic way) rather than trying to run from it?  How do you see criminalized sex work and criminalized drug use as being intertwined?  Do they intersect strategically?

Short answer: I do see a shift happening, but not nearly enough of one and not soon enough.

I do understand the political distancing, because we did want to get away from the agency-less TV movie image of the low income (when most of us are actually middle class ), exploited & abused (when most of us are independent workers & thus have no one to exploit or abuse us, or work with people we trust), STI infected (when most of us have safer sex than the general population), and horrendously, obsessively drug addicted (when–although there’s no real statistical evidence, because all of the evidence we have comes from abolitionists with an agenda that study the most downtrodden in jail, not a representative population, and most of those of us caught in that position tell researchers what they want to hear in order to cope and survive–it seems, like  we are not more likely to use drugs than the general population, only excepting the two facts that many young, middle class or affluent people use drugs of some kind–in fact, this population uses the most drugs in this country, contrary to popular belief; and the fact that black markets often intersect.) The crack ho walking around with sores and track marks and disease is unfortunately still the image that comes to mind when many mainstream people think of the word “prostitute”. So I do understand the initial tactic of distancing–what I don’t understand is the contempt. I remember excitedly receiving every issue of $pread I ever got, only to see sex workers who were interviewed say dismissive awful things about girls working to support habits and self-righteously differentiating themselves from them.  I remember reading a blog by a prominent sex worker’s rights activist which haughtily stated that there was obviously a difference between decriminalization of drugs and decriminalization of sex work, without even deigning to mention what that difference was .  Callgirl, by Jeanette Angell, a woman I very much admire and a text I think is incisive and sophisticated, just fell back on the disease model of addiction to understand her friend’s problems with crack, without using any of the anthropological insight and nuance that shone throughout the rest of the book on that topic.

Even now it feels like the attention being paid to drug using sex workers is an us vs. them thing–the poor ignorant them who don’t know any better, a sort of noblesse oblige.  The white, middle class, educated sex workers that, let’s face it, dominate the movement, believe that the harm reduction services they offer at places like St James’ infirmary are for powerless street workers, not for their own drug use.

It’s a shame because I do believe these two issues are intrinsically connected. It’s all about Puritanical criminalization of the ownership of one’s body ( a major tenant of feminism and the reproductive rights movement) and the right to take risks with it–sex workers take on the risk of stigma, STIs, and most of all, meeting strange men in a male-dominated society in which sex and violence are constantly intertwined and confused. Yet, they make our jobs more dangerous by criminalizing us instead of allowing us to go to the police for our safety.

Drug users take risks with their bodies as well–but most of these risks are either magnified and turned into bogeymen by the media and drug enforcement or exacerbated by criminalization. People die of cigarette habits eventually from lung cancer, but although the physiological addiction is as strong as that of heroin or tranquilizers, nobody ever has their basic day to day life patterns disrupted because of nicotine addiction, b/c cigarettes aren’t subject to ridiculously inflated black market prices so that one has to spend an inordinate amount of time earning money for them. Heroin and opiates, my drug of choice, are seen as the most deadly, pernicious drugs–yet they really have no long term health risks involved with them besides addiction and overdose that aren’t caused directly by criminalization, inflated black market prices and the poverty they bring about, and lack of clean needles and harm reduction education. Even addiction and overdose could be risks that were minimized in a decriminalized environment—a pure supply would ensure the easy calculation of one’s tolerance and dose, preventing overdose, and widespread harm reduction education would allow people to understand the timing of doses necessary, to prevent physiological addiction.

This culture is in fact truly absurd in its mores around mind altering substances. The pharmacopoeia that we know of as illicit drugs has been with mankind for thousands of years, and, for example, before the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914, cocaine and heroin were available over the counter and did not cause any major social upheaval. In fact, most users of opiates were middle class women and doctors, and many among those two groups distinguished themselves while having active habits . In contrast, the pharmacopoeia that Big Pharma shills us to cure the every new ill of our psyches they invent by the year is not truly tested, since, as congressional committees are finding out around now, most of the research trials and the journal articles written about them are directly financially linked to the companies which sell them. Lately, interoffice documents have been discovered by mad movement groups that prove without doubt that the makers of drugs like Zyprexa and Prozac knew about serious side effects of their products such as adult onset diabetes and common suicidality and even homocidality among children and teens that took their products, but hid them from the general public. Class action suits are now in progress. Sometimes, this strange ambivalent attitude about mind altering drugs reaches ridiculous heights when drugs that are scheduled and criminalized without prescription are legitimized and prescribed at high doses under the auspices of psychiatrists—the fact that we demonize speed users and yet prescribe children with amphetamines (without even giving them a choice, in their status as minors) is frankly crazy, especially in light of recent finding that such “treatment” stunts their growth and makes them extremely emotionally volatile.

As for the argument that drug users hurt others because of drug related crime, the only drug with a statistically significant correlation to violence is alcohol, and the vast majority of other drug related crime is based around black market turf wars in a market that has no other way to mediate itself but violence, a market that the prohibitionists themselves have made lucrative enough to kill for by making it illegal and therefore highly profitable because of monetary compensation for the risk. Decriminalize, and just like the gangland violence around liquor disappeared when  the Prohibition of the 1920’s ended, so would this violence. As for the small proportion of violence that remains that is caused by altering one’s mind with these substances, the crime should be in the act itself, not in the ingestion of the drug. We teach people to drink responsibly even though alcohol is the most volatile, physiologically addicting and damaging drug there is. There are certainly ways to use other drugs responsibly, as the fact that statistically it seems that most users of addictive drugs are not, in fact, addicts, attests.

Just like sex workers, drug users are criminalized for a non violent act that truly only has to do with themselves and their bodies–except that drug users are punished much more harshly, serving sentences that can be much longer than those of murderers and rapists under mandatory minimum sentencing drug laws. In fact, our drug laws are one of THE major reasons that our prison industrial complex is the most highly populated in the world. And just like sex workers, drug users are seen as agency-less, except that, instead of being exploited women or loose nymphomaniacal tramps, they are seen as the helpless against evil compulsions–physiological addiction is seen as the demon possession of our age, as if drug users were incapable of making moral decisions or any decisions that valued anything else above their drug of choice. And finally, just like sex workers, there are those who feel they are being liberal and benign towards us by advocating programs that force us to transition away from our current lifestyle–to medicalize rather than criminalize the problem, force us into treatment, the way sex workers in newly Communist China were forced to learn factory skills. These factions may be more well meaning than those that favor criminalization, but again, they’re about denying us our own ability to choose.

Both sex workers and drug users are subject to the policing of their own bodies, coercion, and criminalization. Perhaps in the short term sex workers might be wary of taking on the other group’s stigma, but in the long run, we’ll be stronger in political unity–strength in numbers seems like obvious political strategy to me. I’d like to see sex worker’s movements, as the more established groups, stop making derogatory references to drug users, run informative stories about drug decrim in their publications, fight ALL the injustices of the prison industrial complex and not just stick with their single issue, and acknowledge the fact that drug use is classless.

Finally, like all of mainstream America, we need to stop seeing drug use as always destructive. It’s all about set, setting, and situation, not the drugs themselves–context.  Almost any drug, used in a particular way in a particular circumstance, can be a spiritual journey, can be therapeutic, can even be a healthy way to cope in the short term, can be good clean fun–cleaner than alcohol or cigarettes and even coffee, for the most part. No drug should be “angelicized” or demonized totally–they’re just inert substances, it’s our relationship to them that matters. Richard De Grandpre writes a brilliant and readable thesis about this topic in his book The Cult of Pharmacology, which I urge you all to read.

Taking these issues to a global level–do you see the drug war as intersecting with the war on The Sex Trade and/or “trafficking”?  How does the criminalizing of drug use and prostitution in/by the US negatively effect the global “victims” of both trades?Taking these issues to a global level–do you see the drug war as intersecting with the war on The Sex Trade and/or “trafficking”?  How does the criminalizing of drug use and prostitution in/by the US negatively effect the global “victims” of both trades?

Globally, I see the same outlook towards Third World people making their way in both black markets—they need to be shown the errors of their ways and rescued by the First World, as if they were childlike and could not take responsibility for the considered choices they make. Thailand’s EMPOWER sex worker’s rights organization recently issued a demand from Cambodian migrant sex workers—STOP RESCUING US! The raids in which they are “rescued” and deported back to Cambodia (much like many similar raids throughout the world), are violent, abusive and economically crippling. The workers must then spend money and time to find their way across the border again. Similarly, when the crops of coca or poppy farmers are sprayed from the air by the US with substances that poison their soil and then condescendingly told to a grow a food crop they won’t even break even on, the same sort of violence to their livelihood is done. These people are making rational economic choices in the context of their environments, and yet, they’re treated like misbehaving and/or lost children.

E-mail this story to a friend! Print this article! del.icio.us Google Bookmarks Digg Technorati Furl Slashdot Reddit StumbleUpon Tumblr TwitThis Yahoo! Buzz

Caty Simon and The Virtues of Vice (Part One)

Soon after I was asked to guest blog at Feministe I emailed my internet friend Caty to ask if I could interview her for one of my posts.  She maintains the fabulous blog The Virtues of Vice and is generally one of my favorite people to talk with about politics or pop culture or pretty much anything.  Her thinking and writing is both validating and challenging to me, which is a great combination.  I’m sure a lot of Feministe readers will be interested in her work as well.  So without further ado, I bring you the first part of our Q&A.

Please us give a little introduction to you and your activism and anything else you feel like sharing.

My name’s Caty Simon. I’m a small town escort and activist. I’ve worked with multi-issue low income rights movements all my adult life, from Arise to Social Justice to the newly founded Poverty Is Not A Crime. I’ve participated in campaigns that prevented the criminalization of panhandling in my town, fought against the then illegal status of needle exchange in Massachusetts, and asked local police departments to consider deprioritizing vice enforcement, as well as many others. A few years ago I was in a Curve magazine feature called Top Ten Dyke Activists Under 25 To Watch (or some other equally unwieldy title.) I’m also a member of the board of the Freedom Center, an organization that fights for the rights of those diagnosed with mental illness, exposes the fraud of the pharmaceutical industry, and the human rights abuses within the psychiatric system. Recently I was on ABC’s Primetime Outsiders representing the mad movement and arguing that those diagnosed can live successful lives without psychotropic medication, and that in fact many of these supposedly life saving medications are incredibly neurotoxic.  Most of my activism has focused around sex worker’s rights, harm reduction and drug decriminalization, and the mad movement. I’m a biblomaniac & a biblioklept (don’t lend your books to me), and after many years of being a no-TV prude, I took a cultural studies class a few years ago and discovered it was intellectually credible to like low culture, and now I’m obsessed with The Wire and Mad Men. True Blood has awakened this weird vampire sexual fetish in me. I also have been an unapologetic user of IV drugs. I’m not like you. I’m probably a lot more boring, actually.


Can you talk a little bit about your blog, why you started it and what your goals are?

well, there’s this old notion of what people used to call “the deserving poor”, and I think that trope is still implicitly very much around. When a marginalized group agitates for its rights, it naturally attempts to portray its members as good, noble, and most of all, besides whatever difference coheres them as a
minority group, NORMAL–people whom the mainstream are able to relate to and emphasize with.  Deserving. Hence, for example, the Ward & June
Cleaverization of many major LGBT rights groups. So in the sex worker’s rights movement, we have the deserving ho, and in the mad movement, we have the person just like you or I who for whatever reason, because of a period of trauma in their life, got diagnosed and was labeled and forced drugged and mistreated. And since out and unrepentant drug users are such pariahs in a culture in which the discourse around the use of mind altering substances is mostly limited to how badly we’ll criminalize those who partake in it, or at best how we’ll force them into treatment, there IS no deserving drug user by definition.

So as I wrote in my live journal once, “But I’m so sick of thinking of what everybody thinks. Image and image and image. I must be the political poster child, not the sad stereotype, I must. I must be a perfectly wholesome all American girl who just happens to have sex for money. The movement depends on it, right? All the other call girls were so angry at me when I started doing heroin. It wasn’t just concern–I was giving them a bad name…”

Because we can’t talk about the complexities of our identities, the many things that make us Other instead of focusing on single issue microcosmic movements, we can’t talk about the intersections between our various issues and struggles, which I think are vital–for example, the paternalistic Puritan criminalization of both drug use and sex work. So, I decided I was willing to put myself out there as the undeserving Other, and talk about all the marginalized groups I was a part of at once so that I could make these vital connections.  Even if that meant allowing the inevitable accusations to be flung at
me–I obviously was only escorting to make money to score drugs, I obviously was only a junkie ho because I was crazy, etc.

I’d written about these things before for many years in a pretty widely followed livejournal, but I wanted to write in a less personalized memoir fashion now, because what I’d found is that many readers from the mainstream kept making excuses for me and seeing me as some sort of exception, the kind of tortured smart girl who indulges in all these bad things but redeems herself as an individual because of the fact that she’s bright and engaging, rather than politicizing the issues and accepting rather than excusing what I was.

One post you wrote that I found particularly thought provoking was about the bad rap pimps get.  I did see the pimp as the boss– inherently exploitative even if not abusive, so my economic analysis led me to feel negatively towards pimps in general.  Your post really made me re-examine and re-evaluate that.  Can you talk a little bit about what a pimp actually, legally, is, and how pimps can play an important role in partnership with prostitutes?

Well, to the extent that I’m a socialist/leftist/Marxist/whatever I’d agree that all labor is inherently exploitative and alienating in some way. But if we’re
defining pimps as employers of prostitutes–the BOSS– it’s interesting that we view them as particularly, brutally exploitative, rather, than say, as impersonally exploitative as your boss at the pizzeria that pays you a bit above minimum wage. And that’s of course, again, a direct result of the fact that the culture sees sex work as inherently degrading and dehumanizing, and thus can’t conceive that any sane woman (this second wave feminist analysis, in
portraying these damsels in distress, conveniently omits the fact that so many men and genderqueer people do sex work, since it wouldn’t fit their lurid story so well) would choose to do it of her own volition, so she must be being forced by an abusive boss figure who must be inhuman and heartless to live off the earnings of such work without qualms.

Essentially, the sex worker’s rights movement is a labor movement, and we’re fighting to work the way we choose. And while that includes the right to be independent entrepreneurs–which is why the Nevada system is not a satisfactory system, because it allows the industry to be monopolized by a male dominated draconian big brothel business which doesn’t even allow the women it employs off brothel grounds for fear that they might turn a trick independently, and uses their virtual imprisonment on the job to overcharge them for every necessity–that also includes the right to structure our work in other ways.

Not everyone wants to work as an independent, taking on all the tasks of running an escort business by themselves–working the phones and screening clients can be some of the most exhausting parts of the job. Other workers aren’t criticized for having managers or bosses. Sex workers should be free to choose to work for themselves or someone else.

But beyond labor issues and into matters of the heart: I think the real tragedy of the taboo of the pimp is how those of us who live off
the black market are isolated from each other.

Legally, a pimp is anyone who knowingly takes money from a prostitute. So that means If you were working and your husband was taking care of your kids, he’d be your pimp. If you had a friend staying with you to escape a domestic violence situation and she wasn’t paying rent she’d be a pimp. Your child could be a pimp! If you have ever given money to anyone, expecting nothing in return, they are a pimp, if they know what you do.

I wrote on my local escorts’ listserv on this topic (and I apologize for how I keep on shamelessly quoting myself!):

“I think we should judge every working relationship, every personal relationship, and every relationship which straddles these two categories
on a case by case basis–not assume what they’re like based on class and race (remember, all the evil pimps of the media imagination are usually
black), based on labels. I’ve had a boyfriend who’s taken care of me by hook or by crook when I’ve been too depressed to work, and I’ve also taken care of him–while he did a bunch of work driving me, protecting me, and all sorts of other stuff. I decided where our money went, but some of it did go to him. I have never thought of him as a pimp.”

It seems like the romantic relationships of drug users and sex workers are constantly written off as abusive and or at least totally dispassionate and utilitarian. When I was still doing heroin daily, an ex-boyfriend accused my relationship with my new boyfriend of consisting only of using each other to obtain drugs. Again, nothing could be further from the truth—the reason that I worked with my boyfriend to obtain drugs for each other is because I trusted and
loved him. In the dangerous world of criminalization, I trusted him to care about protecting me from the police and other people who might want to take advantage of me, I trusted him with the money I gave over to him, trusted that he would split the spoils with me fairly, and trusted that he would watch over me and care about my safety when we injected together. He lived up to these implicit promises, and my trust in him as a driver/bodyguard/running partner was vindicated the one day that I did have a problem with a sex work client–he scared away a client that approached me aggressively, got between me and the
violent person with no hesitation, wielding a tire iron and getting the man to back down. I didn’t choose him as a lover because he was handy to me in terms of scoring drugs, I chose him as a running partner, driver, and bodyguard because I loved and trusted him. In an environment in which drug users and sex workers are reviled and criminalized and their safety is not a concern for most people, it only makes sense to team up with good friends and intimate partners, people who actually do care what happens to you. To paint all these relationships as exploitative and abusive by definition does a huge disservice to the people involved—many of whom are trying to take care of each other in an environment that cares nothing about their welfare.

To survive criminalization, people team up to conquer odds with those they trust most. In a heterosexual context, this can often mean a husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend team. Women make the most in the adult industry, and certainly someone working on the black market makes more than someone who doesn’t, so the woman ends up being the main wage earner (especially since most couples realize that having two people work on the black market in the same household is too risky). Often rather than having their male partners work in the legitimate marketplace while they have to hire some stranger to do call in checks, to drive them to outcalls and do bodyguard work, or worse, have an agency that provides these services take a huge cut out of their earnings, they prefer to have their partner do this backup work for them. And it’s hard to work in a profession so beset by criminalization and stigma all alone.

And yet, as sex workers we’re denied the comfort and safety of working with others whom we trust. Even in countries where sex work is decriminalized or legalized in some way, often “pimping” or “procuring” or whatever the label is is still criminalized. Personally, I can’t imagine living in the kind of cold world it would be for sex workers if it was possible to perfectly enforce these laws. I can’t imagine working my first year on my own without the great women employers I started off with, who started me off with clients they knew and trusted, taught me to protect myself from arrest and other dangers, and told me to always trust my intuition. What they took from me financially was a pittance compared with what they gave. And if I hadn’t had my friends living with me at the time, whom I did partially support, who cooked and cleaned from me and supported me emotionally when I was first entering the business, I don’t know what I’d have done.

Why is the idea of a partner who is part of a sex worker’s business so shocking? Is it because many libertarian or leftists accept and respect the sex work that independent, single indie escorts do,but when we talk about a man in a couple who accepts and abets his partner’s work in the industry, they fall back to old sexist knee jerk responses? Like a “real” man would never accept having his partner do sex work, and would certainly never actively back her up in the business? And if he is doing so, then he must be a batterer? If we were talking about the woman being the main wage earner because she had a high paying straight job, we’d never hear a peep about the man in the relationship, even if he did work for the woman–and if you understand sex work as “real” work, there should be no difference between a woman doctor paying the household bills and a woman escort doing the same thing.

I’m not romanticizing anything. I’m not saying that these relationships can’t be abusive or exploitative. But I don’t think they are inherently so because the woman is working in sex work and her partner receives some of her profits, and may work for/with her. In fact, criminalization protects the abusive partner in these relationships when things turn sour. A woman who is intimidated into giving a man all of her income from prostitution is less likely to report that kind of abuse than a woman who suffer the same kind of treatment who earns money through legal means. And because criminalization makes it hard for women to protect themselves, especially on the streets–most prostitutes do not feel comfortable calling the police when a client physically or sexually assaults them (for example, given a recent case in which a U Michigan law school student was prosecuted when she reported being assaulted in the context of a call, it’s easy to see why). So when they have protection, they are reluctant to strike out on their own, even when the person who protects them physically and sexually assaults them and exploits them for their income.

But I have to say in general  I don’t think that our working relationships as sex workers are more likely to be abusive than anyone else’s relationships.

Actually, after I posted that pimp entry, I was talking to one of the good old friends who lived with me at the time and she said she really appreciated that entry because, as she said, “I was one of the best pimps ever!” And I really had to agree. Maybe we’ll come around to reclaiming the term–that’d be fun.

I’m really surprised that in all the coverage of the Craigslist murderer, more has not been made of the husband who saved his erotic masseuse/exotic dancer wife’s life from this monster. The husband obviously knew what his wife was doing for a living, and it seems like he was providing security for her. This is a “pimp” as hero. But we don’t get much about this story–no one has followed up with an interview with the husband or the wife–but whenever we hear about an abusive prostitute/intimate partner relationship, we’re sure to get a comprehensive account.

E-mail this story to a friend! Print this article! del.icio.us Google Bookmarks Digg Technorati Furl Slashdot Reddit StumbleUpon Tumblr TwitThis Yahoo! Buzz

New Study Debunks “Abortion Trauma Syndrome”

coverA new study in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry called “Is there an ‘Abortion Trauma Syndrome?’ Critiquing the Evidence” looks at all of the studies related to abortion and mental health to conclusively determine what impact, if any, abortion has on a woman’s mental health. “Abortion trauma syndrome” has also been called “post-abortion syndrome.” In a review of 216 peer-reviewed articles on the subject of abortion and mental health, the authors of this study found that “the most well controlled studies continue to demonstrate that there is no convincing evidence that induced abortion of an unwanted pregnancy is a per se significant risk factor for psychiatric illness.” (p. 276)

For starters, let’s contextualize abortion. According to the 2005 World Health Report

  • 211 million pregnancies occur worldwide each year; 46 million end in induced abortions.
  • 40% of these abortions occur in unsafe conditions, resulting in 68,000 maternal deaths.
  • In the US, 1.3 million of the 6 million pregnancies each year end in induced abortion.
  • 20% of American women have had an abortion.
  • The risk of death in the US from abortion is 1:160,000, which is lower than the risk of death from childbirth, appendectomy, or tonsillectomy.

Given the relatively low risk of death, the debate about abortion has shifted to focus on the perceived mental health impacts of abortion in order for abortion opponents to claim that they are concerned about the health and welfare of women.  However, “Abortion Trauma Syndrome” and “Post-Abortion Syndrome” are not recognized by the American Psychiatric Association as mental illnesses, and they are not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

In their review of 216 peer-reviewed articles on the topic of mental health and abortion, the authors found numerous methodological flaws with the studies that purport to find a link between abortion and mental health.

1. Sampling Errors

According to the authors, “in some of the studies of abortion outcome, researchers recruited women who had already self-identified as suffering negative psychological effects from abortion, and then used the self-reports of these women as evidence for high rates of ill effects in all women who have had abortions.” (p. 270)

Some of the surveys asked respondents to report on the effects of their abortion years after the event actually occurred.

The use of retrospective reports from women who had an abortion years earlier is problematic. Recall bias can affect any individual’s perspective on a historical event. Mood-related memory effects also may bias recall of both the abortion experience and the timing of previous psychiatric episodes–especially if many years have passed. Later feelings about abortion may be influenced by subsequent reproductive experiences, failure to recall the circumstances leading to the decision to abort, current depression related to stressful life events, or the effects of public campaigns attributing psychological problems to abortion. (p. 270)

Additionally, studies must be limited to women who have had abortions within the first trimester if they are to be representative of all abortions, because most abortions (88.7%) occur within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. (Source: Guttmacher Institute)

Delay in seeking abortions may be related to inadequate coping mechanisms, more ambivalence, less social support, barriers to access, poor maternal health, and detection of fetal abnormalities (which may involve terminating a wanted pregnancy).

All of these factors can independently effect a patient’s mental health. Therefore, it is inappropriate to generalize these experiences to that of all women who seek abortions.

2. Selection of Comparison Groups

According to the authors:

Some studies of abortion fail to use a comparison group, or use as a comparison group women in general or women who have never been pregnant, who have never delivered (with the wantedness of the pregnancy unspecified) but have never had an abortion, who are currently pregnant who had a spontaneous abortion, or who have delivered following wanted pregnancies . . . [These circumstances] are not comparable to those associated with a voluntary, elective abortion . . . At a minimum, the appropriate comparison group for assessing the relative risks of negative mental health outcomes of such abortions is women who carry unwanted pregnancies to term. An unwanted pregnancy is different from an unplanned pregnancy. Women with unwanted pregnancies are more likely to suffer from a number of co-occurring life stressors, including childhood adversity, relationship problems, exposure to violence, financial problems, and poor coping capacity, all of which contribute to emotional distress. These factors increase the risk of poor mental health, whether or not a woman has an abortion.  (p. 270, emphasis mine)

3. Independent and Dependent Variables

If you’ve taken a basic stats class, you know that independent and dependent variables can effect the outcome of a study. One of the flaws in many of these studies was that depression is not defined by the researcher, and many of the studies had respondents self-report feelings of depression, rather than including a clinical diagnosis of depression from a physician. “Depressive feelings should be distinguished from clinical depression,” and “feeling regret is not a psychiatric condition . . . Moreover, few studies ask about positive outcomes that may offset any existing negative feelings or put them in perspective; for example, women may feel slightly sad and guilty about having an abortion, but extremely relieved and satisfied with their decision.” (p. 271)

Many of these studies also failed to take into account the context in which women receive services.

  • Did the women have to travel far distances to obtain an abortion?
  • Was there a waiting period involved that delayed the abortion?
  • Did the patient have to walk through a crowd of protesters in order to enter the clinic?
  • Did the physician read a state-mandated script about abortion that described (with varying levels of scientific accuracy) the risks of abortion, fetal development up to the term, and unsubstantiated allegations of fetal pain at early periods of gestation?

All of these questions may impact the woman’s feelings about her abortion.  Ironically, any negative mental health outcomes of abortion can be directly attributed to the anti-choice movement itself, which is purportedly seeking to protect women from negative mental health impacts. On the other hand:

[Entering] abortion clinics through a group of anti-abortion demonstrators [is] a stressor that has been shown to be associated with psychological distress . . . [And] increasing a women’s belief in her ability to deal with having an abortion decreased her likelihood of experiencing depressive symptoms following abortion. Such findings suggest that insofar as inaccurate “informed consent scripts” undermine a woman’s belief in her ability to cope after an abortion, they may contribute to her risk for depression. (p. 270, emphasis mine)

After analyzing all of the possible variables that could effect the outcome of these studies, the authors concluded that “even if a study were to include all know covariates, however, it is essential to remember that correlation does not prove causality.” (p. 272)

It is true that some women have feelings of sadness or regret, and that some women can be made to feel stigmatized and guilty, about choosing to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. For women who have more significant problems, the causal contribution of the abortion is not clear; a wide range of factors, both internal and external, affect women’s responses–and interact in complex ways. These women should receive appropriate support and counseling. It should also be remembered that the best predictor of mental disorder after an abortion is a pre-exsiting mental disorder, which is strongly associated with exposure to sexual abuse and intimate violence; to ignore these factors would be potentially to ignore the actual causes of women’s distress following an abortion.


Conclusion

Aside from the obvious questions this study raises about the intentions of the researchers who claim a link between abortion and mental health, I think it’s important to contextualize the idea of a “post-abortion syndrome,” or “abortion trauma syndrome” within the larger move to pathologize women’s bodies. Women have historically been deemed as mentally unfit by the psychiatric industry. The term “hysteria” comes from the same root as the word “hysterectomy,” and hysterectomies were actually used as a treatment for mental illness at the turn of the Twentieth Century.

Pro-choice advocates need to be savvy and educate themselves about the so-called “science” behind the claims that the other side is using to eliminate access to women’s health. Hopefully my summary of the HRP study was easy enough to understand – the article itself was a lot to chew on. If you have any confusion, please leave a comment and I’ll do my best to answer it or recruit someone who can.