FlashForward: No More Good Days

FlashForward is probably one of the more anticipated new shows this fall; ABC is clearly introducing it to get people interested in a new show now that Lost is about to end and they’ve seen that this kind of programming attracts fans. The basic premise behind the show, for those who don’t know about it, is that everyone around the world blacks out at exactly the same time for two minutes and seventeen seconds. However, people don’t just black out, they actually jump six months into the future, seeing a small vision of what is (or may be) to come.

“No More Good Days” gives us the story of the blackout and the immediate aftermath, with all the special effects to go along with it. Obviously, when everyone on Earth loses consciousness for two minutes, some things are going to happen. Patients will die on the operating table, planes will fall out of the sky, cars will crash. That makes for some heroic special effects opportunities, and I do love me a good explosion or two, so I was pretty much hooked from the start.

It’s an interesting premise, and I think that they can take it in some very intriguing directions. I also think that the show is going to acquire an epic mythology. Unlike Lost, in which we had characters jumping around in time and generalized madness, I think that the story is going to remain fairly linear, but that we are going to collect more and more pieces of the puzzle as the story progresses. Given the way it’s set up, it also seems like there’s a note of finality to it, what with the whole six months into the future thing; it may be a miniseries? Or they may stretch six months over a much longer period? Or they may have much, much larger plans.

There’s a whiff of the procedural cop show about it, since we have a puzzle which people are trying to solve, but I think it’s going to be built as a continuous mythology, rather than having a series of procedural episodes. That’s the kind of television I happen to like, because I think that’s the greatest strength of television, as a medium. The ability to tell very long and complicated stories is, for me, way more interesting than see people solve crimes every week or what have you.

Of course, the pitfall of that kind of programming is that you have to get viewers interested in the mythology. Will we be? I know that I’ll be tuning in next week, because I was drawn in by the story and the premise and the roughly-outlined characters I was introduced to. Especially if FlashForward continues with the more complex mythology, I suspect that I will stick with it.

There’s a certain whiff of Fringe about it, too, although I stopped watching Fringe after the first few episodes. We have a supernatural event, a pattern (the mosaic), law enforcement. One thing about FlashForward which I’m excited about, though, is that the characters have families and we will get to see some family dynamics. This isn’t just about solving a puzzle, it’s about reconciling what happens to you when you see a flash of the future.

I think there’s a high potential for awesome here. Let’s see if they deliver.

25 September, 2009 – 6:38 pm | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, reviews, television | Tagged |

A Short (And Highly Biased) Discussion on Health Care In America

Natalie‘s comment on Tuesday’s post about health care issues reminded me of the fact that many of my readers are not American, and that many of them don’t know a lot about health care in America. Which is, you know, totally reasonable, because I know zero about health care policy outside the United States, beyond having a vague understanding of how some European health care systems work. In addition to not knowing a lot about the specifics of health care in America, foreign readers may also not be accustomed to the jargon used in the United States to talk about health care issues, so I decided I’d do a very quick overview of how health care in America works, currently, and talk about some of the language being used in the health care debate. (Keep in mind that this is “quick” in this ain’t livin’ terms, not “quick” in real world terms; there is a lot of ground to cover here, so you may want to pull up a chair and a bar of marzipan.)

Now, I want to stress that I am not a health care policy expert, a health care provider, or even an allied health professional. So, this is going to be a very broad overview with some gross simplifications, and while I am trying to be as accurate as possible, I may get some information wrong, in which case I would appreciate it if more knowledgeable readers would correct me. I also want to open the floor to questions from non-American readers: if you’ve been wondering about things but been afraid of asking, now is a good time to do it. If I can’t answer your questions, hopefully one of the docs who reads can.

So.

Welcome to America!

Health care in America is really complicated, because we have a number of different systems going on, some of which sometimes actively conflict. I’m going to start by talking about the different health care options available to Americans before I delve into the debate over health care policy. Since the readership is pretty diverse, people who have actually experienced the myriad aspects of the American health care system can probably also answer questions folks may have

If you are over 65 or you have certain disabilities, you are eligible for Medicare, which is administered by the federal government and funded through taxpayer contributions (which scale, based on income, although they eventually max out). Medicare was brought into being in 1965, as part of the Social Security Act, and President Johnson actually had to fight really, really hard to get Medicare passed, because the idea of providing health care to older adults was repugnant to the Republicans. Medicare is what’s known as an entitlement program; you qualify automatically for the most part, rather than needing to demonstrate that you qualify.

Medicare has several components, known as “Parts.” Part A provides hospital insurance, Part B provides outpatient medical insurance, Part C/Medicare Choice allows people to keep private plans while getting Medicare benefits through them, and Part D provides prescription coverage. Needless to say, all of these parts are severely restrictive in terms of what they will/will not cover, and all have copays and limitations. (Which is why you see heart-rending stories in the news about old people eating dog food so that they can afford their prescriptions.) So, if you’re 65 or disabled and an American, the government basically provides you with a health insurance plan which covers some of your medical expenses (if they qualify under the extremely complex rules of the system).

If you are a low income American or you have certain disabilities, you are eligible for Medicaid, which is funded by the federal government and the states. Each state runs its own Medicaid plan, with different eligibility standards and benefits available. Medicaid, also established under the Social Security Act, is a means-tested program; you aren’t automatically eligible, you must demonstrate that you are eligible. Incidentally, just being below the poverty line (currently $10,830 USD in the lower 48 for a single person, $22,050 USD for a family of four, slightly higher in Alaska and Hawaii because of the high cost of living there) doesn’t automatically mean that you are eligible for Medicaid, so not all low income Americans are covered under the plan.

If you are a child from a family of low to moderate income, you may be eligible for SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), which is supposed to cover uninsured children who don’t qualify under Medicaid. Uninsured children are a huge problem in the United States, and this was designed to help address that. Needless to say, since its passage in 1997, SCHIP has been controversial, especially among the Republicans; President Bush the Second actually specifically vetoed several attempts to expand coverage.

If you are a member of the United States Armed Forces, you get what is widely considered to be the gold standard of health care in America. Coverage for members of the armed forces is provided through a military health care program which provides an extremely high level of coverage. Some of the most advanced medicine in the United States is being practiced in military facilities (which kind of echoes the historical trend of seeing advances in military science/technology before they show up in the civilian world).

Veterans of the armed services are eligible for care under the Veterans Administration (VA, and yes, it’s “Veterans” with no apostrophe). However, you are not automatically eligible just because you are a veteran; coverage is allocated in a series of “Priority Groups” based on whether you have a service-connected disability and some other factors. VA coverage is also widely believed to be very good, if you can get it, although it is not without problems. (Not least of which is the steadfast refusal to treat vets with PTSD and problems related to TBIs.)

If you are an employee of the federal government or a state government, you are eligible for health insurance provided through the government. The situation here is a little bit complicated, but basically, the government pays for health insurance provided through a private insurer, as a general rule. The government (or a union of government employees) negotiates a group rate, and you get to pick the plan you want. The plan also covers your immediate family.

If you are a Native American*, you are eligible for care through the Indian Health Service (IHS) at IHS facilities, and the IHS will pay for some types of treatment at non-IHS facilities. The IHS has been widely criticized for providing incredibly crappy care and for having very outdated facilities.

It’s important to note that health care for members of the armed services, veterans, and Native Americans is the only form of health care provided by the government; all other government health care programs provide health insurance, not health care.

If you are none of the above, welcome to the brave new world of health care in America!

Basically, you have several options:

Option One: Pay for all of your health expenses out of pocket. Many health care providers and allied professions actually offer a discount for people who pay in cash, ranging from hospitals to pharmacies. People opt to go this route when they: are uninsurable, can’t afford health insurance, are between insurance policies, or don’t think that they need insurance (“I’m young and healthy, what could go wrong?”).

Option Two: Purchase a health insurance policy to cover medical expenses. The kinds of medical expenses covered depends on the policy. In addition to the premium, you have to pay a deductible (they won’t start paying until you’ve spent a minimum amount, which can sometimes be very high, like $5,000 or more) and co-pays (which vary in cost, with some good plans they might run $5, with others they might be a “share of cost” which may be up to half the price of the services provided), assessed at each visit/prescription purchase, etc. Most health insurance policies do not cover dental and vision; if you want insurance for these, you need to buy it separately. There are a lot of different types of individual policies available, which I don’t really want to get into right now. Suffice it to say that you must not have any “pre-existing conditions” from acne to zoonotic infections, and the insurer can engage in something called “rescission” in which they drop you because they claim you lied on your application, or because you got sick and they don’t want to pay for it. If you have insurance, you will fight every step of the way for every benefit you receive.

Option Three: Get health insurance through work. Some American employers offer health insurance plans as benefits. Most negotiate a group rate, allowing people to get insurance more cheaply than if they paid privately. Some insurers (few) cover the cost of insurance along with deductibles and copays, some pay for the insurance, some split the cost of the insurance, and some offer insurance plans which employees can buy into, but don’t defray any of the costs. In a workplace where insurance is offered and the employer pays all or part of the cost, if an employee declines it, the employer may give the employee reimbursements for health expenses, up to a certain amount.

Option Four: State risk pool. Basically, in recognition of the issues faced by people who are uninsurable, some states have created risk pools. People who are eligible can pay a (usually very high) fee for the privilege of getting insurance through the state. That insurance usually don’t cover a whole heck of a lot.

Option Five: Young adults. In some regions, people up to 25 can be carried on a parent’s policy, if they are still dependents. People in college are usually covered through mandatory health fees which provide them either with access to the college clinic, or with an insurance policy which allows them to access care.

Pretty much, no matter what plan you have, you are going to end up having a lot of out of pocket expenses for health care. You are also going to fight for coverage and benefits, and you are probably going to lose unless you have someone with clout to back you up. Every plan discussed above (except paying in cash, obviously) routinely denies benefits to which people are entitled, and even paying in cash, as I do, can have problems. For example, the pharmacy often refuses to fill my prescriptions (to the point of not ordering specialty items prescribed for me) until I demonstrate my ability to pay, because they don’t want to restock if I don’t have enough money. Basically, the default from insurers is rejection, because they hope that people will accept the rejection and not appeal. If you are a person with disabilities trying to navigate the health care system, the issue gets even more complicated than if you’re a relatively health person who just happened to break your leg. (For example, if you need prescriptions for narcotics for pain management, you will be forced to jump through an absurd number of hoops. Every month.)

So, let’s talk about the debate over health care reform in this country.

Roughly 46 million Americans have no health insurance. Many more than that are underinsured, lacking the coverage they need to access adequate health care. The leading cost of bankruptcy in America is health care expenses. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year because they have no insurance or do not have adequate insurance (I want to note that emergency rooms must provide treatment to everyone, regardless of insurance status, so people aren’t allowed to bleed out in the street, but people with chronic conditions regularly die because they can’t access the treatment they need). The cost of health care in this country is skyrocketing. At the same time, malpractice suits are exploding, public hospitals are failing, and government plans like Medicaid are running out of money. So, obviously, something needs to be changed.

The obvious solution is what Americans call a nationalized single payer system (or “socialized medicine,” said with a sneer, because “socialized” is a pejorative statement in the United States, in case you’ve been wondering). Under this system, the government would either directly provide care or payment for care to all Americans. The plan available to members of the armed forces is an obvious model; it’s already really, really good, and it works really, really well. Some Republicans have said publicly that they think  members of the armed forces “deserve a higher standard of care” than civilians, though, so, you know. Uphill battle here, to say the least.

However, single payer isn’t getting much serious consideration. This is for several reasons.

The first is that the private insurance companies do not want it to happen, for obvious reasons. This might not really be an issue, because one would think that the government would override corporations to do what’s right. Unfortunately, private insurance companies have huge amounts of political and economic clout, thanks to the fact that campaign finance in the United States is largely unregulated. So, basically, the private insurance companies have bought themselves some security.

The second is that a very large faction in America fears the idea of providing basic human services to all American citizens. These are the people running around with the infuriating signs. These people are not only wrong, they’re also gravely misinformed. They believe that countries with socialized medicine leave people dying on the side of the streets, endlessly delay care, cost lots of money, cover undocumented immigrants (which, you know, separate issue, but if my tax dollars pay for health care for undocumented immigrants, I really don’t care), deny care all the time, and so forth. They think that a “public option” will be accompanied with all sorts of nastiness and be really expensive, and they haven’t even been introduced to the concept of single payer yet.

A lot of this rhetoric has been deliberately cultivated. For example, claims about the percentage of the American economy health care accounts for, provided courtesy of insurance companies; people argue that the current system must be maintained because otherwise the economy will collapse. Or, the death panels (sorry, Natalie, had to address it). The “death panel” is actually a conversation between a patient and ou doctor in which the doctor talks about various situations which could come up and treatment options, and asks the patient about what ou wants done in those situations. If the patient says “sustain life at all costs,” life must be sustained at all costs. If the patient says “I don’t want to live on a ventilator,” then the approach to treatment would be, you know, different. Incidentally, Republicans were the original sponsors of mandating this kind of doctor-patient discussion. Conservative commentators are basically pushing every button they can find to elicit the desired response, which is a “populist uprising” of people who are sadly too ignorant to realize what they are protesting about.

I don’t want to get too into the rhetoric, but, basically, conservatives in the United States are feeling very threatened right now. They lost control of Congress and the White House, and they feel like all kinds of things are going on that they don’t like, and they are lashing out in a major way. These people you see in the news carrying protest signs, for the most part, have no idea what they are talking about, they’re just parroting what they’ve been told by talking heads. Some of this rhetoric is clearly racially motivated, and it has less to do with the issue of health care reform than with their idea that society is collapsing, and they are angry and upset about it. Personally, I just eat a bowl of ice cream when I think society is collapsing, but, you know, whatever floats your boat.

So, most of the current proposals for health care reform are revolving around how to get Americans to buy health insurance, rather than how to provide health care reform to Americans. And some of these proposals are including what they are calling a “public option,” which would basically be government-sponsored health insurance for some Americans, while maintaining the current framework. In other words, instead of doing away with the myriad options discussed above and just having one plan cover all Americans, these plans advocate for creating yet another plan. I’m opposed to this because I think it’s inefficient and unwise and will ultimately cause more problems than it solves.

Some plans reject the public option altogether, instead focusing on things like forcing insurance companies to carry people, eliminating rescission, and limiting health insurance costs with the goal of making health insurance (not necessarily health care) more accessible. These plans sometimes also contain mandates: every American would be obligated to buy health insurance. If you were extremely poor, the government might help you out a little, or issue an exception (despite the fact that poor people are probably most in need of insurance). One of the biggest problems with mandates is that the limits are pretty unreasonable. Including premiums, copays, payments out of pocket for things that aren’t covered, and deductibles, some currently uninsured people would be expected to spend close to 50% of their income on insurance (supposedly, the costs would be capped at 12-15% depending on the plan, but that’s only the cost for the premium).

The argument used to defend mandates is that car insurance is mandatory in the United States, so, therefore, health insurance should be too. There are a couple of problems with this, like the fact that buying a car is a choice and being alive is not a choice (in the same sense, at any rate). Furthermore, uninsured motorists pose a threat to others, while uninsured Americans only pose a threat to themselves, so car insurance mandates are more about collective social responsibility than personal responsibility (many Americans believe that health care is a personal responsibility, not a right, although, needless to say, I do not subscribe to this view). Another problem, as pointed out by a doc, is that car insurance is designed to provide coverage for catastrophic events, while health insurance (theoretically) covers routine ones; you don’t use your car insurance policy to buy gas, you do use health insurance to pay for a checkup.

As has been pointed out, in Massachusetts, which already has a health insurance mandate and a public option, the insurers all promptly dropped everyone they didn’t like, shunting the costliest patients over to government care. This is probably what would happen if a federal law with a “public option” passed, allowing the insurers to continue making huge profit margins and forcing the government to carry the most expensive patients. Whereas, if the government was covering everyone, the risk would be more evenly distributed, and thus less costly, because everyone would be paying into the system, but people would be taking out at different levels. Studies seem to suggest that it would be cheaper to run a nationalized single payer plan than it would to continue running the current level of government care: Yes, that’s right, it would be cheaper to eliminate the current system and provide care to all Americans than it would be to continue with the status quo.

What this debate is fundamentally about is profits, not health care. Insurance companies want to protect their profits, politicians want to protect their sources of money, and all Americans want is some goddamn health care, already.

*Hey Canadians! I understand that the correct usage in Canada is “First Nations,” but here it’s Native American. You probably already knew that since the United States is a hegemonic monster, but I thought I’d mention it, just in case.

25 September, 2009 – 10:32 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, health, politics |

Smoky Pottery

Everyone, go read “How to Read Articles About Health and Health Care.” It’s ok, I’ll wait.

Have you read it yet?

No?

Go read it. Seriously, I’ll wait.

Ok, on with the other links of interest for the day:

Ok, y’all, I keep my finger on the pulse of Congress, and this flew right past me, probably because it’s been moldering in committee for months: Kucinich has introduced a bill calling for single payer health care. Have I mentioned lately how much I love Kucinich? HR 676 isn’t quite the form of single payer I want, but, you know what, I will take what I can get, homechickens. Americans, run, don’t walk, to your nearest Congresscritter and find out if ou’s a cosponsor. If ou isn’t, ask why.

Once again, Amanda Hess hits the nail on the head.

The Deal With Disability is a totally awesome site written by a 26 year old women with cerebral palsy, talking about her day to day interactions with the rest of the world. If you are at all interested in disability issues or in knowing how to behave around/with people with disabilities, read it! Also, she’s hella funny.

Speaking of exclusionary language, let’s talk about “illegal” and the way in which this word is abused.

Kate Harding writes about what actually goes on at a photo shoot (before photoshop magic even starts to happen).

Apparently “child rape” is actually just a “sex tryst” in the minds of the editorial staff at the Huffington Post. And it’s not the “intent to rape,” it’s the “intent to have sex with.”

A quote from 1995 suddenly seems remarkably timely. Why is it that people who whip up public sentiments refuse to take responsibility for the results of their actions?

25 September, 2009 – 10:03 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

Glee: Preggers

Laura at Adventures of a Young Feminist also has reviewed “Preggers,” and you might want to check her take out (it includes a recap, which I am too lazy to do).

So, let’s talk about “Preggers.” I will say this for Glee: it is getting better. Slowly. There are a lot of serious problems, but there were also some really great notes this episode. There was a lot less casual racism, a lot less wannabe edgy hipster bullshit, and a lot more of the kind of tone I like in my television, which is incisive and critical without needing to specifically say it. I’m still having issues with a lot of the characterization, but I think they are hitting the smaller issues a lot better.

Like, I’ve finally started getting more into Sue’s characterization. That segment on caning was, well, priceless, I think is the best word. She’s ruthless and vicious and I think it’s being played in a way that I am really starting to enjoy. She’s moving beyond the kind of plastic character I really didn’t like and becoming an actual, fully realized person.

Something else I loved in this episode: the gay storyline. The episode opens with Kurt rocking out with some fellow Glee Clubbers to that Beyonce Song (“Single Ladies”? I’m too lazy to look it up. Laziness is a theme tonight.) Kurt’s father storms in, and our immediate read is that he’s homophobic and possibly racist. And then, at the end of the episode, we have Kurt coming out to his father, and his dad being pretty chill about it.

Which, you know, on the one hand, awesome, but on the other, kind of minimizes the terror of the moment. Coming out is scary, even if you think that your parent/s will be accepting, and I say this from personal experience. I think that to balance that out, they had the scenes with the football team in which gay jokes were made and specifically Kurt was threatened with death if he failed. This was an example of how the show is improving: I don’t think that those were supposed to be read as funny or amusing. They were supposed to be read as uncomfortable, scary, and hurtful, and they were. Kurt’s dad was sort of the model of, you know, what you should do if your kid is gay, while the football team was, you know, what actually happens when you are gay in high school. Well, until the heartwarming dance number, anyway.

Another plot which I found interesting was the one with Tina and Rachel. Rachel, whom I am really starting to dislike because she’s entitled, manipulative, and whiny (I WANT IT MORE!!!), wants the part of Maria from West Side Story, which has been awarded to Tina. We see Tina practicing, thinking she has done badly, and quitting to give it up for the white girl. Only, snap, in the scene which is supposed to showcase Rachel’s triumph, Will still awards the part to Tina, insisting that she perform it, and Rachel quits and storms out in a huff. (Good riddance, I say.)

I wasn’t such a fan of the special snowflake action, the “everybody’s a winner” thing, but I liked that Will refused to let Rachel bully him, and that he insisted on giving Tina a chance. I think he sees potential in Tina, and wants to bring that out in her, and I liked that a plot that started out as “minority, once again, appeases white girl” turned into “minority kicks ass.” It underscored what Laura has identified as one of the key themes of the show, which is that you can be yourself, and you should be proud of that.

As Laura pointed out, it did kind of suck that none of the other minority characters got much screen time. It does seem like the show is relegating them to B plots, and that apparently only one or two get showcased at a time. Last week was the Black girl’s turn, this week was the white gay boy and the Asian girl. But, in all fairness, maybe I am being oversensitive here; when you have a show with an ensemble cast, you can’t focus on the entire ensemble at once. And, for better or for worse, the white characters are the leads, so they are pretty much guaranteed plot lines every episode. It would be nice to see the minority characters taking an A storyline, or even an all-minority episode, though.

Kathy pointed out in Laura’s comments that the women on the show are all portrayed as manipulative, which is, you know, definitely a problem. It’s something I’ve noticed too, and it’s something that a lot of people are complaining about, with good reason. I’m really hoping that this changes as the series progresses, in a way which doesn’t turn into “object lesson for the deceitful lying bitch.” All of the women are problematic, from Terri, Will’s wife, who is persisting in faking a pregnancy because she’s convinced he will leave her otherwise, to Quinn, who’s pretending to be pregnant by Quinn because she thinks he will take care of the baby. Yee haw, let’s stereotype pregnant women!

However, I would like to point out that it’s all the white women who are manipulative. Now, one could chalk this down to “we hardly see the minority characters so they don’t have much of a chance to be manipulative,” but I do think it’s an important thing to note.

I also actually kind of like that Quinn is using the old canard about getting pregnant in a hot tub. It’s a classic line that gets repeated in abstinence education, and it’s obviously false, but, you know, a lot of people do think that. So I think it was kind of clever, actually, to use it in the storyline, as a nod to abstinence-only culture and the, you know, serious flaws with that kind of education. Finn believes it because he doesn’t know any better, and I find that a tragic indictment of sex ed in this country.

If it sounds like I’m suddenly all up on Glee, I’d like to point out that I didn’t miss the ableist joke about the School for the Deaf in the locker room. Trust me, readers, the jury is still firmly out on this one.

24 September, 2009 – 8:38 pm | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, reviews, television | Tagged |

Crimson Tide: The Centering of Female Experience Around Menstruation

Crimson tide. Aunt Flo. Period. Checking into the red roof inn. Bleeding. On the rag. Time of the month. Red wings. The curse. Monthlies.

Ah, menstruation. Nothing is a larger part of the female experience, right? All women share the commonality of bleeding from their vaginas for several days each month, right? Much of the understanding of female experience is centered around menstruation, from the belief that women behave irrationally during their periods to the idea that a girl’s first period is her initiation into womanhood.

Fear of womanhood in the form of menstruation fear is also a huge part of our society. A teenage girl need only gaze at the ground and mutter something about “not feeling well” to be dismissed from gym class for the day. People who admit to having sex with women during their periods are mocked and treated with horror, disgust, and fear. Women are assumed to be “overly emotional” because of “the curse” and whenever a woman breaks from the behavioral expectation of remaining calm, meek, and submissive, it is assumed that she’s “on the rag” and will quickly return to more acceptable behaviour. It’s practically the first question that gets asked at every medical exam: “when was your last period?” (Unless you’re at a college health center, in which case the first question is: “Are you pregnant?” “No? Are you sure?”)

But this is all wrong, because it ignores a significant part of the female population: women who don’t menstruate. For women who don’t menstruate, the focus on menstruation is just alienating, rather than being an inclusive common ground which allows them to find “kinship with all women.” All women do not share the commonality of menstrual periods. Having a period is not central to the female experience. And the obsession with menstruation is, for these women, othering. Yet another example of how they aren’t “real women” and are somehow failing at being female.

There are a wide assortment of reasons for a woman not to menstruate. Oddly enough, while society is often very reluctant to discuss menstruation, the belief that it is firmly coupled with female experience means that people assume that all women menstruate, and women who don’t menstruate are subjected to scrutiny. Surely, they must feel bereft at not being able to share in this quintessential female experience! Surely, thus, society is obliged to know why it is that they don’t menstruate.

To disclose that one doesn’t menstruate is to open up the floor to conversation and probing discussion, evidently. And, in some cases, this is really dangerous. Trans women who have chosen stealth, for example, may be exposed through admitting that they don’t experience menstruation (although, fun fact, they do get cramps). Cis women with health problems which prevent menstruation, ranging from anorexia to gynecological cancers, may not feel comfortable discussing these issues, just like pregnant cis women might prefer to keep their pregnancies private in the early stages. Menopause also leads to the cessation of periods in cis women, may onset at a variety of ages, and, again, is a personal medical issue which cis women may not appreciate having aired publicly. And, for cis women who choose to manipulate and control their periods with hormones, a discussion about timing periods might not be something which one wants to have with just anyone.

Female experience is so centered around menstruation that in the early years of developing hormonal birth control, there was a great deal of debate about the placebo pills. Initially, developers suggested simply maintaining hormones throughout the cycle, effectively preventing women from having periods. But, they were shot down, for cultural rather than medical reasons, and the placebo pills were inserted, forcing women to undergo a period while using hormonal birth control. The placebo pills endure to this day, with alternate modes of hormonal birth control sometimes using reduced periods as a selling point. Seasonique, for example, tells us right on their splash page that women will only get four periods a year while using it.

This illustrates the dichotomy with which menstruation is viewed: it’s gross and disgusting and mysterious, but it’s also essential to female experience. It’s yet another reason why vaginas are icky, but it’s something which women should not go without. To bleed is to be female. Not to bleed is to be other.

Assuming that all women menstruate is cissexist, ableist, and ageist. Like many things which are supposedly common female experiences, menstruation is used both to stereotype and judge women. It’s used to differentiate between “real” and “fake” women, to evaluate fertility in a very public way, to exclude women who “don’t belong” from the supposedly universal sisterhood of femaleness. Much like searching for blood on the sheets after the wedding night, the assumption that all women menstruate is a continual reinforcement that women’s bodies are public property. That what a woman’s body does or doesn’t do is the concern of society as a collective, rather than her private business.

24 September, 2009 – 10:38 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, gender, health, social justice |

Sighing Slate

Oh, zoonotic diseases, will you never stop being oh so crafty?

As Obama supporters learn that their Golden Boy is actually just another politician, are they losing the hope?

Chally’s post on ableist language is well worth a read. And, many of her points can be extended to other kinds of exclusionary language. Key point: why, if you are using something like an ableist term as an insult, do you not understand that you are hurting people with disabilities? Like, “lame” is only an insult because society thinks that being lame is bad.

One might like to imagine that exclusionary tactics used to keep particular racial groups out of a neighborhood are illegal and wrong and never happen. One would be wrong. Sickening.

I do love the Funeral Rule, but it’s time for some more oversight of the funeral industry, with a particular eye to cemeteries. Luckily, it looks like it’s going to happen.

Evidently, if you have rape fantasies, it’s your own fault when you are raped. Can we distinguish between fantasy and reality, people?

A Sarah at Shapely Prose has asked for help from readers; do you have examples of religious communities engaging in fat acceptance? Or fat shaming? If you do, she’d love to hear about them.

Gay youth in the New York Times.

24 September, 2009 – 10:17 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

It’s All Greek To Me

I recently started watching Greek, a show about fraternities and sororities which airs on ABC Family. It takes place at the fictional Cyprus-Rhodes University, revolving around the lives of characters in several fraternities and sororities. I’m not really sure why I’m so drawn to the show, but I find myself oddly mesmerized, even as I am horrified and disgusted sometimes.

I don’t know much about fraternity and sorority life. My experiences are limited to knowing some folks in fraternities and sororities, and, yes, in going to some frat parties. Outsiders to the Greek system tend to view it pretty negatively, and the system definitely has some problems. (Hazing, excessive drinking, sexual assault, cultivation of disordered eating, etc etc.) Greek does a pretty balanced job of presenting the brotherhood and sisterhood aspect, the connections that people make in the Greek system, and in presenting some of the more negative things. Including the consequences of bad behavior in our more socially-conscious era; our friends at ZBZ, for example, are placed on probation by Nationals due to violations which would have been laughed off in earlier days.

But, Greek also has a lot of cringeworthy problems. I hate, for example, the way it depicts sorority life. Sorority sisters, in Greek, are scheming harpies who are constantly stealing each other’s boyfriends, fighting over meaningless things, and bouncing from boy to boy. We’re treated to catfights and a wide assortment of general nastiness. And, as viewers, we get sucked into the attitudes of the show; I find myself thinking of characters as bitches, for example, and hating them, before I step back and realize that I’ve just totally bought into the show’s hackneyed portrayal of college women and sorority sisters in particular.

I get that with a television show, you want to maintain tension. Having love triangles and conflicted sexual relationships definitely meets that requirement, as does playing up the rivalry between different fraternities and sororities. And it would be extremely boring to watch a show in which everyone got along and nothing wrong ever happened. But…is it really necessary to go to this extreme? Could we maybe not play on the obvious stereotypes, and perhaps explore some more creative plot ideas?

Sometimes, Greek makes really cogent observations on society and college life. I like that there are gay characters, and how those characters are presented. I also like that we see more gays than lesbians; television tends to go for lesbians when it wants LGBQT brownie points, because lesbians are sexually appealing. I like that the show is much more diverse than a lot of other shows. Yes, the leads are mostly white, but not all of them are, and the minority characters aren’t as heavily stereotyped as they often are, and they’re allowed to be love objects, which is pretty rare. We see black and Asian and Southeast Indian characters who are actually fully realized as people and don’t inhabit troped stereotypes. It is unfortunate that a lot of the minority characters take the role of sidekicks, and I’m hoping that this changes as the older characters graduate, making room for the minority characters to take a stronger role.

There’s also an abstinence club on Greek, which is used as a figure of fun in the first season, something which really irritates me (see Monday’s post). But I like that Rusty’s roommate, while a somewhat stereotypical Christian trope, is also more complex, and humanized. When he loses his virginity during the current season and agonizes over it, I feel for him, as a viewer. His crisis of conscience and faith feels real and is presented genuinely, not as an opportunity to make fun of him, but as a depiction of the very real struggles that people in his position have in college.

We also see characters struggling with issues like balancing courseloads and recreation, wondering about whether they belong in sororities and fraternities at all, and dealing with problems like the divorce of parents and the dangers of a trust fund. For the most part, I think that the show deals with a lot of complex issues in a pretty positive way, although the show is definitely hetero-centric as well as centered on able bodies, which is a bit of a bummer.

I’m a bit disappointed that the show hasn’t really addressed sexual assault, which is a pretty common problem on college campuses. I’m hoping that it comes up as the series progresses, since the show doesn’t shy away from issues like college alcoholism and abusive sorority hazing like fat shaming and the encouragement of disordered eating.

I think it’s safe to say that I’ll probably be talking about Greek as it airs this season. I’m curious to see where the show takes us and the characters.

23 September, 2009 – 10:42 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, reviews, television | Tagged |

Fluffy Geckoes

Amanda Hess, one of my personal heroes, pretty much nails it with this post discussing why the media is referring to a woman who made a false rape accusation as a “whore” and a “venal vixen,” instead of calling her a “liar,” which she actually is.

There’s a proposal on the table to put a health warning on photoshopped images (so, basically, to slap a warning label on every single image in every single fashion publication), since apparently people are not aware of the fact that everything in print is an artificial construct made with image editing software.

It’s time to focus the health care debate where it really matters: protecting the insurance companies. (Oh, I’m sorry, did you think “health care reform” was about health care?! Silly you, it’s about selling health insurance.)

Transcriptions of final statements made by executed prisoners are tremendously depressing. All the more so when you note that our supposedly fair and impartial justice system seems to execute alarmingly high numbers of people of colour, poor people, and people with developmental disabilities.

This is an absolutely brilliant idea from the Angry Black Woman: what if every square on a bingo card linked to a post/thread dealing with the topic of that square? HELL, YEAH. I love it. Go here to participate.

Los Angeles has a measured response to a rooster problem: rather than banning roosters outright (a problematic choice other cities have made), they’re putting some reasonable restrictions in place.

What a lovely piece of yellow cl-ARGH!

23 September, 2009 – 10:04 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |

Better Than Nothing?

So, I have a problem with the current proposals for health care reform on the table. And this problem, to put it bluntly, is that these proposals suck giant donkey testicles. I’m not going to pussyfoot around here: I’m totally opposed, and I’m totally pissed. For once, I find myself in agreement with the right, except for entirely different reasons.

I’ve been going back and forth on this issue with Tristan. I think that the plan sucks because it doesn’t go far enough, and that it could potentially be highly damaging in addition to totally useless. He argues (to paraphrase hours of conversation) that something is better than nothing. Reform is needed, the popular argument goes, and thus any reform is better than no reform.

But I don’t actually agree with this stance. And I think that this argument is dangerous, because it’s being used to push people into supporting this plan. It’s the same problem I had during the Presidential primaries: being forced to choose between a bunch of candidates I did not like was not actually being presented with a choice. And I don’t understand why American politicians continue pretending that they are presenting actual, valid, diverse choices, because they aren’t.

So, here’s the thing. The health care system is not working. I’m not going to argue with that. But the solution, in my mind, is not to try to repair it from within the framework of the existing system. The solution is to totally dismantle the system. We don’t want to fight the status quo, we want to erase it. In real estate terms, the health care system is a teardown. Do we want to spend a bunch of money and energy trying to prop it up and fix it? No. We want to hire a demolition company to destroy this sucker and clear the ground so we can build a new one. Or ask the fire department if they’d like to burn it down for practice, if we’re feeling like turning demolition into a public service.

Any reform is like, well, trying to patch a leaky boat with cheesecloth. The system is so complex, so loaded with bureaucracy, so insane, and the lobby is so powerful, that “reform” will have basically no effect. Especially because there’s a really simple solution: national single-payer healthcare.

I’m not just saying this because I’m a raging socialist. A national single-payer plan is more cost efficient than any other system. It’s better medicine. It guarantees access. It just makes sense, from multiple perspectives, and it’s pretty easy to implement. Logically, it’s the best and really the only solution, yet it’s basically not being discussed, because everyone is so terrified of the health insurance lobby. Single-payer advocates weren’t even invited to the table when it came to discussing plans.

I don’t want a “public option.” A “public option” will be effectively useless. I’m willing to bet that any “public option” would not cover me, and if I was forced to buy private health insurance under mandates, it would bankrupt me, because I’d be paying stratospheric premiums and paying for all of the health care that my insurance wouldn’t cover. I would be faced with paying penalty fines or buying a crappy plan I couldn’t afford. Furthermore, a “public option” will effectively damage any potential chance at a national single-payer system, because it is going to fail and therefore it will be used to beat advocates for healthcare reform over the head forever.

Talking with RMJ about this, RMJ said that if we went to  national single-payer, we would lose jobs, because people in the insurance industry would no longer have jobs. I argued that this wasn’t actually the case, for a number of reasons; private insurance companies would still exist and people would have the opportunity to buy additional coverage from them if they wanted, for starters, and a national single-payer system would actually create jobs, because we would need administrators and staffers to manage it.

Furthermore, I think that the “what about the workers” argument is a red herring used to prop up capitalist inequality. I’m a utilitarian. I go for the greatest good for the greatest number, and the greatest good in the long term. I think that things like job loss and bank failures are acceptable, if they lead to improvements in the future. I think that using “the workers” to prop up and maintain a broken system is despicable, especially when people are tricking those same workers into believing lies and rightwing propaganda.

These proposals are not, in fact, better than nothing. They are worse than nothing, because if nothing was done, people might actually revolt, overcome the power of the insurance lobby, and do something. Instead, these plans are going to be used to lull people into complacency, while allowing the rich to get richer. Oh, and while ensuring that people like me will continue to be deprived of access to health care.

22 September, 2009 – 10:48 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, health, politics |

Chirping Sheep

Required reading: small town America is experiencing what can only be called a “rural brain drain.” This is a serious problem, and it’s only getting worse.

Want to know if you have what it takes for the Canadian government to accept you as an immigrant? You can find out here.

In shocking news, we need more troops in Afghanistan. Right now.

Congratulations are in order for Sergeant Major Teresa L. King, first female head of the Army’s drill sergeant school! Seriously, people, go read about her, she’s amazing.

The latest accessory among trendy mommies is…the ethnic nanny? Uhm, yeah. Excuse me while my brain quietly screams.

Boy brains and girl brains are different, right? Wrong!

Companies are starting to consider more environmental initiatives as they realize that climate change could threaten their profits.

Want to use Amazon’s API? Make sure you don’t have links to other booksellers on your website.

A bulletin board says “sex without consent is rape.” Cue hysterical people who find the billboard offensive. But, of course, it’s fine to plaster buses with rape culture-infused crap like “deaf girls can’t hear you coming.”

22 September, 2009 – 10:06 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in Everything, interesting |