Shared posts

02 Feb 20:33

A Man Is Making Bizarre, Terrifying YouTube Videos About Brianna Wu

Madison Metricula

Well, that's pretty terrifying.

A Man Is Making Bizarre, Terrifying YouTube Videos About Brianna Wu 

Game developer and frequent Gamergate target Brianna Wu says she fears for her safety due to a bizarre and threatening YouTube video posted by a Massachusetts man this weekend. The man has posted several videos accusing Wu of trying to assassinate him; the newest video shows him standing next to his wrecked car, which he says he crashed on his way to "confront" her.

The man posts on YouTube under the name "ParkourDude91," and has said in several videos and on Twitter that his name is Jace Connors. Connors is somewhat infamous online: He's claimed for years to be, variously, a former U.S. Marine or, in his Twitter bio, a former Navy SEAL. He's also said that he lives with his mother and posts frequently about video games. In the past he referred to himself as a juggalo (an Insane Clown Posse Fan), but these days says he's a Gamergate supporter. There's a cruel and mocking entry on the "parody" site Encyclopedia Dramatica about Connors, detailing his long history of strange claims and his fondness for appearing in his YouTube videos brandishing a knife featuring the Marines' "Semper Fi" motto and, occasionally, an Airsoft (replica) gun styled to look like a Desert Eagle pistol. Another video posted online shows Connors and a friend apparently beating up and threatening a third man with an Airsoft gun to get him to "pay" for an XBox they accuse him of stealing.

Connors has denied on Twitter that he suffers from mental illness, but has also written that he has a "past history" of schizophrenia, for which he says he takes medication. His YouTube videos show someone with a number of paranoid and delusional beliefs about various conspiracies against him. In recent months, Connors seems to have become fixated on Brianna Wu. Here is the video he posted Friday, titled "Brianna Wu tried to assassinate me street racing."

In the start of the video, Connors is standing in the snow next to what he says is his mother's wrecked Prius. He's yelling almost unintelligibly: "I wasn't even fucking drunk, I was just street racing, I was just street racing." He dissolves into screams as he kicks the wrecked car. The video then fades into a black screen with white text, where Connors accuses Wu of masterminding the accident: "I suspect Brianna Wu rigged my mom's Prius to crash and/or kill me to silence me from being a #GamerGate Vigilante... The crash happened today while I was driving to Wu's house (in order to expose her as a corrupt gamer by racing her on camera)."

Wu says she's alarmed by Connors' threats and his expressed desire to come to her house to "confront" her. Both of them live near Boston. After someone sent her the latest video, she posted a series of tweets begging police to arrest him and pointing out it's not the first time he's expressed a desire to punish her for what he calls "treachery."

This is serious stuff. This man has other videos where he is brandishing firearms, and one with a knife threatening to kill me.

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) January 31, 2015

I need law enforcement to arrest this person, and the state of Massachusetts needs to get him some serious professional help.

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) January 31, 2015

Does a woman have to get murdered for law enforcement to take the online harassment of women seriously?

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) January 31, 2015

In a message to Jezebel, Wu says that she's been concerned about Connors for months (she avoids using his real name). She writes:

In late December, a video was sent to me of a man brandishing a knife and ranting that he was going to stab me with it "Assassin's Creed"-style. He identified himself as "The Commander," and a Gamergater. To not reveal his real name, I will refer to him as The Commander for the rest of this piece. I've had 43 death threats sent to me in the last four months, but this one seemed serious enough for me to call the cops and immediately file a report.

The Commander's face was fully visible and he regularly tweets using his real name, so it was easy for an acquaintance of mine to find his address. This was passed to me, and I sent it on to law enforcement. Even supporters of Gamergate, uneasy with his threats of violence, contacted me with personal testimony about experiences with him, which I also forwarded.

I thought the response from law enforcement would be quick, but to my knowledge nothing was done. As I waited, I continued to get death threats sent by this man, some telling me he was going to fire guns at me. He bragged about his military experience as a sniper, and described many of the Iraqis he had killed.

On Friday, I was contacted by a friend extremely worried for my safety. A Skype log from The Commander threatening me with the knife had leaked onto the Internet. He was en route to my house with what was described as a rifle. I was contacted by the Boston police who had received calls from other people who had read this man's disturbing Skype log.

Wu says she contacted the Arlington, Massachusetts police department, who took a statement from her. Later that night, she says, "the Commander" sent her his newest video. Terrified, she called the police again and had them come back to her house to take a second report. She adds:

I have never contacted The Commander. I have never interacted with The Commander. I have never heard of the Commander before his repeated threats of violence against me. 


I have to be honest. I'm not sure what needs to happen here. The Commander is clearly mentally ill, and I'm not sure if he'd be better helped through jail time or through time with mental health professionals. But, it's clear he's a danger to himself and others currently. It's my hope in speaking out that law enforcement will get involved and get this man the help he needs.

This weekend, two popular Gamergate podcasters who go by the names The Ralph Retort and Kingofpol posted a video interview with Connors. Clad in sunglasses, a camouflage jacket, and a yellow polka-dotted tie, he seemed much calmer, but still said that he believes Wu is trying to assassinate him. (He also said he is "definitely a Gamergate supporter.")

Connors said that on Friday, he'd gotten a text message that he believed at the time was from Wu, and said he was racing to confront her and maybe race her when he wrecked his car. He suggested that she had positioned a sniper to cause the accident, and admitted that he'd previously believed that she was working with "Islamic assassins" to try to kill him. When the hosts laughed at that, he grew angry, telling them, "There's nothing funny about that. My life was on the line. The evidence is real."

After the crash, Connors told the hosts, he refused to go to the hospital: "I was convinced — and still partially am — that there was an attempt being made on my life, and did not want to be stuck in a hospital." He said, too, that he hasn't been questioned by police regarding the statements he's made about Wu, much less arrested: "I've seen Law and Order, they have to come to your house and give you a thing."

Connors denied ever owning a real gun, saying the weapons he's frequently holding in his YouTube videos are all replicas: "I never had a gun. I never said I had a gun. I'm not even allowed to hold a gun in Massachussetts. It's not even legal for me... the only guns I've ever had in videos were all Airsoft replicas."

He also said that he doesn't plan to end the "Wupocalypse," as he calls it: "If you think I'm the type of person to let anything go, you don't know me. It's not just ongoing, it's just beginning... The long-term exposé of the social justice community that I have planned is just beginning. Brianna Wu is just a small part of it." He added, a few minutes later "I will try as much as I can to bring this gaming criminal to justice. I still believe Brianna Wu is responsible for the car crash."

We've left messages with the Massachusetts State Police and are working to get in touch with the Arlington Police Department. We'll update when we hear back.

Screenshot via YouTube

14 Jan 15:11

I Had Such Severe Postpatrum Depression That I Was Afraid My Baby's Head Would Fall Off

Madison Metricula

OMG I understand this completely. That kind of spiral is absolutely not a joke when you can't control it.

"But my SSRIs weren’t enough after Sunny’s birth. Coming off a high-risk, debilitating pregnancy, I began to have obsessive thoughts. I would lay down with my son during nap time and think, This is how we will curl up after the apocalypse, when the nuclear bombs fall and we scrabble to live through nuclear winter. How would I feed us? Would people try to cannibalize each other? I was haunted by Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, Stephen King’s The Stand. The end felt nigh."

"I’m afraid my baby’s head will fall off," I tell my psychiatrist.

She nods, normally, sympathetically, as if mothers everywhere suffer visions of their baby’s heads coming off their necks. "Can you explain that?" she asks.

And I tell her how, when I was 10, my father took me dove hunting. Most of the time, his shot didn’t kill the dove. So to end its suffering, my father would casually twist its head off. I watched in sick fascination, over and over, as his big hands almost gently wrenched the birds’ heads from their small gray bodies. I had no idea heads could be so precariously attached, no idea that one small twist could decapitate.

When I had my third son, I couldn’t stop thinking how delicately his head attached, how strong hands could twist and pull. It terrified me, this thin neck, this precarious joining of flesh and bone. I remembered the birds. I had seen their heads lie wide-eyed on the ground.

"That’s horrible," my doctor said. She upped both my medications and added Xanax. "We need to get that under control," she told me. "You can’t live like this."

But I could. I did. And so do millions of other women.

I’ve been down the dark alleys of depression before. But it didn’t become utterly unlivable until I got pregnant. At eight weeks, we thought we were losing our baby. I sobbed for six straight hours, through the emergency room, the ultrasound, all the way home. I cried because I was still pregnant. I couldn’t possibly cope with this very wanted baby. How could I have made such a terrible mistake?

A case of borderline hyperemesis worsened my depression and anxiety. My husband left town for three days, which I spent consumed with thoughts of his imminent death. The panic attacks began: clutching bouts of heart-pounding terror that left me gasping for air, convinced every wheeze was hurting the baby. 

When I admitted to my husband that I kept myself from suicide because I didn’t want to kill my baby, I finally got help: medication, and a real psychiatrist.

I was suffering from prenatal depression, which is experienced by 10 to 20 percent of pregnant women. Everyone talks about postpartum depression. No one mentions that the same hormones can trigger prenatal depression as well. Babies born to depressed women suffer higher rates of stress hormones, less coordination and motor control, and more sleep disturbances. Up to 14 percent of women take antidepressants during pregnancy, and their efficacy — and effects on the baby — is debatable. But for some women whose depression is severe enough that they can’t care for themselves or a child, their use is necessary. I was one of those women.

But my SSRIs weren’t enough after Sunny’s birth. Coming off a high-risk, debilitating pregnancy, I began to have obsessive thoughts. I would lay down with my son during nap time and think, This is how we will curl up after the apocalypse, when the nuclear bombs fall and we scrabble to live through nuclear winter. How would I feed us? Would people try to cannibalize each other? I was haunted by Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, Stephen King’s The Stand. The end felt nigh.

I had other symptoms. Constantly stressed, I snapped at my older sons. Depression doesn’t always look sad: It can look like mean instead. Normal kid behavior left me enraged; a simple lost shoe could ruin the day. I yelled. I stomped off to the bedroom. I couldn’t understand why my children had suddenly become so bad.

And I began, again, to worry my husband would die. I started crying in the bathroom. My baby, who I loved so much, felt like a terrible mistake. I was a mistake. I thought about killing myself, but knew he wouldn’t have anything to eat. I worried his head would fall off.

I needed more medication.

We had to tweak and tinker. But a year later, I’m on an even keel again. I needed a good deal of medication to get here, but the dangers of a depressed mother outweigh the medication passed through my breast milk (and for health reasons related to severe food intolerances, weaning was not an option). And other things helped, of course: I spend time outside; I eat well. I make sure to get enough sleep, and I cuddle my son as much as possible. I am happy and healthy. I am productive.

But I wasn’t always this way. I got help. 

Millions of women do not.

And the first step toward helping women with depression is to take away its stigma. I’m afraid to write this. I worry about its implications for my relationships, for my life. We’ve been taught that depression means you’re weak or crazy. We worry it makes us less of a mother. We have been shamed for the vagaries of brain chemistry, for the feelings we can’t fix.

Millions of women suffer. They need us to come out of the dark and to say: I’ve been there. I am there. I hear you.

Depression doesn’t mean you hate your baby.

It doesn’t mean you hate yourself.

It doesn’t mean you’re a bad person, a weak person, or a selfish person.

It doesn’t make you less than other mothers.

It shouldn’t make you ashamed.

It shouldn’t make you alone.

14 Jan 15:03

IT HAPPENED TO ME: I Was a Female Officer Enforcing Sexual Assault Prevention in the Military

My father was an officer in the Army. My grandfather was in the Air Force, and my grandmother served in the Marines. The family legacy was a backdrop reason for my choice to serve my country — it just seemed natural.

“But aren’t you afraid of having to deal with being a woman in a male-dominated culture?” my high school friends asked, flummoxed by my decision. I shrugged.

Popular TV shows and movies portrayed ladies in uniform as badasses who could not only keep up, but keep the boys in check. I’m talking Lt. Col. Samantha Carter from Stargate SG-1, Lt. Cdr. JoAnne Galloway in A Few Good Men, and, of course, Princess Leia from Star Wars

When challenged with a sexist remark (and they always were, as part of their character development), these smart and sassy women would confront the guys unblinkingly — spitting out concise, snappy comebacks, after which they’d purse their glossed lips and turn smartly on the heels of their boots, leaving the men in the dust with their mouths agape.

I have to admit that the thought of being the lone woman up against the boys’ club was kinda sexy. It was like our own female version of John Wayne, and that was an idea that definitely appealed to my daredevil side. Without reason to hesitate, I joined ROTC.

On those early mornings, I learned to march, wear the uniform, render proper customs and courtesies, and scrape my hair into a bun that wouldn’t budge for nothing. I passed my quarterly physical fitness tests. I attended officer basic training in the summer, where the cadre beasted us around the sweaty grounds of Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, from the hours of 0500 to 2200. 

They grilled us on our chain of command, enforced strict dining-facility rules, and tested our ability to make command decisions under stress. They inspected our rooms and the sharpness of the hospital corners in our bed sheets — something I was never any good at it — and we understood the moral of the story for all that basic training minutiae: If you can’t enforce small standards for yourself, then how are you possibly going to enforce big standards for someone else?

I was finally commissioned as a Second Lieutenant. And through sheer dumb luck, I was selected for the Munitions and Missile Maintenance specialty—the most male-dominated, testosterone-charged career even within the US Air Force. I mean, we’re talking about missiles and bombs. It was as if the universe were saying to me, “Prove that you’re worth your salt now.”

No problem, Universe. I got this. Bring it.

I fireballed into my first Ammo squadron. I enforced strict standards for myself, just like we had learned to do in basic training. My officemate showed up at 0700 and left at 1600, so I showed up at 0630 and left at 1630 or later. I trained every day of the week so that I could outrun most of the squadron at PT, watching guys blush as I passed them on the track. 

I stood in for my commander and briefed the General at weekly staff meetings, delivering killer powerpoint presentations and rattling acronyms off the tip of my tongue. 

I observed my senior female officers — what few there were — and developed a business-like voice, smooth and crisp, and plucked my eyebrows into no-nonsense arches. 

I was pretty impressed with myself and this professional image I had perfected, and so was my leadership. Fueled by the adrenaline of my success, I worked harder. I got promoted to First Lieutenant. I felt like Superwoman.

I thought that Munitions Maintenance was the toughest specialty out there. I was wrong.
I thought that Munitions Maintenance was the toughest specialty out there. I was wrong.

Then something unplanned happened, as it always does. A vacancy opened for the base Sexual Assault Response Coordinator (SARC). The USAF Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (SAPR) program was quite young at the time, and senior leadership was still trying to figure out how to offer continual support to overseas installations like mine. 

While civilians with advanced degrees in social work filled the stateside positions, the overseas deployable positions had to be filled by military officers. And I was a young officer who had been visible and eager to work hard, so the General quietly tapped me on the shoulder and showed me to my new office.

My job changed overnight from ensuring the safe assembly and delivery of munitions to the flight line to ensuring the safety and well-being of women who had just experienced the worst day of their lives. I carried a hotline phone on my hip and turned down offers from friends to go hiking or swimming. I was the sole rape case manager for an installation of over 3,000 people, and I had to be available 24/7.

Every case was extremely different, and yet they were all same in one respect: Each woman was in a world of pain, and it was my duty to get her the physical, mental, and emotional care that she needed to heal.

My job also entailed base education and outreach. I conducted mass briefings for new airmen, informing them of the program, sexual assault statistics, and my contact information. I still can’t say what was more difficult — the 4 a.m. phone calls, or trying to reach an audience that was 80 percent male on a topic that, to them, concerned only women.

The position I so willingly assumed at first was beginning to take its toll on me. It’s strange — I was on my own in this big office with comfy couches, pictures of flowers, and soft lighting, and all I wanted to do was go back to cold, hard maintenance. This was certainly a situation that none of my female heroines from the movies had to confront.

I became acutely aware from others’ reactions to my new position that this was seen as the least desirable job in the Air Force — even considered “soft” by my fellow maintainers. I tried to reconcile that word with my own physical and mental exhaustion, late nights at the hospital, and grieving for my clients. 

I was working harder than I ever had before in my life, but the rest of my superwoman persona simply didn’t transfer. There were too many questions and emotions rippling beneath my skin, and I wanted to turn them off before they turned me into someone else.

Time passed. I was promoted to Captain, and soon it was my turn for a routine change of assignment. It was finally time to pass the hotline phone and the briefings to someone else. I breathed a sigh of relief on the plane, and made a list of all the things I hoped to accomplish at my new base.

I received a cold welcome. My new chief showed me to my tiny, dusty closet of an office.

“When the commander and I saw on your record that you were a SARC at your last base,” he said to me, “we interpreted that as you trying to take the easy route and get out of work.” He looked at me with his brick-wall face, poised for my reaction. 

My face was not a brick wall. I had long lost that skill. This man who was supposed to be under my command and obey my lawful orders had just pissed in my face.

If I’d thought of myself as a superhero before, that conversation was my phone booth moment.

Except that I didn’t come out like a normal person again — all my power must have gone to my ears, because I started hearing things in different ways. My faith in my team and my commitment to the mission faltered as I heard all the sexist remarks, rape jokes, and slut-shaming. They were so loud that I couldn’t hear anything else. I was tired — exhausted. I couldn’t even concentrate on editing a simple document after hearing snide comments about how Sgt. Sanders* might be able to pass her PT test if only she hit the gym as much as she slept around, or how Sgt. Haynes* getting post-cancer breast reconstruction surgery was a waste of the Air Force’s time and money.

Before, I’d have heard these comments as harmless, perhaps even true — I’d have shrugged them off, or even laughed along so that I’d still be the Cool Captain. You gotta be tough if you want to play with the boys.

Not now. I began to be tough in a new way.

I once knew a vociferous female First Sergeant — Sgt. Rand*. She had no time for sexism whatsoever, and in my mind, she was the epitome of the military superwoman archetype. The only difference? Men hated her. It was the crucial difference, but she didn’t seem to care. As the story goes, a man once complimented her on how fine she looked that day, and she blasted him for five minutes straight on the nerve he had for disrespecting her in uniform.

“You really got to have that gut instinct–to-mouth reflex,” she told me in her thick Kentucky accent. “For me, it’s just always been there.”

Her words echoed in my mind, and I began cultivating that gut instinct–to-mouth reflex. Instead of turning a blind eye, I started confronting sexism on the spot. I even had my snappy comeback lined up for when the men shook their heads and moaned nostalgically, “Can’t say or do what you used to be able to anymore in this kinder, gentler Air Force.”

“Damn straight you can’t. It’s 2012. Get with the program.”

I became known as the feminist Captain — the one who went to bat for all the women. They hated me for it. I didn’t care. I had respect for myself.

However, I found that confronting sexism on the spot was nearly impossible in a room full of male superiors. At staff meetings, the men would guffaw at each other’s penis and rape jokes as I sat there, awkward and excluded. The Colonel at the head of the table would chuckle and then quiet them all by saying, “Boys, boys — there’s a lady in the room right now,” turning attention to me as if I were the follow-up joke. 

Instead of my past canned reaction for this typical occurrence — a side smirk and raised eyebrows — I then wanted to walk out of the room. But I didn’t, because I couldn’t. I was just a Captain, and these were all Majors and above. I didn’t just want their approval — I needed it. So I boiled in silence.

Finally, a fellow female Captain and I were tired of hearing rape jokes at meetings and mandatory officer calls — we reported our superiors to the Equal Opportunity office, which deals with sexual harassment cases. Our case was returned a few months later as having “insubstantial evidence.”

It’s no surprise that sexism stays so well intact — it trickles down from the top of the chain of command. This past year, “Mustache March” was sanctioned by our Chief of Staff as an official service-wide competition — ironically coinciding with Women’s History Month. 

Maj. Jennifer Holmes hit the nail on the head when she stated in her Air Force Times article, “The fact is, this ‘gauntlet’ thrown down by the most senior leader in our Air Force does not bring us together by tradition; it promotes the long-standing ‘boys club’ that continues to drive amazing female airmen out of the military.”

In the military, you train to be meticulous and uphold standards. But we still don't know how to deal with sexism.
In the military, you train to be meticulous and uphold standards. But we still don't know how to deal with sexism.

With all the top brass blindness to trickle-down sexism and rape culture, I barely even blinked when the head of the SAPR program was charged with sexual assault and battery last May. We had an Air Force–wide stand-down day following that incident — maintenance stopped, we put our tool bags aside, and the hangar was set up for mass briefings on sexual assault prevention.

Being on the other side of the stage in that great sea of uniforms was almost as painful as being on the stage itself. I sat in a metal chair amidst endless eye-rolling and sarcastic comments as the base SARC smiled and joked, detailing the proper definition of consent, and how to know when someone’s had too much to drink to give consent. 

He bounced around the stage like a bad comedian, trying to get people to pay attention — to like him and his program, even if he didn’t know how. He asked at the end if there were any questions. Some guy raised his hand, stood up, and spoke into the mike.

“So, like, if two people get drunk, have sex, wake up the next morning in bed together, and neither of them wanted to do it, was it the woman or the man who was raped?”

The sea of uniforms clapped and cheered.

This is the problem. Working in the military, you live by rules and regulations. Detailed definitions and technical orders for how to install a fuze or swap out an engine. There is no technical order for assault or consent, and everyone knows why. We’re humans, not machines.

When some smartass thinks he’s being clever and tries to apply his maintenance tech school logic to a very human situation and the room cheers, that doesn’t fix anything at all. It just makes things a whole lot worse. 

Because guess what? There’s also no regulation out there for micro-aggressions or underhanded snark, even though those are the seeds of much more serious aggressions that become labeled as harassment and assault. If you’re offended, well kiddo, you better get over it, because there’s tougher work out there to be done.

I quit active duty not very long ago. Now I’m in the Reserves; I didn’t want to give up service to my country on account of an unhealthy culture that I hope and sincerely believe will change in time. It won’t change on its own, however. 

I feel that it is a part of my duty to speak out, even if my voice is anonymous. I just think back to the hospital corners in the bed sheets at basic training, and the question: “If you can’t enforce small standards for yourself, how are you going to enforce big standards for someone else?” The answer is, you can’t.

*Name changed

14 Jan 14:54

IT HAPPENED TO ME: My Women's Rights Class Was Taken Over By a Misogynist

The first day of my women’s human rights class was amazing. It seemed that everyone in the class agreed that women’s rights are important, even if we all had different points of view, different backgrounds, and different ideas about how best to advance those rights. I signed up for the class because I needed a change from my usual course of study (terrorism), and women’s human rights are a particular passion of mine. The first week more than met my expectations.

But by the second week we started discussing some of the serious issues, delving into a debate about whether a universal or more culturally nuanced definition of human rights was more important to ensuring rights for everyone. The debate was lively, and even a little heated, but most of my classmates were able to keep it civil.

However, one man began to show his true colors. Let’s call him D.

D felt that Western cultures are inherently superior to Eastern cultures (especially those in which Islam is the dominant religion). He expressed a desire to see Western ideals forced on other cultures through force and implied that people living in these other countries are unable to create cultural change. 

These comments made during the second week of class turned out to be D light.

As the class continued, the topic turned more specifically toward women’s rights, and D revealed himself to be a full-blown misogynist who fancied himself an ally. D regularly made comments about women needing male protection. He once said that women are expected to remain in bed while their husbands protect them in the case of a home intruder.

I began to dread going to class because of the insensitive comments D would make in what was supposed to be a break from the everyday sexism faced in my other classes; but the sexism in my women’s rights class was actually far more oppressive and stifling than any class I have ever taken. Discussions were limited to D and the one or two students who were willing to take him on — almost always other men.

It finally came to a head when our professor posted a video of female fighters from Kurdistan on the mandatory discussion forum. D immediately posted a critique of the video, calling the young women “girls” and using language that infantilized and minimized them. Most students expressed that whether this film was made for propaganda or not (and featured actual trained fighting women as opposed to actors) was irrelevant to the message it was sending: that women can be involved in the military in Syria.

Collectively, the students and the professor responded to D’s comments with outrage. Our professor called in a female former Marine to address his comments and lead a discussion about why the language he chose was inappropriate, especially since D had never interacted with the young women in the video and had no idea what they had actually gone through. As the former Marine pointed out, even if the women featured were as inexperienced as D suggested, everyone has to start somewhere. Everyone (who shoots) shoots for the first time at some point.

D dug in. He made reference to the makeup the women were wearing and pointed out that soldiers would never wear such a thing, as though it had any bearing on how capable the women were. As most women in the class pointed out, female soldiers are often expected to wear makeup for official functions, and many would wear makeup on camera, even if it is not typical of their day-to-day life.

The professor tried to lay some ground rules for having a productive discussion, but by the time D’s comments crossed a universally agreed upon line, we were already through midterms and the tone of the class was set. It took weeks for the classroom dynamics to come around, but it finally did in the last few weeks.

At least it's over.
At least it's over.

D never really changed his behavior; he just made it much quieter. He started speaking to others during breaks, making quiet jokes about women’s weakness and even suicide when he thought most weren’t listening. D’s misogyny made it difficult for most of the women in class to feel safe speaking up about some of the most difficult topics presented. It took away from the learning experience. Disagreement and discussion is the most valuable element of a traditional education, but when it isn’t done in a way that’s respectful, it has the opposite effect.

We did finally manage to salvage what was left of the class, near the end of November. Since D started making quieter comments that other students either didn’t hear or could ignore, more students started speaking up during discussions, and we had a productive last few weeks. 

Perhaps the biggest lesson for all of us is that misogyny can come from anywhere, and it’s worst when it comes from someone who thinks of themself as an ally. These “allies” are perhaps the worst of all because they are often unwilling to see their own shortcomings.

13 Jan 01:50

The Future of Women on Earth May Be Darker Than You Thought

Madison Metricula

"What if democratic freedoms for women are just a strange historical hiccup, and the window of opportunity for women is already closing?"

Maybe.

The Future of Women on Earth May Be Darker Than You Thought

It's easy to get caught up in the internet gender war trainwreck, where we're still arguing over whether women belong in tech or rape victims are liars. But let's set that shit aside and take the long view: Do we have any evidence that the future will bring greater freedom to women, or should we expect more dystopia?

Illustration by Steven Belledin

When I say freedom, I don't mean anything fancy. I'm just talking about women's ability to control their destinies, by having things like access to jobs that give them financial independence from anyone else. Just for good measure, let's say that freedom also includes the opportunity to contribute to the political destinies of our communities by voting, holding office, and being given a chance to run important institutions. I'm not saying anything radical here. These are all pretty typical freedoms afforded to women in modern democratic countries, at least technically — and even to some women in non-democratic ones.

I used the word "technically" for a reason. As most people who have ever lived as women will tell you, many of these freedoms are difficult to achieve in practice. Women are not forbidden from having financial independence and leadership roles, but we still struggle to get them.

But that's not really news, and if you want to debate it, there are plenty of message boards that will welcome your thoughts. What I find more interesting is that women have had these freedoms for such an incredibly short period of time. Considering that humans have been creating systems of government for thousands of years, women's suffrage is like a blink of an eye. In the United States, where I live, women couldn't vote a century ago.

I have a picture of my great-grandmother Zadie Lee Rea sitting on my dresser, taken sometime around 1907. I often look into her sepia eyes, taking the measure of her wry grin, trying to figure out what she was thinking that not-so-long ago day in Weatherford, Texas, as she sat on the edge of a well and stared into the lens of a technology that was changing the world. Later in her life, she became one of the first female pharmacists in Texas. But at the time that picture was taken, she couldn't vote. She wouldn't be able to vote until she was 31 years old.

There are two ways I could respond to this piece of information. I could swell with pride at all the progress in women's rights since Zadie Lee's time, celebrating the hard-won freedom that she and her generation secured for us today. Or I could, just as reasonably, look back in numb terror, counting how few generations separate me from women who had the same voting rights that my cats do right now. How easy it would be to take my rights away, turning the last century into a weird tangent in a history that has mostly featured women as what Zora Neale Hurston once called "the mules of the world."

What if democratic freedoms for women are just a strange historical hiccup, and the window of opportunity for women is already closing? I grew up in a pretty conservative area, and yet as a teenager I was taught that abortion was every woman's right, and that "blaming the victim" in rape cases was something that only those terrible people back in the 1950s had done. Now that I'm an adult, the 1950s don't seem so very long ago to me — especially when women who say they've been raped are pilloried and psychologically brutalized on the internet. And abortion rights are eroding in many U.S. states.

In other words, has my life been an historical exception rather than part of a major social change? It seems like these exceptions are the norm in women's history — all our stories of great women are about people who bucked the system and rose up for a time despite their centuries' versions of GamerGate.

Schoolchildren learn about the powerful queens who ruled Egypt and England, their reigns sandwiched between centuries of male leadership. One of our greatest works of literature, the Tale of Genji, was written nearly a millennium ago by lady-in-waiting Murasaki Shikibu; but for the thousand years following her death, we mostly heard from guys. One of the most important mathematicians in classical antiquity, Hypatia, was a woman. Every other ancient mathematician we study today? Male. Hundreds of dangerous pirate captains sailed the high seas in the 16th century. But hey! One of them was a woman! The deep historical vantage point shows us thousands of years of female subjugation and silence, with a few lucky ladies becoming pirates, mathematicians, novelists and queens.

So what does that tell us about the future? As I said earlier, it can be a fairly depressing prospect. We see that women have gained freedom and lost it, over and over again. There is no smooth road from lack of freedom to total freedom. It is, as Le Tigre sang in relation to something related, "One step forward, five steps back."

But today, in the west, democratically-minded people are fond of saying that we'll never go back again. There will be no more millennia of women's silence because we've come too far. Education has brought enlightenment, and the countries that still prevent women from voting or owning property will eventually come around to our way of thinking.

Could that really be? Have three generations of educated women with voting rights in dozens of countries finally cracked the back of history? I suppose it's possible that we really have changed the basic story of gender relationships on Earth. Maybe the twentieth century wasn't an aberration, but instead the culmination of centuries of often-invisible struggles, which finally exploded into political reality. I hope so.

That said, I worry that we are mistaking our experiences during this tiny historical moment for something bigger, making the classic error of imagining that our lucky lives are blueprints for what everyone else will get tomorrow.

07 Jan 14:09

We Asked Men to Draw Vaginas to Prove an Important Point

Madison Metricula

Subracted points for use of the word "male" to refer to human men as a noun instead of and adjective.

If men don't know basic facts about a woman's body, how can they legislate it?

Sounds simple enough, and yet this message continues to fall on deaf ears in Congress, where the overwhelming majority of elected officials remain white and male. 

Take former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who suggested that women need birth control because they can't control their libidos. Or former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, who claimed there is a link between breast cancer and abortion (pro tip: there isn't). And who could forget former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin's infamous "legitimate rape" theory

America's male elected officials continue to aggressively legislate women's bodies in the year 2014, even though they often seem not to know the most basic facts about women. 

To illustrate why this is actually a really serious problem, we decided to conduct a special experiment, asking men from Mic to do one simple thing: Draw a vagina. The goal? To see how much educated men really know about women's bodies. The result? It went about as badly as you might have imagined.

First, there was the "No Man's Land":

Then, the very scientific "Pee hole":

Although that was perhaps not quite as bad as the "Baby Hole":

Or the "Vagine Bottom:"

And then, there was this very detailed masterpiece:

The real takeaway?  Funny as the video may be, our lawmakers' lack of knowledge about women's bodies shouldn't be laughed off. Clearly — and unfortunately — the average male doesn't know the first thing about a woman's body, and some are suffering they very real negative consequences of this ignorance. Need proof? In 2014 alone, approximately 75% of anti-choice bills — laws that legislate only a female's autonomy — were proposed by men.

While the 113th Congress is the most diverse in history, it's still an old boys club (80% male, 80% white, and an average of 60 years old). 

If the video above teaches us anything, it's how hard we need to continue to work to change that.

07 Jan 14:03

Ten things an Irish woman could not do in 1970 (and be prepared to cringe...)

What dominated our news and much of our conversations during the 1970s (at least in the early years ), was the deteriorating crisis in Northern Ireland. When I think of that decade I remember the initial hope that something would be settled quickly rather than letting it drag on fuelled by appallingly bad political decisions, thuggery, and deeply imbedded hatred. Seamus Heaney remarked that in the early 1970s ‘there was a promise in the air as well as fury and danger’. But in Northern Ireland any nervous sense of hopeful expectation quickly soured; as Heaney recalled: ‘Soon enough it all went rancid.’ In John Montague’s poem The Rough Field, he observes: ‘In the dark streets, firing starts.’

But there was much more to the 1970s that the tragedy in the North. In his fascinating Ambiguous Republic - Ireland in the 1970s,* Diarmaid Ferriter brilliantly appraises that tumultuous time where the old ways of doing things were being challenged. It was, he says, a time when ‘old moulds were broken’.

Perhaps the most dramatic social change in the twenty-six counties was in the status of women; that is in the lives of our mothers, sisters, partners, aunts and nieces. Fintan O’Toole, journalist and commentator, compiled 10 things that women could not do in 1970 for the Irish Times:

1 Keep her job in the public service or a bank when she got married

Female civil servants and other public servants (primary teachers from 1958 were excluded from the so-called "marriage bar" ) had to resign from their jobs when they got married, on the grounds that they were occupying a job that should go to a man. Banks operated a similar policy.

How it changed

The marriage bar in the public service was removed in July 1973, on foot of the report of the first Commission on the Status of Women. In 1977, the Employment Equality Act prohibited discrimination on the grounds of gender or marital status in almost all areas of employment.

2 Sit on a jury

Under the 1927 Juries Act, members of juries had to be property owners and, in effect, male.

How it changed

Mairín de Burca and Mary Anderson challenged the Act and won their case in the Supreme Court in 1976. The old Act was repealed and citizens over 18 who are on the electoral register are eligible for juries.

3 Buy contraceptives

The 1935 Criminal Law Amendment Act banned the import, sale and distribution of contraceptives. Some women were able to get doctors to prescribe the Pill as a "cycle regulator" or to fit devices such as the cap. In 1969, the Fertility Guidance Clinic was established in Dublin and used a loophole in the law to give away the Pill for free. (It was thus not being sold. ) Most rural and working class women had no access to contraceptives.

How it changed

The Commission on the Status of Women in 1972 delicately suggested that "parents have the right to regulate the number and spacing of their family" but stopped short of an open demand for contraception. The Rotunda Hospital, the Irish Family Planning Association and student unions began to distribute contraceptives. The law, however, changed very slowly. The McGee case of 1973 established a right to import contraceptives for personal use, but did not allow them to be sold. A Bill to allow for controlled access was defeated in 1974. In 1979, in an infamous "Irish solution to an Irish problem", an Act was passed to allow doctors to prescribe contraceptives to married couples only. A 1985 Act allowed contraceptives to be sold to anyone over 18 but only in chemists. The IFPA and Virgin Megastore were prosecuted for selling condoms in 1991. Later that year, the sale of contraceptives was liberalised.

4 Drink a pint in a pub

In 1970, some pubs refused to allow women to enter at all, some allowed women only if accompanied by a man and very many refused to serve women pints of beer. Women who were accidentally served a pint would be instructed to pour it into two half-pint glasses.

How it changed

Women's groups staged protests in the early 1970s. In one instance, Nell McCafferty led a group of 30 women who ordered, and were served, 30 brandies. They then ordered one pint of Guinness. When the pint was refused, they drank the brandies and refused to pay as their order was not served. In 2002, the Equal Status Act banned gender discrimination in the provision of goods and services. It defined discrimination as "less favourable treatment". Service can be refused only if there is a reasonable risk of disorderly or criminal conduct.

5 Collect her children's allowance

The 1944 legislation that introduced the payment of children's allowances (now called child benefit ) specified that they be paid to the father. The father could, if he chose, mandate his wife to collect the money, but she had no right to it.

How it changed

Responding to the report of the Commission on the Status of Women, the 1974 Social Welfare Act entitled mothers to collect the allowance.

6 Get a barring order against a violent partner

In 1970, a women who was hospitalised after a beating by her husband faced a choice of either returning home to her abuser or becoming homeless. Abusive spouses could not be ordered to stay away from the family home, leaving many women little choice but to seek refuge elsewhere.

How it changed

Women's Aid campaigned for changes in the law, and in 1976 the Family Law Act, Ireland's first legislation on domestic violence, enabled one spouse to seek a barring order against the other where the welfare or safety of a spouse or children was at risk. The orders were for three months and were poorly implemented. In 1981, protection orders were introduced and barring orders were increased up to 12 months.

7 Live securely in her family home

Under Irish law, a married woman had no right to a share in her family home, even if she was the breadwinner. Her husband could sell the home without her consent.

How it changed

Under the Family Home Protection Act of 1976, neither spouse can sell the family home without the written consent of the other.

8 Refuse to have sex with her husband

In 1970 the phrase "marital rape" was a contradiction in terms. A husband was assumed to have the right to have sex with his wife and consent was not, in the eyes of the law, an issue.

Women's adultery was also specifically penalised in the civil law, the notorious tort of "criminal conversation" or "CrimCon": a husband could legally sue another man for compensation for sleeping with his wife.

How it changed

The Council for the Status of Women urged the creation of a crime of marital rape. In 1979 the Minister for Justice Gerard Collins declined to introduce legislation to this effect. Even when new legislation on rape was introduced in 1981, the situation did not change. It was not until 1990 that marital rape was defined as a crime. The first trial, in 1992, collapsed within minutes. The first successful prosecution for marital rape was in 2002.

Crim Con was abolished by the Family Law Act (1981 ). The Act also, as a dubious quid pro quo, abolished the right to sue for "breach of promise" of marriage - an ancient provision that was occasionally used by jilted women, although it was in theory also available to men.

9 Choose her official place of domicile

Under Irish law, a married woman was deemed to have the same "domicile" as her husband. This meant that if her husband left her and moved to Australia, her legal domicile was deemed to be Australia. Women, who could not get a divorce in Ireland, could find themselves divorced in countries where their husbands were domiciled.

How it changed

Acting on a report from the Law Reform Commission, the Fine Gael junior minister for women's affairs Nuala Fennell drove forward the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Bill in 1985. It granted married women the right to an independent domicile.

10 Get the same rate for a job as a man

In 1970, almost all women were paid less than male colleagues doing the same job. In March 1970, the average hourly pay for women was five shillings, while that for men was over nine. In areas covered by a statutory minimum wage, the female rate was two-thirds that of men.

How it changed

Legislation on equal pay was introduced in 1974 and employment equality legislation followed in 1977, both as a result of European directives.

NOTES: Last week I mentioned the price of Ferriter’s book. Its a mighty tomb, and is expensive. However Tomás Kenny contacted me to say that Kenny’s price at Liosbán is a great deal at €25.21. Tomás also says that every new book at Kenny’s is reduced, including the best selling Atlas of the Great Irish Famine; and Jamie Oliver, the best selling cook in Europe at the moment.

30 Dec 19:03

An Open Letter to the Dad Looking at Porn

Madison Metricula

So, so much wrong with all of this. I mean, I talk about porn habits on first dates but for entirely different reasons.

"I did meet a man. One of the first things I asked him about was his struggle with pornography. I’m thankful to God that it is something that hasn’t had a grip on his life. We still have had struggles because of the deep-rooted distrust in my heart for men. Yes, your porn watching has affected my relationship with my husband years later."

porn-watching-dad

Dear Dad,

I want to let you know first of all that I love you and forgive you for what this has done in my life. I also wanted to let you know exactly what your porn use has done to my life. You may think that this effects only you, or even your and mom’s relationships. But it has had a profound impact on me and all of my siblings as well.

I found your porn on the computer somewhere around the age of 12 or so, just when I was starting to become a young woman. First of all, it seemed very hypocritical to me that you were trying to teach me the value of what to let into my mind in terms of movies, yet here you were entertaining your mind with this junk on a regular basis. Your talks to me about being careful with what I watched meant virtually nothing.

Because of pornography, I was aware that mom was not the only woman you were looking at. I became acutely aware of your wandering eye when we were out and about. This taught me that all men have a wandering eye and can’t be trusted. I learned to distrust and even dislike men for the way they perceived women in this way.

As far as modesty goes, you tried to talk with me about how my dress affects those around me and how I should value myself for what I am on the inside. Your actions however told me that I would only ever truly be beautiful and accepted if I looked like the women on magazine covers or in porn. Your talks with me meant nothing and in fact, just made me angry.

As I grew older, I only had this message reinforced by the culture we live in. That beauty is something that can only be achieved if you look like “them”. I also learned to trust you less and less as what you told me didn’t line up with what you did. I wondered more and more if I would ever find a man who would accept me and love me for me and not just a pretty face.

When I had friends over, I wondered how you perceived them. Did you see them as my friends, or did you see them as a pretty face in one of your fantasies? No girl should ever have to wonder that about the man who is supposed to be protecting her and other women in her life.

I did meet a man. One of the first things I asked him about was his struggle with pornography. I’m thankful to God that it is something that hasn’t had a grip on his life. We still have had struggles because of the deep-rooted distrust in my heart for men. Yes, your porn watching has affected my relationship with my husband years later.

If I could tell you one thing, it would be this: Porn didn’t just affect your life; it affected everyone around you in ways I don’t think you can ever realize. It still affects me to this day as I realize the hold that it has on our society. I dread the day when I have to talk with my sweet little boy about pornography and its far-reaching greedy hands. When I tell him about how pornography, like most sins, affects far more than just us.

Like, I said, I have forgiven you. I am so thankful for the work that God has done in my life in this area. It is an area that I still struggle with from time to time, but I am thankful for God’s grace and also my husband’s. I do pray that you are past this and that the many men who struggle with this will have their eyes opened.

Love, Your Daughter

*This has been posted anonymously due to the nature of the topic.*

30 Dec 14:13

Someone Wrote 'Erotica' About a Video Game Designer Getting Gang-Raped

Someone Wrote 'Erotica' About a Video Game Designer Getting Gang-Raped

A self-published erotica author who goes by Valeria O. has written a thinly-veiled work of fiction about Gamergate, in which a video game designer gets gang-raped by a group of men offended by her latest game. Holy shit, Valeria. Holy shit.

The 11-page novella, titled Roughed Up By #GamerGape, has already been pulled from Amazon; you can see a cached version of the page where it was here. The description of the book's contents:

Zada Quinby is a controversial video game designer who may have stepped the line...

When her latest game offends the nation, five upset players decide to teach her a lesson. This gang of gamers decides to give Zada of piece of their mind, and much more!

Things are about to get incredibly rough when these five men unleash their pent up anger on poor Zada. It's an experience that she'll never forget.

Valeria's "inspiration," was, obviously, the rape and death threats that have been lobbed at video game designer Zoe Quinn for months by Gamergate. Quinn found the book on Amazon this morning herself. She was understandably unhappy:

so um.

someone's selling rape fanfic of me on amazon. :/

TW obviously http://t.co/fHC81lTfkr

— Dr Jabroni Frendzoni (@TheQuinnspiracy) December 19, 2014

is that ok with amazon's TOS? or is that just a thing that people can do to me now

— Dr Jabroni Frendzoni (@TheQuinnspiracy) December 19, 2014

and here I thought seeing a ton of people try and get me into hatred so they could murder me would be this week's low :/

— Dr Jabroni Frendzoni (@TheQuinnspiracy) December 19, 2014

having your trauma be fetishized and sold to people who wish they could revictimize you is not an occupational hazard I signed up for.

— Dr Jabroni Frendzoni (@TheQuinnspiracy) December 19, 2014

I feel sick

— Dr Jabroni Frendzoni (@TheQuinnspiracy) December 19, 2014

Raw Story appears to have been the first media outlet who contacted Amazon about the book; they report that it was pulled down moments after they spoke to an Amazon rep, but that Gamergate is taking credit for having it removed.

Valeria O. has one other title to her name, published over a year ago. Roughed Up garnered three reviews in the roughly four days it was online, all them jokes about "ethics in games journalism," and all of them one star. Find a new subject, Valeria.

We've also contacted Amazon for comment to find out when and how the title was removed, and will update if we hear back.

30 Dec 14:12

It’s not about you: When men take women’s style personally

Madison Metricula

but but but I cut off my hair so I would be unattractive to men!!

"Most simply like dressing this way, after all. They do it for themselves. But some men insist on reading it as a political middle finger flipped in their direction."

This is a real thing people say about girls with tats/hair dye/short hair/piercings/etc. and it seems bizarre. Or do I just surround myself with people for whom such trappings of counterculture are normalized?

Also, I read a study once that says I'm bi because my mom had short hair and I couldn't tell the difference between adult genders as a baby. Or something.

A woman models a dress at a February 2014 fashion exhibit at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. (Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art/BFAnyc.com)

The politics of women’s appearance is a painful tug of war between the meanings women intend to convey (which are as varied as the tiles of a mosaic) and those imposed on them by society, often by men who cannot countenance a symbolic universe in which women’s expression does not exist solely for male consumption. 

The obvious example is the well-meaning man who, thinking he is being affirming, tells us that we need not wear makeup on his account because we’re beautiful just the way we are. It sounds lovely until you realize that this presumes we wear any amount of makeup for his benefit, or to persuade men in general that we are beautiful. To be quite sure, the beauty industry hurts women in a number of ways, but it also has a vexing relationship with men and masculinity.

Kathy Peiss’ Hope In a Jar: The Making of America’s Beauty Culture reminds us that men were anxious about “painted ladies” long before said paint comprised a multi-billion dollar industry. Indeed, in the 19th Century, makeup was associated with women’s independence (particularly because it was associated with sex work). But the men of the time assumed, as wrongly then as they do today, that women “painted” for the sake of appearing beautiful to men, expressing the greatest incredulity at the idea that it could ever be otherwise. What else is woman’s appearance for, they seem to say, but a display for any random man’s pleasure?

It rarely, if ever, occurs to them that we might be doing it for ourselves.

Our clothing choices and all other aspects of adornment — tattoos, piercings, etc. — are all socially mediated, of course. No desire exists in a vacuum. We all seek a place in the grand constellation of social groups and we all, consciously or not, try to “fit in” somewhere. Appearance is a language without words that signals much to the world, in that regard. That language begins from us, however, even if the grammar is often beyond our control. We signal in the symbolic languages we know because of a variety of personally-driven desires. On occasion, this may involve wanting to look nice for one man in particular — say, on a date — but the popular patriarchal idea that women adorn ourselves for men as a matter of course is about as solipsistic as it gets. Women cannot be seen as agents, just celestial bodies orbiting male suns.

We can even see this in GamerGater propaganda (remember this?). That movement’s ongoing obsession with dyed hair is premised on a similar belief that all women who disagree with them and color their hair brightly — green, or blue, or pink, for instance — are doing so because they wish to thumb their nose at men specifically, or that they are doing it as an entirely self-conscious, petulant political statement; again, for men’s benefit. One male Gater even described this phenomenon as “having political statements shoved at me just by taking a cursory glance at a person.” To them, women with dyed hair are doing it just to irritate them.

As always, the myth that men’s interpretations of women’s appearance are paramount and nigh on objective is a destructive one.

The GamerGate case is interesting because, unlike when women dress more normatively, these fellows are unable to pretend that these women are presenting themselves for men. Thus, they feel both offended and spurned. To see a woman with a lot of tattoos, a lot of non-ear piercings, a non-traditional hairstyle and/or hair dye is to see a woman who is making her ownership of her body plain as day to anyone who looks at her. Note, this is very often not the intentional “political statement” most wish to make. Most simply like dressing this way, after all. They do it for themselves. But some men insist on reading it as a political middle finger flipped in their direction.

Their self-centeredness blinds them to a much more free flowing relationship between personal taste and people-pleasing in how we all dress.

An excellent study that, among many other things, shows the 19th century complexities of who we as women “dress up for” and why.

“We are born,” author Siri Hustvedt writes, “with the ability to imitate the expressions of others, but we also become creatures of our culture with its countless images of what is chic and beautiful.” We seek to touch the stars of fashion because we want to express our allegiance to archetypes and ideas in our culture — some of us may want to look “classy,” how ever our culture or subculture defines that, and the judgements of others play a role in triangulating the pathways of our desire. The desire may originate from within us, or it may not (perhaps one wishes to be classy for instrumental reasons — i.e. to get a job), but we measure our success by the opinions of others, the mirror of recognition that reaffirms or challenges the self we are constructing. For people of all genders, we may present ourselves in a given way for others in order to feel more like ourselves. Our sense of identity is reinforced collectively.

For me, fashion is equal parts fraught and fun. I personally walk a fine line between appearing “masculine” (with all the connotations that carries for a trans woman in this society) in my shoulder-padded blazers and appearing feminine enough to be gendered correctly without adorning myself in a way that might be considered more feminine than I wish. My taste is inextricably bound up with navigating the views of others, and it is not always easy to tell where my desire ends and my wish to be seen a certain way by others begins.

This also means that while some of us consciously politicize their fashion, it hardly means that its sole reason for being is to piss off or disgust some random guy.

As Hustvedt puts it plainly, “When we choose what to wear, we don’t just choose particular pieces of clothing, we select them because they carry meanings about us, meanings we hope will be understood by other people.” Thus, our appearances are always a complex dance between our own desires and what we think the desires of others are; this is true of all of us. Even when women are performing for others, we do so no more frequently than men do, and often as not are performing for other women — an interesting take on which can be found in scholar Sharon Marcus’ peerless study of latent female homoeroticism in Victorian Britain, Between Women. We are adrift on the same silken sea of fashion and taste as men are.

To believe that we as women solely adorn ourselves for the specifically sexual gaze of men is, looked at in this way, a denial of humanity. It denies women’s participation in the basically human act of signaling through cultural artifacts, denies the possibility of women’s attire meaning anything non-sexual, and it denies the role of individual taste in women’s attire. For though we are navigating a social morass of signals and counter-signals, there remains something to be said for the individual woman’s desire– which is often bound up with it all.

Put simply, fellas, it’s not always about you.

(Header image: Photo of corset at Met Museum exhibit by Allison Meier for Hyperallergic.com)

30 Dec 14:05

"My seed has too much dignity to be in the company of the rest of useless humanity" and other insights on marriage and sperm from Infowars.com

Gosh, who would ever have expected that this guy might prove popular with unhinged MRA types?

Gosh, who would ever have thought that this guy might prove to be popular with unhinged MRA types?

So while poking about the manosphere today I followed a link from an obscure Men’s Rights blog over to Alex Jones’ Infowars site — specifically to the comments on a news article about a study that claims internet porn is destroying marriage.

Jones, as you may know, is essentially the king of the world’s conspiracy theorists, no naturally I expected his commenters to be pretty unhinged. What I didn’t realize is that they would also all be Men’s Rights Activists.

Well, maybe they don’t all call themselves that, but they certainly think like MRAs; several even linked to a site for Men Going Their Own Way.

Most commenters agreed that porn was a better deal than a wife; after all, as numerous wits declared, porn won’t steal half your money in a divorce.

But alongside such familiar, indeed cliché, sentiments there were also some pretty inspired mini-rants. Here’s my favorite, which received several dozen upvotes from the regulars, making it one of the most popular comments in the 373-comment thread.

 EinNietzscheStein • 4 days ago  My body, my choice. Been woman free for 3 years now, and at least $60K richer for it. Also realized I can live off under $10K a year, and thus under the tax exemption bracket, meaning I don't need to suffer tax extortion to pay for the indoctrination of breeders kids in collectivization concentration camps called school. I can move to where the jobs are, I can travel the world and if need be, rent woman for just a night. And even if they shut down porn or the internet, they will never ever be able to locate or confiscate years of downloaded material. I will proudly be releasing my sperm down the bathtub drain rather than down any the throat of some duplicitious broad who is a threat to my personal sovereignity, wealth, and sanity. I've had my share of women, and checking out. Thanks for nothing, you empty shells. You are the true polygamists, married to the state, married to your smartphones, married to your burdensome eggs, and good men will only occupy that very tiny space you left for him. My seed has too much dignity to be in the company of the rest of useless humanity that has no dignity or principles of its own.  24 • Reply • Share ›      Avatar     Another Apostle EinNietzscheStein • 4 days ago      Well said Brother!     3     •     Reply     •     Share ›         −     Avatar     chris EinNietzscheStein • 4 days ago      Amen brother. Eloquently stated...

But there were other comments that were nearly as, er, inspired as this one. Take this righteous comment from one of Mr. EinNietzscheStein’s biggest fans:

 Another Apostle • 4 days ago  I thank our Lord and Savior for Comment Sites like this. It has finally allowed men to get there feelings out toward what is going on. I hope this grows into a maninism movement to reclaim our God Given right to lead the family, the workplace and set our women back where they belong. There are some very afraid feminists out there right now realizing that their little ploy is no longer on track; men are not the big dumb clods that they have taken us for. Gentlemen, let's get our dignity back. Anyone who agrees with me, upvote this comment and I will lead the way into a new tomorrow. Quit sitting back and taking it. This is why they have got so far, it's because we never really took them seriously. I wonder how many billions of dollars in male assets the feminist movement has aquired in their war against men in the last forty years or so.  11 • Reply • Share ›And who could forget this fellow’s intriguing theories about female sexuality?

 WEREFEAT010 • 4 days ago  The promotion of feminism and homosexuality, plus the woman's ability to get a divorce for any reason, keep the house and the children adds to the fact that women are weak and will cave in when put under stress. The typical American woman is unsure of her feminism and is looking for another woman with a man's body who will obey her, cook and do housework. Eventually the woman in a man's body becomes optional, and a woman in a woman's body is acceptable.  This is Cultural Communism in action. The goal is to destroy the Family unit.  New movie: "This is Where I Leave You." In the movie, we have gentiles who wish to be Jews, and Jane Fonda AKA "Hanoi Jane" apparently announcing that she is now lesbian. She is "turned" in the movie's plot. I'd call that divine justice.  3 • Reply • Share ›

“Hanoi Jane.” Hadn’t heard that in a long time. Really brings you back, doesn’t it?

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

30 Dec 14:04

Sociological Images

Madison Metricula

A true classic.

"Unsurprisingly, Rudolph and Hermey run into each other on the path out of town, also called loneliness."

"Emboldened, the trio now returns to kill the kyriarchy."

by D'Lane Compton PhD, 1 hour ago at 09:00 am

Sure to be a classic!

The tale begins with a baby calf named Rudolph born to what is assumed to be a typical reindeer family.  Immediately we recognize that this is no typical Hollywood tale. As we all know, male reindeer lose their antlers in late fall, but female retain throughout the Christmas season. By making Rudolph, Donner (the head of the family), and all of Santa’s reindeer female, the film makes a strong departure from the androcentric status quo.

IMG_4657

The new baby girl fills the house with joy until the parents discovered the calf to be quite queer—Rudolph had a red nose that glowed. Initially ashamed, Donner drew on a very functional and literal cover-up of mud and clay to hide the nose. It is believed this was for the good of the calf as this story was set in a pretty cruel place—a place where even Santa was unkind and unaccepting of differences.

Spring training comes along with masculinity classes for Rudolph. This was a highlight of the story for me. It was nice to see time was taken to demonstrate that gender is socially constructed and masculinity is learned. Girls can do anything that boys can do and our young protagonist was exceptional, even best in the class.

However, the mud and clay would be an impermanent fix. Rudolph’s glowing nose was revealed during play and the names and bullying began. In fact the bullying was even legitimated by the coach. With such an unaccepting family and community, Rudolph runs away.

IMG_4664

Meanwhile, in (one of) Santa’s workshops, an elf named Hermey was having a Jerry McGuire day. Hermey, perhaps the most relatable character to mainstream American society, was questioning the system. Hermey wanted to do what made him happy. He wanted to be a dentist. Working in an assembly line factory with long hours and no dental was not living the dream. Hermey decides he is a Dentist and also sets out alone.

Unsurprisingly, Rudolph and Hermey run into each other on the path out of town, also called loneliness. After a day in the polar wilderness they meet another queer named Yukon Cornelius who is always in search of gold or silver.

The three misfits then encounter the abominable snow monster. “Mean and nasty,” he “hates everything about Christmas.” Clearly, his teeth and wide reaching claws are designed to compel compliance with the social order.  White, male, and against magic for the masses, this character is clearly intended to represent the kyriarchy, the system meant to uphold the intersecting oppressions of class, race, and gender. The movie’s central challenge is set: smash the kyriarchy.

IMG_4662

The group initially retreats, only to find themselves on The Island of Misfit Toys where they are greeted by a flamboyant Charlie-in-the-box. It is here Hermey and Rudolph begin to dream of having an accepting place and we see the strong desire for a community. Surely, if dolls with low esteem, pink fire trucks, and trains with square wheels can be free of oppression, they can too.

Emboldened, the trio now returns to kill the kyriarchy. Using the never fail logic that bacon trumps all meats, Hermey makes like a pig to get the abominable snow monster’s attention. Once the snow monster steps out of the cave, Yukon knocks him out by dropping a boulder on his head; Hermey pulls out all his teeth in a symbolic and literal de-fanging.

IMG_4663

Yukon pushes the monster off a cliff, but he falls, too. This is the most symbolic part of the tale, as the group has bonded together to kill the kyriarchy but not without some loss. The message is clear: if we build alliances, we can take down the power elite, but there will be sacrifices.

I will not ruin the end of the tale for you, only to say that Rudolph does in fact save Christmas, but it is by demonstrating value to the man—Santa. Once Santa sees Rudolph and his misfit friends as an asset he de-identifies at least slightly with the kyriarchy. For now, Christmas town was a cheerful place. A small battle had been worn.

Overall, Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer gets two thumbs up!

It is sure to become a classic tale of systems of oppression and privilege, stigma, and the struggle for self-acceptance. In Rudolph, difference can be good. It was quite progressive with its message advocating inclusivity, alliance, and dissent against systems of power. I love the commentary on the lack of queer community organizing and the role of misfits in fighting capitalism and the power elite. It took on some hot button issues in nuanced ways, especially the policing various classes of citizens and the importance of open carry laws.

It also took some big risks related to casting. It was gender progressive and, outside of the binary, we have at least two characters that blur sex categories. Clarice, for example, presents as feminine and female pronouns are employed with her, yet she has no antlers in late winter. While Hermey dresses like the male elves, but he has swooping blonde hair and a small nose like the female elves.

For years to come, Rudolph will no doubt be a wonderful conversation starter for both awkward and fun winter gatherings alike.

D’Lane R. Compton, PhD is a lover of all things antler, feather, and fur. An associate professor of sociology at the University of New Orleans with a background in social psychology, methodology, and a little bit of demography, she is usually thinking about food, country roads, stigma, queer nooks and places, sneakers and hipster subcultures. You can follow her on twitter.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
30 Dec 13:59

Woman Finds Vaginal Leakage Caused by Cock Ring Left Inside for Weeks

Madison Metricula

While I understand this can happen, I don't understand how this happened.

Woman Finds Vaginal Leakage Caused by Cock Ring Left Inside for Weeks

A tip for those of you trying out sexual accoutrements for the first, second or 75th time: When the fun is over, search deep within yourself to ascertain that none of the fun has been left behind. Because some things, cock rings especially, can stay with you far longer than you'd think. Even longer than a month.

For one woman, this holiday season has already brought one miracle: The realization that whatever horrifying things were coming out of her vagina were not caused by cancer or an STD, but by a neglected cock ring, sad, alone, and full of germs that she'd forgotten to take out of her vagina. Or, I guess, that she never knew was in her vagina in the first place. And apparently it was so far up there that she couldn't even feel it until it started rotting and releasing a putrid white discharge from her vaginal orifice. This is her story, via Reddit:

We were fooling around with my boyfriend and he started fingering me. Suddenly he goes like "uhhh.. ummm.. Is this normal?" And asked me to feel it by myself.

I almost peed myself from fear. I couldn't understand for the life of me what was this thing inside of me. I actually was feeling the opening of the cock ring.. When not stretched its diameter can perfectly fit a finger.

I thought it was my fucking cervix. I though it inflamed and fell down or something. I started to panic. You see, the cock ring it soft and pliable, but firmer than anything that could be inside me.

First of all, that is pretty much the scariest thing that could happen during sex with the one you love. I'd like to think that if my partner and I were engaging in a pleasurable sexual exchange he'd have the decency to wait until after we were done to point out any polyps or growths, but some people just don't know what appropriate boundaries are. One point to this woman's boyfriend for being caring; minus one point for freaking her out during sex. Sex is already all weird and pressur-ey, you know? I'm so focused on keeping my stomach held in the entire time that I can't even imagine what it would look like if I suddenly got frightened? (I wish there was some kind of invisible girdle you could wear during sex. I would buy such girld.e )

Then I remembered. Flashback to Halloween. We got shipped this set of 5 cock rings. It was funny and exciting. We were giggling all the way from the post office. And of course we immediately decided to try them out.

My SO put on two at the same time. And it began. Fun and giggles.. And suddenly his roommate came home. We scrambled and in the haste of things not me, not my SO noticed that one ring was missing.

Pro-tip: don't put two of those things on at the same time. It will not enhance pleasure. Source: experience. Since condoms were covered by his flex spending at the time, we bought like 40 packs and then tried to use them all. Yes, you can buy the ones with the vibrating rings with flex spending! No, you can't buy a defibrillator — he had to return that. I was kind of sad because I like making grilled cheese sandwiches.

Here's what this woman's cock ring looked like when it went into her vagina:

Woman Finds Vaginal Leakage Caused by Cock Ring Left Inside for Weeks

And here's what she says it looked like when it came out:

So when I finally and fearfully pulled that thing out it was fucking disgusting. It was sort of transparent. When we bought it it was fucking PURPLE. It was covered and filled with this white discharge. Like mayo or liquefied cottage. Blech. Gross as fuck. To my surprise the smell was OK. Not bad, just neutral.

But don't take her word for it. There is, of course, a photo:

Woman Finds Vaginal Leakage Caused by Cock Ring Left Inside for Weeks

Chewed up and smelling like mayo! (Which, coincidentally is the title of my upcoming autobiography available from Hyperion press in 2015.)

There are some things to be taken away from this story. First, "listen to your body" because your body talks (according to Olivia Newton-John, at least); second, "count what goes in and out of your body." That's pretty sound advice. It's like in preschool where you have to make sure all the blocks are in the right spaces before you can go out for recess, except this is more like "make sure there's nothing so deep in you that you can't even feel it before you go into the other room to play Xbox or fall asleep."

Sound advice!

Lede image via Shutterstock; Cock ring images via Reddit

17 Dec 16:03

Boston Woman on Craigslist Really Needs Six Corgis for Her Wedding

Madison Metricula

The headline is misleading. She needed six *more* corgis.

Hey, the bride knows what she wants.

A woman in Boston is on a mission to get ahold of not one, or even a couple, but half a dozen whole corgis for the bridesmaids at her self described "most wonderful storybook wedding." See, she wants the bridesmaids to hold dogs in lieu of bouquets because dammit this is her party and she'll corgi if she wants to.

Here's the post:

Hello,

This next April, I will be getting married to the man of my dreams and we will be having the most wonderful storybook wedding that Boston has ever seen. The icing on the cake is sweet, but there's one thing that would be even sweeter than that. Traditionally, bridesmaids' hold bouquets; in our wedding, I want them to hold corgis.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough corgis for my bridesmaids. I require six more in order to make this dream come true. I'm looking to rent six corgis for roughly two and a half hours during the ceremony. Because this a my dream wedding, price is negotiable and I appreciate your understanding. Please reach out to me if you have six sociable corgis which you would be willing to rent out. These animals would be treated perfectly, and I would love to get us all together to familiarize ourselves with each other.

In addition to pay, I would be happy to also share some cake with you.

In the spirit of "Um…", here are some questions:

  • If she needs six more corgis, how many does she already have/how many bridesmaids does she have?
  • If the corgis are the final touch to this wedding, wouldn't that actually be the icing on the cake? (Picky, I know.)
  • Why corgis, specifically? Is this a royal family thing, or does she just hate flowers that much?
  • Does she have to get all six corgis from one person? Or can she mix and match?
  • What if the corgis aren't sociable?
  • What if a bridesmaid's arms get tired and she drops a corgi?
  • What kind of cake is going down at this wedding? Is there coconut in it? God, there's probably coconut in it, huh?

Honestly, the more I pore over the text of this post, the more I understand that this is probably the truest iteration of the human condition there ever was. In a way, we're all Corgi Bride in the wonderful storybook wedding that is life. So: what's your corgi?

Image via Getty.

17 Dec 16:01

The Cost of Having Children Will Only Get More Absurd

Madison Metricula

When are you having kids? You should have kids. How about some grandchildren?

Most people paying attention to the economy concern themselves with the jobs report, which (at least this month) looks somewhat promising. But while having a job to support your family matters a great deal, what also matters is how much you're not actually going to be able to afford things for your family with the money you make at said job.

As the Huffington Post points out, a new analysis of Bureau of Labor data by the Brookings Institution reveals that while certain goods have decreased in cost over the last decade-plus, others have gotten much much more expensive:

The prices of a number of good and services have outpaced median income. For example, the price of hospital services and child care and tuition has grown by an astounding 200 percent faster than median wage. Prices have outpaced income in housing rental, legal and professional services, and hotels and lodging as well. These large sectors and the high prices they charge are contributing heavily to the slipping economic position of American households.

The category of hospital services, child care and tuition has grown 200 percent faster than the median wage. If that number isn't impressive on its own, check out the chart they've put together, which compares median income with the change in the price of certain types of goods. It demonstrates how much just child care and tuition is rising above all other categories:

On the upside, if you can't afford to send your kid to school, just buy them a computer: they're getting cheaper and cheaper!

Top image via Parker/Fox Photos/Getty and graph via the Brookings Institution

16 Dec 18:30

The Vaginal Infection That Lasted for a Year (It Was Ureaplasma)

Madison Metricula

Shared mostly for vagina popsicles

"My preferred method for introduction of probiotics? Little yogurt ice cubes (unflavored, of course). Or, as they have now come to be known in my circle of friends, "vagina popsicles.""

The vagina is a place where gross things happen, which creates a conversational catch-22: If these things were less gross, we'd talk about them more often; the less we talk about them, the grosser everything tends to get.

If you've never had bacterial vaginosis or a yeast infection, I bet your stance towards both things is: No. I don't wanna talk about it. I'll cross that gross bridge when my vagina makes me. But then, the gross things happening, and you don't have a damn clue how to deal.

So. We are doing this. I'll start.

A true story about me is that I have been battling near-constant yeast infections since I was about 15 years old. I have my theories about why—it may have something to do with the fact that I spent 90 percent of my waking hours as an adolescent hanging out in a chlorinated pool—but I rest easy (enough) knowing I am not an isolated case. Many, many women experience recurring yeast infections.

And suffice it to say that over the past 13 years, I have learned a thing or two about how to recognize yeast, and how to show it who's boss. (Me, sort of. More on that later.)

But about a year ago, something else truly awful started happening. It stumped doctors for almost a year and ruined my sex life for about as long, so I want to (over)share my experience, should any other woman out there be suffering in the same way.

At first I thought it was bacterial vaginosis—it felt sort of like BV—but I wasn't getting the usual signs and symptoms. Most of the time, going about my daily life, I was okay. I didn't feel itchy, and nothing burned or stung, but I had this constant, hard-to-pin-down sense of discomfort, and I had to pee way more than usual.

This led me to the doctor for the first time, where I was tested for BV, a yeast infection, a UTI, and every STD imaginable. At this point I was at the beginning of a committed relationship, so I didn't mind: the tests were a good idea, anyway.

Everything came back negative, so I tried to blame my weird symptoms on my imagination. That worked for a while until I started bleeding during sex. Profusely. And the blood wasn't a result of impact, if you get my drift—it was coming from the skin inside my vagina, which was so raw that I wanted to cry if my boyfriend so much as came near it with a finger.

I went back to the doctor, who shuddered at the angry inflamed redness, but didn't know what to do. More doctors, more STD tests, some ultrasounds to see if I had cysts or anything else weird going on with my cervix/uterus/ovaries: nothing. This went on and on for another six months or so, and I had more than a few teary conversations with my boyfriend about how he should just "go on without me."

Then, one night, we were out for drinks with a friend of mine who's a midwife, and we were telling her all about my problems. (Let me pause to say: my boyfriend is a trooper.) It turned out that she had a friend—another midwife—with the same issues, who'd done all the research herself and learned about these bizarre little bacteria called ureaplasma.

I have never met this woman, but as far as I'm concerned, she deserves a Nobel prize.

Ureaplasma/mycoplasma are small bacteria that live inside of other cells' walls and are believed to cause symptoms such as increased or painful urination, pelvic pain, fertility problems, and recurring yeast infections. They are unfazed by most of the usual means of attack and thus require special antibiotic treatment; they can be quite resistant to even powerful antibiotics, and may require several rounds to cure. There still seems to be a lot of confusion in the medical world regarding the potential impact of these bacteria, but some doctors believe there's a connection between ureaplasma infection and infertility or miscarriage, and/or that there's a connection between ureaplasma infection and ailments of the urinary tract or bladder.

A fair number of American doctors seem to think ureaplasma/mycoplasma is all a hoax, but European and Eastern doctors are more likely to take it seriously. And there's one American company that believes it to be enough of a problem that they are developing a vaccine for prevention and treatment of ureaplasma/mycoplasma, which they believe to be an underdiagnosed cause of a wide range of infections.

It's believed that, as with other vaginal infections, the presence of ureaplasma/mycoplasma isn't necessarily harmful, but that its overgrowth is what can cause symptoms; in fact, some doctors say that most people will have an excess of ureaplasma at some point but just won't experience symptoms. Men and women alike can become infected through sexual contact or a variety of other means of exposure (they say you can't pick things up from toilet seats, but unsettling rumors, at least, circulate about this nefarious organism online).

After researching all of this, I called my doctor's office and asked if they could test me for it. They said yes. But once I went to my appointment, my doctor tried to brush me off, saying that, instead, she'd like to test for STDs again. I resisted the urge to strangle her and demanded the test. After a year, all it took was a simple test, a round of antibiotics for me and my boyfriend, and I was cured.

Now: just because you test positive for ureaplasma/mycoplasma doesn't mean that that's what's causing your symptoms. My experience is only one of many. Abundant anecdotal evidence suggests that for many women, antibiotics of any kind are ineffective, and there's a whole movement touting Chinese herbal supplements as the cure for ureaplasma/mycoplasma and a variety of other women's health issues.

But even though I don't have all the answers, I want more women to know about ureaplasma as a possibility, should you happen to be cursed, like me, with a vaginal infection that lasts for a year. I went to at least four doctors over the course of last year, and either none of them knew about it or none of them cared enough to investigate past the standard STD screening. And you can't consider all your options if you don't know what they are. Vaginas are mysterious, and having one often means aggressively advocating for your health, and you must educate yourself in order to do so.

So with that in mind, I'd like to offer some more (too much) information from my deep well of experience.

There is a very clear protocol that doctors follow when you show up complaining that your vagina itches, stings, and burns. First, they suggest that you probably have an STD. If you grew up in the South like I did, there's a lot of shame in this suggestion, as well as generally infused throughout the whole experience. Actually, allow me to rephrase: there's a lot of shaming infused throughout the whole experience, and let's take a moment to say every bit of this is undeserved.

Second, the doctors examine you and probably discover that you are oozing with some sort of bacterial or yeast overgrowth. Third, they insist that you still get tested for STDs, even if you were last tested a month ago or you are a virgin or whatever, because you are a modern woman, after all, and modern women are prone to these sorts of things. Fourth, they write you a prescription for Diflucan (or antibiotics) or tell you to buy some Monistat and send you on your way.

Unless you are very lucky, this approach will quickly fail. A normal, healthy vagina contains multitudes of organisms. It's an ecosystem; it's a system of checks and balances, and once you throw off that system, chaos is likely to ensue.

Think about the last time you took antibiotics. If your vaginal pH is anything like mine, you definitely got a yeast infection afterwards. Why? Because you killed off all the bacteria, and when the cat's away the yeast go fucking apeshit, as they say. Likewise, when you treat yeast with a fungicide resembling a nuclear bomb, you're likely to experience a bacterial overgrowth in the aftermath.

This is how I lived for many years. I treated a yeast infection, I got BV. I treated BV, I got a yeast infection. It became easy to tell the difference—yeast is chunky and white, while BV causes a watery discharge that sort of leaks out of you all day long. It was harder to spend much of my twenties not having sex.

Eventually you find your way to online forums, where desperate women implore other desperate women to share their remedies. This is where you learn to put things like apple cider vinegar, tea tree oil, whole garlic cloves, and boric acid in your vagina. These home remedies are much gentler than Diflucan or Monistat, which is important: if you have a minor imbalance, you want to gently urge the ecosystem back to normalcy, rather than eliminating the offending party in a full-on massacre that will only leave you vulnerable to another overgrowth in the future.

I have tried all of these natural remedies with varying degrees of success. After much trial and error, I've learned that, for me, the best solutions for both yeast and BV are boric acid suppositories or tampons soaked in tea tree oil (but dear sweet Jesus, diluted with jojoba or coconut oil: that was a lesson I only had to learn once). This product is also very nice, though I recommend refrigerating it so it doesn't get all melty.

But here's my favorite natural remedy. Afterwards, once you've attacked the yeast or offending bacteria, it's a really good idea to replenish with good bacteria. My preferred method for introduction of probiotics? Little yogurt ice cubes (unflavored, of course). Or, as they have now come to be known in my circle of friends, "vagina popsicles."

Yes. Vagina popsicles.

That concludes today's lesson. If you have something mysterious happening on the inside of your vagina, please: ask your doctor about ureaplasma. Make them give you the test even if they don't want to. Ask about natural remedies. And feel free to report back here.

Kate Jenkins is a Brooklyn-based freelance writer and editor. She is also the founder/editor-in-chief of print literary magazine The Intentional Quarterly.

Illustration by Jim Cooke.

16 Dec 18:28

Red Pill Alpha Dog Tip of the Day: Totally dominate hot babes by scheduling your texts for later!

Madison Metricula

"Truly, there is nothing more alpha as fuck than scheduling your texts so you won’t seem beta as fuck"

Make her wait for your tweets, LIKE A BOSS

Make her wait for your tweets, LIKE A BOSS

The Alpha Dogs on the Red Pill Subreddit are totally taking “text game” to the next level.

You know how it is when a Hot Babe 8 texts you and you start typing out a reply because, you know, that’s what people do when they get texts, and then you get ready to click “send” because that’s how you send texts? DON’T DO IT! SENDING TEXTS WHEN YOU WRITE THEM IS TOTALLY BETA.

Instead, show her who’s boss by scheduling your text to be sent later. THEN SHE’LL THINK YOU REPLIED LATER BECAUSE YOU’RE SO COOL AND BUSY AND ALOOF and totally not desperate to get in her pants or anything!

And your phone makes it easy! As noahbish explains:

Put the Hamster on your clock. (self.TheRedPill)  submitted 10 hours ago by noahbish  I just wanted to share a powerful little tool with you gents that has helped me tremendously. If you have an android phone you can compose a text message and have it scheduled to be sent at the time of your choosing. I have always had the issue of waiting to respond to a text and ultimately forgetting because I did not want to reply too quickly. So instead I will usually take the amount of time it took her to respond to me and double or triple it then have the message scheduled to be sent at X time. Another thing I love to do is schedule messages to be sent late at night after I have already been to bed. In my experience it really keeps women on their heels, keeps you in frame when it comes to texting, and also keeps the bs chatter to a minimum.  Compose your message> hit your android botton (bottom left of your phone)>scheduling> set time and date> hit send. Hope this helps  EDIT : Formatting

She’ll be like, why didn’t he answer me, maybe I’m ugly and he’s too SUPERCOOL for me, and totally not someone playing stupid high school dating games by scheduling his response for later because, really, who would even do that.

Truly, there is nothing more alpha as fuck than scheduling your texts so you won’t seem beta as fuck.

Also another totally cool thing you can do is to text “370HSSV 0773H” to people and when they ask what it means tell them to turn their phone upside down. Ha ha! OWNED.

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

16 Dec 18:26

What It's Really Like To Care For a Dying Parent

Madison Metricula

Watching my grandmother die was awful, and it wasn't the way she would have wanted. The morphine, the pain, confusion--all are familiar. She was bed bound, and no body wants to clean poop of an adult. That was something I did willingly and lovingly, but she lingered on for six weeks after they were sure she would die. It was awful and hard on everyone. On the one hand, you can't just will yourself to die, but I'm convinced there's something about "letting go". I don't know. I have really confusing feelings about this but I know I would rather be mercifully overdosed with morphine. Seeing someone you love suffer and not be able to speak--and not knowing if they even know you're there--is awful.

There are two things that movies consistently get wrong: sex and death. 

Just like no real-life sex scene has ever involved seamless, body-fluid-free sex (I, for one, seem to consistently get stuck in my skinny jeans while covertly trying to take them off), very few deaths are the simple, dignified situations we see portrayed on screen. Death, real death, is a messy, confusing process for everyone involved.

A few months ago I wrote an article for XOJane about my mother, who was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. At the time she had plateaued. Roughly three weeks ago, however, that changed. 

Determined to walk, she hauled herself out of bed -- and promptly fractured her pelvis. At the time, she was still receiving treatment -- now she's in hospice. As terrible as it was before, this is worse. She is completely bedridden and has a catheter. Despite everyone's best efforts, she immediately got a UTI and yeast infection upon arriving home. She's restless -- she's scared. What little she says rarely makes sense. She is clearly, obviously dying.

How do you care for someone who is dying? We all have a pretty good idea of what it means to nurse someone back to health, but how do you compassionately nurse them into death? 

Even typing that raises my hackles a little. We live in a society that prizes life -- by any means, in any shape -- above all else, so reconciling that programming with what is clearly worse than death is difficult, to say the least. I am completely pro-choice and very much believe assisted suicide should be legal. But nevertheless, the ethical dance I'm doing now feels fraught with peril. I usually lay my mom's pills out with her breakfast. She doesn't ask for food or water, but I still bring them.When she does eat, she doesn't eat much -- a bite here and there.

And don't even get me started on the morphine. She's agitated a lot of the time -- to the point of attempting to to get out of bed -- and morphine helps calm her. But is it wrong to administer it in order to relieve psychic, not physical, pain? While the fracture is painful, the truth is I dose her more for the agitation than for the pain. Is that merciful, or profoundly fucked up?

This is not a woman who wanted to dwindle.
This is not a woman who wanted to dwindle.

These are the questions I wrestle with daily. I know my mom -- she would have never wanted to live like this. One of the last clear things she said to me when she was diagnosed was that she didn't want to dwindle. 

I can see the pain and frustration on her face when I tell her she can't walk, or when I have to clean her after a bowel movement. But at the same time, I'm not sure where my place is in this process. She is mostly non-communicative, so I can only guess at what she wants. I have asked her if she's tired, if she's ready to let go -- her only response is a blank stare. 

Recently, I met with a social worker to discuss mortuaries, and on the back page of the packet she gave me there was a section regarding donating the body for scientific purposes, specifically the eyes. I felt like I'd been sucker punched. I believe in donating one's organs for the greater good, but how do you make that decision for someone else? I know my mom is an organ donor, but…which organs? How many organs? Is there really a moral difference between donating someone's eyes and donating someone's kidneys, or am I just being squeamish? 

The only organ donors you see on "Grey's Anatomy" are car accident fatalities. No one ever talks about mulling over whether or not to give someone's organs away while they're still conscious in another room.

In healthier, happier times--how she would have wanted to be remembered.
In healthier, happier times--how she would have wanted to be remembered.

Tomorrow will be the one-year anniversary of my mom's diagnosis. She's made it much farther than anyone ever predicted, but I can't pretend that I believe that's a good thing. A family friend told me that I'd look back and treasure this extra time I was able to spend with my mom -- I wish that were true, but it isn't. I've watched her do exactly what she stated she didn't want to do -- dwindle. It's horrific, and I know neither she nor I expected it to be like this. 

Which is why I'm writing this article -- I think it's important to open a frank dialogue about what it means to die. How do we help our loved ones die? What, exactly, do heroic measures mean to different individuals? For one person it might be CPR, but for another, it might be administering any medication at all, down to steroids or anticonvulsants. What are tolerable living circumstances -- i.e., what happens if you become bed bound? Incontinent?? 

These are tough questions, and they're usually brought up too late, whispered shamefully in the corridor of a hospital. But my hope is that, just like we've learned to discuss with our children what they should *actually* expect from sex, we'll someday be able to talk openly to one another about what we can really expect from death.

16 Dec 18:08

The Story Behind Sarah’s Abortion

Madison Metricula

An awesome account of getting an abortion! I've heard lots of other people prefer surgical to pill, even though it seems like it would be worse.

I knew even before the two little lines appeared that I was pregnant. I’m not saying I had magic intuition or anything, just that I use a period tracker app that’s surprisingly accurate, I had sex on a day I was ovulating (it tells you that as well), & my period was late. It was the logical conclusion, but I will say that as a chronically ill person, I think I’m a little more in tune with my body than most people. Mostly because if my body is doing something different and I don’t pay attention to it, things could go downhill for me pretty quickly.

I’ve been talking about wanting kids with my husband for a few months now, but when we talk about it, our conclusion is always the same: I’m just too sick right now to have a baby. I’m the kind of person who actually does read the information packets included in my medications, and many of them say the same thing: “Do not use while pregnant, if you could be pregnant, or while breastfeeding.” My husband and I are realistic people (him probably moreso than me; the occupational hazards of being an idealist), and we knew it was impossible from the moment I screamed “FUCK!” from the bathroom (I’m a really romantic person, as you can tell).

I’ve had exactly one pregnancy scare before. It was within my first few weeks of college. I was 8 hours away from my family and my boyfriend, and living in a very conservative, small town in Iowa. I went to an Urgent Care clinic since I didn’t have a doctor in town yet. I had been throwing up, my breasts were tender, and I was spotting but wasn’t getting my period on schedule. I had recently changed birth controls, so I was sure it was that, but I needed a doctor to write the script for a new kind. So I told the doctor what was going on, and he immediately says, “You’re pregnant.” I explained the situation with my new birth control and how I was sure it was just that, at which point he told me, “There’s no way changing birth control would give you these symptoms. I’m 95% sure you’re pregnant.” I peed in a cup and sat there for 45 minutes while panic set in.

A group of 9 people holding bowling balls at an abortion fundraising event.

My first bowl-a-thon team! From 2012.

I had only recently gone from being someone who was ardently pro-life to a judgey “I’m pro-choice, but *I* could never have an abortion!” (which is a fine position, but you don’t actually have to say that last part). Yet as soon as the doctor said I was probably pregnant, my mind was already made to have an abortion. I wasn’t even done with one semester of college and I had high hopes for my future career that would have been destroyed (or at least very delayed) if I had a child at 18.

I texted my then-serious-boyfriend to tell him what was happening. He told me in no uncertain terms that I was not allowed to abort his child. He would work 3 jobs to support the child if he had to, and I would have to drop out of my college to move back home. He consoled me by saying that if I wanted, I could probably transfer to University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee to work on my degree part time while I focused on being a mother. I had never felt so powerless. I would either lose my dreams or the man I thought would become my husband.

Fortunately, my decision was made for me when the doctor came back to announce that I wasn’t pregnant. “So it must be the new birth control, right?” I asked hopefully. “You should have told me you changed birth controls, then we wouldn’t have wasted so much time.” (Unfortunately, this was neither the first nor last time that I was gaslighted by a medical professional.)

As I matured and my views evolved, I moved past that relationship (as well as a few others), and finally met a great guy who I married two years ago. This time couldn’t have been any more different. My husband came into the bathroom after I screamed an expletive, and sat down with me as I cried on the floor. We talked a bit, and then had the following conversation:

The author sitting on her husband's lap at an abortion funding event.

Sean and I at the 2014 Women Have Options Bowl-a-Thon

“Well…what are you going to do?” he asked me.

“This isn’t a ‘me,’ decision, this is a ‘we’ decision.” I told him.

“No,” he replied, “It’s your body, and your decision. I will support you 100% no matter what you decide.”

THAT’s how you do it right, fellas. We talked and both shared our thoughts, weighed the pros and cons of either decision (like adults), but ultimately the final decision was up to me.

Obviously, you know what I chose.

I called Planned Parenthood the next day and made an appointment. Since Ohio has laws requiring a consult appointment and then a 24 hour waiting period, I had to make that appointment first. To prepare, I wore my “Women Have Options” shirt (they’re the abortion funds provider who I’ve supported through the local bowl-a-thon) and my Planned Parenthood hoodie. Most of the staff members I encountered told me they loved my shirt, and when I replied that I was one of the top fundraisers for WHO for the last few years, they all thanked me profusely.

At the consult, I had to have an ultrasound done. Fortunately, you have the choice of whether you want to see the ultrasound or not and whether or not you want to hear the heartbeat. I marked “no” on the form they gave me, but during the ultrasound the technician asked me again. I was curious, so I said yes (I had marked no because I’d had panic attacks before when getting ultrasounds and I didn’t want to repeat that, but this technician made me feel safe and well-cared for). She pointed out a circle the size of a nickel and asked if I could see it. “Is that the baby?” I asked.

“No…that’s your ‘yolk’ that feeds the fetus at this stage. Do you see this tiny little circle underneath it?” I squinted and nodded. “That’s the fetus.”

“So…it’s like the size of peanut?” I asked.

“No, not even. This magnifies it. It’s like the size of a really small seed at this point.” (According to BabyCenter.com, it’s about the size of a sesame seed at that point.)

A group of four people, including the author and her husband, standing in front of bowling lanes at an abortion fundraiser.

My 2013 bowl-a-thon team, Coup de Twat!

After my ultrasound, I got to meet the doctor who’d be doing my abortion. She was very kind and compassionate, and I liked her right away. She had to go through state-mandated counselling where I had to sign a paper that said something to the effect of “I am aware that I am terminating the life of my unborn human child.” (I wanted to take a picture, but the clinic specifically forbids pictures due to privacy concerns, and I didn’t want to get anyone in trouble, especially since they had all been so nice to me.) I openly scoffed and mocked the language, and went on a short rant about how it’s inherently sexist to force women to undergo a medically unnecessary “waiting period” before a procedure, as if we don’t understand what we’re doing and aren’t capable of making decisions on our own. The doctor smiled at me and said, “Everyone has different feelings and reactions to having an abortion, and they’re all valid.”

I replied, “But you know it’s bullshit, right? That this is just the state’s way of controlling women? Ugh, don’t answer that, because if I’m a Live Action plant I don’t want you to get fired or sued or whatever. I know this isn’t your fault and you’re just following the law, but the law is bullshit. Okay, I’m done now.” and I signed the sheet. (Live Action is the group that sneaks cameras into Planned Parenthood and selectively edits them to make it look as if Planned Parenthood is some scheming baby-killing operation. I’m not even going to link to their website because fuck them.)

(If I sound harsh toward anti-choice activists, it’s because I am. I think they are sexist (even though women are not the only people who have abortions, but I still think claims of sexism are valid). I think they are forcing their religious beliefs on other people. And I also think they are fascists for supporting terrorism against people seeking abortions and abortion providers (if you don’t think it’s terrorism, go volunteer as a clinic escort for a few weeks), as well as the fact that they want to control womens’ medical decisions. If all you do to end abortion is pray, then I don’t care. But the minute you start lobbying to create laws to restrict other peoples’ rights, harassing them on their way inside the clinic, or creating misleading “Pregnancy Centers” where you provide inaccurate medical information, we’re going to have a problem.)

Anyway, back to my abortion! Luckily, I was able to schedule an appointment a week out from my consult. I was offered the choice between medical and surgical abortion. If you’d like to read more about the differences, this website is pretty informative, but the gist is that a medical abortion is a pill you can take at home, and a surgical abortion involves mild to moderate sedation. Since my friends who have had abortions said they experienced a lot of nausea from the medical abortion, I opted for the surgical route with moderate sedation. They told me to wear loose clothes, to have thick pads ready for when I got home (though they would provide me with a pad to wear home from the appointment), and that I would need a driver as I should not drive for 24 hours after my procedure.

The author and her husband dressed up, holding plates of cake and kissing

A good marriage is built on a foundation of three things: good communication, healthy respect for one another, and a shared love of cake. (This was at our wedding, by the way!)

The night before my appointment, I had a lot of feelings. I don’t want to say I was worried I was making the wrong choice, because I knew with complete certainty that I was making the right decision for me. Being pregnant was hell on my body. I had constant morning sickness, to the point where I felt like calling it “morning sickness” was a cruel joke. I wasn’t sleeping, I wasn’t eating, I was just in constant pain. So my feelings were mainly rooted in the realization that I may never be a parent because I may be this sick for the rest of my life. My husband stayed up late with me and talked to me. He told me his number one priority was that I was as safe and happy as possible, which helped my fears that he would resent me if I’m never able to give him biological children.  This would have been a lot more difficult if he wasn’t talking to me through this process or if I didn’t completely trust that he was being forthright.

The morning of my appointment arrived. I was ready to face protesters, but fortunately there were none. They took me into a special waiting room and got my vitals. The nurse gave me a 4 mg tablet of Zofran (anti-nausea medicine) and I laughed and said I’d need more than that, because my doctor prescribes me 8 mg since my nausea/vomiting are especially bad. I made a comment about how I basically hadn’t stopped vomiting for two weeks, and a woman in one of the chairs replied that she also had bad morning sickness. We bantered about how the name “morning sickness” was awful, among other things. It felt nice to have some camaraderie with someone who was going through what I was. They took me to a back room and told me to take off my pants and underwear and cover myself with one of those paper sheets. At this point, I started tweeting under the hashtag #SarahsAbortion.

One of the nurses started an IV, and then the other nurses (or technicians, I’m not sure what their titles were) and doctor came into the room. I was talking and joking around with them when the nurse gave me something by IV. I was mid-sentence when I stopped and just looked around the room, wide-eyed. They could all see that the sedation meds had hit me, so they laughed (I laughed too– I at least had enough temporary self-awareness to realize what was happening). And then…I don’t remember a thing. The next thing I recall is sitting in the special waiting room again. (This is completely normal! One of the drugs they give you for sedation is called Versed, and it causes temporary amnesia. I’ve had it before so I knew to expect that.)

They let me rest in my recliner for a bit to make sure I didn’t have any adverse reactions to the procedure or the meds. They brought me crackers and water, and so I sat and chatted with the woman I had been commiserating with before my abortion. As she told me her story, I felt my anger at the system growing.

Without giving too many of her details away (I want to protect her privacy), she was telling me how her insurance didn’t cover her abortion, so she had to pay out of pocket. She said she wouldn’t be able to afford rent this month, but she hoped she wouldn’t get evicted if she could scrounge up half of it and promise to pay the rest as soon as possible. She also said she had a lot of anxiety about the procedure, but couldn’t afford the stronger sedation since it was $100 more. I tried to help by pointing out that this Planned Parenthood should have money from Women Have Options, but the nearby nurse told us that they ran out of WHO money three months ago, so there was really nothing they could do to help her.

Can you even imagine having to make that decision? It’s so upsetting that the system is stacked against women this way. She said she knew she’d be worse off if she had a kid, but what do you do when you have to decide between possibly getting evicted and being forced into giving birth? What kind of society do we live in? Even if she gave the child up for adoption, there’s still the fact that she’d have to take off work for prenatal checkups (and pay for those as well), not to mention all the (unpaid) sick time she’d have to use for days when she isn’t feeling well. She already told me her morning sickness had been just about as bad as mine, and I basically didn’t leave the house for as long as I had morning sickness. How can you call yourself compassionate when you’re okay with all of this happening to a woman who doesn’t want this?

A group of six people, including the author and her husband, standing in front of bowling lanes at a bowl-a-thon.

My 2014 bowl-a-thon team, also named Coup de Twat!

Talking to her was a stark reminder of my privilege in life (thankfully, my husband and I were able to afford my abortion fees without having to worry about not being able to afford other bills this month) and a fresh reminder of why fighting for abortion rights and funding abortions is so important. I will definitely be participating in my local bowl-a-thon in 2015 (they’re usually held between April and June, but you can start fundraising earlier in the year), and hopefully I will be able to make an end of year donation to my state’s Abortion Fund (you can find the one nearest to you here). I encourage you to do the same if you’re financially able to this year.

Now that my abortion is over, how do I feel? Honestly, the biggest feeling I’m experiencing is relief. I also feel better (physically) than I have in almost 2 months. I don’t have any regret or guilt. I also haven’t thrown up from morning sickness since before I had the procedure done! So aside from some cramping, overall, I feel pretty good.

So why did I write this massive article about my abortion? A few days before my consult, I ended up in the ER due to lower abdominal pain. I knew I was pregnant at that point, so I told the ER staff. The doctor was concerned I had an ectopic pregnancy, so they gave me an ultrasound. While I was waiting for the ultrasound, I remember fervently hoping that it was an ectopic pregnancy, so if people found out I was having an abortion, I could say I had a “good” reason for getting an abortion. And once they told me my pregnancy was fine, I realized how totally fucked up it is that I was hoping I had a life-threatening medical condition just so people wouldn’t judge me for having an abortion. The really messed up thing is that I’m not even in a situation where I would face serious social repercussions if people found out about my abortion! I have some very serious medical conditions that I’m open about, so people already know how difficult pregnancy would be on my body. I’m not working, so it’s not like my job or coworkers could give me a hard time for it. My family is generally pro-life, but they know how sick I am, so they supported me. My friends are all extremely pro-choice, so that’s not an issue, either. So what repercussions could I face if this became public knowledge (that I’m not already facing for being an outspoken feminist online)? Not to mention that fact that I 100% believe in abortion on demand without apologies, so even if I didn’t have a “good” reason for getting an abortion, it doesn’t matter, because it’s my body and my choice.

That’s how serious abortion stigma is. And that’s why I did the best thing I could think of to help end the stigma: sharing my story publicly. I hope if you’re in a similar situation, you’ll consider doing the same.*

*But please don’t feel compelled to share your story publicly if it will endanger your personal safety or well-being!

16 Dec 18:06

Ghost Child: The Strange, Misunderstood World of Delusional Pregnancy

Madison Metricula

This is terrifying and weren't we talking about this a few months ago at lunch?

Ruby lost her virginity in July of this year, not long after she turned 28. Five days later, she knew, with deep certainty and not a little dread, that she was pregnant. Her nipples grew and darkened, she says; her abdomen tingled. The man she'd slept with refused to see her, and when he finally agreed to meet up, he insisted on buying the morning-after pill. She refused to take it, and they didn't talk much after that.

Soon after, Ruby started seeing doctors, one after another. A curious pattern quickly emerged: No one but her could see the fetus.

Ruby spent the first few months of her pregnancy shuttling back and forth between her parents' house in her hometown and New York, hoping to move to the city for good. She underwent at least two ultrasounds between July and October, one at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York and one at a facility in her hometown. (To protect her privacy, Jezebel is identifying Ruby by a pseudonym, and omitting some details that could potentially identify her.) Multiple blood and urine tests also came back negative for pregnancy.

But Ruby knew something was there, and as her stomach started to swell, she only became more certain. She felt a stretching sensation in her vagina and occasional, fluttering contractions in her uterus. She grew increasingly frustrated and desperate as all the test results continued to be, in her mind, inconclusive. She made an appointment with a specialist on the Upper East Side who she hoped might be able to tell her what was happening. But then, on the night of October 8, she walked into the emergency room of NYU Langone Medical Center. She wanted another ultrasound. She couldn't wait.

The ultrasound technician there didn't see a baby either. Ruby thought his scan had been far too brief to show anything. Things grew tense, and something happened between them. Ruby calls it an argument; the hospital, citing medical privacy laws, declined to comment.

After a little verbal tussling, Ruby says, the ultrasound technician told her she would be taken to see an OB-GYN, who would examine her further. Instead, she was taken into a psychiatric seclusion room and held down by four male orderlies, one pinning each of her limbs. She was given injections of Ativan, an anti-anxiety drug, and Zyprexa, an antipsychotic. She screamed, thrashed, and finally, defeated and sleepy from the medication, fell asleep. When she woke up, she was in a locked ward at Bellevue Hospital's psychiatric center. (This is Ruby's own recollection of events, but the fact that she was physically restrained in the emergency room is also backed up by court testimony given by her psychiatrist.)

Ten days later, Ruby sat at a table in the visitation room on her ward, her eyes welling up with tears behind her glasses. She's very tall and extremely thin, with long arms, dark hair pulled back in a long, low ponytail and thick eyebrows. She wore a black long-sleeved top and slacks, with a green sleeveless dress layered over them. The sleeves of the top were rolled up, revealing a row of thin white self-harm scars on her left arm.

"I shouldn't be here," she told me, her voice cracking. "This is horrendous. I'm just contained in here."

Ruby talked fast, smoothing her hair back and fixing her glasses whenever her thoughts started to race. She held a pile of papers: printouts from her ultrasounds, material on rare pregnancy disorders with handwritten notes in the margins. "I never go on YouTube," one of them read. John, an on-again, off-again boyfriend she'd met through OKCupid last year, sat across the table from her, looking pained. (John is not the man she believes impregnated her. His name has also been changed.) He'd brought her a piece of pizza, but she was too agitated to eat much.

At Ruby's request, John had sent out a series of frantic emails to media outlets over the previous week. The one Jezebel received was titled "Possible Story About Bellevue Hospital Corruption." It read, in part:

[Ruby] wound up in the Bellevue Psychiatric Ward, because of a ultrasounds technicians decision to commit her to the ward because of his displeasure with her attitude and argument that she was pregnant and it was undetectable because of a rare but not impossible uterus abnormality, technically called a retroflex uterus, that he was not aware of even being possible. I will send some pictures of her ultrasounds that you can look at for yourself. They contain what appear to possibly be a fetus in a fetal position with the cranium and feet.

He included ultrasound photos, which he'd also posted on Craigslist, asking for feedback.

Ruby had refused medication for the first two weeks of her stay at Bellevue, but her psychiatrist had recently won a court order to medicate her against her will. The regimen had started just moments before she'd walked into the visitation room.

"They just gave me my first dose of Depakote, and I can feel it burning my brain cells," she said, clutching her head. "Pregnant women should not be taking this. It's lethal for a fetus."

Depakote is a mood stabilizer and anti-epileptic, typically used to treat seizures, bipolar disorder or migraines. In Ruby's case, she says, they told her it was intended to treat her schizoaffective disorder, which she doesn't believe she has. She was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome as a teenager, and while she accepts that she is autistic, she was adamant that she wasn't delusional or psychotic. She was just pregnant. She was sure of it. In the visitation room that day, she raised her dress and showed me her stomach.

Resting there, standing out in sharp relief against her thin body, was a bulge the size of a cantaloupe.

"This wasn't planned," she said, lowering her dress. "But I'm totally—" She stopped, frustrated, her eyes welling up. After a moment, she took a deep breath and began again. "There's no reason for them to be doing this. I should have full power and control to make reproductive decisions for myself. I do not want something taken from me, to kill a living being."

There was no one she could call, she said. No one except John was even taking her calls or coming to visit. She's not in regular contact with her family, she said. "I don't have friends I can count on." Her eyes filled with fresh tears. "If I did, I wouldn't be here. They wouldn't let this happen to me."

II.

Although they're increasingly rare in the United States, pregnancies rooted in the mind but entirely absent from the body do happen. Victorian-era doctors referred to them as "hysterical pregnancies." Today, the favored terms are "delusional pregnancy," "false pregnancy" or "phantom pregnancy." When a patient suffers from some or all the symptoms of pregnancy— stomach growth, cramps, loss of period, morning sickness—without a fetus actually being present, it's known as pseudocyesis. Occasionally, this condition has even fooled doctors: in 2010, two North Carolina doctors were formally reprimanded after they performed a C-section on a woman, only to find there was no baby at all. The same thing reportedly happened in Rio de Janeiro in 2013.

The division between the physiological and psychological aspects of this syndrome isn't always clear. Pseudocyesis and false pregnancy, once seen as two starkly different diseases, can more correctly be viewed on a spectrum, says Dr. Mary Seeman, a professor emerita of psychiatry at the University of Toronto.

"The line is blurred and one slides into the other," she explains. She went on:

Essentially, the word 'delusional' means the person is ill with a psychiatric disorder of some kind. But pseudocyesis can occur without any psychiatric illness: you can believe that you're pregnant and have signs of pregnancy for any number of reasons. Certain drugs will do it. There have been cases reported where a woman gains weight, starts having other signs like nausea and she starts believing she's pregnant—but she's not mentally ill and she never has been, other than this one area. And so she'll have some trouble being convinced she's not pregnant.

Pseudocyesis and false pregnancies have both appeared in medical literature for thousands of years. Hippocrates claimed to have encountered 12 women suffering from pseudocyesis sometime around 300 B.C.E. Mary Tudor, the 16th-century queen of France, is thought to have had at least one false pregnancy. McGill University professor Jackie Rosenhek writes that Mary was "pregnant" for 11 long months, with no sign of a child.

"As the weeks dragged on with no news of a royal baby, people began to wonder," Ronsehek writes. "Whispers circulated that the queen had been seen curled up with her knees tucked in, which wasn't exactly possible for an overdue mother-to-be. Eventually, few people thought that Mary had ever been pregnant. One dubious courtier mocked her outright, saying that the Queen's pregnancy would 'end in wind rather than anything else.'"

Mary eventually issued a decree stating that God wouldn't allow her child to be born until a crop of Protestant dissenters were properly punished (in other words, executed). But even after that, Rosenhek writes, no baby came:

In August, in the 11th month of her false pregnancy, Mary emerged from her confinement chamber at last. She was impossibly thin, utterly silent and completely humiliated. No word of her "pregnancy" was mentioned at court again, at least officially. Her political rivals rejoiced, relishing in the entire situation as a sign of weakness and divine retribution.

Mary died the following year, still childless.

During China's Qing dynasty, around 1644, gynecological texts referred routinely to Ghost Fetus, just one of many types of false pregnancy they recognized. Yi-Li Wu, a professor of Asian history at Albion College, writes that ghost fetuses "were originally explained as the product of human-ghost intercourse." Later, they were attributed to "excessive female emotion."

Men can suffer from false pregnancy, and so can animals; dogs and pandas seem especially susceptible to the disorder. A six-year-old giant panda named Ai Hin who lived in the Chengdu Giant Panda Breeding Research Center in China started showing all the signs of pregnancy back in August, thrilling her keepers. (Pandas notoriously have trouble mating, getting pregnant and giving birth; at least one zoo has produced and screened panda porn to encourage them, which didn't work.) But plans to live broadcast the baby panda's birth were called off when officials at the center realized that Ai Hin was either suffering from a delusional pregnancy or else deliberately pretending to be pregnant, because she was canny enough to know her "condition" resulted in nicer living quarters and more food.

In humans, delusional and false pregnancies and pseudocyesis were relatively hard to spot for hundreds of years. A truly reliable pregnancy test wasn't developed until 1960, and over-the-counter tests weren't available until 1976. After that, in countries with strong medical frameworks, cases of false pregnancy dropped precipitously. In North America, they're now believed to happen about one to six times for every 22,000 real pregnancies, according to a study published in 1982 (seemingly one of the few that has tried to figure out how common the condition really is; there's a consensus that it's fairly rare, albeit slightly more common people already suffering from other types of psychosis or mental illnesses.)

Still, though, there have been a few notable cases in recent decades, including Ms. U, a British woman who looks to have had the longest delusional pregnancy in medical literature. She believed she was with child for almost 10 years, pretty much continuously.

Ms. U's treating psychiatrists found a dense nest of conflicting emotions that they thought might have contributed to her condition. She was raped by a classmate at 14, not long after she'd been traumatized by a particularly brutal sex education class, one that left her with a paralyzing fear of babies, sex, and childbirth. Ms. U first started to think she was pregnant when she was 22, newly married to a man who refused to wear a condom during sex. She started to complain that she "felt something" in her lower abdomen, and although she and her husband split up after just a few months, the feeling in her stomach waxed and waned for the next decade. Other symptoms of pregnancy seemed to appear and disappear: painful breasts, no period, a swollen belly.

Ms. U, writes Karel De Pauw, the psychiatrist who worked with her last, was admitted for inpatient psychiatric treatment on four occasions. Every time she was admitted, she escaped, repeatedly showing up at various emergency rooms, doctor's offices and pharmacies, demanding an abortion. She was frequently loud and agitated when hospitalized; De Pauw writes, dispassionately, that "her screaming [disturbed] the whole ward."

De Pauw say that he managed to cure Ms. U for good with a large dose of pimozide, an antipsychotic. She was able to accept that she had never been pregnant and mark her symptoms down to anxiety. She went on to become a secretary, living in an apartment of her own. It's unknown if she ever remarried or had children.

These days, false pregnancies are still fairly common in places with less-developed health care networks, like parts of Nigeria and India: one study estimates that one in 160 pregnancies in Nigeria are delusional. Dr. Mary Seeman, the University of Toronto professor, reviewed the medical literature from 2000 to 2014 and found just 80 cases in North America. She and several other academics attribute the prevalence of pseudocyesis in some countries to both the lack of health care, as well as the strong social emphasis that's placed on pregnancy and motherhood.

"There's such a pressure on women to get pregnant," Seeman says. "So much depends on it. There's such a high stake in having babies, especially boy babies. They want so very much to be pregnant that they'll interpret anything as a sign. Also, they're treated much better when they're pregnant."

Patients in Nigerian and Indian case studies are usually depicted as desperately wanting to be mothers, but there's more uncertainty in North American cases. Seeman has come to see pseudocyesis and delusional pregnancy in Canada and the U.S. as the product of incredible ambivalence about pregnancy and childbirth. "There's either a huge wish to be pregnant or a huge fear," she says.

Depakote, the anti-psychotic that Ruby was placed on at Bellevue, can be used to treat delusions, Seeman says. But when it comes to a delusional pregnancies, Depakote and other anti-psychotics can have some odd, rather counter-intuitive side effects.

"The medications that are used to treat a psychotic illness, they can make a patient put on weight, make your breasts swell, often bring milk to your breasts," Seeman says. They can also cause menstrual periods to cease. All that is particularly true of Depakote, which can drastically increase prolactin levels, the hormone that increases milk production. (Ruby may not have been taking any of these medications long enough to see a rise in prolactin levels.)

"Depakote can cause all these signs of pregnancy that could only reinforce the delusions," Seeman says. "This is the paradox of it."

III.

From the moment she walked into NYU's emergency room, Ruby was insistent that she wasn't delusional or psychotic. But the emergency room staff, as well as her new psychiatrist at Bellevue, Dr. David Nardacci, thought otherwise. On October 10, two days after she walked in asking for an ultrasound, she was involuntarily admitted to the hospital on an emergency basis. Under New York state's mental health laws, an adult can only be involuntarily admitted if "the person has a mental illness which is likely to result in serious harm to self or others and for which immediate observation, care and treatment in a psychiatric center is appropriate."

It's worth noting that Ruby visited numerous other doctors and emergency departments in her quest to get what she saw as an accurate ultrasound, yet Bellevue was the only hospital that took this route. The hospital wouldn't comment on what their specific criteria are for deciding an adult needs to be involuntarily admitted, but a few things about Ruby may have factored into their decision: her agitated state, the visible self-harm scars on her arm, her autism, and a previous involuntary stay in a psychiatric ward in 2013. Hospital staff may have also been troubled by the fact that Ruby had recently gone through a bout of homelessness: she'd been planning on subletting a room in Greenpoint, but it fell through, and she ended up at a shelter for two days. Her housing situation was unresolved when she went to the ER.

Ruby didn't want to elaborate much on what had sent her to the hospital in 2013. But she said she'd learned the only way to get out of the hospital was to simply agree with everything the doctor said. "You have to express complete compliance," she said. This time, though, she wasn't ready to do that—not with her potential baby's life at stake.

Although Ruby had said she wasn't in regular contact with her family, according to John, her mother did visit at least once during her stay at Bellevue, bringing her what Ruby interpreted as maternity clothes. (Ruby's mother declined to comment for this story, telling Jezebel in a brief phone call that she found our contacting her and reporting on her daughter's situation to be "highly offensive.")

Ruby's condition didn't much improve after 10 days in Bellevue, during which time she says she didn't see an OB-GYN, but was assigned a social worker, whom she met with only once. She also saw another patient's penis, which he pulled out as they both sat in the empty visitation room. A nurse helped shoo him out, but, Ruby says, wouldn't take her claims of sexual assault seriously.

Ruby wanted to leave immediately, but her doctors didn't find think it was safe. Every patient in New York has a right to a court hearing if they believe they're being held improperly, and the New York State Supreme Court has a courtroom on the 19th floor of Bellevue to hear mental health cases. Ruby got in touch with the state's Mental Hygiene Legal Services office and was assigned a lawyer, Kent Mackzum. (Mackzum declined to speak on the record for this story.) Two weeks into her stay, Mackzum and Ruby faced off there against her psychiatrist, David Nardacci, who had a host of reasons why Ruby needed to stay.

In his petition to the court, Nardacci wrote that Ruby was "markedly motor agitated, anxious and irritable." He continued:

Although she has had multiple negative urine, blood and ultrasound studies, she is insistent that she is pregnant, on the basis of her own review of her ultrasound exams. She is in disagreement with the professionals who reviewed her labs and ultrasounds, although she has no medical training. She is self-taught via YouTube and the Internet. In my opinion, medication over objection is in the patient's best interests.

The judge agreed, and Ruby was ordered to remain under a two-week hold.

Ruby had several theories for what might be happening, which she alternated between at different times during her stay at Bellevue. Underpinning all of them was her belief that she has a fairly rare syndrome, a retroflexed uterus, that was complicating the diagnosis. If that were true, it would mean that her uterus was tipped back towards her spine. (In court testimony, her psychiatrist said her medical team does not believe she has that condition.) Her first theory was that she had been pregnant in the recent past, and what she was seeing and feeling was a fetal skeleton. The second was the she had what's known as a dermoid tumor, which can grow hair and teeth, and sometimes resemble a fetus on an ultrasound. Her third, slightly contradictory theory—which she didn't like to talk about, knowing how it sounded to other people—was that she was pregnant with twins.

"There originally were two fetuses on the ultrasound," she said, in Bellevue's visitation room, two weeks into her stay and, as she estimated, about 14 weeks into her pregnancy. "I'm still seeing that, but only one image is clear."

Jezebel asked three OB-GYNs, including one who specializes in high-risk pregnancies, to look at several printouts of Ruby's most recent ultrasounds, with her name redacted to protect her privacy. None of them saw anything they could interpret as a fetus or fetuses.

"That's not twins," one responded. "The uterus looks enlarged, i.e. the wall looks thick. Fibroids or adenomyosis maybe. Has a little bit of tissue in the center. I can't tell what the tissue is, but it doesn't look fetal."

"It's really hard to read an ultrasound based on one image," wrote the high-risk OB. "However, I don't see anything there that looks like a gestational sac."

The OB-GYNs said that it's virtually impossible that a pregnant person could have multiple negative blood and urine tests. Ruby discounts that by theorizing that she's experiencing a rare syndrome known as the Hook Effect or Hook-like Effect, which can cause negative urine tests in early pregnancy. She flatly rejects the idea that she's delusional or that she could have pseudocyesis. She doesn't really believe in the syndrome.

"I truly do not believe that is the case," she says. "It's a misogynistic idea that's slapped on people." And the idea that false pregnancy arises from some deep ambivalence about motherhood just doesn't apply to her, she points out. "I have no reason to want this pregnancy, given how long I've known this person, what I have else going on in my life. I didn't want or plan for this."

The OB-GYNS Jezebel spoke to all said that in order to have a clearer idea of what's going on in the ultrasound, they'd want to see the written ultrasound report that usually accompanies it. But Ruby said that report too, was "flawed."

"What I really need is a radiologist to look at this," she said. "Anybody in their right mind would look at these images and think…" She trailed off.

Ruby never got defensive or angry when I asked her if she thought she might be experiencing a pregnancy delusion, which I did several times over the course of our conversations. She seemed to anticipate not being believed, and she responded, patiently and politely, with more theories, more studies, more Google search results. Ruby had theories for everything: the negative pregnancy tests, the lack of clarity on the ultrasounds and, most especially, why none of the doctors who had seen her thought she was pregnant. All of it seemed to stem from her previous experiences with the medical establishment, a lifetime of having her opinions discounted.

"They don't want to admit these tests aren't foolproof," she said. "There are definitely people they're not accurate for, and it's just absurd that all these doctors I'm going to have never heard of this."

She recognized that she didn't have medical training, but added, "When I research something, I get really, really into it."

At least one doctor I spoke to also questioned the wisdom of involuntarily committing Ruby. "The question is what legal and medical grounds they're using to hold her there," the doctor wrote. "An involuntary psych hold has very clear criteria. And a fixed delusion shouldn't be enough."

"Delusions are very difficult to treat," says Dr. Catherne Birndorf, a psychiatrist who specializes in reproductive issues. (Birndorf was speaking generally; she hasn't treated Ruby and has only seen one case of pseudocyesis, years ago, during her residency.) "With any delusion, it's a very firmly held belief. It's not like you can talk anybody out of it. You can present all the rational evidence you want and it doesn't matter."

She added that this presents a particular problem for a psychiatrist or a therapist trying to treat a delusional patient. "You never try and talk somebody out of a delusion. By doing that, you essentially lose their alliance with them. But you don't want to collude with a delusion either—you don't want to be like, 'I see the Martian too.' Nor do you want to lose your treatment relationship with them. You can say, 'I don't exactly see it the same way, but I know you feel that way.'"

Nor is a pregnancy delusion—or any other delusion, for that matter—really treatable with medication: "Usually you try antipsychotic medications. The one that's famous for working in these is pimozide." This is the drug Ms. U was supposedly cured with, which is marketed today under the brand name Orap. But generally, she says, "it doesn't work."

Does anything—any medication, any type of therapy, any combination of the two—reliably work to cure pregnancy delusions?

Birndorf pauses, thinks about it.

"Not... so much," she says.

IV.

On November 3, two weeks after the court ruled against her, after she'd been at Bellevue nearly a month, Ruby had a chance at a "do-over" hearing to get out. This time her case would be tried by a different judge. She was brought down from her ward around 11 a.m., where John was waiting, clutching her coat, her phone, and some mac and cheese he made that morning. Neither thought it was likely she'd be allowed to leave that day, but he wanted to be prepared just in case.

John wasn't sure if Ruby was pregnant. He'd started out believing fully, but as time went on and her negative pregnancy tests kept rolling in, he was unsure.

"She was definitely preoccupied with this," he says. Just talking about Ruby outside her presence seemed to make him feel a little guilty. "I think there's a 95 percent chance she's not pregnant, but that five percent is gnawing at me." He said the same thing several times in several different ways as he waited for her to arrive: "I just need to be sure." He clutched a sheaf of papers, the email results from when he'd put her ultrasounds on Craigslist.

"You are definitely pregnant," the top email read. "Please see a doctor soon."

The scene as John waited for her was chaotic: a waiting room for patients was full of people waiting to see the judge, most of them black men, ranging in age anywhere from 20 to 60. The sole woman in the room was a round, pale girl who didn't look much older than 20, pacing around and practicing her speech for the judge: "Your honor, I need to be in therapy while I experience life, not locked away…" Two hospital employees kept a wary eye on her.

When Ruby appeared, she was nervous as a cat, barely able to greet John or meet his eyes. She wore a grab-bag outfit indicative of the haphazardness of psychiatric care: sweatpants much too large for her slender frame, bagging down around her hips, pink and blue sweaters layered one on top of the other, and shiny black patent leather shoes with a leopard pattern on the toes.

"Do you have the print-outs?" she asked John. She wanted to show the judge her ultrasounds, although her lawyer was advising against it; he wanted to focus instead on her competence, the fact that she wasn't a danger to herself or anyone else.

"He said he didn't want to focus on that," John said gently.

"Just in case," Ruby said, urgently. "It's important to me." He nodded and handed them over.

"You can just focus on that when you get out," John said, referring to the pregnancy. She looked at him sharply.

"What are you saying?" she asked. He changed the subject and handed her the mac and cheese. I tried to ask how the last two weeks had gone, but she couldn't respond, starting a thought and then stuttering to a stop. She paced. The round pale girl from the waiting room paced too, the two of them occasionally coming to a near-collision in the hallway. They kept eyeing each other, shyly.

"How long have you been in?" the short girl asked, finally.

"28 days," Ruby replied, her voice almost cracking. "It's horrible."

"It's horrible," the girl agreed. They smiled awkwardly at each other.

"At least you know you're going to get out," the girl added, bitterly. "They're trying to send me to a state hospital."

At that moment, Ruby and her lawyer were called into court, with John trailing close behind. Her psychiatrist, David Nardacci, was the hospital's first and only witness, soft-spoken, in a dark grey plaid suit, with deep acne scars lining his cheeks. He mostly addressed his comments to the judge, Arthur Engoron, a man with mad scientist white hair and a cheery demeanor. He kept his eyes firmly away from Ruby. Treating her, he said, had been a challenge.

"She has two psychiatric diagnoses," he explained. "Schizoaffective disorder and Asperger's syndrome. The combination of these two diagnoses in particular has made it harder to treat her, and placed her at higher risk." The medications were beginning to work, he said, "but I don't believe she's fully responsive to the extent that she's ready to be released into the community."

In particular, he said, he questioned her insight into her situation. "Ms. [Ruby] is in the hospital because she became very preoccupied with a delusional pregnancy," he said. "She had sexual relations in July and within nine days became obsessed by the idea of being pregnant. She went to different providers in New York and got at least a half dozen ultrasounds. She was becoming increasingly frantic."

"Did she want to be pregnant or not?" Engoron asked, his brows knitted.

"That was never entirely clear," Nardacci responded, without looking at his patient, who was violently shaking her head. "She's preoccupied with misdiagnosis." But in either case, he added, "Her obsession with this delusional pregnancy became so intense it erased all the other activities in her life." In the NYU emergency room, he said, she became "highly agitated, requiring restraints." She'd since undergone another ultrasound and another set of blood and urine tests, all of them negative.

Ruby raised her hand. Her lawyer shot her a look and she put it down, reluctantly.

But according to Nardacci, Ruby's ultrasounds weren't normal either. They had given her treatment team some cause for concern. The ultrasounds showed a possible enlargement of her left ovary, possibly consistent with cysts or endometriosis. Ruby, he said, believed that they were seeing a fetal skeleton. The whole thing warranted further investigation, requiring a transvaginal ultrasound, an invasive procedure that he didn't feel she was ready for.

"She was only able to tolerate a limited study," he said. Because of her Asperger's, he said, "she's extremely uncomfortable being touched." With a few more days of treatment, he said, "we believe she'll be able to tolerate a full ultrasound exam and a full gynecological exam."

"Does she still believe she's pregnant?" the judge asked.

"I believe she's beginning to entertain other alternatives," Nardacci answered.

Mackzum, Ruby's lawyer, asked Nardacci whether he really believed she was being treated in the "least restrictive" setting possible, the standard under New York's mental health laws.

"I believe she is," he replied. "She doesn't believe she's mentally ill. She'll only accept certain diagnoses. She believes if she had just the right doctor or the right test she'd be able to convince someone she's pregnant." And as long as she still believed she might be pregnant, he said, "she's not fully committed to taking her medications." She didn't even seem fully aware of what having a baby might mean, so fixated was she on the pregnancy itself, he said. "I do not believe she's stable." With more treatment, he said, "I think we have the opportunity to receive closure."

Mackzum pointed out that Ruby had traveled back and forth easily between her parents' home and New York over the past few months, and that she'd taken care of basic physical needs like food and clothing. At Bellevue, she hadn't assaulted or threatened anyone. And both sides agreed that if Ruby were released, Bellevue would still provide follow-up testing and treatment, if she wanted it.

Judge Engoron tipped back in his chair and thought for a long moment.

"I'm ordering her released," he said finally. "I just don't see the danger. Not believing a doctor? Going to another doctor? I just… don't see the danger there."

It took Ruby a moment to register what had happened. "Oh my God," she cried, when it sank in. She beamed and hugged her lawyer, looking near tears as they left the courtroom. She and John headed up to her unit, where she gathered her things and was gone within an hour.

Ruby had a lot to do, she said. She wanted to see whether the specialist on the Upper East Side might be able to see her this week. She swore that would be the last doctor. "If she doesn't see anything, I wouldn't have any other choice but to let it go."

She got her appointment, not with the specialist, who didn't do second opinions, but with someone the doctor referred her to. But Ruby found, again, that it was too hard for her to wait. One morning several weeks ago, she walked into an urgent care facility in Brooklyn asking for an ultrasound. They didn't have a machine, she says, "but the doctor looked at the picture and said it could be an ectopic pregnancy."

It was enough to give her some hope. That, she said, and the fact that a few people had recently given up their seats for her on the subway, which she interpreted as a sign that she was beginning to show: "I'm happy to know it's not just me who sees it anymore."

She held onto that hope even after finally seeing the next doctor, who proved to be a disappointment.

"It took a total of two minutes," she told me by text. "I was given wrong information. He's not a specialist, just a normal OB-GYN. And he was indeed very rude, like the reviews said and I feared. He shook his head when I said that it is possible to have negative tests and be pregnant, and said 'Not possible.' He did not touch me for any kind of physical examination at all or do an ultrasound. I asked if he had heard of the Hook Effect and he said no."

As her weeks of freedom wound on, Ruby grew increasingly worried about this story being published, before, as she put it, "an actual expert in complex OB issues has been consulted," a concern she expressed several times.

"I have been prevented from seeing any specialist so far due to legal strictures," she told me at one point via text. "This isn't all about a sensational story and page-views. It's really useless if it's not going to be accurate. It's like writing about advanced calculus and using the input of kindergarten math teachers as the final word in it. It's not fair to me and it's not factual."

At the same time, her suspicions about her pregnancy grew darker and darker.

"It unfortunately looks to me like there are indeed twins," she wrote to me in a text message, shortly before seeing the disappointing not-specialist. "But they are anencephalic, meaning they have an early neural tube defect that caused their skulls to not close properly and the brain develops partially or mostly outside the skull and they're missing part of the head, etc." She continued:

Sorry if this is really weird and macabre. But I am just stating the facts. I know though that upon accurate diagnosis I will be able to expose Bellevue's wrongdoing, which is positive. I am upset the pregnancy was missed early because apparently these defects occur 27 to 28 days in, well after the medical attention I had already sought.

Two days later, she texted another ultrasound image, the clearest yet, she said. I didn't ask when she'd gotten it. "Deformed, probably anencephalic fetus lying like a doll across bottom," she texted, "Head at L."

I was curious about something Dr. Nardacci said in his court testimony, that his impression was that her preoccupation with the pregnancy was outweighing any thoughts she might have about actually having a child. I asked how she'd care for a severely disabled infant.

"Anencephalic babies unfortunately mostly cannot survive," she answered. She'd read studies, she said, rare cases where "their bodies can be kept alive and they have reflexes but no cognition." She felt that was the most likely case here. "It would be a miracle to have any baby come out alive and sentient in this case."

It struck me then that I didn't know Ruby very well. We'd spent weeks talking about her body, in highly intimate, embarrassing ways. But I still had little sense of her as a person, how she spent her time outside of doctor's offices. I'd looked at her Facebook profile early that week and found a funny, eccentric person, interested in live music and articles about autism.

I didn't see any of that, though. The woman I saw was buried under the weight of an obsession, growing increasingly more frustrated and desperate.

"What if you somehow had a healthy child?" I texted her. "Can you imagine parenting? Is that something you'd want to do someday?"

Her answer was guarded and tired-sounding. "Yes it is," she wrote. "I just am not letting myself hope in this case. It's not looking great."

A few weeks went by, and a few more disappointing doctor's visits, including one to a midwife, who Ruby had hoped might be more sensitive to her concerns, less dismissive. "They were useless," she said after. "They said if the radiologist didn't see a baby then there can't possibly be a baby."

Ruby has set up yet another appointment with a specialist in abnormal pregnancies. In the meantime, as she approaches what she believes to be her fifth month of pregnancy, she's been reading up more on anencephaly.

"I have gotten used to looking at pictures of babies with anencephaly while researching so it doesn't disturb me as much anymore," she wrote to me in a recent email. "I have gotten used to the idea that it's just not a survivable condition and at least they have peaceful times on earth while they're growing in the womb. They are usually deaf and blind, so I guess noise doesn't startle and hurt them."

Illustration by Jim Cooke.

16 Dec 16:50

The U.S. Government Wants to Keep You From Wearing "Comfyballs" Boxers

Madison Metricula

I kinda want these, but I think having balls would feel weird. Maybe if my labia get inflamed I can stuff them into the pouch.

The U.S. Government Wants to Keep You From Wearing "Comfyballs" Boxers

The regrettably named Norwegian underwear brand Comfyballs was all set to make its big debut in the U.S. this year when it was shut down by the country's patent and trademark office. A trademark on Comfyballs, USPTO argued, was just too vulgar for Americans to accept.

The Independent reports on the tribulations of the company, which was already comforting balls across Australia, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and the U.K. when its trademark application was denied:

But American authorities banned it from operating under that name, finding that, "in the context of the applicant's goods... Comfyballs means only one thing - that a man's testicles, or 'balls,' will be comfortable in the applicant's undergarments.

"The mark does not create a double entendre or other idiomatic expression... When used in this way, the word, 'balls' has an offensive meaning."

What makes Comfyballs so comfy? According to the company, the fist-sized crotch protrusion you see on the pair above isn't just for looks. Au contraire, it is the pinnacle of testicular technology:

Package Front™ is designed to keep your equipment in place, while being lifted away from the inside of your thighs, preventing unnecessary heating of the balls. Extremely curved panels combined with innovative use of elastic fabric seams lift the user experience to a new level!

Citing successful trademarks on brands like "Nice balls," and "I love my balls," Comfyballs founder Anders Selvig told the Independent he'd like to see the USPTO review its decision to pan his application. Until then, Hanes and Fruit of the Loom will have to suffice for owners of insufficiently cushioned scrotums.

05 Dec 14:32

Unhappy Hour: Non-Drinkers Devise Strategies to Navigate Booze-Centered Work Events

Madison Metricula

Relevant to my holiday survival

Photo credit: Adamophoto, via freerangestock.com

From holiday parties to happy hours, social events with co-workers and clients often revolve around alcohol, which can put non-drinkers in an awkward position: they don’t want to drink, but they do want to take part in events they feel are important to networking and career advancement (without making drinkers feel bad). That perceived tension leads non-drinkers to develop techniques to fit in socially without taking a drink.

“Drinking can be a big part of workplace culture, and being viewed as an outsider for any reason can hurt you professionally,” says Lynsey Romo, a communication researcher at NC State who led a recent study on the issue.

“In our study, we interviewed successful professionals who don’t drink,” Romo says. “We found professionals felt that being a non-drinker was a form of deviance.  Because they did not want to miss out on the career opportunities that come from networking and socializing, or because attending such functions was a job requirement, non-drinkers developed a variety of strategies to attend social events without making themselves, their co-workers, or their clients feel uncomfortable.”

Photo credit: Katarzyna Bienias, via freeimages.com.

Photo credit: Katarzyna Bienias, via freeimages.com.

The researchers found that most non-drinkers didn’t volunteer the fact that they were non-drinkers because they did not want to draw attention to themselves. And while some would answer honestly if asked, many declined a drink in ways that made their non-drinking ambiguous. For example, instead of saying “I don’t drink,” study participants often said things like “I’m not drinking tonight” or “I’ve got an early morning” to avoid having a drink.

In fact, some of the non-drinkers interviewed for the study would buy an alcoholic drink (but not drink it) in order to pass as a drinker and fit in with their colleagues. Non-drinkers did not want to be viewed as being judgmental or “holier-than-thou.”

If it became clear that they weren’t drinking, some non-drinkers found ways to show they didn’t have a problem with drinking by buying a round of drinks for co-workers or volunteering to be a designated driver. Others used humor to defuse any social tension.

Other non-drinkers would use socially acceptable “excuses” for not drinking to avoid being seen as judgmental. Many of these excuses were health related. For example, one professional who didn’t drink because he wanted to set a good example for his kids told co-workers that he didn’t drink because he was trying to lose weight.

Similarly, another professional, who didn’t drink because she was taking prescription drugs to deal with a mental-health issue, told co-workers that alcohol gave her migraines.

While non-drinkers used a variety of techniques to navigate these social situations, all of the techniques stem from the same perceived pressure to conform to social norms in the workplace. And that may be a problem.

“This work highlights a challenge facing many non-drinking adults,” Romo adds. “It’s something that organizations and HR departments may want to take into consideration. Historically, HR departments have been worried about problem drinkers, but they should also turn their attention to the needs of the non-drinkers in their ranks. HR departments should make sure non-alcoholic beverages are available at happy hours or host social activities that don’t center on drinking.

“If employers want their employees to achieve their full potential, they need to foster an environment that encourages their employees to be themselves,” Romo says.

A paper on the study, “An Examination of How Professionals Who Abstain From Alcohol Communicatively Negotiate Their Non-Drinking Identity,” was published online Nov. 24 in the Journal of Applied Communication Research. The paper was co-authored by Tara Connolly and Christine Davis of NC State and Dana Dinsmore of Texas State University.

05 Dec 14:30

Even Among Harvard Graduates, Women Fall Short of Their Work Expectations

Madison Metricula

Everything is awful

Women are not equally represented at the top of corporate America because of the basic facts of motherhood: Even the most ambitious women scale back at work to spend more time on child care. At least, that is the conventional wisdom.

But it is not necessarily true for many women, according to a new study of Harvard Business School alumni. Instead, it found, women in business overwhelmingly want high-achieving careers even after they start families. The problem is mismatched expectations between what they hope to achieve in their careers and family lives and what actually happens, both at work and at home.

Men generally expect that their careers will take precedence over their spouses’ careers and that their spouses will handle more of the child care, the study found — and for the most part, men’s expectations are exceeded. Women, meanwhile, expect that their careers will be as important as their spouses’ and that they will share child care equally — but, in general, neither happens. This pattern appears to be nearly as strong among Harvard graduates still in their 20s as it is for earlier generations.

Susan Tynan, founder of Framebridge, said her career and home life had matched her expectations. She and her husband “actively manage” a balance of jobs and child care, she said.

So even though career-oriented women don’t see their roles as different from men’s, other factors — like public policy, workplace norms and men’s expectations — are stuck in a previous era, when the lives of women and men looked very different.

“Most people think the reason for women’s stalled advancement is they prioritize family over work and ratchet back hours,” said Robin Ely, a professor and senior associate dean for culture and community at Harvard Business School, who worked on the study. “But when we looked at those things statistically, nothing explained the gender gap in membership in top management teams.”

The findings come from the first installment of data in a study by Harvard Business School that will track its alumni over time. They are a rarefied group, and their experiences are significant because many of them inhabit the top tiers of corporate America.

Nearly 7,000 alumni answered survey questions about career and life goals, and researchers weighted their answers to reflect their representation in the overall population. Male and female graduates had indistinguishable goals; they said they wanted meaningful, satisfying work and opportunities for career growth, as well as fulfilling personal lives.

Yet among those working full time, men were significantly more likely than women to have direct profit-and-loss and personnel management responsibility. Fifty-seven percent of men were in senior management positions, compared with 41 percent of women, and fewer women than men said they were satisfied with their careers.

The data show that their diverging paths are explained in part by discordant expectations in marriages. (The researchers didn’t have data on sexual orientation and assumed opposite-sex partnerships.)

About 60 percent of male graduates who were 32 to 67 years old expected that their careers would take priority over their wives’, and nearly three-quarters of the men said that turned out to be true. About 80 percent expected their spouses to do most of the child care, and that happened for 86 percent of them.

Among women in that age group, however, only 17 to 25 percent expected their husbands’ careers to take precedence, but they did so 40 percent of the time. Half of the women expected to handle a majority of child care, but nearly three-quarters said they ended up doing so.

Christina LaMontagne, an executive at NerdWallet, says generally of men’s and women’s career expectations, “There’s a bit of a gulf there that isn’t reconciling.”

Graduates ages 26 to 31 appeared to be on track to end up in similar disagreement, the study said. Only one-quarter of the women said they expected their partners’ careers to be more important than theirs, yet half the men said their careers would be more important. Forty-two percent of women expected to handle a majority of the child care, yet two-thirds of men expected that their wives would.

The imbalance between expectations and reality — even among top-level workers — is consistent with other research. The highest-earning female executives with small children spend 25 hours on child care a week, on average, while male executives spend 10, according to a study by the economists Stefania Albanesi, now with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Claudia Olivetti of Boston University.

A vast majority of the Harvard businesswomen said they were not voluntarily leaning out of their careers to care for children, the criticism levied by Sheryl Sandberg, the Facebook executive who is a fellow alumna and author of “Lean In.”

Only 11 percent of the women left the work force to care for children. When the study controlled for family-friendly career moves, like declining a promotion, they found that none explained women’s underrepresentation in senior management. “In fact, many senior managers had made such moves. “A lot of people will say companies are going to favor people who work harder,” Ms. Ely said. “But people targeted as high potential are given more slack and allowed more flexibility because companies want to keep them.”

The Harvard study found that among those women who left the work force to care for children, few did so by choice. Most said they were pushed out by employers who stigmatized mothers. Jobs for people with business degrees are some of the most inflexible, according to a study of University of Chicago Booth School of Business graduates by the economists Marianne Bertrand of the University of Chicago, and Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz, both of Harvard.

The findings of the Harvard study rang true to Christina LaMontagne, 33, an executive at NerdWallet, a personal finance start-up in San Francisco, who graduated five years ago. “That’s what I perceived from my male colleagues at H.B.S.,” she said. “Men still expect to have the dominant career, women increasingly expect to have a dominant career and there’s a bit of a gulf there that isn’t reconciling.”

Susan Tynan, 38, who graduated 11 years ago, said she was disappointed by the results of the study because her career and home life had matched her expectations. She is a mother of two and the founder and chief executive of Framebridge, an online framing company based in Lanham, Md.

She says it helps that she and her husband, who works in private equity, “are on the same page.” She said that she was upfront about her career goals, and that she and her husband “actively manage” the balancing of their jobs and child care. “I met my spouse at Harvard Business School, so he knew what he was getting into,” she said.

Not all business-school marriages are as equitable. The Booth study found that female graduates who had children and high-earning husbands worked fewer hours and were less likely to work at all than those with lower-earning spouses.

The economists said that was not only because their husbands made enough money to support the family, but also because families required parental time at home. And when someone needs to cut back at work, it tends to be the woman.

05 Dec 13:46

Now it's a felony to poach Venus Flytraps in North Carolina

Madison Metricula

Micropropagation tissue culture techniques developed at NCSU greatly reduced the volume of flytrap poaching. It also spurred an ornamental flytrap breeding program!

fly

The Venus Flytrap is my favorite plant. It looks extremely cool, eats hideous flies, and has a great name. The state of North Carolina also admires the Venus Flytrap, and will throw any creep who poaches one into prison for over years.

The Venus Flytrap is a rare carnivorous plant native to swamps near Wilmington, and its numbers have dwindled in part because of people stealing them from protected lands. Now, poaching them is a felony punishable by up to 25 months in prison.

Poaching A Venus Flytrap In North Carolina Could Now Get You Two Years In Prison

Image: Shutterstock

01 Dec 15:23

Return of Kings explains how videogames will make you a man

Madison Metricula

"The entire concept of sitting quietly and reading is meant for girls. Boys need the fight, the challenge, competition, and a test of their strength"

lolololol, that's exactly why nerds are teased for being effeminate for likening to read lololol gender

Do you even life (your head out of your torso)?

Do you even lift (your head out of your torso)?

Over on Return of Kings, one brave gamer dares to ask the question of our age: What will the world look like after the inevitable triumph of GamerGate?

I know, I know, just humor him for a few minutes. Because he has a rather, well, revealing notion of what triumph will look like, and it’s not one that’s compatible with the #NotYourShield propaganda that GamerGaters use to disguise its retrograde goals. Greendestiny, a veteran of TheRedPill and KotakuInAction on Reddit, sees in the video game “war” a new opportunity for gamebros to become Game Men:

It is my personal belief that, after GamerGate, video games will evolve to become a tool for raising a new generation of men. Our current education system fails horribly at providing real information on how the world works, what motivates people, and how to get laid.

Our education system is a disaster! Can you believe that not one college in the United States offers a major in Getlaidology?

More importantly, it pussifies men and turns them into starry-eyed believers in the Disney variety of life and love.

Huh. You know, there’s a cultural critic who’s made some interesting videos challenging the sexist tropes you can find in Disney movies and elsewhere in popular culture. Her name is Anita Sarkee… oh wait. Never mind.

The entire concept of sitting quietly and reading is meant for girls. Boys need the fight, the challenge, competition, and a test of their strength.

So why exactly are you trying to convince guys of this in a post you expect them to sit down and read? Shouldn’t your blog post be a video game or an arm-wrestling contest or something?

Games were always learning tools. Now they can become a tool for learning greater masculinity.

If by masculinity you mean “the proper sequence of buttons to push that will enable you to pull off an awesome combo.”

To become real men, boys must overcome challenges and find the true strength in themselves. Whether this is done in a virtual or real arena is irrelevant. By creating games that are consciously aimed at presenting a proper challenge, we can collectively make the world a better place for the next generation of men. And possibly help them get laid more.

“Hey, babe, I bet you didn’t know you were sitting next to a Level 90 Fire Mage.”

But seriously for a second: Yes, video games do teach gamers certain skills, and even something about the value of persistence. But why are the skills involved in, say,  shooting dudes with maximum efficiency in Call of Duty any more intrinsically valuable, or “masculine,” than the skills involved in doing this?

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related

30 Nov 20:08

If Your Career Stalled Because of Your Husband, Call It Like It Is

Madison Metricula

"Over half of male grads expected their wives' careers to take a backseat to theirs, while just 7 percent of women thought they'd take the lead. Saddest of all: Most women went into business school expecting they'd have egalitarian partnerships where both careers were valued."

Where is the line between the men thinking they have better careers available and thinking that their careers are more important than their wives'? Either way, it seems women weren't expecting it. Maybe it's just an expectation that his career is more "important" or has better "prospects" because of motherhood penalties and continued uneven childcare burdens?

Of all the people you'd expect could nail down this whole work-life balance thing, Harvard Business School MBAs would easily make the short list—smart, ambitious, well-educated people who, if nothing else, have the money to fix the problem of gender inequity when it comes to having kids. But no.

In a study of 25,000 HBS grads spanning a few decades, authors Robin Ely, Pamela Stone and Colleen Ammerman found that, although the men and women interviewed wanted the same things in terms of professional success and work-life balance over their careers, those outcomes looked a helluva lot different for women than it did for men, and it will surprise no one that the men fared better. As Jessica Grose notes over at Slate:

The male graduates were much more likely to be in senior management positions and have more responsibility and more direct reports than their female peers. But why? It's not because women are leaving the workforce en masse. The authors found, definitively, that the "opt-out" explanation is a myth. Among Gen X and baby boomers they surveyed, only 11 percent of women left the workforce to be full-time moms. That figure is lower for women of color—only 7 percent stopped working. The vast majority (74 percent) of Gen Xers, women who are currently 32-48 and in the prime of their child-rearing years, work full time, an average of 52 hours a week.

It gets worse. Over half of male grads expected their wives' careers to take a backseat to theirs, while just 7 percent of women thought they'd take the lead. Saddest of all: Most women went into business school expecting they'd have egalitarian partnerships where both careers were valued. Writes Grose:

A lot of those women were wrong. About 40 percent of Gen X and boomer women said their spouses' careers took priority over theirs, while only about 20 percent of them had planned on their careers taking a back seat. Compare that with the men: More than 70 percent of Gen X and boomer men say their careers are more important than their wives'. When you look at child care responsibilities, the numbers are starker. A full 86 percent of Gen X and boomer men said their wives take primary responsibility for child care, and the women agree: 65 percent of Gen X women and 72 percent of boomer women—all HBS grads, most of whom work—say they're the ones who do most of the child care in their relationships.

Cool fact: The study results were published in line with the 50th anniversary of women's admission into the MBA program at Harvard. Every time I read stuff like this—that women and men think they have equal marriages, but the reality is the woman does more work while her career suffers—I think again, as I often do, about Stephanie Coontz's op-ed in the NYT from 2013 titled "Why Gender Equality Stalled," which lays out a lot of the reasons this is still our current reality.

Coontz wrote, in part citing work from the same Pamela Stone who co-authored the study we're discussing here, that most couples want egalitarian relationships (72 percent, in a recent poll). They expect to share the demands of work and family life together, but increased work demands collide with general sexism in the form of lack of family friendly policies, like paid leave and affordable childcare. Add to this the motherhood penalty, as well as the pay gap, and it often means that such progressive attitudes about equal relationships rarely amount to a hill of beans in this crazy, shitty world.

Coontz said, in two key paragraphs you should commit to memory:

When people are forced to behave in ways that contradict their ideals, they often undergo what sociologists call a "values stretch" — watering down their original expectations and goals to accommodate the things they have to do to get by. This behavior is especially likely if holding on to the original values would exacerbate tensions in the relationships they depend on.

And:

When you can't change what's bothering you, one typical response is to convince yourself that it doesn't actually bother you. So couples often create a family myth about why they made these choices, why it has turned out for the best, and why they are still equal in their hearts even if they are not sharing the kind of life they first envisioned.

Family myth! Nice way of putting it. In other words, dad makes more money or is viewed as more talented, promotable, destined for greatness; kids come along; mom's career takes a backseat. Together, mom and dad serve up a hot, steaming, smiling plate of MBA-approved bullshit for dinner, and it tastes delicious, and in the end nothing changes. If everyone already thinks things are as equal as they can be, why would those husbands push for better leave policies at work?

So what is to be done? Back at Slate, Grose notes that many female CEOs have husbands who function more like the wives of the past, not working and focusing on kids so the women can focus on careers (or in one case, a lady CEO married a man 20 years older whose career was ending as hers was picking up). Grose cites writer Linda Hirshman's controversial advice to marry down, that, "If you are devoted to your career goals and would like a man who will support that, you're just doing what men throughout the ages have done: placing a safe bet."

Ah yes, marrying down. What men have done for ages, except it wasn't called that because for most of history women have never been expected to be anything but attractive and docile in the first place. The problem with this thinking about women marrying down is that lots of women "marry down" already, and still make less than their husbands, even if they have more degrees. Also, in my opinion, "marrying down" is among the most unsavory concepts in existence, because it places a person's value entirely on education and earning power or looks or status, which has almost nothing to do with whether they will be a good person to hitch your wagon to for a lifetime, much less take care of a kid with you.

Is this the best we can do? Can two ambitious people not sort this problem out any better? Coontz noted that it's not personal attitudes getting in the way, but when I think about lagging policies, the pay gap, mommy-tracking, marrying down, and the many individual couples where it appears equal but the mom is the one running herself ragged doing all the shit, all I see are terrible attitudes—behind every lack of legislation, every bit of pay discrepancy, and yes, every individual couple who chooses to, yet again, let mom sit another round of life success out because that's just how it seems to need to be.

It's one thing for two people to honestly negotiate who gets to be the most satisfied and nurtured by their career with constraints beyond their control—more of that, please, everybody. But when every study shows it's near impossible to do that, and that men are near universally leading the results in these polls, it might be time to stop serving up so much well-intentioned bullshit and stop calling this egalitarian. After all, how does anything change if we're all believing our own myths?

30 Nov 20:02

Jodi Picoult Says Fuck You to Lit World Sexism (and Nicholas Sparks)

Madison Metricula

Sing it, Jodi.

"Look at The Marriage Plot by Jeffrey Eugenides. If I had written that, it would have had a pink, fluffy cover on it. If Jenny Eugenides had written it, it would have had a pink fluffy cover on it. What is it about? It's about a woman choosing between two men."

After nearly two decades as a highly successful published author, Jodi Picoult is out on yet another book tour (this time for her novel Leaving Time) and not holding back on kickass soundbites about how shitty the lit world tends to be for women writers. And she even has a special "go fuck yourself" saved for King Cornball, Nicholas Sparks.

Picoult has written almost two dozen books in her career and yet critics and publishers still dismiss her as an author of airport fiction or—EVEN WORSE—"chick lit."

From her excellent interview with The Telegraph:

...Despite this success – 23 novels in 22 years, eight of which have been number one on the New York Times bestseller list – she struggles to be taken seriously. "I write women's fiction," she says, an 'apparently' hanging in the air. "And women's fiction doesn't mean that's your audience. Unfortunately, it means you have lady parts."

Picoult has long been calling out the hypocrisy of literary critics who look down on authors like her (i.e. female authors) and then fall over themselves to praise male romance writers like Jonathan Franzen. She thankfully has continued bringing it up, now adding:

"If a woman had written One Day [by David Nicholls], it would have been airport fiction. Look at The Marriage Plot by Jeffrey Eugenides. If I had written that, it would have had a pink, fluffy cover on it. If Jenny Eugenides had written it, it would have had a pink fluffy cover on it. What is it about? It's about a woman choosing between two men. What is The Corrections about, by Jonathan Franzen? It's about a family, right? And I'm attacking gun control and teen suicide and end-of-life care and the Holocaust, and I'm writing women's fiction? I mean, I can't tell you. When people call The Storyteller chick-lit, I actually break up laughing. Because that is the worst, most depressing chick-lit ever."

And then there's this:

Has she ever thought of writing under a pen name?

"I did once," she says. "So let me tell you what happened. I wrote a book under a man's name. It was years ago, my kids were really tiny. It was when The Bridges of Madison County [by Robert James Waller] had been published. Nicholas Sparks was becoming big [as a romantic novelist]. Please don't get me started on Nicholas Sparks," she says, rolling her eyes. "I haven't had enough caffeine yet." But anyway.

"I was so angry about these men who had co-opted a genre that women had been slaving over for years. There are some really phenomenal romance writers who get no credit, who couldn't even get a hardback deal. And these men waltzed in and said, 'Look what we can do. We can write about love. And we are so special.' And that just made me crazy." Her agent tried to sell her pseudonymous book, but was told it was too well written for the male romance genre. "So there you go," she says, angry, and yet ever-so-slightly pleased.

I don't know what's more bothersome—the idea that anything written by women for women is immediately considered valueless or that stupid stories by men are automatically held up as examples of fine art.

Image via Getty.

30 Nov 20:00

All The Clues And WTF Moments In The New Jurassic World Trailer

Madison Metricula

Sold:

"Early whispers about this Owen character imply that he was hired as a dinosaur trainer. Are these his trained raptors? Is he unleashing his trained raptors to help him hunt down the super dinosaur? Were all previous raptors simply misunderstood, or did this character have to train every ounce of wild out of these beasts to get him to do his bidding. Are we comfortable with that? It seems both wildly unnecessary and needlessly ridiculous. But I can't argue with reading a script that says "Owen revs up his bike and takes off in the woods, his loyal raptor pack screams and runs at his side." I mean that's fucking great"

The Jurassic World trailer gave us some amazing dinosaur action, but also raised lots of questions. We've broken it down, frame by frame, to try and find some answers. And we need to have a serious discussion about Chris Pratt's raptor biker gang.

The Jurassic World trailer was a very emotional experience for all of us. Especially when the piano started plinking away at the Jurassic Park theme. However, there are some lingering questions that need to be addressed. For now, let's start at the beginning.

A pair of brothers, why ever would we be meeting these brothers? Hello audience entry point. Also hello little kid from Iron Man 3.

Judy Greer and that guy from The Office are in this? Great. Love her.

Your first look at "the island." And how park guests get to said island. Apparently it's by boat.

But once inside the park it looks like the whole thing is run by tram. Personal Ford Explorers — all guests ride the monorail! Or tram, or whatever it is.

Brand new, re-branded doors. Not really sure why they are keeping the term Jurassic, but who cares, I know what that means. As you can see inside the doors, the whole thing is set up with a railway running through it.

And the park is slammed with tourists. Note the many folks in the tan hats, I suspect these folks are park rangers. Also note the many different languages displayed in the sign. I'm guessing a dinosaur park would be a fairly large attraction. But did the new owners keep John Hammond's vision, and make the entrance price tag low enough for everyone to afford?

And here come the attractions. Driving in fields with dinosaurs! This could possibly be the "Gallimimus Valley," as was noted in a leaked map — although the map was never authenticated.

Kayaking with dinosaurs! The "Cretaceous Cruise?"

A "gyrosphere!"

Which is basically this badass thing right here.

And now we journey over to the "underwater" part of Jurassic World. This arena is channeling a strong resemblance to Sea World. And if Jurassic World is about to make some not-so-veiled Blackfish references, I am down!

What's for dinner? What appears to be a Great White Shark.

Whats in the tank? A Mosasaurus (according to the never authenticated map that included a "Mosasaurus Feeding Show.")

Don't forget to instagram that shit, people. #jurassicworld

All right, the fun time is over. Now the trailer heads to the other side of the island, the science part, where everyone is flipping dinosaur eggs, looking at amber mosquitos and making terrible, terrible decisions.

Enter Bryce Dallas Howard as the new John Hammond. Her character (named Claire) announces that "they" have created the first ever genetically modified hybrid dinosaur. She says this with the unearned confidence of a oblivious villain who is about to learn a big lesson about playing god THE HARD WAY.

Why a hybrid dinosaur? My only guess is that somehow the studio told the makers of Jurassic World that everyone is tired of old, tired dinosaurs. And that if they want to make this movie, they need to make some sort of insane transformer dinosaur, because why would someone ever want to watch a regular dinosaur? So they gave a dinosaur an upgrade. Cue the hybrid bubble tank of a wired, um, dinosaur spine? I honestly don't know.

Chris Pratt's character (Owen) is suspicious of this idea, "You just went and made a new dinosaur? Probably not a good idea." Ya burnt Bryce.

So far Pratt has the best lines in this trailer. I'm starting to think that his entire dialogue might be made up of "cool guy" sarcasm lines. And that's great coming from a guy wearing leather vest on a tropical island.

Moving on to another Pratt scene, somehow the the hybrid dino was birthed and raised and has already escaped. Now it's up to Pratt (we guess) to pick up the pieces and fix the big mess that the suits upstairs made. The trailer shows 40-foot clawed wall and indicates that the super dino climbed out, for reasons.

This missing dinosaur spells trouble. So the trailer heads to the Jurassic World control room, where Chris Pratt tells Bryce Dallas Howard and her excellent all white pantsuit, "Evacuate the Island."

They are the same person. Get it? You get it.

And now it's super smart dinosaur stalling time. Pratt comes across a mangled gyrosphere! SHOOT HER SHOOOOOOOT HER!

This is Chris Pratt's best "there was a dinosaur here" face.

Fancy tracking watch, is marred by blood drops. It is strongly hinted that the super dino is about to eat this fancy watch, and the person wearing it.

The previously introduced kids are off the beaten path and jumping into waterfalls. This spells both trouble and smacks of Jurassic Park's original plot line. I'm fine with that.

Flare Homage. (Good to see Bryce getting her hands dirty).

First glimpse of the super dinosaur. It has HUGE claws.

Tourists and the boys run away from something frightening.

And now the most pressing moment of the entire trailer. At the very end you hear Pratt's motorcycle rev up. Cut to a bunch of raptors in a cage that are "unleashed." Cut to Pratt riding his motorcycle, THROUGH A JUNGLE.

But Pratt's ability to ride a bike off road through a jungle aside, there are bigger questions here, for instance, why aren't any of the raptors trying to eat Chris Pratt? Why doesn't he look upset/worried about the released raptors. Is this Chris Pratt's RAPTOR PACK?

Early whispers about this Owen character imply that he was hired as a dinosaur trainer. Are these his trained raptors? Is he unleashing his trained raptors to help him hunt down the super dinosaur? Were all previous raptors simply misunderstood, or did this character have to train every ounce of wild out of these beasts to get him to do his bidding. Are we comfortable with that? It seems both wildly unnecessary and needlessly ridiculous. But I can't argue with reading a script that says "Owen revs up his bike and takes off in the woods, his loyal raptor pack screams and runs at his side." I mean that's fucking great, I just don't know how I'm going to believe it. We were trained by Robert Muldoon to respect and fear the raptors. Not make them matching biker jackets. I dunno.

Don't get me wrong, I'm REALLY excited about Jurassic World, especially if they are going to draw parallels to the current places that are abusing and cruelly constricting the animals they have in captivity. We shouldn't be making nature bow to commerce in this grotesque way. This was the theme of the original film, and we all learned that "life finds a way."

24 Nov 16:47

The History of Abortifacients

Madison Metricula

Neat! Also, I have read all but one of those texts cited at the end.

The peacock flower (or flos pavonis) is an arresting plant, standing nine feet tall in full bloom, with brilliant red and yellow blossoms. But it's more than beautiful; it's an abortifacient, too. One of the most striking records of the plant comes from German-born botanical illustrator Maria Sibylla Merian who, in her 1705 book Metamorphosis of the Insects of Surinam, recounts:

The Indians, who are not treated well by their Dutch masters, use the seeds [of this plant] to abort their children, so that their children will not become slaves like they are. The black slaves from Guinea and Angola have demanded to be well treated, threatening to refuse to have children. They told me this themselves.

Merian wrote this account after traveling to Surinam, then a Dutch colony, for the purpose of recording the country's plants and insects. She had hoped to make a major discovery by uncovering a plant like quinine, which had made both planters and botanist rich. In the early eighteenth century, applied botany was big business. Advances in the field had opened a new world of medicines. But Merian made no such discoveries, recording instead the little-valued knowledge of slave women whose use of the peacock flower was deeply political.

She wasn't the first to describe these qualities. Two other naturalists had also discovered the peacock flower's use as an abortifacient in the West Indies. Michel Descourtilz, a Frenchman, had observed its same use in Haiti, writing with disdain of the "ill intentions of the 'negress' who aborted their offspring." Another remarked on the "guilty practice of preventing pregnancy by use of herbs" and was surprised that slave women used them effectively, that the "drinks did not destroy health."

Merian's own account of the peacock flower is a vast departure from her contemporaries and a truly remarkable record. Though short, her description ascribes rationality to the act of abortion which, in the hands of Surinam's slave women, is an act of resistance: a reclamation of their bodies and reproductive processes—neither of which, by legal standards of the eighteenth century, they owned. Equally striking about Merian's description is the plainness of her language, her open usage of the word "abortion," and the directness of the plant's illicit uses. Merian does not moralize about the usage of the seeds: she simply conveys what other women have told her.

But the most fascinating thing about Merian's revelation about the peacock flower was its total lack of dissemination within European medical communities. Metamorphosis of the Insects of Surinam was widely used by both botanists and men of medicine—so much so that intact copies today fetch incredibly high prices. And the peacock flower itself came to Europe: merchants valued the plant's looks and shipped large numbers of its poisonous seeds to their home countries, where the flower decorated nearly every royal garden.

Outside of Merian's book, however, there was virtually no mention of the abortive qualities of the peacock flowers.

While the scientific revolution and colonialism aided the discovery numerous medicinal herbs, Europe collectively engaged in a kind of culturally induced amnesia of abortifacients. Londa Schiebinger, a feminist historian of science, notes: "The same forces feeding the explosion of knowledge we associate with the Scientific Revolution and global expansion led to an implosion of knowledge of herbal abortifacients. European awareness of antifertility agents declined over the course of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."

The story of the peacock flower is a microcosm of a larger history of abortifacients: knowledge passed from woman to woman, often outside the boundaries of traditional medical discourses and, therefore, forever confined to a moral realm of danger and superstition. But despite hundreds of years of legal and religious repression, the abortifacient endured, proving that the desire for reproductive freedom is not nearly as modern as some argue.

The history of abortifacients is a narrative that parallels and informs our own contemporary debates over them, particularly in the wake of the Hobby Lobby decision. It's a history that has always been mired in the murky waters of what exactly an abortifacient is; what constitutes life, and when does it begin? But it's also a story of the incredible flexibility of legal systems that found ever-new and astonishing ways to suppress reproductive freedom.

Abortifacients are nearly as old as the written word itself, as early as 1085, when Constantine the African included iris, rue, willow and stinking ferula as effective herbs for inducing menses. Even before that, Muhuammed ibn Zakariya Al-Razi described a cinnamon, rue, and wallflower broth for similar purposes in a text dating between 865-925.

Abortifacients were mixed and were, it seems, readily available through midwives or "wise women" throughout the Roman era. There were few laws governing their use, in large part because of the broader sense at the time of when a pregnancy actually began. The determination of pregnancy was left to the woman, who would not have been considered pregnant until she actually declared herself so. Such determination almost always came after the quickening (when a woman actually feels fetal movement), which can occur anywhere between 14 and 20 weeks into a pregnancy.

It's worth remembering then that until the nineteenth century, the use of abortifacients prior to the quickening would not have been considered abortion (at least in the same way we define abortion). Throughout the first trimester, women were generally free to take herbs intended to end a pregnancy. The few laws that existed applied only to visible or announced pregnancies, and even then were regulated much like theft: the right of the father was protected and the fetus itself was not a person under the law. The law seemed content with the ambiguity of "life" and when it began within the womb.

Most early medieval laws adopted the Roman position on pregnancy and early abortion. According to the Catholic Church, life began at "ensoulment," which just so happened to coincide with quickening. But the Church still took a dim view of herbal abortifacients and contraception. During confession, priests began asking women: "Have you drunk any maleficium, that is herbs or other agents, so that you could not have children?" But in answering "yes," women did not yet risk their mortal soul, nor their freedom. They could simply make amends by following the priest's guidance.

There was a sense though, even in the Middle Ages, that pregnancy should be more strictly regulated. And the Church's position began to change when Thomas Aquinas wrote what would become the church's official stance: sex was solely for procreation. Aquinas argued that interference with natural laws of reproduction were immoral because it violated the "right reason" of Biblical law. Abortifacients, before and after the fetus had "formed," were considered a violation of natural reproduction gifted by God. Still, it's important to note that, even within this position, Aquinas doesn't offer a new definition about life: his philosophies were still rooted in the ancient understanding that pregnancy begins only after the quickening.

But Aquinas's writing hints at the Church's deep discomfort with abortifacients, as well as a restlessness over "ensoulment" or conception beginning so late into a pregnancy. The law, however, was not on their side: attempts to regulate "midwives' drink" had only produced statutes with no teeth. European history is littered with cases of women charged with abortion only to be found not guilty because of their insistence that the quickening had not yet happened.

And so, herbal abortion drugs continued to be recorded in "books of secrets," pseudo-scientific books that were just as much about decoding those puzzling creatures—"women"—as they were about science. These were readily available, and most importantly for women at the time, midwives were trained with knowledge about the usage and dosage of herbal abortifacients.

When the Catholic Church realized that they could neither regulate abortifacients, nor convict the women who might have used them, they began persecuting the source of the knowledge. Midwives were targeted heavily during the hundreds of years that Europe burned witches at the stake. After all, the Bible clearly instructed the death of witches in Exodus 22:18: "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live."

"In the suppression of witchcraft," writes historian John Riddle, "three separate and distinct things—witchcraft, midwifery, and birth control—were joined in an unfortunate, unholy marriage." Not all witches were midwives, nor were all midwives witches, but intersection between witchcraft and midwifery was forged in common law. "Sevenfold Witchcraft" included everything from adultery to bestiality and "offering children to devils." But it also focused on the midwife's knowledge of reproduction, contraception, and herbal abortifacients. Witchcraft included: "obstructing the generative act" by making men impotent, "destroying the generative force in women," and "procuring abortion.

It's difficult to surmise why exactly midwives were singled out during the centuries that witch burning endured—the need for population growth, psychotic stress, the control of women's bodies, the enforcement of religious law may all have something to do with it—but there was a clear path forged between women's sexuality and midwives and thus with sorcery. To be clear, the vast majority of women prosecuted for witchcraft were tried for sexual deviancy (adultery, homosexuality, etc.), but a significant number were practicing midwives. In Salem, one of the more famous trials was of Anne Hutchinson, a practicing midwife. And of the almost 200 women accused in Salem, twenty percent were identified as midwives.

Witch trials also coincided with the professionalization of the physician, who, armed with formal university education, regarded the midwife as the product of country superstition and irrationality. The midwife's knowledge of anti-fertility herbs was largely excluded from medical instruction. As the medical profession solidified itself, women were shut further out. The position of medical men was reinforced by the Church who, in a papal decree, stated "If a woman dare to cure without having studied she is a witch and must die."

So midwives stopped learning and stopped prescribing. Witch burning was an effective tool of breaking a chain of knowledge about abortifacients that had been in circulation for a thousand years.

The chain of knowledge was broken, but the demand for abortifacients never diminished. And to avoid persecution under the law, those that trafficked in herbal supplements used language meant to cloak the actual purposes of their drugs. Perhaps this is why Merian was surprised by the plain words of Surinam's slave women. By the time Merian entered the field of applied botany, abortifacients were concealed beneath layers of secrecy; if Merian knew anything about herbal abortifacients, it was likely through Latin texts. "Menstrual stimulators" appeared in a handful of seventeenth and eighteenth-century gynecology texts; apothecaries hocked drinks that promised "natural purgations" and herbs mean to "bringeth down the menses."

In a rare kind of text from 1671, a Mrs. Jane Sharp published a guide for midwives meant to avoid the "many miseries women endure in the hands of unskilled midwives." Sharp included in her guide plants would cause a miscarriage like "alpine snakeroot." By the fourth edition, "miscarriage" herbs were omitted, but menstrual stimulators ("artemisia, tansy, pennyroyal and catnip, taken with cinnamon water") remained in the book. But Sharp included a necessary warning: "do none of these things to women with child for that will be murder." Some historians have suggested that language like this parallels our own drug labelling, particularly the familiar disclaimer: "Do not take if pregnant or nursing."

By the eighteenth century, too, the taking and selling of abortifacients slowly became illegal. But it was hard to identify substances because of the cloak-and-dagger manner in which they were labelled. And it continued this way well into the nineteenth century. Victorian women in search a remedy to her "female problems" could open the newspaper and choose from any number of pills and powders to cure their ills. Many came with a winking disclaimer that they should not be used during pregnancy.

Many of the pills and powders offered were far from safe. Abortifacients were not tested or regulated, and were about as safe as a back-alley surgical abortion. Some of the pills and powders were placebos, some purgatives or laxatives, and others straight up poisons.

The British Medical Journal noted that between 1893 and 1905, "hundreds of cases of lead poisoning from [ingesting] diachylon [a lead oleate] were occurring every year, so much so that in out-patient rooms of Nottingham and Sheffield hospitals it became routine practice to examine the gums of women patients." The Journal and the British Medical Association's response was not to regulate abortifacients nor to make them safer and more accessible. Instead they joined with the London Council of Public Morality and drew up a bill that made "the advertisement and sale or drugs or articles designed for promoting miscarriage or procuring abortion to be made illegal, and that to advertise drugs or articles designed from the prevention of conception should also be illegal."

Their bill—which threw in contraception for fun—successfully passed in 1906. The British Medical Association celebrated the "most effective available restriction on the sale…of abortifacients." The laws only pushed the abortifacient trade farther underground, making the drugs more and more dangerous.

But if England's law had been so successful, it's because they had a blueprint from which to trace. In the United States an 1873 federal law, known as the Comstock Law, had legislated the mailing of anything that fell under an incredibly broad-sweeping definition of obscenity. It included "obscene" printed materials, contraceptives and abortifacients, and "obscene" private correspondence. The Comstock Law played a significant role in late-nineteenth century efforts to keep sex tied to reproduction. And the law, named for its champion and enforcer Anthony Comstock, directly targeted those who sold abortifacients. Language that was considered obscene was almost entirely left up to Comstock and, with great zeal, he hunted down anyone who offered "female regulators." Comstock caught the infamous abortionist Madame Restall, caught Chicago physician Ida Lincoln who offered to provide an abortifacient by mail in response to an 1898 decoy letter, and almost single-handedly shut down the remaining sale of anything resembling a safe abortifacient. The irony of Comstock's persecutory fanaticism was that, all the while, the use of abortifacients prior to the quickening was still largely legal.

While Comstock hunted down abortion providers, states began redefining the moment of conception. In Maine, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said that the ancient understanding of life at quickening "had been abandoned by all jurists in all countries where an enlightened jurisprudence exists in practice." And the rest of the states fell like dominoes, all agreeing that life began at conception and abortion or abortion-inducing drugs were all illegal.

If that wasn't enough, between 1919 and 1934 the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued legal restraints against fifty-seven "feminine hygiene products" including "Blair's Female Tablets" and "Madame LeRoy's Regulative Pills."

By the twentieth century, women had almost completely lost a kind of reproductive freedom that they had enjoyed since at least the dawn of the Roman Empire.

If there is a sense today that abortifacients are dangerous, it is likely because the knowledge of them and the research about them have been suppressed for so long. To make them broadly accessible—to enable the post-clinic abortion—would require a radical act: an acknowledgment that women are trustworthy enough and rational enough to make decisions about their own reproduction.

It would seem, instead, that the ugly cycle of this particular history is repetitive: women want accessible abortions, laws are enacted to "protect" women, women risk their health to secure their freedom. In this cycle, women are framed as acting irrational by risking their lives; the law is always rational, it always prevails. The law is so rational that in 1993 when numerous Brazilian women were hospitalized for incomplete abortions after taking an ulcer drug, the law's response was to make it even harder for pregnant women to obtain any drug. The law was working to protect life. And indeed, the law is so rational that nations have quite literally mobilized warships to prevent abortifacients from entering the country. Misoprostol is dangerous enough to warrant the powerful guns of a modern military.

But perhaps more importantly is the constant attempt to rewrite definitions of "life," "conception," and "abortifacient." For Hobby Lobby and like-minded individuals to consider Plan B, Ella, or IUDs an abortifacient requires both the belief that pregnancy begins at the microscopic level of fertilization and radical revision of the definition of an abortifacient. It also requires a complete erasure of a particular history, namely a history of women. To deny the reality that women have always sought their right to reproductive freedom—long before feminism "infected" post-modern ideology—is not only to be on the wrong side of history, it's to ignore that history exists.

Stassa Edwards is a freelance writer and editor.

Top image by Jim Cooke, original illustration by Maria Sibylla Merian in the Metamorphosis of the Insects of Surinam; second image from The Library Company.

Sources/Additional Reading:

Karen Abbott, "Madame Restell: The Abortionist of Fifth Avenue," Smithsonian. Available online.

John M. Riddle, Eve's Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West. Harvard University Press, 1997

Londa Schiebinger, The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science. Harvard University Press, 1989.

Londa Schiebinger, "Lost Knowledge, Bodies of Ignorance, and the Poverty of Taxonomy as Illustrated by the Curious Fate of Flos Pavonis, an Abortifacient," in Picturing Science, Producing Art. Routledge, 1998. Read more of Schiebinger's work online.

23 Nov 18:35

Vox Day: Actually, it's about keeping women out of gaming

Vox Day: Defending video gaming against icky girls

Vox Day: Defending video gaming against icky girls

Leave it to Vox Day, the proudly reactionary sci-fi author and game developer, to say what most of his #GamerGate comrades spend so much energy denying: that their little movement is at least in part a backlash against women in gaming. At least against real women, with their own opinions.

As Vox writes in a post on his Alpha Game blog,

Games have long been an escape from women and social pressure for many young men, so it should surprise no one that they aren’t particularly keen on seeing their retreat invaded by the very things from which they are escaping.

So why exactly do guys want an escape from women? Well, as Vox once explained in an interview with “Dr. Helen” for her book Men On Stike,

Women can be entertaining, but they’re expensive, inaccessible for most men, and from the male perspective, shockingly unreliable.

What makes it worse, Vox suggests on his blog, is that the kind of guys who play a lot of video games aren’t exactly the guys scoring the top quality women.

When people ask a gamma or an omega if he wouldn’t rather be out and about “with a real girl” instead of playing games, they should first keep in mind what sort of “real girl” is probably on offer for him. And considering the alternatives, who can truly blame him if he looks at his choices and decides that games and porn are genuinely the better option.

Huh. Aren’t you a game developer, Vox? I thought the first rule of GamerGate is that journalists and developers shouldn’t insult their customers.

But GamerGaters were quick to pardon Mytheos Holt for calling them all a bunch of dateless losers, and I suspect they’ll do the same with Vox, because no matter how pathetic he thinks most gamers are, it’s clear he thinks women are worse.

Like this:

Like Loading...

Related