Latest Project

I apologize for the lack of posting (as I seem to do with every post). Real life has been insane these last few months, but I have a post or two I've been cooking up. One of which is this one, in which I call upon you (yes, you) to lend me a helping hand.

I have a project I want to being work on, as it will require a great deal of time and research to complete. For those of who were previously unaware, my father's side of my family is Appalachian. That is, I am descended from Irish, Scottish, and German immigrants that were found few opportunities on the coasts when they arrived here, so they traveled west, to the Great Smoky Mountains, where they settled. The Appalachian Mountains have been a relatively isolated region both culturally and economically for the majority of the time that European settlers have lived there. As such, the culture and traditions of this region are unique and seemingly reminiscent of another time.

One of the most honored traditions is that of storytelling. Stories passed down from one generation to another were vital in a society in which literacy was rare. Oral traditions are how histories and myths are preserved in the mountains. My project is going to be part of that great tradition, but with my own personal twist on it.

This is where you come in.

I need stories. Memories. Observations. Family lore. Anything. What I am specifically looking for are the stories of women who are from Appalachia, or people descended from those women who know their stories. I am most interested in the generational differences between Appalachian women and the relationships these mountain women have with each other and with other women in their families. My Nana raised me for 5 years, and she is a mountain woman through and through; and as I've gotten older, I've come to realize that although a part of me identifies with her and her culture, I am also removed from it by time, distance (having mostly lived in non-Appalachian regions), and education. I don't know that I would, or even really could consider myself a mountain woman. If you are in a similar position, or you left the mountains to pursue career, education, or other opportunities, let me know. How do you feel, looking back on where you came from?

So please, send me these stories. They can be yours, your mother's, grandmother's, aunt's, cousin's, whomever's. I will take whatever you have. You have my thanks in advance.

Life Update

So sorry for the lack of posts. I've been busy with real life; classes, work, and my health has been acting up again. There are some days where it is a struggle to get out of bed.

But, I have some pretty awesome news, despite all the terrible things women have been facing lately in various legislatures. I have been taking a self defense course this semester, and doing fairly well in it. As a result, my sensei wants me to become a certified instructor in FAST Defense so that I can be her aid next semester. I am incredibly excited for this opportunity to help these kids avoid violent encounters, and more specifically, help other girls be able to defend themselves from the violence I have encountered.

Already we've had several girls in the class be triggered while practicing skills, but they were real troopers and kept on practicing. Their experiences hardened their resolve to learn these skills. The look of excitement and success on their faces when they finally master a technique is so rewarding. This is an unexpected turn my life is taking, but I am looking forward to seeing where it takes me.

Hopefully with the summer coming up, I'll have a bit more time to get some blogging done; especially with the general election coming up soon!

The GOP Knows No Bounds

I'm not dead, I promise.

Perhaps I'm like a feminist Hulk; it takes getting really angry to go on an argument-destroying rant.

Or maybe I'm like the fabled 'Bloody Mary' ghost of my youth; publicly diss women three times in a month, and I rise up to haunt your woman-hating ass.

Who knows. But I have to take a break out of the studio to write this and link to some of the many things that have been getting under my skin lately.

First, there's that blatant rape apologist that was on Faux News concerning the rising numbers of sexual assaults reported in the military.

Second, Virginia passed a law requiring doctors to vaginally rape women prior to an abortion. Yup.

Then PETA, in ever-greatening suckitude releases a video downplaying the severity of domestic abuse situations. Oh PETA, the organization that tact forgot.

And the thing the has been coming at me from all sides today:
The Catholics are angry. This should come as no surprise, as the various Archdiocese of this country find all sorts of things to get their panties into a twist over. But now they don't want to just affect their own neck of the woods; oh no, they want to crack down of all of us heathens living in sin.

They want to be exempt from the health care law requiring no co-pay for contraception. They don't want just themselves to be exempt, and they don't want just religious organizations to be exempt- the want any and all employers to deny coverage for anything they damn well please. Republicans the House Committee on Oversight are trying to say that this is a freedom of religion issue. That is a load of crock. This is a women's health issue. These privileged old white dude running archaic dogmatic institutions want to be able to deny basic female health care.

The republicans are finally showing their true colors. They, as a party, have taken up repressing women's rights to their own bodies as a fundamental cause. They don't care about the economy, or jobs, or foreign policy, or immigration policy; they want women back in the home and out of the workplace just like the "good ol' days". Perhaps the only silver lining to this is that they decided to launch this all out crusade in an election year. They have just shot themselves in the foot.

To make you feel better, here's a cute little chameleon:

A Response, to a Response, to a Response, to a Response to JT

Now that finals have finished kicking my ass, I can finally get around to responding to the most recent post by Gina Calaianni.

I am going to try and keep this somewhat short, as I fear writing myself into circles on this one. The first thing in Gina's response that put me off from the get-go, was the second paragraph in, where she restates her struggles and experience with mental illness:
To those people who said to just ignore my previous post, I ask: Would you say the same thing to someone who is struggling?

Uhm... what? What does finding your first post ridiculous and off-base have to do with helping someone suffering from a mental illness? Non sequitur, much?
I was writing as someone who knows what it’s like to live with a mental disorder coming both from my perspective and the perspective of other women who struggle with these issues on a daily basis. [...] It makes no sense to me why a blog reader would dismiss offhand the perspective of someone who has lived with the diagnosis of a mental disorder for 15 years and has come out on the other side for the better.

She reiterates her 'expertise' with mental illness, as someone who has interacted with and has suffered from mental illness. I dismissed her post (being "insolent" and "condescending" along the way) because the whole thing seemed to be her projections of her opinions on how mental illness should be discussed onto JT's talk, and not an actual response to his speech. She also failed to say exactly why the skeptical community should specifically not take on mental disorders (which she does in her reply post, but I'll get to that later).

If the possession of a mental illness somehow makes her more qualified than someone such as myself or JT to suggest possible issues for the skeptical community, then I'm not quite sure what to think. I have stated in previous posts about my own mental illnesses (Depression, PTSD, Anxiety), and the periods of time I was symptomatic and diagnosed. I too have spoke to countless others with mental illnesses, particularly other women who have survived sexual violence. If I were to go by Gina's apparent measure of 'expertise' and apparent right to speak on a topic, I am just as qualified as she. Her experiences with illness is no more or less valid than anyone else, and for her to pretend it is is downright insulting.

The next thing Gina responds to is JTs lack of saying we should abandon battling religious thought. She shoots herself in the foot by quoting him directly here:
Our movement is evolving. The way we approach things is changing. And to come in here and do a talk about how to beat a bunch of religious arguments isn’t something we really need anymore.

What JT is saying here is simple: We don't really need another talk about how to dismantle religious arguments. That's it. And it makes sense. That is not to say we should stop fighting religion. It just means that there is already a plethora of resources available to those looking to dismantle religious arguments. That horse has run it's race. Until the religious come up with a new argument for their beliefs, everything has already been addressed... a lot, in fact. The resources are out there. To add to them is just beating a dead horse. It's time to start adding to the genres of skeptical thought where the resources aren't quite so plentiful.
They were told that “[discussion of religious arguments] isn’t something we really need anymore.” Note the lack of context in that statement.

She blatantly changes what he said. He didn't say discussion of religious arguments isn't needed. He said that discussion on how to beat religious arguments isn't needed anymore (something I agree with). Like I said before, until there is a new argument that crops up that needs to be examined, "how-to"s on tearing apart religious arguments don't need to be popping up at every conference.

I'm going to skip the whole "Therapy vs. Pills" thing, just because it annoys me and I'm going to discuss that in another post entirely.

Moving on to JT discussing mental illness at all... *licks chops*
Jen McCreight can talk authoritatively about genetics because she studies genetics. Hemant has a degree in math education; he has been trained to teach math. Jamila Bey does not pretend to be a sociologist when she speaks. She talks about her experiences and draws conclusions which follow from them. PZ Myers has a degree in biology; he has been trained to teach biology and has the credibility and knowledge needed in order to debate creationists from a position of standing. JT doesn’t have a degree in psychology. He isn’t trained as a clinical psychologist. If he wants to give a talk on what it’s like living with a mental illness, I don’t have a problem with that.

To quote myself from my last post... "Really? Are you fucking serious?" He doesn't claim to have a degree or be an expert. He only claims to be crazy. She continues with:
But his talk specifically addressed the fact that the skeptic community must take on the issue of mental illness, and he didn’t mention any names regarding who is or should be leading this discussion. So in my mind, that leaves one person leading this discussion: JT. Why? Because he didn’t mention anything about this issue that’s already being discussed in the skeptic community, and he didn’t mention anyone else he had in mind regarding who could lead the discussion regarding mental illness.

I can't help but laugh. So I guess Jen McCreight shouldn't talk about diversity in the skeptical movement. And Hemant shouldn't talk about godless dating. They are by no means "certified experts." Seriously, he was invited to give a speech. He can give a talk about horse training for all I care. It's his talk, he can talk about whatever he damn well pleases.

What baffles me is the cognitive leaps Gina makes. It doesn't seem to occur to her that JT solely discussed his own experiences and his experiences in sharing his illness publicly (which is...what she recommends he do? But he already did? Huh?), and at no point claimed to be an expert. He just... talked. Also, it doesn't seem to occur that JT not mentioning anything already being discussed or who should be leading the discussion is the very reason why he is calling out for the skeptical community to take on mental illness. Finding reliable sources on mental illness (particularly the nuances of certain conditions) can often take much more digging than it really should. The information coffers within the skeptical community on mental illness are nowhere near as full as the ones on debunking religious, ghost, psychic, and medium claims. This lack of readily accessible and common-place knowledge is the exact reason why JT wants this to be a cause supported.

This leads to the end, where Gina at last says why the skeptical community should not take this cause on:
The reason I believe that the skeptic community should not take on the issue of mental illness is that the subject matter is not one to be taken lightly—it can include life-threatening conditions.  Misinformation or basing opinions only on one person’s experience could result in giving potentially fatal advice to someone, and it is easy to think that we are stating facts when we recite something that we have heard as a truth but do not have the medical knowledge to evaluate.

Little does Gina know that the reason she lists as to why the skeptical community should not take mental illness on is the exact reason JT gives for why it should. Seriously, this is what he says:

There is this tremendous ignorance of the way the brain works in society at large, and this stigma on mental illness, that not only keeps people like me from coming out of the closet, from getting the help we need to try and live something closer to normalcy, that’s something that kills us, it’s like homeopathy on steroids. And it’s something that skepticism would cure.

By the skeptical community taking this on, it would help spread more reliable information. It could lead to a call for more evidence-based response to mental health treatments. The public (yes, including skeptics like JT!) could become more aware of the myths surrounding mental illness and it's various treatments. Doesn't she understand all these issues she has with the inaccuracies in JTs talk could be remedied in the future by skeptics promoting facts?

She also seems to think JT wants ALL OF SKEPTICISM to take this on, and that is just ridiculous. But by throwing your net wide, you are sure to catch some fish, no? By making a very public call to all of the skeptical community, by sharing his personal struggles publicly, JT may have inspired those who may be interested in mental health, or health in general, within the community, to pick up this cause and support it, giving it momentum.

There is no good reason for skeptics to not pursue this topic. Now, I say that knowing that only the people that are interested will do so. Duh. I don't expect every single person that comes across my blog to take up every single cause that I do. But if they are interested in at least one or two of the causes I support, then that's perfectly fine. Or if I am able to enlighten them on something, then I have accomplished something. Knowing JT, I know his goal is not all that dissimilar to mine. And Gina should be able to understand that.

An Exercise in Missing the Point

So I just wrote a post in support of JT in his awareness raising efforts in regards to mental illness. Well, today CFI on Campus posted a rebuttal by Gina Colaianni. I wouldn't really call it a rebuttal, as the term implies that her piece was a response to JT's talk and the points he made in that talk. Rather, the piece is more akin to an odd amalgamation of opinions this woman has that are only vaguely related to the talk JT gave. Another blogger already beat me to responding to this, but I just had to sink my teeth into this one.

To start off, she gives us a little background on herself and her own battles with eating disorders over the years, and her studies as a psychology undergrad to give her some form of status as an expert to us. Then, she goes right into la-la-land:

The overall theme I gathered from Eberhard’s speech was that the atheist/skeptic community needs to move on from disproving religious claims and instead needs to help teach to the world that mental illness is not something to dismiss or take lightly.

Now, I posted JT's video; which needs to be watched before reading the CFI piece. Nowhere did he ever say or imply that the skeptical/atheist movements should abandon arguing against supernatural claims. I have no idea where she pulled this assertion from, but it certainly wasn't from JT's Skepticon IV talk. That JT asserts this should be a topic the skeptical community adopts does not mean it is done so to replace the other various topics the community addresses. If anything, it falls perfectly under the "Medical" branch of interests that includes vaccines, faith healing, and homeopathy. There is an incredibly wide range of causes pursued by the skeptical community, and JT suggested that mental illness be included.

Additionally, and this may be nit-picking but I feel the need to address it, JT isn't trying to have the skeptical community make people take mental illness more seriously; he's trying to get us to dispel the myths around it, to normalize it and help remove the stigmas that surround it that so often prevent people from seeking the help they need. Those are two very different goals, and the difference between them needs to be recognized.

In making her next point, she seems to have blacked out during the talk at some point:

First, I’ll take on his claim that medication is THE treatment for people with mood disorders. I’m the first to admit that I take SSRI’s as part of my treatment for depression. However, I disagree with JT’s statements that seem to say that SSRI’s are all that are needed for treatment.

Ok, two things here. First, anorexia, in all of it's forms, is not a mood disorder. It is a behavioral disorder. Get your terminology right if you are going self-identify as some kind of authority on this. Second, JT mentioned his therapist and seeking therapy multiple times. He explicitly stated that it took multiple things; a therapist, a support network, and medication, to get him to the point that he could function. It is ridiculous to say that he said SSRIs are the only path to health, since he didn't.

Next up:

One issue I have with this whole thing is the fact that he specifically chose the issue of mental illness. I believe that he chose this because he himself suffers from a mood disorder; it’s what’s on his mind. Maybe he has been shunned in the past by people who didn’t understand that a mood disorder can’t be fixed by simply willing it to be so. I don’t think it’s okay just to pick a topic simply because you believe it should be focused on.

Really? Are you fucking serious? So why not jump on Hemant for talking about math education, since he's a math teacher? Or Jamila Bey for addressing the hurtles faced specifically by black communities? Or PZ for tackling creationism? He is a biologist after all. Or how about Amanda Marcott, the professional feminist? Speakers tend to talk about what they know. That's why they get invited to speak. JT has been very open about his struggles with anorexia, and he has a fairly public profile, so he has a bit of a unique perspective on the issue that he can share.

What about other issues? What about focusing on uncovering social issues in undeveloped countries? What about focusing on other medical illnesses? I don’t think it’s okay to take on the issue of mental illness simply because someone fairly well-known in the skeptic community believes that the issue should be taken on.

"But what about the genocide in Darfur?!" This is a red herring and unnecessary. Moving on.

I strongly disagree with JT telling the audience that they MUST be there for their family and friends who are suffering from mental illness. You can’t make anyone take on anything. What if they don’t want to take on this issue?

Him asking people to be willing to help their loved ones who desperately need it as a plea for compassion. Even if helping is just being educated about mental illness and being aware of the myths that surround it. He's basically asking people to not give in to prejudice and to be compassionate, loving human beings. Deal with it.

What about the fact that some people don’t want help? Sometimes no amount of intervention or pleading and begging can “fix” someone suffering from mental illness. I remember back in high school when some friends of mine chose to try to help me through my struggles with depression and bulimia. I didn’t want their help. An eating disorder is usually a VERY private thing

Those statements right there are why people die. Because they don't want help. Because they think they can do it on their own. Or because they are too ashamed. Or any number of other reasons to keep their problems hidden away. JT spoke at length about how his ritual of weighing himself became precious to him, even though it was killing him. If there is one thing my family and life in general has taught me over the years, it is this: What we want and what we need are often two different things. And what we need is often the more difficult or painful to do.

For years I hid my self-mutliation from my family. Admitting what I had done, for how long, why, and that I had seriously considered ending my life on more than occasion to my family was one of the most difficult things I have ever done. But it had to be done. They needed to know how close to the edge I was so that they could become a part of my support network.

JT regularly posts his workouts, his weight, the amount of calories he has to consume, etc. He claims that talking about this stuff helps him in his recovery; could it in fact be that receiving comments about these things actually helps to perpetuate his disorder?

Ok, here's a major bit of hypocrisy that drove me up the wall the first couple times I read this post. See, earlier in her post, she says:

I don’t think it’s okay for people who are not trained in the treatment of mood disorders to take on this issue just because 25% of the US population (according to JT) suffers from a mood disorder.

Actually, that is according to NIMH. And for someone who says that the addressing of disorders should be left to the experts, you seem to making quite a few speculations on how JT is sabotaging his own recovery.

Another issue I have is the fact that JT readily believes that it’s okay for people to suffer from mental illness, while it is not okay for people to believe in and follow a religion. He claims that people should be able to see the facts and the evidence (or lack thereof) and immediately accept the fact that there is probably no God. Why? Because religion does bad things to people.

Well, what about the fact that mental disorders are founded on un-provable beliefs and thoughts? Why not apply the same type of logic to this claim? Just present enough evidence to someone that their thoughts do not accurately represent actual reality, and they should immediately accept the fact that they are a good person and should be happy.

Not quite. Religious belief is voluntary, based on the acceptance of supernatural claims made by others. Mental disorders are not rooted in irrational beliefs; irrational beliefs are often the sign of a mental disorder. They are a symptom, not the cause. Mental disorders are rooted in physiological and chemical issues in the brain that can be measured.

Mental illnesses are extremely complex. They are not like other skeptic issues (such as UFO’s or ghosts) where someone can just go and learn about the claim and be able to accurately de-bunk it.

This is just downright wrong. As I showed in my last post, one can do a simple little bit of research and find all sorts of great information debunking myths about mental illness. Those studies I linked to about mental health and propensity for violence? I found those by typing "mental illness and violence" into google. There are myths and downright lies out in the public sphere about people with mental disorders. There are societal stigmas that make seeking treatment difficult, if not nearly impossible for many people. By having skeptics interested in health and medicine work to debunk those myths, the stigmas have a greater chance of fading and those who suffer from these disorders can openly seek the help they need.

I don't just take issue with this because JT is a personal friend. I take issue because this is a cause I greatly support and I think the points made in the piece are not valid. Also, the ad hominem attacks on JT, calling him a hypocrit and speculating on his health are simply unnecessary and come across as petty; particularly when you try to establish some kind of authority on mental health, then show through your arguments that you are not such an authority and have no place speculating on the efficacy of JT's blogging on his coping with his illness (especially when previously stating that such behavior should be left to the experts).

Dissent is fine and dandy, and it promotes growth and the fine-tuning of arguments. However, Gina's piece seems to be more of a projection of her own thoughts and opinions on mental health, and fairly removed from anything JT had to say on the matter.

He's nuts!: Society's Link Between Mental Illness and Violence

My dear friend JT Eberhard has unleashed a call to the secular bloggosphere: blog about mental illness. If you have one (or several), write about your experiences. If you don't, write about loved ones that do. Dispel myths about mental illness. Far too many go without the help they need because of society's stigmas against mental illness.

JT makes several very important points in his talk; ignorance of mental disorders breeds fear, there is an arbitrary distinction between physical ailments and mental ones, and a combination of these two overarching issues causes people with mental illnesses to be averse to treatment and the possibility of leading a close-to-normal life.

First, a little about myself. At 10, I was diagnosed with clinical depression. I had been showing symptoms as early as 7. At 14, I was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (again, showed symptoms as young as 7 years old). At 17, post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of abuse received in my early teens. I have been in and out of therapy since my initial diagnosis. For years I chose to go without medication for my illnesses. The reasoning was at the time, there were not very many (read: none) medications available for young teens that did not come with heavy suicide risk. However, with the diagnosis of my fibromyalgia lead to my being treated with SNRIs, also a treatment for my myriad of mental illnesses. Now I am in the process of managing my illnesses with medication and habitual management.

Being the bearer of several mental disorders has made me an adamant supporter of mental health. I passionately advocate for people to get the treatment they need. It also means I fight to dispel myths about such disorders as often as possible.

Recently, I fell into an argument with one of my professors concerning violence and mental illness. He staunchly supported preventing people with a history of mental illness from owning any kind of weapon (namely firearms). His reasoning being that anyone who cannot accurately perceive reality should not be allowed to be armed.

His position is not an uncommon one. We see it all the time; we hear it in the vernacular. "That terrorist was crazy!" is not an uncommon phrase. When reporting violent crimes (especially high-profile ones), the news media often first looks for a history of mental illness to explain away an individual's (or group's) actions. They grasp at anything they can; depression, anxiety, autism, PTSD, schizophrenia, and so on. (See how my three disorders are on that list?)

At first glance, this is not an unreasonable conclusion for society to reach. After all, how could a normal person do something so heinous? That person simply must be crazy. It's an easy conclusion to come to. And it is very much wrong. Study after study shows that even severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia do not increase a person's propensity for violence toward others. The main predictors of violent behavior are a history of violence and drug/alcohol use. Those predictors remain true whether the individual is neurotypical or not.

There seems to be this idea that these violent people must somehow not understand the consequences of their actions; that if they truly understood that they were killing innocent people, they wouldn't do these awful things. Except they do. They know full-well the consequences of their actions. Seung Hui Cho (the Virginia Tech shooter) had practiced shooting his victims in a lockdown situation. He knew the school would go into lockdown. He knew where the students would be, and what their physical positions would be. He planned accordingly. His history of selective muteness had absolutely nothing to do with very calculated attack on the school. Anyone who says that anxiety over speaking around others leads to shooting sprees needs to seriously reexamine their critical thinking skills.

People with mental illness are much more prone to violence toward themselves, not others. Self-harm, mutilation, and suicide are the most common forms. For 6 years I mutilated my legs, stomach and arms as a way of trying to (unsuccessfully) deal with my mental anguish. But the fights I got into at school were ones where the other person struck first. I just happened to be fairly big and strong for my age ;). But in all seriousness, a person's ability to harm themselves does not translate to an ability to harm others.

But negativity to those with mental illness pervades our culture. We freely use "crazy," "nuts," "psycho" and other slang for the mentally ill to refer to violent individuals. They are inherently negative terms. JT and others are trying to reclaim them, using them as terms of endearment. I too am trying to lighten (and enlighten) the attitudes around such terms. I lovingly refer to when I take small pile of pills in the morning as "happy pill time" or "old people pill time." By normalizing mental illness, by dispelling the dangerous myths around it, we can give those suffering from them the opportunity to openly seek treatment before it's too late.

Link Dump

Currently swamped with work and school-work, so here's just some links for y'all to check out:

A video of a young woman with a form of palsy being severely and repeatedly beaten by her father is circulating the internet. MAJOR TRIGGER WARNING; THE VIDEO IS OVER 7 MINUTES AND VERY GRAPHIC.

Why establishing "rules" for women to follow in order to keep from being assaulted is ridiculous and asinine. It only serves to establish a feeling of guilt that can be damaging for a lifetime.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is at last being extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault charges. While I do believe the circus around his extradition is politically motivated, I do think that he should face his alleged crimes.

Victim of abuse? There's an app for that. No, really, there is. Vice President Joe Biden has a long history of supporting women, women's issues and domestic issues, so it is nice to see him backing this project.

As the daughter of two vets, this makes my heart ache. That we don't treat our vets with more respect bothers me greatly; that we forget women are vets too just pisses me off.

A high school in San Diego just crowned its first lesbian couple as King and Queen of homecoming court!

There's been quite a bit of kerfuffle on the internet about Mississippi's personhood amendment, but major news outlets still aren't covering it much. Which is a shame, because it is a big deal and a major chip into women's reproductive rights.