#not the convenient and prioritizes you over my own interests bc you don’t seem to care me

[wishingprince]

I love queer stories I love reading about love and finding love and falling in love.

I want it so badly I want to have a partner and fall in love and have someone who is interested in learning me and we can learn to love each other the way we need. And the older I get the more the ache is there, this kind of like accepting ache that like okay, it might not happen for me…..but alongside that lonely ache, I get a surge of huge powerful love for the love I have around me anyway.

I love community. I love queer books and music and I love friends and allies and other queers who get it. I love Pride, I love it. This world feels so fucked up but I feel like I have a found family who is strong enough to catch me when I need to be caught and people who feel reliable and sturdy and safe.

[makeroomforthejolyghost]

trying 2 articulate a Grievance i have long had, or like. a thing that makes me kinda uncomfortable. about most fandom portrayals of joly. (so, u know, nothin outta the ordinary here.) this... may take a while haha

so: i know it is the duty of every conscientious les mis fan 2 remember it would contradict historical accuracy 2 insist that joly’s owning one necessarily means he requires use of a cane in 1828-32. but frankly? as a 23-y/o [ex-]hypo who walks w/ a cane, not bc she Can’t Not, but bc to stand unassisted is for her an enormous waste of spoons? i’m just glad i’ve never seen anyone suggest joly “just thinks he needs one.”

like. 4 my current purpose, anyway, the author’s pretty dead? since if u asked me point-blank how victor hugo intended joly i’d admit i doubt the question whether joly’s a Real hypochondriac entered his mind, and that he most likely didn’t intend for us to read joly as needing his cane since probably if he’d meant it that way the subject would’ve come up again--would have been relevant to the plot somehow, &c. &c., since for-no-reason representation wasn’t rly a thing back then. but the objective of for-no-reason representation, re disability, is to assert that ppl like me n joly need no excuse to exist, so. i recommend factitiously misreading victor hugo’s intention! this is just a disclaimer, beggin ur permission to Read Too Much Into Everything

but ngl, i feel kinda threatened by interpretations of canon-joly as physically but not mentally ill/disabled. my philosophy here is “LET’S HAVE BOTH,” but headcanon joly is Basically Me, so before i understood myself as deserving to be called physically disabled/chronically ill i projected that self-doubt onto him as well. and that’s still my favorite reading of how joly sees himself in canon? whereas jolys who’re fairly self-possessed n confident re being disabled and whose illness-experience includes no sign of ocd-spectrum anxiety seem 2 me neither accurate nor like the pinnacle of Good Representation.

of course on the list of “joly headcanons that make me uncomfortable” these fellows trail waaaay behind abled jolys, or, god 4bid, the ones that keep his canonical team-mommishness n proxy-hypochondria re his friends but drop the self-defensive sword-clanking he also does in canon. the modern AUs where he’s a perfectly successful doctor?--yeah. i can’t stand those, cane or no cane. but i guess what i’m trying to say is that i rly like the gesture of solidarity implied by headcanons that insist on joly’s being physically disabled/chronically ill, but rly don’t like when this smacks of a wish 2 reassure him that being sick means he isn’t bats. i doubt his illness respects this dichotomy

and plenty of people do write him that way--sickbats, i mean. but i wish the fandom was more cognizant of what that would imply! canon-joly’s aberrantly vindicated by physical proof that he’s For Real Sick; if u read him as [physically] disabled/chronically ill then the tone he takes in preliminary gaieties suggests joly fears and yet risks the imputation he’s faking (or imagining, exaggerating, milking) disability, by daring to acknowledge it in public. because, as every abled-passing person knows who’s ever gone too long without diagnosis, “physical proof” promises ur only escape from the imputation you’re Faking It, but also, seems a harbinger of certain doom, since, when you don’t know your problem is, nothing bad can happen to you without your figuring ah yes. clearly, the end is near

my point is, if joly uses a cane because disabled rather than just because 1832 i don’t think this can/should be left unconnected to his, uh. “somatic symptom disorder,” i guess? that fancy dsm-5 term kinda creeps me out, for a bunch of confusing ineffable reasons, but i employ it here instead of plain ol “hypochondria” to drive home that for most of us it’s not about fear of being or becoming ill; it’s an ocd-spectrum disorder characterized by unexplained ailments + health anxiety. and unexplained doesn’t mean imaginary–whether molière thought so or not. it means undiagnosed. so if med school’s made joly more a patient than a doctor the fact his anxiety got him there does not make that less true. it’s difficult to tell what ur body won’t let you do from what ur brain won’t let you do when these mutually reinforce each other; if you believe illness prevents you from doing something, then even if you’re mistaken about the nature of your illness, it’s still true that illness prevents u from doing that thing. even if all this amounts to is that you’re too scared to try. bc to have prohibitive anxiety around it still means you can’t do it. and that’s... not unpathological.

AND IF THAT’S WHAT’S UP. if his cane compensates for these unexplained ailments. then he would need it symbolically as well as physically? he’d need it to walk, and also, to end the argument over whether he Deserves xyz. and maybe he’d pretend it was an aesthetic choice in order to evade reproach about malingering or playing for sympathy! i think [in canon era] he’d pass it off as affectation until/unless other people implied as much, at which point he’d defend himself as needing it without even knowing anymore whether he gets to make that claim, bc at this point even to him it seems Too Convenient. probably he’d end up with warped gratitude toward his own debility just for reflecting what he already knew; why else would you check your tongue in the mirror when you know you’re about to die, right? a joly who forgets he’s not faking it and compulsively reassures himself of his… in/validity is my favorite joly and, i think, the most accurate. but i am projecting 2.

however i think this is more of a representation/aesthetic-philosophical complaint than one about accuracy. bc i get the sense that to portray joly as physically disabled and, if also mentally ill at all, then in ways unconnected to said physical disability (i.e. to believe him implicitly and thus take away the need for his self-doubt and resulting health anxiety) is, like. the Responsible thing to do, as a sick-both-ways person. and i don’t agree w/ that at all? it seems both equally-important and equally-interesting to me to acknowledge that self-doubt/impostor syndrome and ocd-spectrum anxiety are inextricable parts of the diagnostic process, esp. since that’s... the point joly is at. in canon. and idg why the idealized wish-fulfillment version of his canon position should be the one the fandom prioritizes. i want both, is all i’m sayin.

[ds4design]

When the trolls come at you over birth control coverage, here's what to say

If you're a woman who, on the internet, has tried to defend widely accessible and affordable birth control, you probably know all the counterarguments by heart: "Why should my tax dollars make it easy for you to have sex?" "I don't want to pay for what you do in the bedroom". "Don't have sex if you can't afford to get pregnant". 

Such comments conveniently gloss over the complexities of real life. But it's also easy to trot out similarly simplistic responses when arguing for birth control. Women and their allies are tired of having to defend something that seems basic, but the important thing to remember is that you're not trying to convince the troll. Instead you want to sway the social media audience watching your exchange. You're playing to the crowd. 

"Most of these claims or moral arguments don’t take women’s interests very seriously."

That matters because informed public debate of birth control is critical right now. The Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, requires insurers to provide federally-approved methods of contraception without a copay. Republicans, who plan to repeal Obamacare but haven't introduced a replacement yet, have indicated their bill won't have the same requirement. Millions of women could lose access to affordable contraception as a result.

Public polling shows that a majority of Americans support full birth control coverage, but Republicans aren't in that camp, and trolling comments on social media can amplify a much different narrative. Some critics will never be convinced, but if you choose to take on their talking points for all to see, here are six things to keep in mind: 

1. It's not "free" birth control. 

First, the government doesn't send bureaucrats out to roam the streets with bags of free pills and IUDs, tossing them to the nearest random woman. Instead, insurance companies and clinics work with doctors and pharmacies to provide them to patients at no additional cost. 

People who receive copay-free contraception typically put their own money into the health care system by paying taxes and private-market premiums. Last year, people with employer-sponsored health insurance paid on average $5,277 toward their family coverage. Low-income Medicaid recipients may also pay premiums for their insurance. 

It’s not FREE birth control. We’re asking for coverage by the health insurance we ALREADY pay for.

— Not My President (@missmayn) February 7, 2017

While eliminating the birth control copay saved women a lot of money, they continue to finance their own health care while also subsidizing services for fellow Americans. 

2. Birth control is for planning pregnancy. 

People who oppose copay-free contraception often associate it with promiscuity or irresponsible sexual behavior. The simple truth is that birth control helps women prevent and plan pregnancy. (It can also alleviate symptoms of medical conditions like Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.) That's pretty thoughtful decision-making, and yet, critics get stuck on sex, a nearly universal expression of human desire and intimacy.

We tend to talk about BC being used in 2 ways: pregnancy prevention or a health issue. But preventing pregnancy is a health issue!

— Jessica Valenti (@JessicaValenti) January 14, 2017

Arguing about why people are having sex, or under what circumstances, is ultimately a distraction from legitimate practical concerns about not getting pregnant. Demanding that people wait to have sex until they’re ready to conceive just isn’t realistic, says Lawrence Nelson, an associate professor of philosophy at Santa Clara University. That logic would make even the most committed married couples chaste. 

"Most of these claims or moral arguments don’t take women’s interests very seriously," Nelson says. 

3. Preventing unplanned pregnancy is good for women, families and taxpayers. 

Under Obamacare, birth control is considered preventive health care, just like vaccinations, routine checkups and breast pumps for new mothers. That may seem odd but making it easy for women to prevent a medical condition — pregnancy in this case — saves the government and taxpayers a lot of money. 

In 2010, the federal government spent $21 billion on births, abortions and miscarriages related to pregnancies that weren't planned. Studies suggest that unintended pregnancy leads to worse economic, health and academic outcomes among children. When women avoid getting pregnant at the wrong time, research indicates they're able to get more education and increase their earnings. 

Not much of a fiscal conservative if you're unaware that every $1 spent on contraception saves the government $7+ on preg, delivery, & care. https://t.co/qJH5UxFxe9

— Chelsea Polis, PhD (@cbpolis) January 13, 2017

Adam Thomas, an associate teaching professor at Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy, says that increased spending on family-planning services like expanded access to contraception is a wise investment. His research shows that for every dollar the government spends, it saves nearly $6. Another study indicated that savings could be as high as $7.

"Unintended pregnancy is a major public health problem," says Thomas. "Expanding access can address that problem." 

4. Birth control can be too expensive with a copay. 

Some people love to insist that every woman can afford contraceptive copays if she tries hard enough. But before Obamacare birth control frequently cost women hundreds of dollars a year, depending on the method. 

The most effective forms, like the IUD and hormonal implants, had an upfront cost of several hundred dollars. As a result, some low-income women, constantly making hard choices about which basic need to prioritize on a limited budget, used less effective but relatively cheap contraception (i.e. condoms).    

"We already know who’s going to suffer the most if and when they roll this back."

Understanding that dynamic is key to tackling the problem of unplanned pregnancy, but there’s almost no point in arguing further with someone who refuses to believe birth control with a copay is out of reach for many women. If they're not willing to believe and trust women's personal experiences, they won't defer to you. And if that person starts mocking a hypothetical woman’s grocery store purchases or cell phone bill, for example, in order to attack her reproductive health choices, the conversation has lost its perspective — and arguably its sense of decency.   

"We already know who’s going to suffer the most if and when they roll this back," says Alexis Cole, policy manager for the reproductive justice organization Urge. "It’s those that had the hardest time affording birth control before — young people, immigrants, women of color and low-income families." 

5. Yes, some sexually active women don't use birth control. Talk about why.

One stereotype tends to throw the birth control debate into chaos, and it's the notion that many women gleefully have sex without protection, consequences be damned. The opposition to affordable birth control is then built around the idea that women can't be trusted with their own sexuality, so why give them a means to prevent pregnancy. In other words, they just shouldn't have sex. 

While it is true that some sexually active women don't use contraception, they make up less than one-fifth of women at risk for unintended pregnancies. That's a small group, but instead of pretending they don't exist, people who support birth control access should talk about the bigger picture. 

Studies suggest that disadvantaged women, in particular, are ambivalent about unwed motherhood. The possibility of an accidental pregnancy doesn't constrain their risky behavior because they don't feel like they have much to lose, says Thomas.  

Ensuring they have access to sex education and affordable birth control is important, but it might actually be more effective to improve their economic prospects. To hold those women up as a rationale for denying everyone affordable birth control fundamentally misunderstands their predicament. 

6. Beware the slippery slope of refusing to "pay" for someone else's medical intervention. 

If someone refuses to subsidize no-copay birth control on principle, do others then have the right to withhold their taxpayer dollars from financing medical interventions they find objectionable? The natural birthing mom might insist that her premium doesn't go toward medically unnecessary cesarean sections. Or Scientologists could demand their money never pay for psychiatric services because it violates their belief system. 

Nelson says people can't plead a special exemption for their objections to birth control. Everyone who pays into the private or public health care system might have very specific wishes for how that money is spent, but that's not the bargain we've made to ensure people are healthy and have access to preventive care and essential medical treatment. 

"To say this is different strikes me as not taking women’s lives as they’re really lived seriously, and what it means to a woman to get pregnant when she doesn’t want to get pregnant," says Nelson. 

What it comes down to, he adds, is making birth control accessible and affordable so women are tied to the future they create for themselves, not their fertility. 

"For women to really be able to live in the world as equals to men," Nelson says, "they need control over their sexual reproductive lives."