Leeds Reaction #1

First off, my Leeds was a bit odd. I never felt I hit my stride till maybe the last day. Normally, I ask questions -- in fact, I have been accused of asking awkward questions. This time, I felt very disconnected, and had a horrible time processing information. I think part of it was that many of the session moderators paused for questions after each paper, and so I didn't have the time to ruminate as I usually do. Anyway, it was a far more difficult Leeds than I expected. The best part was that I got to talk to some really nice and intelligent people, and even though I felt more imposter-like than usual, there were moments that inspired me. One was Guy Halsall's paper, which confronted outright the issue of historians whose work seemed, willingly or unwittingly, to lend fuel to (especially) right-wing political agendas, particularly those that connected immigration to barbarian/Roman relations.

It was especially interesting to me because it bears on an internal conflict I regularly confront. I absolutely agree with him -- yet I am also very aware of the fact that I try very hard not to engage with the current political atmosphere when I teach. Except that I do, in some ways -- it's probably not a coincidence that I frame my surveys around issues like the relationship of the subject/citizen to lord/state, and on ways in which different cultures saw legal status, for example.

It also made me think about what it was that made me uncomfortable about my own paper. I was, and am, very certain that we need to re-think certain basic assumptions about the history of women. But I also do believe Judith Bennett is right about the patriarchal equilibrium. So I honestly worry that, by challenging people to stop simply assuming the oppression of women and the absence of female agency as a starting point, I might also be giving the false impression that I don't think they could be true. Ok -- I'm not entirely sure that "oppressed" is a helpful or good word for the early MA, because it seems to me to be a word best employed when there is a clear understanding of rights being restricted against one's will.

When I argue that we need to understand the situation of women differently, it doesn't mean that I think women's situations were better, or worse. I just mean that we should think about imposing our own values on the past in ways that might not have made sense to the people living there. But Guy's post hits at the underlying problem, and it is one I deal with regularly: to a non-specialist reader, or student, I can see how my approach could reinforce the opinions of people inclined towards anti-feminism and perhaps even give them excuses for dismissing the inequalities of the early MA. And that's not what I want. I don't want them to say, "oh, but look -- women DID have these legal rights we thought they didn't, so obviously we can dismiss any silly feminist arguments." I want people to ask questions so they can see that sometimes things look like one thing, but have a different meaning in a different context. And I think that that should make people more aware of feminist issues (in this case, but really, pick an issue and you can make the argument). But the sessions helped me to put a name to the nagging worry that people will think I am asking them to throw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bathwater, or even that they will try to find evidence to support a right-wing view that feminism is somehow a bad thing, or a lie.

hmmm.

An example of why I am writing this paper

"Allegations that widows took fraudulent vows in order to remain free to lead a life of sexual abandon leave no doubt that the cloistering of widows represented an integral part of the church's effort to enforce monogamy. As this program met with success and the conjugal family emerged as the basic unit of society, the function of sheltering unmarried ladies, formerly assumed by extended families, was taken over by the convents. As in other spheres of life, her too the royal family led the way. Louis the Pious not only sent his notorious sisters to nunneries but also installed his widowed mother-in-law as abbess at Chelles." SF Wemple, Women in Frankish Society, 105

Granted, Wemple is sort of old news these days. But the ghost of this sort of scholarship is alive and well, I think. There's plenty out there that contradicts this interpretation, which rests in part on a feminist reading of the role of the church in the Early Middle Ages and indeed, on a function of monogamy that may or may not have been entirely true at the time. Most importantly, I think, is a more recent idea that we see in, for example, essays in de Jong's Topographies of Power, LeJan's Femmes, pouvoir et societé, and even in Goldberg's biography of Louis the German and Althoff's work on the Ottonians. That those all assume a degree of agency that Wemple doesn't is very important. That only one of them is in English is one of the reasons that I'm writing this stupid paper: despite the fact that more and more Anglophones seem to be reading German these days, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of synthesizing going on, or at least not on a level that is reaching more 'general' audiences. We have reached a point, I think, where we are no longer explicitly arguing against older assumptions (and I am not sure that we ever really did, because that would mean -- shock! horror! -- engaging in women's or even feminist history, which might undermine our standing as real historians who work with charters and stuff). Rather, we are arguing for a much more interesting and nuanced picture of women's roles in early medieval society that is still haunted by unresolved scholarly approaches.


Or maybe not. Stay tuned.

Dear Berks Organizers

For next time, could you please try to get more pre-modern -- and especially pre-16th C -- papers? The program is really embarrassingly imbalanced towards the modern and the American. I like the conference, and it's pretty awesome. But honestly? All you have to do is read Judith Bennett's History Matters to get an idea of the contributions of medievalists to women's history. We've been doing it a long time.

This is something that seriously pisses me off, because it shouldn't happen. Medievalists were doing postmodernist work before modernists got the clue and gave what we'd been doing a cool name. Medievalists and Classicists have been doing interdisciplinary work since long before it became cool and necessary. Um, duh. Medievalists have been looking at women for kind of a long time, and there is an awful lot of good work on women in the MA that might even -- dare I say it? inform some of what our modernist colleagues are only just discovering.

And yet, a conference that grew from the marginalization of women historians and women's history makes me feel very marginalized in the very same way I feel in my department and on my campus. It's a good reminder that privilege comes in many forms.

I can go to pretty much any panel here and feel comfortable with the topic and be able to ask questions. I teach World Civ. I am a woman of a certain age and a feminist. I have a good grip on modern stuff because I live in the modern era. These things are part of my everyday life. They are also, to some extent, current events to me, and almost political science rather than history. If it happened after I started school, I have a hard time seeing it as "history."

But here, as in my department, on my campus, and at AHA, I feel like I have to apologize because what I do is not necessarily as accessible. I feel like I have to apologize for reading and using Latin and German (and no, I'm not doing handouts of the texts as I would at a medieval conference; I'm just doing quick translations in the text). I feel like I have to convince my colleagues here -- if they even ask -- that working on kinship and family and remarriage in the MA is relevant.

The last Berks wasn't so much like that, I think in part because one of the organizers was the amazing Ruth Mazo Karras. There were enough pre-modern, and even medievalist, papers that I had to make choices. This year? not so much. It's more about digging to find something that I can use in teaching. The best panel is a roundtable on Sunday -- and I will have to miss part of it because the conference is in BFE in terms of transport. I really hope that the organizers think about these things a bit more next time. /grumpy rant.

NaBloPoMo 2010 -- 5

NaBloPoMo 2010 -- 5 -- A little late

I wrote this in my head last night, and then never posted it. I think because I was trying to pay attention to the news. Or maybe a mystery on TV. Yesterday was fun -- unpacking feminist theory with my upper-division students. I saw in most of their faces the same looks I probably had at their ages -- "why do we have to know this? who cares? can't we just READ THE HISTORY??"

Except that the grown-up scholar me understands why. I still don't love theory much. I'm not a huge fan of historiography for its own sake. But, as one of my students said at the end of our hour together, "Some of that article makes more sense now."

Weirdly, from Scalzi a couple of weeks ago, to Barbara McManus and Jo Stanley yesterday, my teaching and scholarship -- and my life -- are moving more and more to questioning, critiquing, and challenging the dominant paradigms.

Thank you to my colleagues in the blogosphere and at Leeds (mostly, although some of you I see more at the zoo) and to the Tea Party for this. I think.

A serious post, brought to you by Patrick Stewart

A serious post, brought to you by Patrick Stewart (NaNoBloPo/NaSchoWriMo 27)

A friend pointed me to this essay by Patrick Stewart on domestic violence. It's a hard read, but a good one. Some of you know that I was raised by a woman with a violent temper. I never had to witness the sort of thing Stewart mentions, but the rest, barring the alcohol, sounds eerily familiar.

But come Friday night, after the pubs closed, we awaited his return with trepidation. I would be in bed but not asleep. I could never sleep until he did; while he was awake we were all at risk. Instead, I would listen for his voice, singing, as he walked home. Certain songs were reassuring: I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen; I'll Walk Beside You . . . But army songs were not a good sign. And worst of all was silence. When I could only hear footsteps it was the signal to be super-alert.



Fortunately, my mother was not a drinker. She was just chronically depressed, possibly bipolar. She was never a particularly strong woman, and she seldom made a fist. Remember, I'm a boomer; when I was growing up, it was still considered normal to smack one's kids. The big difference to me was that, where some of my friends had parents who would take a belt to them (something that scared the hell out of me>, it was part of a very formalized system of rules. They knew when they broke them, and expected to be punished if caught. Not that that makes it much better (if at all), but there's not that constant wondering about what the rules are, and whether you might set things off. Anyway, I thought I would mention once again that the victims of domestic violence are also almost always the victims of emotional abuse. And that emotional abuse is so much easier to hide.

It's also much easier to ignore, or to miss, especially if you're caught in an abusive relationship. And if you grew up being used to emotional abuse, as a victim, or even as a witness, it's likely to feel familiar enough that it's sort of comforting. Me, I try to be vigilant in my own relationships, and I try not to ignore warning bells that go off in my head. It's harder if you see this happening to people you love -- and I have to admit, there are times that friends have had to point out red flags to me. More often, though, they've been there for the sort of reality checks that you need, because two of the most effective tactics of the emotional abuser are that they can make a person question reality and they tend to make the person being abused feel responsible for the abusive situation. To the outside world, the abuser often represents hirself as the victim. Usually, that's a true representation, as far as the abuser is concerned. That's the really fucked up part of emotional abuse: the abuser often thinks that zie is the most reasonable person around, if only hir spouse/child/partner/employee would just do things the right way. I'm posting some signs below, and I've tried to make them gender-neutral, because although abusive men are still by far more likely to beat the crap out of, and even kill, their partners, it's been my experience that women are right up there in the ranks of emotional abuse, which can bee far more subtle.

So I thought maybe I would post a few of the classic telltale signs of an abusive relationship, just because it never hurts to remind people (and even myself):

Zie was verbally abused as a child, witnessed it in hir own family, or was verbally abused by a previous partner.

* Zie has low self-esteem.

* Zie has an intense temper, triggered by minor frustrations and arguments.

* Hir sense of power or control depends on hir partner's acquiescence and performance per hir demands. Zie feels "in control" only if hir partner is totally passive and giving in to all of hir preferences and decisions.

* Zie has rigid expectations or fantasies of marriage, partnership, and what the partner should be/ how they should behave, and will not compromise. Zie expects a partner to behave according to hir expectations of what hir partner should be like; perhaps the way hir parents' marriage was, or its opposite. Zie demands that the partner change to accommodate hir expectations.

* Zie projects the blame for all relationship difficulties onto hir partner. Zie wouldn't get angry if only the partner would be who zie wants hir to be... Zie wouldn't drink if the partner didn't make hir unhappy... Zie denies the need for counseling because there's "nothing wrong with hir, only with the partner." Zie might not want the partner to get counseling because zie's threatened by the possibility of an outsider "taking sides" with him -- they just wouldn't understand the true dynamics of the relationship.

* Abusers are extremely possessive and jealous. They experience an intense desire to control their mates.

* Abusers often have superficial relationships with other people. Their primary, if not exclusive, relationship is with a spouse/longtime partner.

* Zie may be described as having a dual personality -- Zie is either sweet or exceptionally cruel and sharp. Zie is selfish or generous depending on her mood.

* A major characteristic of abusers is their capacity to deceive others. They can be sweet, calm, charming and convincing.

* The mate is usually a symbol. The abuser doesn't relate to hir partner as a person in hir own right, but as a symbol of a significant other. This is especially true when zie's angry. Zie assumes that the partner is thinking, feeling, or acting like that significant other -- often modeled on family member or authority figure).

(Adapted from a list at http://www.lilaclane.com/relationships/emotional-abuse/)

Also:

Emotional abuse is characterized by the abuser’s manipulation and invalidation of his or her partner. Here is a list of warning signs to be aware of.

Abusive Expectations

* Makes unreasonable demands.
* Requires constant attention, or that you spend all your free time with him/her.
* Constantly criticizes.
* No matter how much you give, it never seems to be enough.

Aggressing

* Calls you names, accuses, blames, threatens, or gives orders.
* Can be disguised as “helping” or “teaching.”
* Judgmental “I know best” attitude.

Constant Chaos

* Deliberately starts arguments and may be in constant conflict with you or with others
* Treats you well in front of others, but changes into a different person when you’re alone together, or vice versa.
* May enjoy “drama,” because it creates excitement and brings the focus back onto him/herself.

Denying

* Denies your personal needs, especially when that need is greatest, and does so with the intent of hurting, punishing, or humiliating you.
* Denies that certain events occurred or that certain things were said.
* Refuses to listen or communicate (silent treatment), and withdraws emotionally.
* Denies your perceptions, memory, and sanity.
* Disallows or overrules any viewpoints, perceptions, or feelings that differ from his/her own.
* Causes you to lose confidence in and question your own perceptions and feelings.
* Causes you to doubt your most powerful survival tool: your own mind.

Dominating

* Manipulates the relationship so that the only feelings and opinions that count are his/her own.
* Must have his/her own way, and will hurt your feelings if necessary in order to get it.
* Holds you personally responsible for his/her own happiness.
* Disregards your personal standards or beliefs, and may try to persuade you to do things that you don’t want to do.

Emotional Blackmail

* Plays on your fear, guilt, compassion, religious values, or other “hot buttons” to get what he/she wants.
* May threaten to end the relationship, totally reject or abandon you, give you the “cold shoulder,” or use other tactics to control you.

Invalidation

* Seeks to distort your perceptions of your own world.
* Refuses to or fails to acknowledge reality in order to create his/her own false reality.
* If you tell your partner that you felt hurt by something he/she did or said, he/she might say, “You’re too sensitive. That shouldn’t hurt you.”
* Or, the abuser might turn it around by saying, “You hurt me too sometimes. I just don’t say anything because I’m understanding.”
* Suggests that your emotions and perceptions are faulty and can’t be trusted.
* Any time your own feelings are disregarded or denied, invalidation has occurred.

Minimizing

* Less extreme form of denial.
* Says things like “You’re exaggerating” or “You’re making a big deal out of nothing.”
* Trivializes by suggesting that something you have communicated is inconsequential or unimportant.

Unpredictable Responses

* Acts angry or upset in a situation that normally would not warrant such a response, or gets angry certain times but not others.
* Blows up or gets angry at you over innocent comments you made.
* You feel like you have to “walk on eggshells” around him/her.
* Has drastic mood changes or sudden emotional outbursts.
* Likes something you do one day, but hates it the next.

Verbal Assaults

* Berates, belittles, criticizes, threatens, or calls you names.
* Subtle to blatant use of sarcasm and humiliation.
* Constantly finds flaws with you.
* Makes fun of you in front of others, or in private.



Emotional abuse often starts out very subtly, and progresses gradually over a period of time. Abusers are master manipulators, and can deceive even your friends and family – as well as their own. Trust your own feelings and perceptions. (taken from http://wsr.byu.edu/content/warning-signs-emotional-abuse)

Why am I surprised?

Why Am I Not Surprised? (NaSchoWriMo/NaBloPoMo 9)

I haven't posted about the House of Representatives -- or rather, the House Democrats -- and their decision to stab the people who helped put them in office in the backs. I'm not sure I should be surprised. After all, I'm a middle-aged woman who has been voting since 1980. I've been a feminist for as long as I remember. I've seen and been a victim of misogyny and discrimination. I don't have a hell of a lot of faith in politicians in general, and I know that to get to any sort of position of power, whether elected or appointed, in government or in industry, or in academia, people often find themselves cutting deals that are pretty appalling. Apparently, that's just the price ambitious people pay -- they sell out the rest of us. After all, they are playing with the big boys, and the people they have betrayed? We're just women.

Even still, the Stupak-Pitts amendment is particularly underhanded and nasty. Not only is it a blatant attempt to keep women from having abortions, but it discriminates against poorer women and may even keep women who have miscarried or who have other medical conditions from having procedures like D&Cs, which are done in cases other than abortion. It would also prevent women whose pregnancies, whether or not they are wanted, from having abortions even if their own lives are at risk, unless they can come up with the cash to pay for them out of pocket.

I'm not debating whether or not abortion is right. I honestly don't believe that a first trimester fetus is a person, but I can't deny that it certainly has the potential to become one. I don't know what choice I would make if faced with an unplanned pregnancy, or the knowledge that I would give birth to a child that couldn't live without extraordinary care, or constant pain, or that might cost me my own life (more than the risks of a normal pregnancy, that is), or if I were raped and became pregnant. Ok, those are all pretty unlikely at my age, but they have been very real concerns for much of my life, and are still possibilities now. They are possibilities for my friends and my family and my students. I hope that none of the people I love ever have to make such choices. I wish no one did.

But here's the deal. Legally, we have that choice. It is immoral and unethical to deny that choice to one group of women in this country because they might depend on subsidies or government funding for health care. But am I surprised that women, especially poorer women, are sacrificed on the altar of a half-assed compromise that will pave the way for yet another round of Congressional back-patting while our elected representatives bask in the glow of a good circle-jerk? No, not really.




ETA: you know, if Congress is so worried about abortions, maybe they'd be better off by making reliable birth control easier to get.

Oh, FFS.

Oh, FFS

Via Bitch PhD, anti-abortion activists aren't calling for violence, they're just hanging out with murderers and supporting the acts after the fact.

And according to TPM, some people are encouraging others to use firearms to fight dangerous health care reforms.

What.

And this shit is being stirred up by people paid to report and comment on news. Instead, they are creating it, and then denying responsibility. I'm looking at you, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Bill O'Reilly, you cowardly assholes.

And btw, Keith Olberman and Rachel Maddow? Shame on you for playing a similar, yet non-violent version of the fact-distortion game. You aren't helping. Really.

Obit -- JoAnn McNamara

Obit -- JoAnn McNamara

For those of you not on the list-serv circuit, JoAnn McNamara has died. I think most medieval historians are aware of her work, and I know that it has helped me to frame some of the questions I ask in teaching and in my current research. I met JoAnn only once, last year at the Berkshire Conference, and felt very privileged. She was very gracious to all of us junior scholars, and was funny and warm, and supportive. She was very much the person she seemed in her writing -- smart, vibrant, feminist -- and in fact, I was sort of shocked into accepting my own age when I met her and Natalie Davis. I'd always thought of them as just a tad older than me, even though intellectually I knew that they had to be around my mother's age (I have a young mother). They always felt like slightly older peers in my head. And that was how JoAnn felt to me in real life, during a dinner and a couple of conference panels. A slightly older peer, gently mentoring people like me, even while she did seem to carry the air of the grande dame of women's history that she was.


Her memorial will be at Hunter College in the fall.

x-posted


ETA: this discussion thread was posted on the LJ Medieval Studies community, and rather nice.

Collegial advice

Collegial Advice

Dear colleague,

I understand that you are an Important Person at your institution, whose very nature is based on understanding hierarchy and conforming to it. But you have come to me asking a favor. It may be that, in the past, you have had similar favors granted by my predecessors. But we are in a new era of accreditation standards. So if I send you a very polite request asking for further information on which to base my judgement, and make it clear that I am consulting with other colleagues on your request while performing due diligence to make sure, if we grant that request, our accrediting agency will approve, let me give you a little advice:

Do NOT send a curt response to me that denies me my academic title, let alone my professional one (not that being department chair carries any extra rank at SLAC -- just more work!).

Do NOT spell my name incorrectly.

In short, do NOT write:

Ms. AMD


[insert grudging response to polite request for more information here]

[replacement of courtesy close with a statement that implies that I owe you your request]



Because seriously. Dude. Your insignia don't outrank my PhD. I don't owe you a thing, and I have every right to review your current connection with my department and see if we should discontinue that.*

no love,

ADM, PhD

Department Chair from whom you are asking a favor.


*I should point out that I will not be making this decision on my own, although that is within my rights. I will be consulting with 4 colleagues who have expertise, and then presenting my advice to my Dean. Because in ADM land, we consult and discuss and work for consensus whenever possible -- especially when there might be conflicts of interest -- and we document.

Judith Bennett Roundtable Finale

Judith Bennett Roundtable, the Finale

The final post of the roundtable on Judith Bennett's History Matters is now up at Notorious, PhD. It's a post by Bennett herself, and is well worth a read.

If you've just now caught on to this, you can find previous posts at Notorious, PhD, Historiann, and Tenured Radical, as well as at Magistra et Mater (even more here).

Join in and enjoy -- and thanks for participating in our first Women's History Month Roundtable!

Judith Bennett Roundtable, pt 3

Judith Bennett Roundtable, pt 3

Hi folks --


Part Three of our discussion of Judith Bennett's History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism is now up at Tenured Radical. If you've missed the first two parts, go catch up at Notorious, PhD's place , and at Historiann's blog. Lots of good discussion so far!

And next week, part four will be here. The wrap-up the following week will be at Notorious, PhD's place, where Judith Bennett will offer her own comments!

History Matters, part 2

History Matters, part 2

Hi folks -- after getting off to a great start at Notorious, PhD's place last Monday, the discussion of Judith Bennett's History Matters: Patriarchy and the Challenge of Feminism has moved to over to Historiann's blog. Come and join in the fun. Even if you haven't read the book, there's a lot of good discussion. And don't forget, next week, the conversation continues at Tenured Radical, and then here the week after!

cougars and pumas

Cougars (gothic) PUMAS could give election to McCain?

I think many of you are aware about how I feel about the way the media has treated Hillary Clinton during this election cycle. It was sexist, plain and simple. And it was across the board sexist, in the sense that her opponents all bought into and used the same sort of rhetoric. (And by the way, if you are in any way thinking, "but what about the racism?????" Just stop. First, I'll get there. Second, if you don't know me well enough to know that I abhor both racism and sexism -- and heterosexism, if you feel it needs to be separated -- but can actually discuss them separately without falling into the trap of fighting about which is worse, a trap, by the way, that is hugely effective in keeping otherwise decent people from actually getting things changed, which is the point, then you just shouldn't be reading this).

So yes, the treatment of Clinton has been sexist. But when she lost, I pretty much turned my sights toward supporting Obama, despite the fact that he is less experienced and seems much more conservative than I would like. So I didn't know that there was an organised group of supporters still working for Clinton (except to pay her campaign debts)). I just figured that the machine was winding things down. Imagine, then, my surprise at reading this article by Dahlia Lithwick in Slate, which posits the rise of the "Hillary Harridans" -- the Madwomen in the Attic of US politics. Lithwick is, I think, spot on in identifying the ways in which the media treats the holdouts, and the imagery that is being evoked -- and why it hits the way it does. I think she's also probably right in what could happen, should disgruntled Clinton supporters support McCain or stay away from the polls. I do think she may have missed another message, though. It's interesting that the puma is also a cougar in real life. So is this a case of a bunch of would be cougars (y'all know what a "cougar" is, yes?) playing on words themselves? In which case, it's kind of cool and feminist. But if this is a name imposed on the group, well, that's a different thing.

So don't get me wrong here -- I think that the Clinton campaign failed us all miserably. I think the cards were stacked against Clinton, but that doesn't excuse the fact that she and her people fell (or jumped willingly) into the easy strategy of playing against Obama's race and using a good dose of xenophobia (and you can argue that that's racist, too, but I think it's much more complex than that) to try to win. I think the memos show that some people in the campaign were eager, but based on Clinton's own political record, I would like to think that she got caught up in the campaign and did what we've seen before -- reacted with anything she could grip, including things that non-panicked Clinton would not recognise. To me, that she was willing to grasp at any straw, no matter that it went against what she herself had fought for for years, made me not want her as a president. I don't want someone who panics and sells out -- especially on something this important. That it seemed panic-induced worried me even more than Bill Clinton's backing off on gay rights angered me.

But back to these PUMAs. I really hope Lithwack is wrong. I hope that there are not 18 million (or more?) women out there who are so pissed off that they are willing to cut off their noses, etc. Because if you are worried about equal rights, health care, the poor, reproductive rights, the environment ... pretty much any reason a person would have supported Clinton, there is no choice but Obama. And honestly, I think Obama is possibly a bit better on supporting the Constitution and on the war in Iraq -- not too much, but a bit. Not as good on reproductive rights and health care, but Clinton is out of the race, so get over it! Not voting is at this point the same as voting for McCain. Voting for a third party is the same as voting for McCain. This isn't about Clinton anymore, people. It's about what's on the table now. If you voted or caucused in the Democratic primaries, and really wanted a Democrat to win -- or wanted this lot out enough that you were willing to vote for a Democrat -- then Obama is the only realistic and sensible choice. You have to decide what message counts for more: the one that draws a line in the sand in a war we've been fighting since before they ratified the 19th Amendment? or the one that says that we are going to do what we can, now, to halt the regressions this government has led across the board in civil rights, human rights, environmental protection, health care ...the list goes on. If you are a US citizen, you get to vote. It matters. Don't waste it.