of the stars

he also said that it was incredibly unlikely that sexism will ever be resolved in the medical field. that the majority of medications i will ever take - even some of which are "for women" - will not be clinically tested on my body.

the problem, he said, was in getting any human clinical trial approved. to test on a body with a uterus - any body, even elderly patients or those who have been sterilized - was often nigh-impossible, because the concern was that the test patient may, at any point, become pregnant. once/if the patient became pregnant, the study would not be about "the effects of New Medication on the body." instead, the trial would fail - the results would be "the effects of New Medication on a developing fetus/pregnant patient."

it was massively easier, he said, to just test without accounting for a uterus. that's how he phrased it - accounting for a uterus.

at the time, i remember him talking about the ethical implications of testing on a developing fetus; how such testing could theoretically bankrupt a company if a lawsuit was filed. he talked about informed consent and about how long it took for any legislation to be passed about this - that in 1993; the year i was born, it finally became illegal to outright exclude women and minorities from clinical trials.

i remember him shrugging. "that's not to say it doesn't happen," he said. my ears were ringing.

i was thinking about how every time i have been rushed to the ER, the first thing they have asked me is if i am pregnant. when i broke my wrist at 16 years old - despite never having had sex - they made me wait three hours for the test to come back negative before they gave me pain meds. the possibility of a child haunts my health.

how many people have died on the table because they were waiting for the pregnancy test before treatment. how many people have died on the table because they were pregnant, and the only thing we care about is the fetus.

it is hard to explain to other people, but it feels like some kind of strange ghost. our entire lives, we are supposed to "save" our bodies for our future partners. but really we are just saving the body for the future child, aren't we? that hovering future-almost that cartwheels around in a miasma. you can't get your tubes tied, what if you change your mind? think of the child you must have, eventually.

The second time we hear the leitmotif is in Return of the King, when Mount Doom erupts and Gandalf thinks Frodo is dead. But now the meaning is reversed; it's Gandalf who believes Frodo is dead. [3:00 of the first video, and the beginning of the second.]

The last time is at the Grey Havens, when Gandalf says a final farewell to all of the hobbits.

One thing I haven't seen discussed very often is that this motif is tied to Frodo and Gandalf specifically--- and the way it develops mirrors the way their dynamic changes.

In FOTR, Gandalf dies sacrificing himself to protect the Fellowship, and Frodo is overwhelmed with guilt and grief. In ROTK, it appears that Frodo sacrifices himself to defend Middle Earth, as Gandalf is overwhelmed with guilt and grief.

In FOTR, Frodo is forced to confront that the even his powerful 'mentor figures' are still human, fallible, and able to be taken away from him; in ROTK, Gandalf witness the aftermath of Frodo destroying the Ring, proving that even this small unassuming hobbit can have this unimaginable capacity for strength and self-sacrifice.

Finally, the two of them journey into the Grey Havens together, because neither of them really survived.

In a way-- Frodo died in Mount Doom, as Gandalf died in Moria.

They've returned to life, they were called back. Gandalf was called back by forces "beyond thought and time," Frodo was called back by Sam's refusal to let go of him. But despite being recalled to life, they're permanently changed, transformed in a way that means they no longer belong in Middle Earth. They have to go across the sea.