Andrea Smith, Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide
The intersection of racism and ableism …
read so much andrea smith when i was researching forced sterilization of native women my sophomore year … highly recommended reading
From the Department of Education:
- Black students accounted for 18 percent of the country’s pre-K enrollment, but made up 48 percent of preschoolers with multiple out-of-school suspensions.
- Black students were expelled at three times the rate of white students.
- American Indian and Native-Alaskan students represented less than 1 percent of students, but 3 percent of expulsions.
- Black girls were suspended at higher rates than all other girls and most boys.
- American Indian and Native-Alaskan girls were suspended at higher rates than white boys or girls.
- Nearly one in four boys of color, excepting Latino and Asian American students, with disabilities received an out-of-school suspension.
- One in five girls of color with disabilities received an out-of-school suspension.
- A quarter of the schools with the highest percentage of black and Latino students did not offer Algebra II.
- A third of these schools did not offer chemistry.
- Less than half of American Indian and Native-Alaskan high school students had access to the full range of math and science courses, which consists of Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, calculus, biology, chemistry and physics.
- Black and Latino students accounted for 40 percent of enrollment at schools with gifted programs, but only represented 26 percent of students in such programs.
- Black, Latino and Native American students attended schools with higher concentrations of first-year teachers (3 to 4 percent) than white students (1 percent).
- Black students were more than three times as likely to attend schools where fewer than 60 percent of teachers meet all state certification and licensure requirements.
- Latino students were twice as likely to attend such schools.
(h/t The Nation)
I admit it: I’m a total sucker for “inspirational” viral videos that pop up on Facebook and Twitter, especially if there are bunnies involved. But there’s one video I’m completely sick of seeing and will be happy to never see again – ones where deaf people are able to hear for the first time.
One of the latest made the rounds today, featuring 40-year-old Joanne Milne of Gateshead, U.K., who was born with Usher Syndrome, a rare genetic disease that affects hearing and vision. News outlets all over the world shared the YouTube video of Milne weeping with joy as she discovered her hearing for the first time, but few looked past the highly emotional moment to explore the scientific explanation behind it, or to explore the question what it’s truly like to be deaf.
I’m a CODA – Child of Deaf Adults – and involved in the Deaf activist community. [Note: writing Deaf with a capital D separates people who can’t hear from people who consider deafness a major part of their cultural and political identity.] So usually I’m thrilled when people read an article about people in the Deaf community or see a cool video in American Sign Language and think to send it to me. It means that I’m making a difference, however small, in helping to educate people about the Deaf community. However, the “deaf person hears for the first time” videos don’t make me smile. They make me want to throw my computer out a window.
More at the link. The title is a link.
A Michigan teacher is in trouble after filming an 11-year-old autistic boy who got his head stuck in a chair.
This person is clearly not fit for teaching and should at the very least be fired. But she’s on paid leave and fucking tenured (albeit undergoing some sort of review) so it isn’t likely.
She asked the boy if he wanted to be tasered. TASERED.
Would you accept this if the child was NT? Probably not, so why is this still perfectly okay when it comes to autistic kids?
This is inexcusable.
Also note the several people defending the teacher’s actions at the end of the video.
This is the reality for many of us Autistics, where our abusers and murderers are routinely defended.
how can you not see ableism as a feminist issue
autistic girls, especially black autistic girls, are misdiagnosed and underdiagnosed because of the focus on white cis boys and how they present as autistic
disabled girls and women often have their consent violated, both in medical procedures and otherwise, our bodies and minds are often not considered are own and we are dismissed as not having the capacity to make our own decisions
on top of that many disabled girls are seen as delusional and their speaking out about the abuse they have face, by whatever communication method, is often seen as them making things up and over reacting
many disabled women are fetishised and seen as an outrageous ‘thing’ to fuck, but are not seen as human
disabled girls, especially physically disabled girls, do not live up to ideas of beauty in our society and often have extreme self esteem issues
disabled women and girls face more shit than you could ever know and I need you to understand
Ableism. Is. A. Feminist. Issue.
my first diagnosis was a psychotic disorder btw
I just needed to say, the ableism in last night’s episode was a big problem.
For context: I’ve been taught to view people’s prosthetic or mobility devices as integral parts of their bodies. For example, don’t grab at someone’s wheelchair, as there is no material difference, in terms of bodily integrity and emotional violation, between that and grabbing at someone’s legs. I’m sure that there are some disabled people who don’t have personal feelings bout their prosthetic and mobility devices — any group always has some people who feel differently — but as a default position: you should always treat someone’s prosthetic limb with the same respect with which you would treat someone’s non-prosthetic limb.
With that in mind, that very first scene with the man who had a prosthetic leg: the opening joke — the dissonance of Sherlock demanding someone give him their leg — is predicated on the idea that a prosthetic leg is not a “real” leg. If you view a prosthetic limb as a legitimate part of a person’s body, there is no “ahahahaha I get it now” moment in that exchange. Sherlock is demanding cooperation in an invasive action, and it never stops being Sherlock demanding cooperation in an invasive action.
In fact, in terms of emotional significance, that warrant lying there on the table was getting on toward a warrant for a strip-search. And yet the scene was played as comedy. Isn’t it ridiculous that this man is so upset about handing over a body part for the inspection of strangers, and in the process, making his physical independence vulnerable to them? (Actually, no, not ridiculous at all. His balking at it is perfectly understandable, in fact.)
Additionally, there was something supremely disgusting about everyone’s entitlement about their “right” to inspect his prosthetic leg. And not just inspect: hand it around, carry it around, use it as a “quirky” and “amusing” prop. (Doncha know? Disabled people have no right to bodily dignity! Not when able-bodied people want to inspect and point and discuss and gawk! Also, disabled bodies are weird and amusing!)
Further, Sherlock and the detective stated that they had no need to search the prosthetic: they already had all their evidence. So it wasn’t “just” a procedurally-necessary strip-search handled in a disrespectful manner, but a “for no reason but that we have the power and it amuses us to use it” strip-search.
Moreover, there wasn’t any physical evidence in that compartment, and yet, somehow, the mere existence of the compartment was considered damning. There was the strong implication that the point of a prosthetic limb is to mimic a flesh limb, and that any customization of one’s own prosthetic beyond the ability of flesh is inherently suspect. (I see this come up whenever a prosthetic limb outperforms a flesh limb: the implication that the prosthetic-user is “cheating.” In this case, they upgraded “cheating” to outright criminality.)
Basically, the character dared to have a prosthetic limb, dared to consider it part of his body, dared to customize it for his own use, and he was disciplined hard for it on all counts and by all comers, without the narrative backing his perspective on the matter once.
Frankly, it turned my stomach.
And while we are discussing the episode’s ableism, there was also Sherlock’s reiteration of the "if you just work hard enough you can overcome any injury; if you’re disabled it’s because you gave up" trope. As was pointed out earlier, but was apparently forgotten by the time they got to that later scene: time doesn’t heal all wounds. For some people, it doesn’t, and when it doesn’t, it’s not their fault.
And while Bell was allowed to push back against Sherlock’s invocation of that trope — “You assume my rehab CAN be completed!” — in the end, the episode endorsed Sherlock’s position by having Bell return to his old job in Major Crimes. Bell, apparently, has been persuaded that it is just a matter of faith and commitment, of trying hard enough, etc., etc. And the narrative was treating that as if it was a correct and uplifting ending, without any hint that it is a gamble that might lead to disappointment.
sherlock’s confrontation with marcus could have worked better if it had been framed differently. they could have supported the notion that marcus wasn’t happy, instead of presenting mild awkwardness that didn’t seem more severe than anyone starting out in a new department. was it much of a punishment, really? like yeahbeeswax said, they could have allowed “it doesn’t come as easy for the rest of us” to also carry the racial and class implications that someone like marcus would be thinking about. and they could have presented sherlock as being well-intentioned but blindly naive, or, dovetailing on my earlier point about showing marcus genuinely unhappy, basing his deductions on something we can see clearly.
Thank you for articulating the offensiveness of that opening scene and the continuing echo of assumptions about trying harder. Highlighting ways (so many of them) that Sherlock is blindly naive would be fantastic. Unfortunately, since it is the show itself that is naive in these ways, it will be a long time coming. One way to address it would be for Marcus’s tremor to continue. I simultaneously want and desperately don’t want that to happen. Don’t want, for the character’s sake; do want for what it could allow the show to explore. Not sure I trust them with that task, though.
I read the confrontation with Marcus in part as also demonstrating what Sherlock’s strategy as a sponsor might look like, and I hope that it might actually fail. I don’t want to wish a relapse on anyone, but I also don’t want success to come easy. He was surprised to see Marcus back at “his” desk already, and they’re clearly not friends again (yet). But his method apparently worked, and that is fuel to his egotistical fire.
I appreciated that he acknowledged that he himself got “a little better”; he’s not fixed or finished, but they haven’t spent any time on that recently. He’s stated that addiction does not go away, but we haven’t seen what that means for him. I’d love some sort of exploration of how the experience of addiction and recovery is both similar and radically different for different people.
This is why I find the idea of worrying that I’ll get ‘dependent’ almost laughable - of course I’ll be constantly dependent, I’m constantly in pain.
I wish doctors understood this.
I’m more physically dependent on my seizure meds than people on opiates are to those meds, and nobody calls it an addiction, even though unlike most people’s response to opiate withdrawal, seizure med withdrawal CAN KILL YOU.
Physical dependence and addiction are two different things. Get it straight. The fear of everyone getting addicted to opiates if they take them for pain relief is completely unfounded by science. It happens but not frequently compared to people who don’t get addicted. And most of this is based in fear and hatred of addicts, and the drug war, rather than concern for anyone’s safety.
If you were concerned for people’s safety you’d give them opiates. They are the safest of the long-term painkillers — anticonvulsants, NSAIDS, and steroids all have much more dangerous side-effects. And untreated pain is not just severely uncomfortable, it’s also dangerous to the body’s ability to heal from just about anything medically, and puts the body under such strain that you become sicker and in more danger of being sick than you would if your pain is treated. So even if treating the sensations of pain was some kind of frivolous thing — which it isn’t — treating the effects of pain on the body, is nowhere near frivolous.
Whaddaya Call Normal People?
First, please don’t use “normal” to refer to people without disabilities. That implies that PWDs are abnormal, which is a perception we’re trying to change. Having a disability is as much a part of the human experience as anything else. It is normal to have a disability!
I’m sure some of you are thinking or have read “able-bodied/AB” or “TAB” (temporarily able-bodied). The problem with “AB” is that it indicates that all disabilities are the result of physical impairments, such as mobility issues. However, there are a multitude of disabilities that don’t fall into this category. Mental health disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and autism are examples of disabilities that do not necessarily have anything to do able-bodiedness.
TAB seems cool, but it’s actually problematic. It’s based on the belief that everyone will develop some disabilities in old age. Some people use TAB to try to raise awareness that disability is a normal part of life and something that can happen to anyone. I definitely support the goal of non-otherizing PWDs. After all, I lived my first twenty-odd years without disabilities, and now I have multiple disabilities.
However, the fact of the matter is that not everyone does develop a disability. Some people never reach adulthood, let alone old age. You can be perfectly healthy and nondisabled until you die in a car accident or of a heart attack. My grandmother was much healthier and more active at 82 than I was at 28.
In addition, I’ve seen people use TAB to dismiss the validity and uniquely different perspectives and experiences that come from living with disability. It’s much like saying, “Well, I have glasses, so I’m disabled, too,” or saying to a lesbian or gay person, “Well, everyone’s bisexual,” to negate the reality that living as a queer person in our culture is different than living within normative sexual/familial culture.
So, what’s the answer to what to call nondisabled people — i.e., people without disabilities? It’s in the question! It’s “person/people without (a) disability/ies” OR “nondisabled person/people”! What could be simpler?
This is a common expression I’ve seen used a lot which makes me cringe a bit whenever I see it.
Language is different everywhere, and especially language relating to disability, so I don’t think that do/don’t lists work universally. However, there are definitely some don’ts, and “able bodied” is one of them.
What would be appropriate instead depends on context - in North America it seems like “nondisabled” would be considered appropriate by people with disability and their advocates, but here it definitely would not.
Also, ageing is not the same as disability. Ageing processes occur for everyone, but differently for people depending on a whole range of factors (most often, the social determinants of health). And people with disability also age - their bodies and brains change over time due to both processes of ageing that happen for everyone, as well as issues relating specifically to their disability or health condition.
Whenever I’ve seen the international adoptee community get together to break down this ish — which is far more frequent than outsiders imagine given how our adoption
market pricesfees are literally determined by the intersection of our disability, race, nationality, and assigned sex —
we employ what best translates to in English as not “normal” but conventionally abled.
People be like.. #freehand #perfectRedLip #2014goals #makeupArtist #handicapable #lipGoals #noConcealerNeeded #perfectPout #lipGameOnPoint #xoxo …#imCrying ;__;
This would be super useful for someone who wanted to wear lipstick but couldn’t put it on straight because of shaking hands.
And yet you all are laughing about it because it isn’t useful for your own everyday lives? Making fun of the very people that this device would be useful for - the “handicapable?”
Probably because you’ve never been forced to stop and think about how you’d do mundane shit like putting on your lipstick with a disability. Do me a favor and stop using outdated, ableist words like “handicapable” and stop making disability the butt of the joke.
I was gonna unleash some cripple rage but then mohala sumiko fukkin nailed it
Yo fuck ableist nonsense this is a rad idea for fellow sick femmes out there
Oh, I’m so ready to add to the cripple rage pile.
Fun story ables - a year ago I tried to give all my make up to my sister because I couldn’t even put mascara on anymore without it getting all over my face thanks to tremors. Luckily she just told me she’d do my make up if I needed it.
Even now if I want to put eyeliner on it takes over an hour because I have to redo so much of it with how shaky my hands get. You can see why I haven’t worn any in over nine months.
I am a femme goddess. My femme is badass. My femme requires so much more dedication than abled femmes could ever understand. My femme is eyebrow pencils that I wear daily because my eyebrows fall out in patches from illness. My femme is amazing and equally as queer as yours and your abled ass is never going to look as cute as my disabled femme magic.
thatguywhoexists-deactivated201 asked: what advice do you have for someone that has had writers block for the past 6 or 7 years?
this will sound harsh but you’re probably not a writer.
writer’s writer every day. it’s ok, not everyone is.
but if you consider yourself one, get off your ass and get back to work!! write about why you haven’t been writing . anything. just write.
I fucking hate “writers write every day”. That is the most damaging fucking advice, oh my god. No one works every day. People are allowed to have weeks where they’re not feeling creative. Writers are allowed to not always have the spoons to write. Writers are allowed to be ill, mentally or physically.
Stop telling people that of They’re not writing every day they’re ~ not actually writers ~ because literally all you’re fucking doing is trying to get out of giving actual advice, you fucking pricks.
Rediscovered evidence shows that the US Veterans Administration lobotomized 2,000+ mentally ill and/or gay male and female veterans during and after WWII
I don’t even know what to do with this except share it. Note that I haven’t watched it, I’m too tired to process video/voice. I’d need a transcript, but the WSJ is fairly competent in its research.
If you skip the intro, you get to a picture and can scroll down to a written article.
gnommes asked: Why is it bad to say "use your words"? I was just wondering because I work in a daycare and my co-workers use that phrase everyday with the children, one of which isn't able to talk due to Angelman syndrome.
It posits verbal communication as the only valid communication.
Autistic people have had things withheld from us because we could NOT use our words, i.e., respond verbally.
Imagine if you will that you’re a 4 year old who is thirsty and wants a cup of milk. You know where it is, but you’re not capable of getting it yourself. And you have a therapist or teacher or someone that you can ask for it, but you can’t make the words form in your mouth. And that teacher says to you, “use your words” and you CAN’T. Can you imagine how frustrating that is? See, that’s what happens to people like me every day. Even as an adult.
And when you posit verbal communication as the only way to obtain consent, the implications are huge. They are that nonverbal autistic adults are not adults at all, but rather, children. You also imply that consent that is not verbal is not consent after all, so disabled people cannot consent to sex if they can’t verbalize it. On the other hand, you also are saying that disabled people who use nonverbal communication to say “no” won’t have that heard because it’s not a valid denial of consent.
This phrase is wrong. And it needs to die, honestly. Even if there weren’t nonverbal people. Children are often struggling to find the right words to say, so saying “use your words” is just downright frustrating. Even if you think they’re capable of doing so, it’s wrong.