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.
I’m a disabled person, and I also work at the Disability Services Office at a college.
Not very long ago, a professor rushed into our office flustered and angry because
1. She had a blind student in her class.
2. She asked us how we planned to communicate graded papers to her student, since her habit was to write corrections on printed papers.
3. To which we replied, “Just send her an email instead of writing your corrections on the printed paper.”
How DARE we burden HER with so much extra work? More about how busy she is. More about how that gives an “unfair advantage”. (???) More on how could we possibly expect her to make such a drastic accommodation, which wasn’t fair to her or her other students.
How many emails do you think you send to your sighted students every semester? Dozens? Hundreds? How many classes of 25+ students do your teach every semester? How do you communicate with them?
This problem was entirely created in this professor’s mind by her own assumption that anything a disabled student could need was unacceptable, and a waste of her time.She returned to our office to complain several times over this.
She threw an actual tantrum over something she did for her non-disabled students every single day without even considering it.
Because “everyone knows” disabled people, whatever we might need, that need is too much. It’s a burden on abled people. It’s “unfair to everyone else (read: non-disabled people).
Many disability activists say things along the lines of “our needs aren’t more, just different”. Well, I have to say that even when are needs are the same, they’re still, apparently “too much”.
Anonymous asked: Why is John Lennon bad
Master Post on Why John Lennon is Shit
So here’s a master post of John Lennon’s shittiness. I added much more info about cultural appropriation in his music. I also submitted this to Your Fave is Problematic.Sexism/abuse
- publicly admitted to hitting the women he dated
- abusive toward both his wives, including Yoko Ono and his son
- was controlling in his relationship with Yoko Ono, making her follow him everywhere (including the bathroom)—and made her list all the men she had slept with, which he shamed her for, and did various other controlling/abusive things
- wrote this misogynistic song that threatens violence against women
Homophobia and antisemitism
- was antisemitic and homophobic, and made antisemetic/homophobic comments toward Brian Epstein, the Beatles’ gay and Jewish manager
- even beat someone nearly to death for even insinuating that he had an affair with Brian Epstein: he never apologized for the incident, despite using the excuse for being drunk at the time, stating, “he called me a bloody queer, and I bashed in his ribs for it.’ Later, when he was older, and supposedly “reformed” he claimed he just “wanted to show he was a man” at that age…
- wrote the racist song: “Woman is the ‘N-word’ of the world” (except he used the actual word not n-word) tw in link for racial slur; discussion here explaining why the song is racist (again tw for slur) post explains the song, not only uses a slur but also erases Black women, and equates sexism non-black women face with anti-blackness) (one lyric: “women is the slave to the slaves”)
- appropriating/stealing music from Black artists: stole riffs, melodies and even lyrics from Black artists, to name but a few examples: I Feel Fine from Bobby Parker; Day Tripper from Bo Diddly; and was sued for stealing Come Together from Chuck Berry; and did many covers where Black vocal styles are appropriated: Twist and Shout from Isley Brothers, Money fromBarrett Strong/Berry Gordy, Some Other Guy from Ritchie Barrett—examples go on and on
- appropriation of Indian music and culture, including the appropriation of traditional Indian instruments, spiritual/religious beliefs, perpetuating harmful stereotypes and white supremacy; examples of appropriation in music here, here, here; and this video is an example of not only appropriation of the sitar but Indian spirituality (“om” in the song Across the Universe) and in fetishizing/exoticizing spiritual practices in India
- often made offensive comments about disabled people (note that the jerk who wrote the article in the link makes ridiculous excuses for him)
- mimicked people with developmental disabilities
- stated that disabled people touching him was “horrifying” and continually referred to disabled people as “cr*pples”; talked about disabled fans in extremely ableist, demeaning ways
- made a song called “Cr*ppled Inside” with an ableist slur to appropriate the pain of disabled people to describe his “internal pain” as a white abled man
Harassment/bullying/acts of violence
- Committed various humiliating/violent actstoward strangers and friends: threw knives at people in the audience at concerts, being a violent drunk and getting in fights with friends, etc.; also dubbed Germans at a concert “Nazis” and “Hitlerites”
- he may have beenresponsible for the death of former bandmate Stuart Sutcliffe, on top of more heinous behavior, including urinating on nuns
- Edit:there are tons of conflicting accounts of Stuart Sutcliffe’s
death. There’sthis accountfrom Sutfliffe’s sister that Lennon beat Sutcliffe savagely after learning he was leaving the group—which may or may not have lead to death by complications later (but she alsoclaimsthe beating didn’t lead to his death, but it still did damage). There are other accounts whichclaim that thugs attacked Sutcliffe and gave him the injury or thatSutcliffe fell down a flight of stairs— there were even rumors of it being caused by amphetamine use or a tumor (those seem to be bogus)— we can’t know for sure what the true story is (but it’s not unthinkable that someone with Lennon’s history of abuse would do this)
Nassim Taleb, Antifragile (via epiphany-rambler)
YES YOU SEE BECAUSE ANTIDEPRESSANTS MAGICALLY WIPE OUT YOUR ENTIRE CAPACITY FOR MELANCHOLY IN ONE FELL SWOOP LIKE YOU LITERALLY POP ONE PILL AND BOOM THERE’S A BIG SMILE ON YOUR FACE AND THEN YOU CAN NEVER WRITE POETRY AGAIN BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW IT’S ONLY POSSIBLE TO WRITE GOOD POETRY WHEN YOU’RE IN A FETAL POSITION DRY SOBBING AT ONE IN THE AFTERNOON AND WONDERING IF YOU’D HAVE THE EMOTIONAL ENERGY TO SHOOT YOURSELF IF YOU HAD A GUN GODDAM THOSE EVIL DOCTORS AND THEIR MEDICINE THEY RUINED LITERATURE FOREVER BECAUSE AS WE ALL KNOW LITERALLY NOBODY HAS EVER WRITTEN ANYTHING EVEN HALFWAY DECENT SINCE ANTIDEPRESSANTS CAME OUT ALSO FUCK THE POLIO VACCINE AND AIRPLANES FOR SOME REASON
"Everything with a soul would have been silenced"?? jfc
IN CASE ANYONE WAS WONDERING WHAT ACTUAL ROMANTICIZING LOOKS LIKE
ughhhh gross gross gross
also i’m pretty sure if Poe had antidepressnts he probably would have lived longer and written more stuff
because drugs don’t necessarily take away one’s capacity for being human and creating things
Andre Dubus (via poivin)
oh my fucking god what a load of ableist bullshit. yeah ok let’s further pathologize those of us with social anxiety by telling us we’re being narcissistic because we’re afraid of interacting with others and afraid of how they’ll react. most of us understand this on an intellectual level. we get that the opinions of most of the people we meet are irrelevant to us and that people who judge us based on our looks or our speech or our ability are Not Nice People. knowing, in this case, is not half the battle. it’s maybe 2.5% of the battle and the rest of it is getting help with overcoming the crushing fear of simple social interactions
Are you fucking kidding me is this person for fucking real?
This is fucking disgusting.