Have You Seen My Sister "Edginess"?

White privilege means that you can say shit like this "ironically" when "discussing" Lady Gaga on Twitter:



[From Amanda Palmer's Twitter feed. Text reads: "@JoanArkham ironic product placement is only ok if you take no money & beyond that give all the income to something ironic. like the Klan."]

Yes, because giving money to a group that perpetuates domestic terrorism (warning for very graphic content) toward black people is IRONIC and totally comparable to...product placement in a music video.

I look forward to people defending this ridiculousness with any number of derailing techniques and/or trying to school me in why it's not harmful and is, like, TOTALLY HILARIOUS, why can't you take a joke? It's just hip(ster) racism.

I'm not laughing.

Ending the hiatus, for now...with a cross-post!

I am back, at least for now! I have some thoughts on the whole "Victorientalism" thing, mainly because I just cannot shut up about fannish issues where people are just "having a bit of fun" or using some other redonk justification for proudly flaunting their unearned privilege at the expense of others, but I will save those thoughts for a time when I am less tired. But, to sum things up: Today has been just one of many days in the past few weeks where I have exclaimed out loud, to no one in particular, "JEESUM CROW, PEOPLE, DID WE LEARN NOTHING FROM RACEFAIL '09?"

Also, here is an important post by meloukhia that you should read if you are at all active in online social justice communities--and, come to think of it, fandom could probably stand to have a similar discussion. Because, yeah, this is a conversation that needs to happen, and it needs to happen sooner rather than later or not at all.

NOW: Tori Amos.

Just a link

Who Killed Civil Discourse? Evelyn Evelyn, Marginalization, and Internet Discussion

Please comment over at FWD, as I can't really deal with multiple comment threads right now.

Thanks to everyone who commented on my last post; I don't have the spoons to respond to you all individually, but please know that your thoughts are appreciated!

Imbroglio a Go-Go

I have a rather Zen riddle for you guys: What is the sound of a fan being told off by someone she admires?

Yeah, I don’t quite know, either. But how perfect is it that having to address this latest go-round marks my return to blogging (especially after my last post on here)? A lengthy and sordid tale, shortened: I recently posted on FWD about Amanda Palmer and Jason Webley’s side project, the musical conjoined twin-duo Evelyn Evelyn, and things happened. Some folks showed up to tell me that I should focus on more important things, some broke out tone arguments, plus some other fun stuff. Which is sort of expected in the blogosphere—and some of which I expected, since Amanda’s fans tend to be pretty loyal--but I digress.

Here’s the thing: I attempted to be extremely careful about what I included in that post and how I wrote it. And yet, I keep having this nagging feeling that people either did not read or chose to ignore my numerous mentions of my affection for Palmer’s music, preferring instead to go into all-out defense mode. As if the definition of being a fan is entirely dependent on not critiquing and/or not questioning things that you take issue with. Ultimately, if I didn’t have the love that I do for Amanda’s music, and the desire to see her do better in the whole not-appropriating-disabled-peoples’-experiences department, I would not have written the post. I would not have raised these questions. I certainly would not have alluded to the fact that she can, and has, written some great songs about people with disabilities and/or mental health conditions (“Ultima Esperanza” and “Bad Habit,” to name just two). I probably would have just ignored Evelyn Evelyn as some eccentric side-project (that I am clearly not artistic enough to understand) and continued on my little bloggerly ways.

What I wanted to get across in the post, and what I want to reiterate here, is that some of us do not have the luxury of removing certain things, or certain people, from our mental peripheries. This is a hugely important principle in many segments of social justice work. For some of us, “suffering” is part of the messy reality of life; when you have chronic pain (as I do), that’s just the way it is sometimes. I cannot choose how, when or where my pain will affect me, and “suffering” is often part of the experience of living with pain, chronic illness or disability. And you cannot separate that suffering and that pain from the legacies of ableism, privilege and exclusion that continue to affect how people with disabilities are treated by many non-disabled people. As I’ve said before, dealing with my own physical pain is often easier than dealing with peoples’ opinions, attitudes and preconceived notions about my pain or about people with disabilities as a whole. But those things still affect and reinforce each other regardless.

How great for Amanda Palmer that she can so easily remove me--and my fellow disabled feminists--from her mental periphery. She would do well to remember, however, that many of us cannot do that. That she misunderstands my and others' critiques as just "anonymous hate" is, frankly, disappointing.

Also: Lauredhel has a great post here which further expands upon why all of this is so problematic.

Note: Comments on this thread, as usual, will be moderated with an iron fist. Them's the rules. If you don't like it, you can leave, because I am done arguing with people about supposedly infringing on their precious First Amendment rights by not letting them say bigoted shit.

Lines in the Sand: Daly, Showalter and Tactics of Exclusion

The second-wave radical feminist theologian and professor Mary Daly died earlier this month, and there has been a veritable outpouring of eulogies from various feminist blogs.

Few of these eulogies have acknowledged Daly's transphobia and racism.

I do not deny that Daly was an important figure in second-wave feminism, but to mourn her passing without a nod to her work's more problematic aspects, or explorations of these aspects, are, to put it mildly, not good. In particular, the intense, hateful transphobia found in some of her writing, and her issues with unexamined white privilege and racism--which both QueenEmily at Questioning Transphobia and Sungold at Kittywampus cover very well in recent posts--strikes many as both deeply disturbing and an old pattern that has, and continues to, rear its grotesque head in certain segments of contemporary feminism. I include myself among those who are deeply troubled by Daly's transphobic sentiments and her questionable record when it came to examining the entrenched racism and issues surrounding white privilege in the second-wave feminist movement.

I should probably mention at this point that I do not mean to appropriate or co-opt the struggles of trans* folks in any way, although my cis privilege will most likely be unintentionally reflected at points in this piece. Though the struggles of trans* people, trans feminists and PWDs and disabled feminists are not the exact same, some exclusionary tactics of certain cisgendered feminists and those of abled feminists sometimes take similar forms, especially within the mainstream feminist movement. The oppression of trans* folks and PWDs in cis, abled culture intersect in a number of ways; this post, however, barely scratches that surface. I believe that the many issues present in Daly's work--as well as the reaction to her death around the blogosphere--can serve as just one entry point to discussions of the similarities in oppression(s) that trans* people and PWDs face. There are also clear differences, among them the fact Daly used language that can only be called genocidal, while many other feminists of her generation did not advocate such an extreme path when it came to keeping certain individuals out of feminism. I will be focusing on feminism's exclusion of trans* and PWDs as reflected in the work of two very influential second-wave feminists here, but there is, of course, much more to these stories.

Daly's penchant for exclusion and outright hatred (particularly of trans* individuals) couched in oddly phrased academic rhetoric unfortunately brings to mind another famous second-waver's similar issues with people (particularly women) with disabilities. Princeton scholar Elaine Showalter--best known for bringing feminist literary theory to the fore in the academy at a time when such a discipline was, for the most part, inconceivable--dismissed disabling conditions like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Gulf War Syndrome and mental health issues such as Dissociative Identity Disorder (referred to in the text as Multiple Personality Disorder) in her 1997 book Hystories.

In Hystories, Showalter attempted to debunk "modern media epidemics" such as the aforementioned disabilities as well as more traditionally disproven phenomena such as alien abduction and satanic ritual abuse. In the book's chapter on Chronic Fatigue, Showalter rather disingenuously declared that she did not want to “disparage the suffering” of people with such conditions only a few pages before she called CFS an extension of Western “fin de siecle [end of the century] anxiety.” She followed this stunning assertion with the claim that the Western news media was primarily responsible for making CFS into an escalating “psychogenic epidemic” (117, 131).

Like Daly's severe opinion of trans* people as dupes of the medical industry (which Kittywampus cites in her post), Showalter also seemed to be taken with the idea that people with CFS are somehow being duped into thinking that they are ill because of the media focus on their condition. She wrote that many CFS patients and their defenders are “hostile to psychiatric or social explanations” of the condition, and that many of them react in a way that is not friendly to the labeling of CFS as “psychiatric” (128). However, the reactions of these same patients make sense if considered from a non-abled perspective. Showalter also seemed completely mystified by these "hostile" reactions. If CFS is just a manifestation of "fin seicle anxiety," as she contended (adding that "emotions have tremendous power over the body") she seemed to push the conclusion--without any scientific or medical proof--that many people with CFS have somehow been brainwashed into believing they have it; thus, the media-driven "hysterical epidemic" has worked.

Nowhere are feminists with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or related conditions consulted; the not-so-feminist implication here is that feminists with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome either do not exist or are just victims of a "hysterical" media-led epidemic and therefore cannot be "real" feminists. This is similar to how trans* feminists were erased, excluded and castigated by Daly as somehow not "real" women or feminists, and as benefiting from patriarchy in a way that "real" women and feminists could not. To put it crudely: This is exclusionary bullcrap, and it does not do trans* people, people with disabilities, feminists who fit either (or both) of these categories, or the feminist movement as a whole any favors whatsoever.

Exclusion is not radical. It has never been radical. It is, in fact, extraordinarily status-quo. No one should be able to arbitrarily pick and choose who "belongs" in the feminist movement and who does not, especially if those who are being excluded because of their gender identity, sexual identity or disability actively identify as feminist. Feminism should be for a wide variety of people; exclusion, however, is something that is not--and has never been--very feminist.

Author's note: I will be moderating this thread with an iron fist; please have the courtesy to not try to tell me how Daly really was an ally to trans* folks, or how Showalter didn't mean what she said about CFS *that* way, or that either author's influence on the feminist movement somehow excuses their hatred and bigotry. Thank you.

[Originally posted at FWD//Feminists With Disabilities]

Mainstream Feminism's "Deep Thoughts" Space is My Chamber of Horrors

Hello, hepkittens! I am taking a break from my self-imposed blogging hiatus (but really, when am I ever not on some sort of hiatus?) to ponder something that has been alternately confusing the crap out of me and making me pound out some half-baked ideas on Tumblr.

What is with all of the defense of the "mainstream" in the guise of contrarianism and/or special snowflake-ness that people keep popping up with as of late? I am not trying to go after any one person in particular, but it seems to me that when you're working within a social justice framework that is meant to be radical, there are things to address other than how you want to, like, listen to certain music and still call yourself a feminist. I mean, not that that is not important, but having the "courage to be cliche" is not exactly the rock that social justice movements were founded upon.

I do not mean to tell people what their feminism should be like, but it strikes me as sort of odd that some folks can write posts like this--on the "courage" that it takes to admit that you like mainstream stuff, OMG--and be apparently straight-faced about it.

Seriously: It is okay to like mainstream stuff. But don't pretend that doing so--and "reclaiming" it--is the very crux of radical, or that your justification for being "cliche" qualifies as "deep thoughts." One's "courage" in being "cliche" is a choice; some people do not have the option to, you know, fit so easily into the mainstream and call it radical.

ETA: OuyangDan has more on this.

Guess What?

Dear Certain Able-Bodied Bloggers Who Are Trying Soooo Hard to Stop Fucking Up,

I and other people with disabilities are not your Very Special Learning experience, no matter how much you may want to put us in that box.

As one of the original PWD blogger participants in the chat, furthermore, I'd really like it if the person who apparently believes that we are her Very Special Learning Experiences would a.) Apologize to Amandaw for breaking out the tone argument during the course of the chat (full transcript is here), and b.) attribute sources properly for the suggestions at the end of said Very Special Learning post. Part of the post makes it sound like the Feministing editors came up with the suggestions for improvement. Observe:

"The full summary of the suggestions from the group we engaged with appear after the jump. You can also see the transcript of our chat here.

And here's a quick recap of our substantive suggestions:

* A concrete statement of the site's commitment to intersectionality issues, to address what seems to be a popular feeling among commenters that the site is "Feministing, not SocialJusticeing." Whether a joint post for site authors or another mechanism turns out to be the best way to make this statement was undecided during the chat.

* Guest posts from people with disabilities focusing on a wide range of disability issues. Talks with Patty Berne had begun before these issues were raised and she may do more guest posts or potentially contribute to the site. We clarified our desire to see a wider range of issues addressed than have been in the past 2 years or so, when the only explicit focus on people with disabilities has been about performance art groups. Other potential areas to cover include political issues, health issues, employment issues, etc.

* Increased accessibility of the site itself. Miriam mentioned a current site redesign is in process, so it would be an excellent time to incorporate some increased accessibility. We suggested using this site to identify accessibility barriers and suggestions for fixes: http://wave.webaim.org/

* A clear and reliable mechanism for user flagging abusive comments and getting a response - currently it's unclear where those go, what criteria is used to determine whether it stays or not, with no feedback on criteria. We have noticed that the "report abuse" button now seems to direct emails to the author of the original post, rather than a general email. Miriam also mentioned plans to focus more on comment moderation, including creating a community editor/moderator position and incorporating community members in comment moderation.

* Current and updated contact information for all authors."

You call these YOUR substantive suggestions? These were OUR suggestions, and were not properly attributed to an email sent to the group by abbyjean, who was the organizer/official organizational muscle on our side of the chat.

The mis-attribution could have been a (big) typo, but on the other hand, given what went down in the chat, I am strongly adverse to giving certain folks the benefit of the doubt for any longer.

Oh, one more thing, Certain Able-Bodied Bloggers: IT'S. NOT. ALL. ABOUT. YOU.

Take from this statement what you will.

[I am speaking for myself here, and not as a representative of FWD//Feminists With Disabilities.]

ETA: The irony is killing me. The mere fact that a certain someone can break out the "tone" argument and then, in all seriousness, post something like the above--emotions for me, but not for thee--is truly stunning.

Confessions of a Reluctant Young White Feminist

Dear Feministing.com,

Once upon a time, I posted this on my Livejournal: "One day, I will write about my numerous issues with Feministing.com."

Guess what? Today is that day! Lucky you.

Let me introduce myself: I am a feminist, an occasional blogger, a person with disabilities (fibromyalgia, cerebral palsy), and am currently getting my Master's Degree in Women & Gender Studies. I am also white, heterosexual, cisgendered, have a college degree, and am relatively economically privileged. I, at first glance, seem to embody many (stereo)typical qualities of a young, white feminist: from the type of music I enjoy, to how I dress, to the fact that I sometimes wear makeup, and, on occasion, read BUST magazine when I need a break from "serious" literature. Because I am white, I have the choice to ignore issues surrounding race, and those surrounding white privilege. Because I am heterosexual and cisgendered, I can brush off queer and trans issues if I so choose. Because I am white, economically privileged and have a college degree, I can probably rest assured that I will have a job in the future, even with my rather esoteric choice of college major and advanced degree.

One could argue that your site is pretty much made for people like me: the "fun" feminists who can wear makeup and heels [I can't wear heels, but that's for another post], go out and party like it's 1999 [I don't, but that, too, is for another post], and still fight for [their own] rights the next morning. One could argue that your contributors do, in fact, speak for folks like me, and that since they are the face of the fourth wave, I should just be thankful that feminist issues are getting any airtime or page space in the mainstream media at all, and/or that people who look like me are getting book deals.

But here's where our feminisms differ, Feministing.com: I am saddened by your numerous issues when it comes to representing people who are not like you. You all don't have the greatest track record when it comes to race and white privilege, trans issues, disability issues, economic privilege, and a ton of other things that I am probably accidentally leaving out. If someone new to feminism were to look at your website--which, not incidentally, is one of the "top" feminist websites, at least in the U.S.--they might conclude that feminism is a movement that is exclusively for young, white, heterosexual, able-bodied, sexually active, upper-middle-class women. If you know about the history of feminism in the U.S., and I assume that you do, you will see why this is so troubling.

There is more to the feminist movement than fighting for the rights of white women. Feminism is more than allowing your or your commenters' racial, economic, heterosexual, and able-bodied privilege to go totally unchecked. If you are so committed to "intersectionality," as you have claimed several times, where is it? True efforts toward inclusivity and intersectionality constitute more than simply talking about those things, or throwing around whatever blogular buzzword is currently hot, or thinking that droppin' those terms like they are on fire will suffice. There is an enormous chasm of difference between talking about doing something and actually doing it.

There is no gentle way to say this, Feministing.com: You do not speak for me, and I'm not sure that you ever will. I want to give you a chance, but until you actually start to make changes instead of alternately talking about making them and ignoring those of us who have asked you to, it is going to be difficult for me to hold out any hope.

You've already made it clear that I am not like you; apparently, neither are the people who have asked you, time and time again, to take what they have to say seriously, and to make changes accordingly.

You have also made it clear that there is no room for people like me in your version of "fun" feminism. There is no room in your world for my brothers and sisters: feminists and womanists of color, feminists with disabilities, working class feminists, fat feminists, queer and LGBTI feminists, asexual feminists, older feminists, or trans folk.

I understand. Boy, do I understand.

I will end with the following quote from the great Barbara Smith:

"Feminism is the political theory and practice that struggles to free all women: women of color, working-class women, poor women, disabled women, Jewish women, lesbians, old women--as well as white, economically privileged heterosexual women. Anything less than this vision of total freedom is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement." [From "Racism and Women's Studies," 1979]

Sincerely,
Annaham

ETA, 7:27 PM PST: There's been an important update from meloukhia on this whole situation; Anna also has a lovely link roundup.

ETA II: I will be modding the shit out of both this and related posts; leaving trollish or inflammatory comments might spell D-E-L-E-T-I-O-N for you. Don't like it? Don't comment.

Objectivity: Its Uses and Abuses

A few months ago (I know it's, like, FOR-EV-ER in internet time, but bear with me, because as I have already explained, I can't update often because of various issues), Amandaw did a series of guest posts at Feministe, and--similar to what happened when she guest-posted last year--people kind of missed the point, and in some cases, did this rather spectacularly, by accusing her of not being "objective" enough in listening to criticism, among other things.

Here's the thing: Objectivity is absolutely, awesomely useful in many areas. The natural and physical sciences are just two areas where it is, understandably, required; quantitative studies in the Humanities are also useful to those of us who do scholarly work in that field.

But when you have such an e-boner for OBJECTIVITY in everything ever that you have to steamroll over peoples' experiences because you have an expert platform from which to do so, and your commentariat feels the need to pipe up about how they, too, have had similar experiences with PWDs and their goddamn bitching and why can't PWDs be more objective?!, then there is a bit of a problem. Specifically, when the entire point of someone's post is how a possible piece of legislation will impact those who need the proposed banned substance the most, being rabid about OBJECTIVITY is probably not the best strategy to take. Personal experience is subjective, and if you insist on screeching OBJECTIVITY OBJECTIVITY WHY CAN'T YOU BE REASONABLE, you are missing the entire point. The whole aim of Amandaw's post on the proposed Percoset and Vicodin ban was to demonstrate exactly why it is (and was) such a terrible idea--using her personal experience as someone with chronic pain to make her point.

If you're going to read the above-linked Skepchick post, I would suggest doing so with caution; one reason why I did not cover this when it happened was because I could not read the above thread without getting extremely upset. I'm going to get slammed for this, because it is not OBJECTIVE enough, but I still can't read through it without getting upset. Here is just a taste of the delightful comments following the post:



[Ridiculous comment by this person; macro by me, because I watched Aliens the other night for approximately the 443rd time.]

Before anyone goes all BUT THEY ARE EXAMINING IT **OBJECTIVELY**, STOP TAKING IT PERSONALLY-robotic on me, please remember: there is no way that I can not take it personally; many of the comments there are hateful toward people with chronic pain, or with disabling chronic pain. If you know anything about disability rights, or anything about social justice, or marginalized groups versus the majority, or even a very basic concept like privilege (and no, the "PWD privilege" argument in the above post is most definitely not what I am talking about here), you will see why this is not good. It does not matter if you hide your contempt for PWDs and chronically ill people behind the guise of OBJECTIVITY--you are still hiding your contempt (and just barely, I might add).

Tell me I'm wrong, skeptical people. Tell me that a (young) disabled feminist atheist like myself has a place in the movement, and not just in the young-white-cute-steamrollering-privileged-feminist subset of the skeptical movement. I wish I could see a place for myself in the movement, but right now, I really can't.

Obligatory, non-OBJECTIVE Disclaimer: This blog is a SAFE SPACE for people with disabilities and chronic illnesses, including chronic pain. If you're going to leave a comment about how one of my responses makes my entire blog/opinion moot, or how people with disabilities need to accommodate non-disabled people in attitude, openness, or helping ABs process their feelings, or that I'm too angry/emotional, or that you, as an able-bodied person, can totally relate and here's a long comment detailing exactly how, please remember that such a comment might not be taken in good faith, and that I might be a jackass to you in return.

Thanks, Feds!

Yes, because banning prescription pain pills that actually WORK for people with chronic pain/illness due to concerns surrounding "liver damage" totally makes sense.

Why not just ban acetaminophen as a whole, instead of JUST Percoset and Vicodin only because they contain that ingredient? I hate to say it, but acetaminophen/Tylenol does not do jack for me. I take Vicodin when my pain is really unbearable because of the other stuff contained in the pill.

I agree with this, however: “If you keep track of what you’re taking, none of this is an issue for you,” Dr. Jan Engle, a panel member and head of the Department of Pharmacy Practice at the University of Illinois in Chicago, said in an interview after the meeting.

It's too bad that the rest of the committee apparently chose to not consider that aspect. Not everyone is going to overdose on these pills, or take a particularly high or life-threatening dose. I don't want to sound like I do not have compassion for those who do overdose accidentally, but banning these medications outright--instead of educating folks about correct dosages, and treating those who do have serious addictions--seems rather short-sighted.

This is Not My Type of Feminism

There are days when I question whether feminism, as a whole, is welcoming to people like me. Or to people who are not *exactly* like me, but are still part of groups that have historically been ignored, erased, marginalized, or plundered by "mainstream" feminism.

This absolute trainwreck of a "discussion"--on mental illness--happened over two weeks ago at Feministe, and I'm still thinking about it. Many (though not all) of the comments on that post are horrific displays of ableist tripe.

I do not understand why some find it so haaaaaard to grasp that disability and ableism are feminist issues, or that disability rights and women's rights are connected; I find it equally difficult to understand why some are so dedicated to holding on to the last vestiges of their privilege, even as they give lip service to things like "inclusion" and "diversity." Neither term holds meaning when used by a certain type "good" mainstream liberal/feminist/et al to describe just how awesome and progressive they themselves are; oftentimes, these words are used to make those in the mainstream feel better about themselves, their privilege(s), and their biases--some of which they just cannot let go.

Again and again, I see comments in several places online that suggest that disabled and other marginalized people, and their experiences, are only good for two things: enabling the "growth and development" of mainstream feminists, and providing abstract (at least to those who have that privilege) discussion fodder that allows various "concerned" fems to do their thing without questioning their own privilege. Both of these have the effect of depoliticizing any radical potential that those who are NOT het white cis upper-middle class able-bodied mentally "healthy" feminists may bring to the table. In a way, it's kind of like using the ideas of radical women of color--without referencing where these ideas come from!--to make a point about your wedding, of all things.

It fucking hurts.

Stupid White People Tricks

Heidi Montag and Spencer Somethingorother at LAX, after returning from a recent trip to Mexico; picture via Go Fug Yourself.

MAKING A JOKE OUT OF SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE PANICKING OVER IS SO TEH FUNNY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE THE (white) PRIVILEGE WITH WHICH TO DO SO!

I only know who these brats are because I watch The Soup.

Even MORE Epic Privilege Fail, This Time From a Fellow Feminist

Well, looks like someone's already committed parts of Derailing For Dummies to memory.

Seriously, what the in the high holy fuck is feminist about what pretty much amounts to "Ann Coulter is a transsexual, DUR HURRRRRR"? Oh, right, it's supposed to be "snarky" and "ironic." Sort of like the Jezebel twits and their hard-hitting stances on a number of controversial issues, or something. Oh, and both the Jezes and the blogger linked above have also issued fauxpologies, which seem to have the not-so-subtle-message of "LA LA LA IT WAS JUST A JOKE, LIGHTEN UP!" Yeah, that totally helps.

I wish I could be more coherent, but this sort of shit astounds me, and the fact that it keeps happening makes it worse.

Oh, Old Posts...

Check out this weird comment that I found on an old post:

I found this page due to a link left in a different journal, I forget which one.

I like the idea, and most of the comments. However, the last one needs re-worked. I find it extremely inappropriate to list using medical cannabis (which can be inhaled, or eaten, not just smoked) along with addictive and destructive things like gambling and shooting heroin.

Medical cannibis has a *lot* of science behind it, and forms of medical cannabis are being used in enlightened countries like Great Britian and Canada.
http://www.drugdevelopment-technology.com/projects/sativex/

[...]

Access to medical cannabis is a political issue, not a health issue. Medical cannabis has been clearly scientifically proven to be an effective drug for pain control, much better than most of the drugs which the pharmaceutical want someone to use. This is a political issue based on control of the market by the big pharmaceutical companies, and your failure to recognize that does a huge discredit to your chart.

It would be far more appropriate to include a space which addresses the politics around denying people effective pain control.

Yes, because I love it when pot advocates tell ME what "discredits" MY WORK, and what is "appropriate" and not. Oh, and Big Pharma somehow gets worked in there, too. Love it.

I have had people who know next to nothing about my condition tell me that pot is "great for pain control" and that I should use it. Know why I chose to ignore them? Because a) they don't know me well enough to know that I do not want to become a pothead and b) pot can be addictive. I have a close relative who has struggled with marijuana addiction. I do not want to take that risk. That is my choice.

Assuming that one substance is a cure-all is, in a word, ridiculous. Do I tell other people with fibro that they should take Vicodin (as I do) for pain? No, because for some people it doesn't work. For some, it can be addictive. I have to keep this in mind. The pot advocates would do well to remember something similar. Pot is not a cure-all, no matter how you spin it.

If you want me to respect your opinion, please have the courtesy to respect mine in turn.

Epic Privilege Fail

At first, I was unsure as to what I thought of this blog, in which a guy with (temporary!) underarm crutches takes photos of NYC subway riders who sit in the elderly/PWD seating instead of offering him a seat.

After reading this NY Times blog post on the site, however, I'm inclined to think that this is yet another mostly able-bodied person who claims the "social experiment" defense in order to take advantage of his own privilege, and to claim that he now somehow has insight into what it's like to live with a disability. Observe:

Wednesday morning, he was crossing 42nd Street after a long commute, accompanied by a reporter, when he was asked if he had learned any big lessons from the whole affair.

“Big lessons?” he said, pausing for a moment. “Honestly, no.”

After another moment’s thought, he added that the site and its reaction have given him a new appreciation for the lives of people with permanent disabilities.

“There’s these little struggles and battles going on every day,” he said. “You’d have to have a really good attitude to deal with it and have it not get to you.”

Yay, it's the PWDs as somehow brave and/or inspiring trope! My favorite. Also, note how being on crutches for some time apparently gives him super-special insight into what it's like to be a person with a (visible) disability! Never mind that dealing with a permanent health condition or disability is not just about getting (or not getting) a seat on the subway; there are other things that one must think about, plan around, and negotiate. Plus, there's that whole thing about disabilities that don't have any of the handy visual markers of disability that some able-bodied folks in our culture so strongly rely upon.

The comments to the article, predictably, are full of people who feel the need to share about how they, too, were once on crutches and experienced something similar, so they totally get how difficult it is to live with a physical disability.

This doesn't help.

Time and Energy, Or Lack Thereof

This amazing post and its follow-up by Anna at Trouble in China have got me thinking. [In the interest of full disclosure, my Shakesville post is in there as an example of the problematic nature of inclusiveness.]

Whenever I mention this blog in, say, a contributor's or artist's bio, I nearly always include the qualifier "sporadically updated." Regular readers will know that this is partially my style--the dash of self-deprecation--but it masks something else. Namely: I very rarely have the energy to write a whole blog post, to respond to comments, or, hell, to comment on other blogs with wit and insight. This does not mean that I do not exist. It only means that I, quite simply, don't always have the mental or physical energy to contribute to a medium that is, by and large, designed in favor of the non-disabled.

Before the inevitable questions of "why don't you just quit?" arise, I keep and have kept this space for a very specific reason: I cannot just give up. Certainly, there are better writers out there than me. There are better blogs. I have blog friends who are more articulate, more stylistically clever; some of these folks who blog more, or have more readers. Yet I know that the blogosphere is a bit wicked in that one is only as good as her or his last post (to use a worn cliche). Some of us can crank out quality posts nearly every day. Many of us cannot.

I often cannot keep up with a 'sphere in which other voices--more able voices--have the luxury of time and actual emotional/physical energy to blog. The conspiracy theorist in me wants to chalk this up to the blogosphere's--and to a lesser extent, the internet's--design as yet another space where able-bodied folks can "fit," and can be "productive" in terms of number and quality of posts. For all the talk of the internet as a utopia where one is free to not be embodied, the same old shit seems to keep coming up, along with the big ol' Cthuluphant in the room: that the world is designed for able-bodied (and preferably white, straight, middle-class, and male) individuals. Productivity, fitting in, responding quickly: These are things that non-able-bodied folks may not be able to do, whether because of issues of time, energy, ease of access, or many other factors. What happens when one cannot type because of searing pain in her hands, wrists, arms? What happens when one finds that he is too brain-fogged to write a post, much less comment on an existing post that many other people have already commented upon? When one is confined to bed because of nausea or all-over pain that forces her to lie for hours, staring at the ceiling, doing nothing because it's all too much? What happens is that much-needed voices are not part of the conversation. They are lost, but not because they are not there.

This is shameful. There is no other word for it.

Do I know where to begin in pursuit of a solution? No.

Does anyone? I am not sure. I would like to hope that someone does, but I remain unsure.

We're here. You just might not know it, yet.

I Don't Get It.

This photo is from a Vanity Fair feature on "Comedy's New Legends." It is Seth Rogen, dressed as Frida Kahlo:



Could someone explain to me precisely if and/or why this image is supposed to be funny? Frida Kahlo's work is not exactly a barrel o'laughs, and if you look at the rest of the photo set, this image doesn't quite fit in with the other photos. I could see how it makes some sense given that the rest of the photos are of new "legends" dressed as those of yesteryear, but...I'm stuck, and unsure of what this image is trying to convey. Man dressed as woman = automatically hilarious? Frida Kahlo is/was manly? I have no idea.

Also, re the cover image: Is male nudity really so offensive to various delicate sensibilities that all of the "nude" guys on the cover have to wear bodysuits? I get that it's supposed to be a takeoff on VF's ridiculous Tom Ford cover, but there is something about the bodysuits that makes it, at least in my eyes, less satirical and more shaming, as Melissa/Shakes so eloquently puts it. That said, the thing that I do like about this image is Paul Rudd's exact aping of Tom Ford--he's got it down to a t.

Joining the Privilege Pile-On?

I still have no idea what I think about this post. Normally, I very much enjoy Courtney Martin's writing, but this post, to me, screamed of privilege. I know she works hard, and consistently produces high-quality writing. The aforementioned post is not that. Am I supposed to feel envious of her lifestyle? Should I commiserate with her over the "email black hole"? Wish that I, too, could start my day at 11:00 AM? I am baffled.

I have long maintained that the feminist blogosphere has a fairly large number of blind spots (my use of this phrase is NOT intended to be ableist); if you read this blog regularly, you are probably aware that I consider disability to be one of these privilege(d) blind spots. Increasingly, as Lauren has pointed out, class position and work--particularly in this economic climate--are two others. I myself am not immune to worrying about the state of our economy--though I benefit from enormous privilege now (including familial and monetary support, having school as my primary "job," and health insurance, among other things), it is entirely possible that I will need to find employment that is not in the academic field in the coming months, when I have my completed BA degree in hand. [I have included the qualifier "entirely possible" because I am still waiting to hear from several graduate programs to which I have applied.]

Due to my disability, I am physically unable to work full time. The most I can do without depleting all of my available energy is about 30 hours per week. I am aware that it will be a challenge for me to find a job where I can work that amount of time and still be able to support myself; it is unlikely that starting work at 11:00 AM, checking email throughout the day, and eating "overpriced" sushi will be part of such a job. That is fine with me; what I take issue with is Martin's seemingly blatant disregard for those who may not be as lucky as she is. The tone of her post makes it appear that she is, for lack of a better word, "set." Some folks in the feminist blogosphere who may be in similar situations would do well to remember that this is not the case for many people.

Quick Hit Strikes Back: The Sexification of Illness

http://polkadotgals.com/index.html [NOT SAFE FOR WORK]

I do not begrudge these women for trying to raise awareness of fibro, but is a bikini/nude calendar really a good strategy? I also have to question the wisdom of selling lingerie [NSFW] in conjunction with the calendar in the name of "awareness."

What concerns me is the fact that many of the people who have posed for the calendar fit perfectly into the already-existing white, Western hegemonic ideal of female beauty, and are apparently nude in the name of "awareness." It's a move straight from the PETA playbook: using (white) naked female bodies to make consumers ostensibly aware of a cause without examining the larger implications of such a move.

How much "awareness" can one really have if one is too busy focusing on T&A?

For more on the sexification of illness and the related consumerist implications, read Barbara Ehrenreich's amazing piece "Welcome to Cancerland".