WOOOO

I have a domain name! Where my blog will now be hosted!

http://annaham.net/

Please update your links accordingly; I am working on getting everyone's blog up on the blogroll, which may take a while (so do not worry if you do not see your name on the blogroll!)

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.

So...

I am kind of out of ideas at this point, if the level of discourse we're talking about has now been brought down to going on Australian TV and saying that you've been "crucified" by a bunch of disabled feminists--while playing the "disabled feminists" part for laughs.

I can't do this "civility" and "politeness" thing anymore, at least with certain people who, quite clearly, do not give a rat's ass about displaying either of those things themselves and yet demand that I hold their hands while they continue to rationalize their own (and others') privileged behavior. I've had to explain, over and over again, in various corners of the internet, that I and my fellow feminists with disabilities--and others who have committed to discussing these issues in a mature manner--have the right to not be personally attacked, threatened, and, now, have our very existence so cavalierly made into a joke. I really can't. Apparently, to Amanda Palmer and some of her supporters, neither I nor other disabled feminists are human beings who are worthy of any respect whatsoever (or having our concerns taken seriously, heaven forbid).

I am exhausted.

ETA: I will be on an indefinite blogging HIATUS starting today. I will see you all soon, hopefully.

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.

HIATUS.

I will be taking a break from Tumblr/Twitter/public blogging for a while. CONGRATULATIONS, CERTAIN PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET. You’ve gotten rid of me, at least temporarily. I am not referring to some sort of internet-wide conspiracy to Get Rid of Annaham; that would be ridiculous and maybe a little bit narcissistic. I am, however, referring to some stuff that went down this weekend, particularly in regards to the fallout in and around this post and comment thread.

At least on my friends-locked LJ/DW, people cannot twist the words of my friends, of my community--or, ahem, twist the words that I have written, either here or on another site--in order to spread outright lies in order to advance some sort of agenda in the name of calling folks out? Or some shit? Or whatever it is you’re trying to accomplish?

Hint: Your strategy is not working.

My new strategy is to not engage with you, since y’all think personal attacks, spurious accusations of friends of mine faking their disability, erasing the identities of some of my friends, et cetera are FAIR. How would you feel if I accused you of faking your disability, or, for that matter, erased parts of your identity to fit my agenda? You’d get upset, and rightfully so.

But, you know, since the policy among some folks lately seems to be “understanding for me but not for thee,” I guess I’ll just have to bow out for now.

Please note that I am speaking for myself here and not the whole of FWD, since some people seem to have trouble distinguishing individual contributors from the whole of the site, and seem to want to hold me personally accountable for the ENTIRE site.

ETA: Modding this comments thread with an iron fist, just like most of my other comment threads.

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.

Guest Blogging 4: This Time, It's Personal

My Glass Menagerie post is up on the Bitch blog! (Lol at misspelling in the link title; I had to go back and edit the title since I hilariously spelled "blue" as "bue.")

Yes, it is basically a mash note to Laura Wingfield.

On an unrelated note, I hope everyone has a happy holiday/solstice/New Year!

Son of Guest Blogging

My latest Bitch post--on Supercrip--is up!

I predict that someone will blast me for the Chris Reeve comment at the end of the third full paragraph (even though many disability activists have been taking exception to Reeve's public persona for a long time).

More Guest Blogging

I have another post up on the Bitch Blog today; it's about popular songs that get disability right, for the most part. Considering that this post did not take nearly as long as the Lady Gaga one to write, I am very pleased with how it turned out.

I Can Has BitchBlog Post!

I have a post up on Bitch as part of the Transcontinental Disability Choir guest blog stint! It's on Lady Gaga's video for "Paparazzi."

Please read it!

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.

IIB v 1.0

Note: This is a revised version of a bingo card that I made some time ago. I will be moderating the crap out of this thread, meaning that I will expect comments to follow the comments policy to the letter.

While I don't feel like I should be required to justify the lowermost right square, there was some confusion and pretty ooky pushback when I posted version 1 on my own blog. I'll explain that square anyway, for CMA purposes: I am aware that pot works for many people with chronic pain, and personally have no issue if people other than myself use it. I'm an advocate of finding what works for you; whether it's a pill, plant, pilates-esque routine, or something else, your course of pain management should be your choice.

What I am referring to with this bingo card -- as a whole -- is the commonplace, rather irritating tendency of some able-bodied people to suggest -- without knowing about the medical history of (or, indeed, much about) the person they are "trying to help" -- remedies or treatments that may be totally inappropriate for that person, due to various (personal) reasons. In short, what works for you may not work for me, and vice versa; how I wish I could have articulated this to the folks who have "helpfully suggested" that I smoke pot or obtain other illegal "meds" to help with my pain!

Okay, explanatory note/rant over. Onto the bingo card! I hope you all have your chips ready.

Also, special thanks to Ouyang for suggesting the "Diet and Exercise!!1" free space.



annaham-iibv1

Text translation: card has white text on a black background. Title (in white) reads, “annaham presents: Invisible Illness Bingo 1.0,” followed by “Now With Straighter Lines” in red:

First Row, Square #1: All that’s keeping you from being healthy is a positive attitude!

First Row, Square #2: My ex/friend/co-worker had that, but he/she was just a hypochondriac.

First Row, Square #3: Maybe if you lost weight/found a man/read The Secret, your problems would be solved.

First Row, Square #4: Why can’t you just suck it up, get out of bed, and find a job like the rest of us?

Second Row, Square #1: Lucky! You get to stay in bed all day.

Second Row, Square #2 (middle square): Free Space/DIET AND EXERCISE!!!11

Second Row, Square #3: You don’t look sick/you’re just complaining too much

Third Row, Square #1: Obviously, you get something out of being sick. Otherwise, you’d get better!

Third Row, Square #2: If I haven’t heard of it, then it doesn’t exist.

Third Row, Square #3: But I went through hard times too, and I got through it. Let’s talk about what a great person I am.

Third Row, Square #4: You have it so much better than some people! Think of the starving children in Africa…

Fourth Row, Square #1: Let go and let God/Power of prayer/God is punishing you

Fourth Row, Square #2: You just want an excuse to be lazy and have people pity you.

Fourth Row, Square #3: Why haven’t you tried crystals/vitamins/other dubious “cure”? IT REALLY WORKS!!!

Fourth Row, Square #4: Smoke pot/take illegal drugs. It will totally take care of your pain, man!

Song of the Moment, or a Follow-Up of Sorts

Diamanda Galas always has an appropriate song for every occasion, especially the ones that involve lots of RAGE. To wit:



And with that, currently able-bodied white privileged feminists, I would like you to know that we will NOT be silent, nor silenced.

Background: here, here, here, here, here, here, and right here.

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.

OFFS, Feministing.com

I don't know if I'll ever truly expect that Feministing will get it when it comes to disability and ableism issues, but some of the language in this post is simply appalling:

If having my car door opened makes me feel like lover man thinks I'm an invalid, not so feminist.

Yeah.

Therefore, I enthusiastically endorse and co-sign meloukhia's Open Letter to Feministing, because the Feministing bloggers' and commenters' fashionable ableism, along with the seemingly tacit refusal to cover disability issues (except for when, as Amandaw points out, a disability issue is connected with reproductive rights in some way), are not new things.

Feminists with disabilities are people too, bloggers and commenters of Feministing.

This is why I don't read your site, and will continue not to until you do something about this problem. I mean, really, Feministing crew--it's time to get out of your incredibly privileged bubble and acknowledge that disability and ableism ARE feminist issues, and that the current way in which you treat feminist disability issues (see what I did there?) needs improvement.

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.

Autism Speaks Says: People With Autism Cannot Speak For Themselves

So this Autism Speaks video, made by once-awesome director Alfonso Cuaron and talentless hack "singer-songwriter" Billy Mann, is REALLY problematic and upsetting.



Yeah, implying that autism is always dangerous and horrible and will ruin your family and bankrupt you, and that your child who has autism is not really a person, but has been "taken over" by the condition...that's a great strategy.

It's fairly telling that the children and families shown in this video do not get to speak for themselves; nope, the creepy man-voice of "autism" speaks for them--as does this "charitable" organization.

I'd heard several times that Autism Speaks was/is fucking sketchy, but this is beyond the pale. Tigtog has more on this and why it is problematic.