Today is Blog Against Disablism Day. Visit Diary of a Goldfish to find all the fantastic posts that will be published today.
I have a coworker who frequently says her daughter is lazy. The girl, I'll call her Sarah, recently turned 16 and has been getting very poor grades this year. Everyone knows she's capable of more, but she just doesn't do her schoolwork without a lot of pushing and external motivation. With the motivation to get her learner's permit and start driver's ed she's pulled her grades up considerably in a short period of time.
No doubt there are a lot of people who are lazy and just don't feel like doing any work. But every time she calls Sarah lazy my hackles raise and I want to scream because she has admitted previously that it is possible that Sarah has ADHD. My coworker's husband thinks he has ADHD and has been thinking of seeking treatment, and ADD tends to run in families. Knowing first hand how damaging it can be for a person with ADHD to be treated as just lazy and unmotivated, it is all I can do not to give my coworker an angry lecture. I struggled for many years thinking I was lazy and wondering why I couldn't do all the things I wanted to do. It caused depression and occasional suicidal thoughts. Research has shown that people with ADHD who go untreated are more at risk for drug abuse and other problems such as depression and anxiety.
The problem is not just misunderstanding or denial of ADHD (though that itself is a huge problem), but the belief that people without visible and/or measurable differences in ability think the same way as the majority of people and ahve teh same needs/motivations/capabilities as, say, neurotypical people. This kind of disablism functions similarly to other privilege: the experiences of the privileged are considered the norm everyone should be expected to live up to. Just as women are expected to simply adapt to institutions and social structures that evolved out of male privilege, those with ADHD are expected to be able to succeed in education and careers designed by and for people with "normal" abilities and ways of thinking. Those who don't are called lazy and irresponsible, or are blamed for not pulling their weight at work.
This all puts a lot of added pressure on people with ADHD to function in ways that are not natural to us and do not allow us to reach our full potential. We often have to struggle so much just to keep up with daily life in a world designed for people who function very differently that we have little energy left to take advantage of the things we tend to be especially good at.
This is where the gift vs curse debate comes in. There is a lot of emphasis on ADD as a "gift" from some groups and individuals while others consider it a "curse." The characteristics of ADHD vary from person to person, but I experience it as a curse largely because of external factors and realities. conforming to a world that experiences time in a way that I understand only on a philosophical level, being expected to have social networks at work to advance my career, being expected to understand social cues that go right over my head all make it that much harder to focus on getting things done because it aggrivates my anxiety.
Diablism comes into play when people don't recognize these challenges. I know that to many my symptoms sound like I'm just being whiney and I should just suck it up and deal with it like "everyone else." I struggled for a long time because I didn't know why I couldn't deal with it like "everyone else."
My point is, there is a certain degree to which a disability like ADHD makes one's life harder. And then there is the crushing weight of the burdens that come with living in a world where people with disabilities are expected to adapt to living the model life, and that is often the worse curse of the two.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Why "reducing abortions" is a problem
This is enough to give anyone chills (emphasis mine):
I'm not even going to touch the cognitive dissonance there. What's truly chilling is that these people very clearly are more interested in reducing abortions (however that has to be done) than reducing unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.
Obama has shown several times now that he likes to play the "bipartisan compromise" card until it's obvious the right wingers aren't interested. Whether this is a conscious strategy or not is moot; What Obama has given up in the name of compromise has had real consequences. He looks set to do the same here, as the quote from Kyle Right Wing Watch explains in the original post. What will Obama give up in the name of compromise with pro-life groups, only to have them continue pushing for the most extreme views? He has already given in to their framing (reduced abortions), and we see how that plays right into their hands in the quote above.
The Obama administration says they want to be inclusive and represent all Americans. The White House Faith Based Office is now tasked with reducing the number of abortions - something pro-life groups have very good experience in accomplishing. Pregnancy resources centers and restrictions on abortion have a terrific track record in helping women choose alternatives to abortion. Funding abortion or abortion providers is one of the worst things that can be done. What the government funds, we get more of. We hope to begin a dialogue that results in policies which actually work, not just financially benefit certain interest groups like abortion providers." --Wendy Wright, CWA
I'm not even going to touch the cognitive dissonance there. What's truly chilling is that these people very clearly are more interested in reducing abortions (however that has to be done) than reducing unplanned, unwanted pregnancies.
Obama has shown several times now that he likes to play the "bipartisan compromise" card until it's obvious the right wingers aren't interested. Whether this is a conscious strategy or not is moot; What Obama has given up in the name of compromise has had real consequences. He looks set to do the same here, as the quote from Kyle Right Wing Watch explains in the original post. What will Obama give up in the name of compromise with pro-life groups, only to have them continue pushing for the most extreme views? He has already given in to their framing (reduced abortions), and we see how that plays right into their hands in the quote above.
Dollhouse
I am done with Dollhouse. I have given it more chances than it deserves, and even though I hate to give up watching a show with Eliza Dushku and Amy Acker (and now I love Dichen Lachman), it is just pissing me of more than it's entertaining me. Maia has some good points about how sexual assault is treated on the show at Alas, a Blog. (Can't say I agree with her on the rest of her post, though. She's enjoying the show more than I am.)
I was relieved that we seemed to be free of the icky rape issues in Epsidode 5. Then we get, as Maia pointed out, rape as character development/plot point without actually dealing with rape as an issue. BOO!
And then we get the male active who gets hard in the showers when he is with Sierra. Of course it has to be about how a woman is ultimately responsible. Are we supposed to find it romantic that his attraction to one woman is so damn powerful that it overrides his programing and despite his childlike state he really really wants to fuck her. Barf.
A few big problems here.
1. The actives shower together because they are supposed to be in a completely innocent, blank state. There is no risk to them of assault or violence because none of them is capable. Now we have a man who is sexually aroused and women who may or may not be (so inscrutable, those wimmins without obvious arousal), but are definitely not supposed to be sexual. This is not interesting or cute or amusing to me. It is damn creepy. The women may not have the bodies of children, but they have no autonomy, no sexual desire, no way to understand or deal with sexuality. And we are shown a scene in which one of those women is in the shower with a man who is looking at her sexually.
2. This development perpetuates the framing of sexuality as actively sexual man and passively sexual woman.
3. The trope of the Asian woman who is beautiful and alluring and innocent, arousing men's sexuality without being sexual herself.
I was relieved that we seemed to be free of the icky rape issues in Epsidode 5. Then we get, as Maia pointed out, rape as character development/plot point without actually dealing with rape as an issue. BOO!
And then we get the male active who gets hard in the showers when he is with Sierra. Of course it has to be about how a woman is ultimately responsible. Are we supposed to find it romantic that his attraction to one woman is so damn powerful that it overrides his programing and despite his childlike state he really really wants to fuck her. Barf.
A few big problems here.
1. The actives shower together because they are supposed to be in a completely innocent, blank state. There is no risk to them of assault or violence because none of them is capable. Now we have a man who is sexually aroused and women who may or may not be (so inscrutable, those wimmins without obvious arousal), but are definitely not supposed to be sexual. This is not interesting or cute or amusing to me. It is damn creepy. The women may not have the bodies of children, but they have no autonomy, no sexual desire, no way to understand or deal with sexuality. And we are shown a scene in which one of those women is in the shower with a man who is looking at her sexually.
2. This development perpetuates the framing of sexuality as actively sexual man and passively sexual woman.
3. The trope of the Asian woman who is beautiful and alluring and innocent, arousing men's sexuality without being sexual herself.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Local idiocy
I feel the need to share a lovely letter to the editor published in my local paper:
You got that? Women are sin! Like rock and Roll and laughter.
DON'T LET SIN RULE IN CHURCH
In response to Marlene Bomer (letter, March 4), let's see what God has to say about women in the church.
In 1 Timothy 2:12,14 it says "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence... And Adam was not deceived, but the women being deceived was in the transgression." It also says in Colossians 3:18, "Wives, submit yourself unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."
A bishop refers to a man with and over one wife. There are to be no women clergy of any kind; this is unbiblical. It is nothing more than the feminist movement, the same movement that works to promote abortion, to rule over man in the church, our government and everywhere else that society will allow them to rule. They hate the fact that men were disciples and have gone so far as to try to say God is really a woman. What nonsense! These same women who want it all cry when they get it all.
Sin, whatever it is, must not be allowed to rule in the church. That includes things like rock and roll, to which some have put Christian lyrics and called it God honoring. Others, with greed, have tried with their prosperity gospel to turn God into a lottery. Neither Jesus himself nor his disciples were rich on earth.
Others do such things as "holy laughter" or "spiritual dancing" or even "spirit slaying," which Jesus himself never did, nor the apostles. Some have watered down the message of Jesus Christ and his gospel so "people could be at ease with Jesus." They apparently have forgotten that not everyone was comfortable with Jesus when he was on the earth the first time.
It is high time for the church to be the salt of the earth like it was meant to be. People will know when this happens, for the lost will come looking for Jesus Christ, and then they will be able to find Him.
You got that? Women are sin! Like rock and Roll and laughter.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Net Neutrality
The left needs to be just as loud about this as they were about Social Security. The last thing this country needs is yet another way to grow the gap between those with money for access to information and power and those without.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Heroes continues to disappoint
I have to agree with the general feeling of the Heroes panel at Racialicious that this season of Heroes started bad and is going further downhill fast. I was a big fan of the first season of Heroes, and even the second season had it's good points. The third? I barely remember except for the Irish woman who provided Peter with what he needed, then was promptly rid of never to be discussed again. This season, however, is nothing but disappointment after disappointment. When the highlight of several episodes is seeing a psycho killer dealing with a difficult teenager, your series is in trouble. I am calling the big reveal of Matt's painting of DC on the floor the jump the shark moment of the series.
This season has also been the worst from a feminist perspective. A declining role for women culminated in the latest episode that revolved entirely around a group of men. The women who appeared served only as motivators for the men.
As for Angela Petrelli, I have gradually turned from finding her intriguing to disappointment that the treatment of her character stems from one of the strongest, most enduring misogynist ideas about women: that women wield a great deal of power invisibly from behind the scenes. That their motivations are mysterious and unfathomable, and their power of manipulation almost unlimited.
This season has also been the worst from a feminist perspective. A declining role for women culminated in the latest episode that revolved entirely around a group of men. The women who appeared served only as motivators for the men.
As for Angela Petrelli, I have gradually turned from finding her intriguing to disappointment that the treatment of her character stems from one of the strongest, most enduring misogynist ideas about women: that women wield a great deal of power invisibly from behind the scenes. That their motivations are mysterious and unfathomable, and their power of manipulation almost unlimited.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
A cave of one's own
Can the idea of the "man room" or "cave" or whatever the fuck they want to call it just die already?
Apartment Therapy has a post up about this growing "phenomenon" asking readers their thoughts on the idea of a "man room." My thoughts are laced with obscenities, but I'll attempt to be more articulate.
First, any talk about a "man room" is bound to be heterocentric because of course it is men who live with women who supposedly need this dudely retreat from the taint of femininity. In this post I am going to focus on the supposed need for a boy's only room for grown male adults who are married to women. The heterocentrism and reliance on stereotypes deserve their own post, along with the class issues (this is primarily a middle class issue). There is another aspect I am going to explore here.
The attention given to the man-cave reflects the idea that men are especially in need of and deserving of space for relaxation that is suited to their interests and comforts. Why don't we think women need a women's room? Because the rest of the house is considered her space. The thinking goes that women are so dominant in the home, that they are so in-charge of that space, that it is their space. I think we're all familiar with the popular complaint that women will decorate and make spaces more feminine, thus ruining them for the men. (If you're not, just watch a week's worth of American sit-coms from the 90's).
What those complaints ignore, of course, is the fact that women are judged differently for their homes than men are. There are pressures on women, especially middle class women, that don't exist for men. Many men claim, for example, that they don't care about mess or clutter, and yet still expect their wives to keep a neat house for their comfort. At the least, they often expect to have clean dishes as they need them, clean and dry towels, clean clothes. This means that women are maintaining "their" space in part for the benefit of others: guests and family both.
The fact is, men do less work in the home while increasingly women do as much work outside of the home. And yet they are still considered more in need of their own space and time to relax, to have their comforts catered to. While space considered belonging to women involves work and stress, and is shared with others, space men supposedly need is centered completely around their needs. (I wonder who cleans up the man cave after the big game?)
A room of one's own is still out of reach for many married women. Men get all kinds of attention for their supposed need for space dedicated entirely to their needs and comfort. But women, whose lives and identities are often erased by their family role, are not expected to need any space dedicated to their comfort. Women who do desire space of their own are considered selfish or silly. A room of one's own for women is still a radical idea.
Apartment Therapy has a post up about this growing "phenomenon" asking readers their thoughts on the idea of a "man room." My thoughts are laced with obscenities, but I'll attempt to be more articulate.
First, any talk about a "man room" is bound to be heterocentric because of course it is men who live with women who supposedly need this dudely retreat from the taint of femininity. In this post I am going to focus on the supposed need for a boy's only room for grown male adults who are married to women. The heterocentrism and reliance on stereotypes deserve their own post, along with the class issues (this is primarily a middle class issue). There is another aspect I am going to explore here.
The attention given to the man-cave reflects the idea that men are especially in need of and deserving of space for relaxation that is suited to their interests and comforts. Why don't we think women need a women's room? Because the rest of the house is considered her space. The thinking goes that women are so dominant in the home, that they are so in-charge of that space, that it is their space. I think we're all familiar with the popular complaint that women will decorate and make spaces more feminine, thus ruining them for the men. (If you're not, just watch a week's worth of American sit-coms from the 90's).
What those complaints ignore, of course, is the fact that women are judged differently for their homes than men are. There are pressures on women, especially middle class women, that don't exist for men. Many men claim, for example, that they don't care about mess or clutter, and yet still expect their wives to keep a neat house for their comfort. At the least, they often expect to have clean dishes as they need them, clean and dry towels, clean clothes. This means that women are maintaining "their" space in part for the benefit of others: guests and family both.
The fact is, men do less work in the home while increasingly women do as much work outside of the home. And yet they are still considered more in need of their own space and time to relax, to have their comforts catered to. While space considered belonging to women involves work and stress, and is shared with others, space men supposedly need is centered completely around their needs. (I wonder who cleans up the man cave after the big game?)
A room of one's own is still out of reach for many married women. Men get all kinds of attention for their supposed need for space dedicated entirely to their needs and comfort. But women, whose lives and identities are often erased by their family role, are not expected to need any space dedicated to their comfort. Women who do desire space of their own are considered selfish or silly. A room of one's own for women is still a radical idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
