quadmoniker at PostBourgie, “Hurting for Female Directors” (emphasis mine):

His answer was that he simply hired the best writers, whether that led to any sort of fair representation from women or non-whites. What he didn’t realize, of course, was that his definition of ”best” probably excluded, intentionally or not, all but white males.

He added that he didn’t want to sit around and count quotas because he felt that was condescending. But it’s not just about parity; making sure his organization was more representative was about realizing there are varied points of view that his history as a white male might prevent him from immediately understanding. When you’re talking about writers good enough to get an assignment from Harper’s, there isn’t just one best. After a certain level of quality, distinctions from one writer to another become a matter of taste, and this particular editor was showing his bias toward white males. Pulling in other perspectives would enrich Harper’s voice.

[...] I’m not going to say that [The Hurt Locker's different emphases] was due to Bigelow’s special woman-sense or anything, because we don’t know why she was able to make it so good. That’s kind of the point. The excellence of the movie speaks to Dargis’s point and the problem with Harper’s at once. If we leave out half the population from movie-making, we’re leaving out half the perspectives that might be able to bring something new to the table. The major studios would be better off if they brought it, because I’d love to see more movies like The Hurt Locker.

The last point in particular makes a lot of sense to me: some people would assume that, well, when it comes to imagining new things and taking things from new perspectives, white men can do it too — that white men are capable of providing any perspective or creative direction that humanity could possibly provide — and therefore there is no need to necessarily seek out a diverse creative class, because there is nothing a Muslimah or gay Filipino could bring that a white male couldn’t, and it’s an insult to white men to imply that they do not hold the entire world in their mind’s hands.

But they don’t, because no human being is capable of tapping into the entire universe of perspectives available. We all see the world through unique, specialized lenses that were formed and shaped by our experiences as the person we are. The place we grew up in, the family that raised us, the way the world treated us, the distinct qualities of the culture we are part of, the choices we make as adults as far as the direction of our lives, our careers, our relationships, our hobbies and passions. All of these things change the shape of our particular lens in their own unique way, and we all have a unique combination of these things which forms our own unique perspective of the world.

But those lenses have limits, they necessarily have limits, and we do not always even know what those limits are. Those factors we share with others will create a lens shape quite similar to their own, and when we are surrounded by like people we might often begin to believe that our shared lens is not a matter of our shared experience, but rather a matter of universality.

This is what leads us to believe that there is nothing the white male cannot achieve, cannot bring to the creative table: his experience is shared by so many, and especially shared by so many in power, that he, and we, might begin to believe that it is not a particularly-shaped lens anymore, but rather no lens at all.  And when we believe that he has no lens at all, what benefit could there be to paying attention and inviting participation from people who do have differently-shaped lenses? No creative benefit, certainly, because there is no difference between what those different perspectives see and what the white male could see if he felt like trying. Because he can see all.

And so we wind up where we are: it is an insult to creativity itself to suggest that it is worthwhile to drink in a diversity of perspective, and it becomes not a matter of improving the depth and quality of creative offerings, but rather a matter of personal benefit to the creators.

And we can see where a white male might prickle when confronted with a person who appears to be suggesting that he does not deserve to sit on his side of the conference table, that someone else who can do no more than he could do has some greater worthiness of sitting where he does based on factors outside hir creative potential, and that he should actually willingly give up his seat to make room for hir. It becomes a personal affront, rather than a pressure to improve the greater craft. And, in fact, might become an affront to the quality and depth of his craft, to specifically invite participation from people who bring with them one perspective, but only one — while he brings all.

So he will invite only those different people whom he favors for personal benefit. And he will continue to scoff at the suggestion that diversity is wealth.

How it might be changed? I don’t know. But one place to start is to make everyone aware that they can only see the world through their own personal lens, and that their lens has borders, limits, boundaries. That no one can approach the world without a lens, and that every lens is malleable, not set, not infinite, but formed in the first place by one’s personal experiences.

It’s going to take some time.

Today’s roundup brought to you by oh look a feather toy!

Apologies for RSS readers; I forgot to cross-post this when posted at Feministe! Getting it posted so I can move on to new posts.

***

We had a really good discussion about nondisability. It got derailed, a bit, because it depended on our ability to reasonably define disability. And it’s a subject that has come up in every discussion we’ve had these couple weeks. What is it?

I advocate an intentionally overbroad definition of disability. And I definitely see a tendency, with certain medical conditions, not to identify — on that inner level, what “feels right” — as disabled.

I support every person’s right to self-determination, to define their own experiences, and to identify however feels most right for them. I do not want to try to pressure people into identifying in a way they do not feel comfortable. But I do think that part of this tendency, this reticence, is rooted in a sort of ableism. Not ableism as in “internalized negative feelings about PWD” — but ableism as in “a certain understanding of how the world works and how society is/should be structured” … or, you might say, a certain model.

I want to explore a few things — explore our assumptions behind the word “disabled.”

I, and others, have been mulling over how to refer to people who are not disabled. Roughly, our options seem to be:

* normal, or non-marked identity: centering a certain body/mind as “normal” necessarily implies that any difference makes a person less than. It tends to imply that “normal” is accepted as good, whole, while non-normal is bad, wrong, diminishing.

* able-bodied, which seems to be the settled-upon term: excludes people with non-physical disabilities — and I have had so many people write me expressing that they feel their non-physical conditions didn’t “count” as disability, and it just makes my heart cry.

* temporarily-able-bodied: I love this term, because it makes clear: at any time in life, you may become disabled, due to age, injury, late-manifesting genetics, or social barriers. Your privilege will not always be with you, so pay attention, because you might find yourself on the other side of the fence at any point. But this still centers physical disability and excludes non-physical disability.

* neurotypical, physiotypyical: NT is a term used in the autistic community to describe persons whose neurological makeup conforms to the expected norm, but it doesn’t describe conditions which are not neurological in nature. Physiotypical might cover those conditions, but it requires using both terms, and still may not be truly comprehensive. I can’t come up with any good, comprehensive word to describe the range of disability (mental, physical, neither/both) to use as a prefix in place of “neuro-” and “physio-”.

* normative: I like this term because it emphasizes the social conformity rather than some inherent difference; think heteronormative. I just can’t find a good word to combine it with to describe the category of ability rather than heterosexuality.

* non-disabled: functional, but we tend to want a specific term to describe the privileged category — which is why trans community members came up with “cis” to describe people whose gender identity is consistent with their assigned gender.

* abled, fully-able: I have been leaning on these terms as the most neutral of the set of options, but they still just don’t seem to describe what we’re trying to describe — and referring to an able-privileged person as “fully able” may be inaccurate; ability is not a binary.

I think, though, I’ve finally settled on the term I’m comfortable with: Temporarily Non-Disabled.

This harnesses the power of temporarily able-bodied but without excluding non-physical disabilities. And it is a longer term but easily condensed to TND. We’ve got enough acronyms going, so why not? And I’m actually rather excited — this is a language quirk that has bothered me for some time, so having a term that seems to fit right is a considerable comfort to me.

Thoughts? People with disabilities — of any sort — please feel free to comment. Does TND seem like the best choice to you? Do you see any problems with it? Do you prefer something else? What makes the most sense to you?

ETA: Anna points out in comments that this is somewhat US-centric: UK disability advocates tend to use “disabled person” and “non-disabled person” as opposed to “person with a disability” or “person without a disability” (people-first language). And other countries may have different approaches as well. Something to keep in mind.

ETA 2: Many people in comments bring up the word “currently” in place of “temporary” and most people seem much more comfortable with this terminology. Currently Non-Disabled/Currently Able? It fits just as well for me – read through the comments to see what other people are saying. It’s a great thread so far.

(Cross-posted at Feministe.)

Disabled sex, folks. It’s time.

This is an official request for your anonymous contribution.

I am working on a post about ableism in “liberated” sexual culture (including feminism, but not limited to it). And I really think there is no better way to illustrate this than with real words, real experience.

Do you have, or have you had, a disability (or, if you do not identify as disabled, do you have a condition which results in some sort of mental or physical impairment)? If so: Tell me about your experience in the bedroom.

Specifically, I am looking for ways your sex life differs from the “liberated” construct. I want to hear how your disability affects your sex life, in negative ways, in positive ways, and in ways that go beyond that dichotomy.

I want to make clear that “sex,” here, should be interpreted in the broadest possible way. Sex with or without partner(s). Het or queer. Any sexual bits included, any sexual act, no matter how long, short, light, heavy, simple or complex. If you think of it as sexual, then yes, it “counts.”

Some questions to start your thought process:

• What difficulties do you face?
  Is there anything you are prevented from doing, or prevented from doing “normally”?
• And how do you adapt?
• What do you do to make sex enjoyable?
  How do you change things, modify things to make them work for you?
• How do you create new ways to find sexual pleasure?
  What do you do that you’ve never seen anywhere else?
• Do you feel like you’re the only one who does (a certain something/a certain way)?
• What do you do? What do your partner(s) do?
• And how does it feel?
  What do you experience, what is going on in your body and mind, from start to finish?
• Do you orgasm? How easy or hard is it to reach it? Is it important to you to orgasm?
• What is it about sex that you enjoy? What is it that makes it worthwhile?
• How important is sex to your life?
  How much do you want it? have it?
• Has media portrayal of sex affected you? Societal attitudes?
  What have you seen or heard, been told, been treated like?
• What have you gone through in seeking health care for sex-related issues?
• Do you have any other stories or experiences?

I do prefer that entries not simply be answers to the above questions survey-style; I want to hear your experience in your words. Tell me a story — write me a poem — paint me a picture — however your experiences are best expressed.

Again: All answers will be anonymous. I will not attach any names, even pseudonyms, to these entries; they will simply be presented as they are.

To contribute, click here.

The link should take you to a page with one text box and one line for your email (which is optional).

If you need to contact me:
My email is amndaw (skip the second “a” in my name) AT gmail DOT com.
Alternatively, just use the form above to say “Hey, email me back!” making sure to provide your email address.

A few more notes:

If your contribution is anything other than unformatted text, contact me (see above) and I will work things out with you. For example:
If text formatting is important to your piece, you can send me an Office/OpenOffice document.
If you wish to express yourself in visual media, you can send me a still image of any file type — I will do any conversion necessary to display in a web browser.
If you prefer to create a video, you can send me the video file (I can point you to services for sending large files if need be, or I can help you upload it to an anonymous account for this purpose).

If there is anything in your piece that can potentially identify you (especially recorded image, video and audio), and you are absolutely comfortable with that, that is fine — but I prefer that anonymity to remain the default, so that more people feel safe and comfortable in contributing.

A tentative due date for submission will be Saturday, June 13, 2009. That gives you roughly two weeks. If you want to contribute, but that time frame does not work for you, contact me and I will see what we can do to make things work.

[shameless] Link around!! The more entries, the better. [/shameless] :-)

Thanks so much to everyone!

abbyjean has some questions:

this post may be a little inside baseball for those who aren’t active in the feminist blogosphere, but i think its an issue that translates. what to do when a big and influential blog or writer consistently posts things that are offensive, or marginalizing, or just plain stupid? is it better to stay part of the discussion to offer corrections and insights and laternatives, or is it better to save up your limited sanity points and bail on the forum all together?

i’m thinking primarily of the feministing blog here. it’s a huge feminist blog, probably the biggest general feminist blog, and it gets a whole lot of traffic. however, it puts forth a primarily white primarily non-disabled primarily cis-gendered primarily middle/upper class view of feminism, either by eliding those issues to the point of invisibility or by explicitly dismissing them. there was (and still is, afaik) a call for trans people to boycott feministing because of the way they handle trans issues, especially the comments in this particularly nasty thread. just this morning, there was a post about sotomayor that denied the intersectionality of her race and gender in the critiques of her nomination. and a recent comments thread in which people admonished as ableist for using the term “lame” whined about being oprressed by the P.C. police.

as a result, i’ve dropped feministing from my blog reader. i was annoyed more often than i was informed. it made me feel disappointment, rather than kinship, with the feminist community on that site.

but. then i see people like renee trying to make a point about the racial politics on the blog and getting totally shut down and dismissed and attacked by fellow commenters for making a good point that needed to be made. and i think about how much bullshit she is opening herself up to just for asking why the one feministing blogger of color is always the one to post about historic events of importance to people of color. and i feel like i should be there, supporting her, supporting those critiques. especially because feministing is such a big and prominent site and it can often serve as one of the introductions to the feminist blogosphere. i started there before i discovered womanist musings and the curvature and questioning transphobia and the like.

so – am i a better ally by refusing to engage with problematic forums, or by participating in those forums to offer relevant critiques? i still don’t know.

And this post is going to ramble in a slightly different direction than Abby is going here, so bear with me.

I think there are a couple of different things going on here and it’s worth trying to tease them out:

1. engagement with a space that is hostile, indifferent, or even just a mixed bag when it comes to an identity group you are a part of

2. engagement with a space that is hostile/indifferent/mixedbag when it comes to an identity group you are not a part of

1.

It comes down to a bottom line of five words: are you up for it?

It is a decision based 100% on what you personally feel you can do. You are doing what work you can, in any number of areas in life; you are not obligated to be there for every stupid word uttered by every clue-challenged person out there. You can engage if and when you feel up to it. It’s your decision whether 1) this is a time pushback should happen and 2) you feel like you can handle being the one to do it.

There is never a time where it is acceptable, in a situation where a privileged person does something stupid &/or harmful, to hold the person harmed to account for it. The onus us on the privileged person to not do that stupid/harmful shit. Not on you to somehow miraculously be up for every fight.

Sometimes, the fight will make some measure of difference, and sometimes it won’t. Sometimes, you can take that fight, and sometimes, you can’t. Or don’t feel like it. You can fight the good fight, even if it isn’t going to go down in the history books. Or you can skip it, and save your energy for other things — from another fight, in another place, on down the line — or for a hot bath later that night. You have a responsibility to you and yours; when it comes to collective responsibilities, where there is a conflict between one’s immediate, personal life and one’s group identity, the rule is: blame for any damage incurred falls solely to whoever the person/group is that you would be fighting. The ones who did that stupid shit in the first place.

2.

As a friend or ally, a person with privilege but who cares for justice for an unprivileged group, there really is no easy answer. Sometimes, there isn’t anything you can “just do” to make the problem better.

(Remember, you are a person with an obligation to do right by others — not a superhuman taking on the noble burden of saving the poor helpless Other. The difference between the two is that the latter makes the privileged person who the story’s about — the former removes the privileged person from the center of the conversation.)

Certainly, the privileged person’s choice to abandon a venue with a history of problems is a choice based in immediacy: it makes things easier for you; it relieves you of having to face those uncomfortable moments.

It does not follow, however, that the privileged person is obligated to stay at that venue and keep fighting. It’s not that simple, not that easy.

And this is where we must understand the importance of roles in the struggle for justice. Because there are many different roles to play, many different approaches to take, many different areas to address.

We — as a world of all people –need to keep each other alive,
need to free us from violence and hatred,
put food on our tables,
ensure our health,
keep our families together.
We need to strengthen our communities,
treat each other with respect and empathy,
accept difference, accept similarity,
but place no moral weight on one over the other.
We need to fight against hostile attitudes,
push back against stereotypes,
break out of confining narratives.
We need to examine and deconstruct
privilege
power
oppression
We need to know what they are and how they work
and we need everyone else to know it too.
Because, as much damage as you can still do as a person who understands these things, there’s no way there will be widespread change until many more people understand them too.

Here’s the thing — the immediate and the collective both need help.

So, it is useful to get in there, when someone says something stupid, and explain why that thing they said was so doggone stupid.

Even if it isn’t at some international press conference. Even if it isn’t many people. Even if your feeling is that those people aren’t going to go on to be murderers or congresspeople or someone who does something Big.
Even if it’s just you and that guy down the street. Or you and that ass on a message board.

Because if we eschew all action that isn’t Big Enough, will we ever do anything? If we give up because we can’t Make It All Go Away, In Just One Easy Step, are we doing anyone any good?

HOWEVER. And this is one great fucking big However.

If a person without your privilege takes you to task — personally or indirectly — because you’re sitting over there squabbling with Joe Know-Nothing down the street when sie is still hurting — you take that.

Sie might need food on the table, or affordable health care, or safety from violence. Or sie might want more attention on this court case, or help getting this piece of legislation passed. Or sie might want financial help to get this community project started. Or sie might want more direct engagement with hir, rather than talking amongst your privileged selves as those sie (and those like her) just don’t exist. Or sie might want more people to fight the good fight in another venue, for any number of reasons –

Sie has the right to be angry with you for not spending energy in the places sie feels are best. Because sie has the ultimate right to determine what makes an actual gdamn difference to hir.

That might put you in a bit of a bind. Because there isn’t any one easy thing you can Just Do and know that you’re doing the right thing and no one can be anything less than satisfied with you for it. There just isn’t.

So do you stick with it? Or say fuck it and quit (that particular venue)?

Well. In that case, you make a decision based on what you feel you can personally do best. You make a decision. And it is what it is. And you move on.

I don’t think this is quite what Abby was looking for — it’s not a practical answer, information that makes it easy to make that actual particular decision.

I think, mostly, it’s just that I never see this point being made: that we should all know that it doesn’t matter what we do, things will still be fucked up and we will still have responsibility.

But that’s not a call to apathy or despair. And it’s not an exoneration.

It’s just trying to remind us that we aren’t the center of this conversation. Do what you gotta do. It might be a hard choice (for me, feministing is an easy choice, but feministe is a hard one; that might be different for different people). And you live with the implications. Just know that it’s not going to tie up neatly in the end. That’s how things go.

Most people will use “able-bodied” as the counterpart to “disabled.” There’s also the phrase “temporarily able-bodied” or TAB, which I find delightful due to its emphasis on the impermanence of ability, but it falls prey to the same weakness — it centers physical disability as disability, erasing mental illness and other nonphysical conditions which are surely part of the disability spectrum.

For lack of anything else, I’ve taken to using “fully abled” or “able privilege” but they just don’t seem to fit right. I’ve struggled with this for awhile, and I wanted to open up a question to the disability community and the justice-minded blogosphere as a whole: what term should we be using to indicate lack of disability?

I encourage folks to link this around, cuz I’d like it to reach a wider audience… I want to hear from as many people as possible. If it gets around, I’ll collect a summary of responses here. Thanks.

Renee wrote an excellent post responding to an emailer who wanted to know whether a white woman can call herself “womanist. I’ll pull a Renee here — here’s a quote to get you started; you’ll have to head over to her blog to read the rest:

I understand why womanism seems attractive from the outside.  It truly advocates for the equality of all beings however, it is a movement spawned by the rejection of WOC; more specifically black women by mainstream feminism.

When we look at social justice movements across the western world they all have one thing in common, they are lead by whiteness.   Despite a claim that said movements are about equality, the racial dynamics are positioned in such a way as to reaffirm our dissonance in worth and value.   This purposeful erasure,  or more specifically absence of power is a result of the social belief that whiteness is not only naturally fit to lead but ordained to do so.

How many times have blacks and whites worked together in various organizations only to find that our voices are silenced?  We continually make  suggestions for activism only to have it denied and then later accepted when it is rephrased by a white member of the organization.  The racism in this activity is never acknowledged and the white person is given the credit for the idea.   When we make a comment as to how race interacts with an issue, we are again silenced and told that we “are imagining racism”, as though whiteness is any position to decide what is and isn’t racist.

In a recent post Monica of TransGriot suggested that feminism needs to work on its own issues first and I must say that I highly concur with this point.  There are so many divisions in feminism that we cannot even begin from the basic idea that all women are equal and face multiple forms of oppression.   What we find is that different offshoots tend to privilege their experience over that of another and then declare themselves fit to judge how other women live their lives. We have radfems slut shaming sex workers,  third wave feminists stumbling on their privilege while ignoring critical anti-racist work, eco-feminists who promote  environmentalism based in an essentialist understanding of gender, Marxist feminists  that are blind to anything that is not related to finance and liberal feminists who only want to be the “equal to a man”, never thinking about what constitutes “woman”. While there can never be a monolithic woman, the lie that sisterhood will save us all continues to be repeated.  Privilege has always been and always will be the Achilles heel of women’s organizing….

Go read the rest

Seriously, go read Renee first.
What follows are my own personal reflections as a white woman watching womanism with interest.

I know what I am. I’m a privileged white girl. I may’ve grown up poor but I sit in a seat of comfort now. I live with a disability, but one which grants me a fair amount of privilege even within the ranks of pwd. And… that’s really about it. I am privileged in every other way. White, young, cis, straight, heteronormative, middle class, thin and healthy-looking, native English speaker, mobile, disabled but “pass”able.

So, there’s a lot of bullshit to bulldoze thru’ before I can start to see things clearly.

It took a serious smack in the face for me to get off my ass and start seeking out the opinion of WOC during the conflicts that broke out in the feminist blogosphere (iirc) early last year. Race has been part of my background, growing up — something I was definitely aware of, something I cared about on a core level, but something that stayed safely in the background at all times. That’s privilege. I never had to think about race in my day-to-day life.

But something in that conflict just got under my skin.

And I wanted to start thinking about it. I wanted to learn, I wanted to listen. I wanted to be an advocate, a friend. I wanted to be witness to what I saw going on in their circles, something that just looked right.

Honestly, that’s the same way I was drawn into the feminist blogosphere a couple years previous.

Feminism… it is what it is. Feminism is what gave me a framework for understanding social justice. I’ve learned so much from feminism. And I’ve met so many awesome women through this community. But there is no doubt in my mind that feminism, for its strengths, is a movement centered, to a fault, around women like me. The feminist movement is built to serve the interests of white, higher-class, straight, cis, fully-abled, “enlightened” liberal, “health-conscious” women. And it is a movement which is undeniably hostile to those who challenge that paradigm — purposefully alienating.

Which is why womanism came about. So women of color had a space to work for the benefit of women where they were the center — where they weren’t treated with disdain, like dogs at the table begging for scraps.

It’s incredible to watch what results. These are amazing women doing amazing work. And there is something about the movement that really cuts to the core of social justice. There is something about womanism that centers people as people in a way that feminism, in my eye, just doesn’t, when looked at as a whole.

I’ve seen that same something in the disability community, and in the trans/queer communities. There is just something about these people, beat upon by the world, who reach inside and dig down to the core of humanity. And it shines through. The movement does not aim to simply grab power for a class of people. The movement aims to find those most hurt by a hostile society, and to treat them with dignity and respect. No matter who they are.

There is a heart in these communities that I only see in part of feminism. People who are taking the beginning principles of feminism and attempting to strip them of the privilege-upholding layers of shit that have been laid upon them through history. But it’s not enough to make feminism better. To make feminism not a privilege-upholding, power-seeking movement.

But there is something in womanism that works differently. That moves, not for power, but for justice. And that something — it just feels right.

These movements are not perfect. There are dynamics in every movement that merit a critical eye. Humanity is messy.

I admire the hell out of these movements. But I can only lay claim to one. The others, no matter how I identify with the heart of them, I do not get to claim. I do not get to be part of. They are not mine.

They just are. They exist. For their own purposes.

When I see a woman I admire the hell out of speaking about how deeply she was hurt, by my movement, a movement to which I contribute — she speaks about how she tried to work with them — us — and was betrayed — and now she wants nothing to do with us, that they — we — I, make her skin crawl…

I am anxious. I feel awful. But I know what she is saying is truth.

I call myself feminist. It’s the best shorthand I’ve found to convey what it is I care about. But I know what else it conveys.

And I have to own that if that’s the movement I’m going to claim. I have to own all that bullshit. I don’t get to say “Well, I’m feminist, but I’m not one of those feminists.” It doesn’t work that way. I have the same damn privilege. I’ve been part of the same damn problems!

It’s tempting, confronting this, to toss away the label “feminist.” And to look longingly at the label “womanist.”

But that’s not my movement. I don’t get to lay claim to it. I don’t get to use it to cover up for all the bullshit that happens in my name — the bullshit I, inevitably, am part of making. That is not fair. That is not just.

That is, yet again, white women moving up a step on the backs of women of color. It is, yet again, white folk appropriating that which POC have built, by their own damn selves, for their own damn purpose, and using it in a way which not only makes them and their work invisible, but sets foot in their space, centers their community around us, again.

Takes over.

No. We don’t get to do that.

I want to be your friend, not your leader.

And the only way to do that is to stand back and let you do what you were already fucking doing.

Important post by Annaham. Read it.

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.

[...]

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….