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.

Written originally for my stint at Feministe at the beginning of July; been working on it bit by bit ever since, but suddenly it has become topical again.

Part I: The Personal

Note: I’m going somewhere with this. Please keep your mind open as you read, because I will be coming back in Part II with a concept that may seem to conflict with your initial reading of Part I. Thanks.

Understanding my background is essential to understanding my understanding of these things. And so we go.

My brothers and sister, between them, share two diagnoses of bipolar disorder, one of schizophrenia, two of those with psychosis, and all three have severe depression and/or generalized anxiety disorder. That is only what has been diagnosed by mental health professionals — D* was only diagnosed by way of being taken to prison and has not seen a doctor otherwise in decades.

My mother never saw a mental health professional and never will, but she shares most of the symptoms my siblings display, and my own mental health professionals have agreed with me that if there is a diagnosis to give her (with all requisite caveats), it would be borderline personality disorder.

1.

My brother D* had the worst situation of the family. He was the first to go to jail: when he was taken to court for some sort of licensing issue, he refused to give his name. Wouldn’t speak. And so they put him in jail. And he stayed there for eight months before relenting so that he could just go home.

How long would you stay in jail for a principle?

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

Perhaps this is the wrong question. Instead, I propose: What is there to heal?

Healing is the process of a body, having been injured in some way, doing what it takes to restore itself to normalcy. Merriam-Webster says, specifically, “to make sound or whole” and “to restore to original purity or integrity.”

Take note of the words I have highlighted. What are they saying?

This cultural idea of healing, applied to a person’s spirit rather than body, draws upon the idea of an abnormal body being made “normal.” It assumes that any person not normal should be made normal.

But there are all sorts of bodies in this world. Bodies with broken bones, broken skin, disfigured limbs, faces, with cuts and gashes and wounds, missing limbs, missing organs, organs which work in abnormal ways — according to our cultural norms.

And, much the same, there are all sorts of people in this world. People who have survived assault and abuse, been subject to violence, faced trauma, been manipulated or neglected, dealt with addictions, lost loved ones. People who have experienced any number of things which cause them significant distress.

These people are expected to “heal” from their experience. They go through a modest amount of time processing the event emotionally and then return to normal.

But why should they be made normal?

Why should any broken person be pushed and pressured into a form which does not fit?

Why is it that a person who is anything other than normal is therefore less than whole?

Why can’t a person simply be who they are, even if they are injured or broken or disfigured, and still be considered a whole person?

Any person who has faced trauma will need to find ways to process their trauma, ways to cope, ways to live with what has changed in their life. But that person should not have to push hirself to go back to how things once were — or to make things resemble what they are for a person who has not faced that trauma. Things may be different. There is not only one way to live a life. There are many. And perhaps you will settle into a different one — one which works better for who you are now — which may not have worked for who you were before. And that way is no less right.

What do you do when life changes? You adapt. You make things fit you. You don’t make you fit everything else.

It’s ok to be broken. Being broken does not make you less than whole. It makes you different. And that’s ok.

related posts: You don’t have to be normal,Untitled.

This post was written several months ago, inspired by but not necessarily in direct response to this post at The Curvature. I went to bed after writing it, intending to post in the morning, and forgot, until I found it in my draft folder just now. Scatterbrained would be the kind way to describe me.

I’ve officially been writing here for two full years as of today!

I’ve met a lot of really cool people, I’ve learned a lot of really important stuff, and I hope I’ve made some small difference in some small way, somewhere.

You guys have kept me going. I wouldn’t still be here without feedback, without someone telling me that what I said made some difference to them. I am steadily finding my own voice in writing, sharpening the mind (allow me to stop for a laugh – ha! – ok) deepening my understanding of these issues.

Two years ago, I didn’t identify as “disabled” myself. I was interested in feminism, but I had little concept of the weaknesses the in mainstream feminist movement, particularly around race, trans issues, and (though it’s seemingly never identified so outrightly) class. The more I’ve explored, the more I’ve learned.

And the more I’ve vocalized my thoughts, my experiences, the more I’ve learned about myself; the more I’ve been able to figure out who I am, what I care about, what my strengths are and what I need to work on.

The people who have taken the time to read my comments and posts, to respond, to support and to challenge — you folks are so important. Movement building is a community effort; it takes all of our individual voices to form a strong collective force. Even when you feel small and isolated, you are still a part of the whole, an important part.

I want to encourage anyone who feels small and unsteady to raise your voice, to speak out, to detail your experiences, how they affect your views, how you think we can make this world better. Our personal stories are far more powerful than many let on. We, the small people, connect with each other, commiserate, deliberate, and decide on ideas and priorities that trickle up, over time, to the top reaches of the power structure. It does happen. We make it happen.

I love hearing from all of you. And I hope you will speak out more — in comments here and elsewhere — or in your own space — and develop your own voice. You might feel small and unimportant, but you might be surprised, when you tap into that voice, and feed it, and shape it — how strong it is.

And you might — like me — be surprised, when you use it, to find people who normally keep quiet will speak up.

Your individual experiences may not be representative of the mainstream. That is all the more reason to speak about them. Because there are others, like you, who would be strengthened to see their experiences represented somewhere.

And the entire community will be strengthened when it can recognize the range and diversity of experiences within it.

Thank you for everything you have contributed here. And I hope I’ll see you around.

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.”

Why it’s important to make a concerted effort to promote historically-un(der)represented classes. You can’t flick a switch and have equality instantly turn on. Even if discrimination ceased to exist instantly, it would still take time to catch up — today’s chemistry-minded three-year-old girls aren’t going to reach the upper echelons of the field for at least another few decades yet. Of course, prejudice doesn’t instantly disappear simply because the law forbids certain manifestations of it in certain settings. So we reach a point where we’re looking to fill President Obama’s cabinet, but the levels from which such people would be pulled are still disproportionately dominant-class folk. This is where it does become worthwhile to pick Ms. Smith over Mr. Doe, even when they are very similarly qualified, simply for the fact that Ms. Smith is a woman.

What the bloggy left don’t understand about Obama’s approach to politics. It’s something I’ve always admired about his judgment. He will make a good-faith effort to work with his opposition to get done what needs done. But if that opposition responds to his good-faith effort with a bad faith effort, he will unapologetically move forward without them. Here’s one reason why this is a Good Thing: it’s a tactical investment. It builds trust in the broader community and fosters relationships with those members of the opposition who might be won over in the future. That’s a worthwhile investment to make, I think.

The consequences of our market-worship culture. What, exactly, makes a standard of living? Is it the fancy consumer goods we all have? A car for every person, a flat-screen TV in every house and a smartphone in every palm? Or is it something else? The security of a stable neighborhood, quality health care that isn’t a hassle, and a good education for your child even if you can’t afford the cost of living in the ritziest districts? These are things the private sector simply don’t excel at.

Self-care is essential. I do not use this word lightly. If these is anything my condition has taught me, it is the importance of learning one’s own boundaries and one’s own needs, and respectfully tending to them. Without this, you aren’t going to be any good to anybody else. You’re going to be more help to someone if you’re doing well yourself. If you’re rushed, stressed, overwhelmed with anxiety, severely lacking in sleep, seriously emotionally preoccupied, down with the flu, whatever — you’re allowed to stop and take care of yourself before you continue your work. Why do we insist that we push forward, always, through whatever challenges we may face? There can be virtue in that. But there can also be folly. I think this is a cultural force that could use some reflection.

After the reaction to a certain post of mine, I think this advice from Jill would be well-heeded in a variety of situations:

I understand that men are in an uncomfortable position when an abortion story is dropped into date conversation. Abortion is socially marked as taboo and horrible and universally emotionally difficult, so I understand why the first reaction is “You poor thing” or “You’re so strong.” I’ve never been in the same position as the author, but I have been on a first date where the guy dropped his almost-abortion story: His girlfriend got pregnant, they decided to terminate the pregnancy, and then she had a miscarriage. It’s not an easy story to respond to, so I fell back on How To Deal With An Awkward Conversation Topic 101: Mirror the other person’s reaction. He seemed like he was sad about the situation, so I think I said something along the lines of, “That sounds like it was really hard, I’m sorry.” And the conversation moved on. I also had a friend who once told me the story of his hugely swollen testicle — like, baseball-sized. In recounting the story, he was cracking himself up, so I laughed along. It’s really not all that hard to take your cues from the person who lived through the unpleasant ordeal. And I think that’s the author’s point: Not that men should universally think abortion is no big deal, but that they should take women as individuals who have varied responses to situations, and who very well may not be traumatized or upset at all — but who may nonetheless be highly annoyed and physically discomforted by a 30-day period. Or they may just be relieved. Or they may be sad, or even devasted. Or they may feel stupid for getting pregnant. Or they may have emotions that are mixed and that evolve. You know, like most human beings.

Read Kate take a righteous hammer to the bullshit that is how we, as a culture, introduce children to disability. Woo go Kate!

OK, this post might seem a bit out of place (and ignore the quick bit of gender-enforcing at the end). It’s just so deeply joyful to be a witness to another person reveling in wonder, over things big or small. Grapefruit isn’t my thing, but you find enjoyment in funny places.

This is why I love slacktivist.

Adam Serwer took all of three posts at TAPPED, I think, to become my favorite writer at the mag (and it’s not for my lack of appreciation for Klein). This kind of reflection is why.

Jindal and Obama could not be more different, and the contrasts begin but don’t end with the fact that one of them changed his name to fit in while the other carried his daddy’s “funny” African moniker all the way to the White House. Last night, the differences were clear: Where Jindal was awkward, Obama was confident. Obama has mastered his voice, Jindal sounded like he didn’t know how to give a speech. Obama had mastered a variety of tones and cadences early in his career, Jindal offered a forced folksiness to a sing-song tune. But perhaps the most telling part of Jindal’s response was his extended introduction of his family history. Until now, the GOP has allowed the press to make the Obama comparisons, last night, Jindal tried to make one himself, an act that was inadvertently self-diminishing.

You can’t find your voice by trying to become what everyone else is. You do that by trying to find what it is that makes you you. See also M’s musings on identity.

I’m off to bed, to dream of miniwheats in the morning.

even after death
they stuff our bodies into boxes …

– mscripchick

(Today is the Transgender Day of Remembrance. Click through for a short summary of those dead whose stories are known.)

I don’t know how you have a conversation with people for whom “because it’s right” is not enough of a reason to do something. I really don’t.

– commenter Isabel

… arguing with a doctor about weight is like arguing with a priest about whether you should be a Christian.

– commenter Eve

They’re waiting for the self-disclosure that explains why someone who seems so “normal” would identify with the disability community. They’re waiting to find out exactly why the friend who spoke up isn’t just like everyone else after all: The excuse that allows them to continue ignoring disability identity and culture. They’re waiting to be able to explain to each other, later, that:

“I don’t know anyone with Down’s. How was I supposed to know her sister had it?” [...]

The reason an able-bodied or able-looking person needs a reason to be a disability advocate is simple: So everybody else has a reason not to be. It’s “not their dog.” [...]

Disability culture (Deaf-Side debate notwithstanding) doesn’t require that you show your crip card, or your sister’s, mother’s, or brother’s, to be in favor of that which is right.

– Veralidaine

I write from San Francisco, where, in the months leading up the election, I saw a massive mobilization within the queer spaces in which I spend time to get people to vote no on 8, but I saw little or no public discourse among LGBT people about very important state propositions: 5, 6, and 9—all of which potentially impacted things like funding for prisons, drug crime sentencing, or the trying of minors as adults in this state….

– Adele Carpenter

Just take the other day. I was exiting a building in a stream of white people who had been able to afford the ticket to the show we had just seen. I was pushed off the path by two couples and a what looked like a father with his arm around his daughter. Wizard righted me. No one else came to help. They were too busy talking about the awesome Obama victory. Then, father ran down, literally, a poor black homeless woman who was trying to walk upstream. She kept saying “excuse me, excuse me.” Father pushed her aside; the white people on either side flooded around her. She was entirely invisible. I looked her in the eye and exchanged words with her. No one else seemed to see her. The Obama victory, you know.

– Wheelchair Dancer

Amanda flags a great post by Anne C at Existence is Wonderful, which catalogues “three different ways of looking at autism — in terms of neurological structure, in terms of lived experience, and in terms of outward behavior.”  And Anne does such wonderful things with this delineation. Click through to read the whole post, which addresses attitudes toward autism in particular, but I think Anne hit on something that can be safely generalized outward — her three approaches toward autism can also, in fact, be three approaches toward disability.

Some highlights, all emphasis mine.

My guess is that there are probably multiple underlying structural variations that can produce “autistic phenotypes”, and it will be interesting to see how this pans out, but at any rate, one important aspect of how I presently conceptualize autism is the fact that some structural differences do seem to really exist. And if the difference does indeed go “all the way down” to the brain, as it appears to, then it makes very little sense to (as some seem to) view autism as some kind of disruptive “module” overlaid upon a typical brain.

This is significant both in the cognitive science and the ethics realm, as it indicates (a) that experiments presuming autistic brains to be “broken versions of normal brains” are likely useless, and (b) that the best ways to help autistic people learn and develop functional skills are those which acknowledge an underlying and pervasive difference as opposed to those which presume that autism can be “removed” or “trained out” by simply eliminating surface behaviors.

Yes! Autism, or any disability, is not a case of “a normal brain gone wrong.” It is not a defect or even a modification of a “normal” brain. It is, simply put, variation. We will never overcome society’s confusion and mistreatment toward pwd as long as we think there is any such thing as a “normal” brain (or body) at all. Is any one color or pattern of a cat’s coat a “normal” one? Or are there many varieties, none inherently better or more-important than the others?

At heart of society’s approach toward disability is the assumption that there is a standard template for the human body, and if any one body turns out to be different, it is a deviation from that standard. As such, the solution to any problems resulting from said differences is to attempt to make up for that “deviation,” to attempt to make the “defective” body more like the standard template in whatever way possible.

Put this way, it is obvious that this approach is misguided at best. The solution is not to change the individual body to fit the narrow, faulty expectations, but to adjust those expectations to include the range and diversity of the human experience.

Similarly:

Mind you, none of this is meant to imply that I (or the researchers engaging in the experiments demonstrating visual-spatial trends in autistic persons) believe that autistic people cannot be disabled. Certainly, “uneven” development (which may include significant delays alongside “advanced” skill acquisition in some individuals), communication difficulties, and consequent social, educational, and occupational issues are very real. However, the existence of real disabilities and difficulties need not imply that the “whole person” is somehow diminished by the fact of being autistic, or that one cannot have attributes which exist as both strength and weakness depending upon the context.

This is where Anne comes back around to detail the third approach (outwardly knowable traits). She observes:

The orange column on the right of the diagram summarizes what most people probably think of as “autism” — that is, the externally-visible things that generally get people suspected of being, or identified as being, autistic in the first place.

This is where we see such things as diagnostic checklists, observations about a person’s developmental milestones (and when/if they meet certain expected ones), outward actions, language use, body language, tone of voice, social/educational/occupational success (or lack thereof) in the absence of modifying factors, etc.

What is interesting, and perhaps a bit unnerving, is that this category is at once the one people tend to put the most stock in (in terms of identifying autistics, in terms of determining what educational supports we might need, etc.) and the one most subject to cultural biases, personal biases, misinformation, and the ever-changing social lens through which different kinds of people are generally viewed.

…which, honestly, is a bit scary and unsettling for those of us who are going to be the ones to bear the consequences of any such things.

“Part of what makes America so beautiful is that there is no such thing as someone who looks like an American.”

You aren’t fooling anybody, sweetie.

It is an inspiring sentiment — something I wish were true. But this is reality, and down here, we recognize the wisdom of the old adage, actions speak louder than words.

America has always claimed to aspire to a just, egalitarian society. Then again, the bruised and broken woman presenting herself to the emergency room has always claimed to only have taken a fall.

The original immigrants from England came from an environment hostile to their religious beliefs, but don’t kid yourself: they intended to establish not a society that recognizes freedom of religious expression for people of any religious persuasion, but a society that recognized the freedom of religious expression for people who subscribed to their particular religion.

The Declaration of Independence did not recognize the fundamental rights and dignity of every person in the country’s bounds: it recognized that “All men are created equal.” Don’t kid yourself: they weren’t using that word as a gender neutral pronoun. And its founders, wealthy white men, held slaves, including black men, feeling no dissonance between their political positioning and their private lives.

Wealthy white Americans continued to hold slaves — who are we kidding? nobody held slaves; they dominated, abused, exploited slaves — for years and years after that; the “War of Northern Aggression” was fought over State’s Rights, that is, the right of states to proudly base their social and economic orders on a system of brutality against black bodies, male and female.

Even after the South was warred into submission, people of color were denied education, voting rights, property (and thus the ability to sustain oneself), bodily autonomy, and the respect and recognition of their fundamental humanity of the (white) people around them. Their welfare was purposefully neglected by the (white) people and their (white) established government. And whenever they had the temerity to advocate for themselves or even just dare to exist in public, they were harassed, attacked, raped, abused, murdered. This happened with the implicit consent of the (white) institution under which they existed.

When a noticeable portion of white America got its fucking head screwed on straight and started fighting to make right these wrongs, the violence was inflamed, and let white America not forget that legal recognition was not pushed through Congress smoothly and pleasantly. Let them also not forget that legal recognition does not translate into social recognition; to this day people of color fight to rise above the contempt their white peers have historically, and largely still currently, show them.

Native Americans were subject to nothing short of genocide from the moment the pigmentationally-challenged set foot on this massive continent. We fought them, hunted them, raped them, mutilated them, ruined their land, drove them west and then followed them there to keep the “rivalry” alive.

And make no mistake, we are equal-opportunity oppressors! We import poor, darker-skinned workers to perform our menial labor, constructing a social and economic order irreparably built upon their underpaid labor, their abuse and exploitation — their enslavement. Our history of genocide and institutionalization of people with disabilities is no secret. I’m not even going to bring up treatment of the trans/queer.

For all our boasting, the United States of America has never been a society dedicated to the respect and recognition of every person, of any class. Never.

Everyone, everyone knows what Chris Matthews means when he invokes the “regular American.” This country was FOUNDED on the privileging of the white, male, heteronormative, able-bodied default person. The Joe Six-Pack with a wife and two kids, who comes home from work every day to watch NASCAR and tosses around a football with his buddies. (Except when they privilege the multiple-vacation-home-owning, country-club-frequenting, Joe High-Class over him. But that is the only alternative.)

When someone speak about a generic American without any further context — or about a generic person without any further context — everybody knows what they visualize. And it doesn’t have tits, it doesn’t use leg braces, it doesn’t have “nappy” hair or “slanted” eyes. They may not be musing on an actual image of a white man, but if you introduced any of those other traits, it would be jarring. It would change the paradigm of thought entirely. We would suddenly be having a totally different conversation.

Everybody understands this. They may not devote any conscious thought to it — but the construct exists in their head. There is such a thing as “someone who looks like an American.” I could point out hundreds of them to you in the middle of our local Wal-Mart Super Center. I don’t think I’d find (m)any in the local mosque, assisted living facility, gay pride parade, homeless shelter…

Consider this: Mr. Obama’s own campaign recently had two women in headscarves removed from visibility in a campaign event.* How can this fit with his statement? What contortions would it require for Senator Obama to reconcile his actions with his words?