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.

Feministe. Feministing. Shakesville. Bitch. Kate Harding, Jezebel and Broadsheet.

Every big feminist-inclined blogger who has shown such urgency and import about Stupak and abortion-within-healthcare-reform. Every feminist blogger who has used their standing, their wide audience, to urge people to do something to change this bad thing that is going to happen to people like us.

You’ve been there for all the women with functional reproductive capacity.

Where have you been for all the women stuck in nursing homes and institutions and all the women who are managing to live independently who will have their services taken back from them and be forced to move into nursing homes and modern institutions?

Because this is just as urgent an issue. And just as timely: it is being considered in the current health-care reform package. This one. This same one with Stupak (or analog). This same one you are fighting to improve for the sake of women.

Where have you been for years on the Community Choice Act?

We are talking about policy that is cheaper than subsidizing the cost of placing someone in a modern institution (nursing home, “senior living,” “care home” and the like), that allows women to have independence, autonomy, and self-determination. We are talking about a policy that gives women control over their bodies and the direction of their lives.

Just like access to affordable abortion.

We are talking about policy that lets disabled and elderly people live out in their own communities, with home services that allow them to get by on their own.

We are talking about fighting modern institutionalization, which is alive and well and still just as horrific as the stories from those old abandoned state buildings you’ve all heard about.

We are talking about saving people from being corralled, shepherded, and treated like livestock. Saving people from abusive situations, from sexual assault, from neglect and starvation.

This affects women.

Why aren’t you there with them?

Why don’t I see this addressed with nearly the same frequency or urgency? Nearly the same sense of importance, immediacy?

Because it is quite immediate to quite a lot of people. People who do not have the power you hold in our political system. (Oh, you may hold less than your male-identified young, abled, financially-privileged counterparts. But you still hold a great amount of power compared to many who are not in such a position.) People who need allies to fight with them. Let me spell that for you: N-E-E-D. They cannot see progress for as long as their younger, more abled peers continue to ignore them.

This is your chance to do something that makes an enormous difference.

If you aren’t familiar with this issue, I suggest you make yourself familiar with it. Learn about ADAPT. Read about the CCA and the arguments for it. Look into your local Independent Living center and see about opportunities for volunteering. Whether it’s high-minded political activism or low-status work doing the caring and cleaning and cooking.

Read up about disability activism, and read up about today’s institutions. Force yourself to confront reality.

And, maybe, use that platform you’ve got to share your new knowledge with others.

We need you.

You’ve undoubtedly heard the news already. A history of domestic violence or C-section are considered, by private US health insurance companies, to be “pre-existing conditions,” which are used as a basis for denying coverage, rescinding coverage, charging higher rates, or other discriminatory practices.

Of course, this is outrageous. Why should a woman who has been beaten by some asshole be denied health care coverage? It isn’t fair.

But there’s something wrong here. And not just with this discriminatory practice — but with the people breathlessly reporting it.

Because, you see, it is being reported, not as:

Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions Are Morally Wrong, but as

How Dare They Treat DV Victims and Mothers the Same Way They Treat Women with Depression, Diabetes and Cancer!

It is being reported as different from “normal” pre-existing condition exclusions. It is being reported as being especially wrong. As being worse. A true moral violation, taking things to a new level.

But why?

Here’s the thing. Insurance companies refuse coverage to people with pre-existing conditions (anything from asthma to leukemia) because they know these people will be highly likely to incur greater costs than healthy patients. The entire rationale for excluding them is because they cost more money.

If you have had a C-section once, you are much more likely to end up having another one if you ever give birth again. If you have a history of domestic violence, you might end up with an abusive partner again, and end up needing care.

Yeah, it’s complete bullshit that these people would be refused health care. It’s downright immoral.

But why is it especially immoral to refuse health care to these women — but not to women with osteoporosis or an anxiety disorder or back pain? Or Ehler-Danlos Syndrome or food allergies or heart disease or lung cancer?

How is it any different?

Victims of domestic violence don’t deserve to suffer consequences for something that is not their fault. This is truth. It contributes to the very popular cultural myth that victims are somehow to blame for the abuse they suffer — that they must have done something to provoke it, or that they should have left, etc. All this stuff is highly damaging.

But that doesn’t make it different than telling a woman with lung cancer that she can’t have care because her disease is somehow her fault. Which contributes to the very popular cultural myth that people with medical conditions are somehow to blame for them — that they must have done something to earn them, that it’s their own fault they ended up that way, and therefore they lose rights to certain things because they are inflicting the costs of their mistakes on the rest of us.

Because if you haven’t done anything wrong, you won’t ever end up sick. If you do end up sick, there must be something you did wrong.

Maybe that woman smoked. And maybe that other woman slapped her boyfriend first. And that woman who was raped wore a short skirt and flirted with the man first. That does not make this violation her fault. This is basic feminist theory. “Blaming the victim.”

Health care is a human right. We all deserve basic health care that respects a person’s dignity and integrity and humanity.

So why are these things different? Especially outrageous?

I can’t identify any reason except one.

Because they apply to healthy women.

It’s understandable why health insurance companies would refuse care to women with arthritis. It makes sense that they would deny care to women with psychiatric disorders.

Because we, as a society, think it is OK to deny quality of life and societal access to people with medical conditions, disabilities and chronic illnesses. We have determined that it makes sense to discriminate against them. We get why these things are done. And they’re done to those people. Over there. Not to me and mine.

But C-sections? Why, one-third of mothers in the US will have a C-section instead of a vaginal birth! That affects me and mine. Therefore, it is especially outrageous — that we would be treated like we treat them.

Oh, but that’s not how you think?

Really?

What justification is there for acting as though these practices are any worse than the practice of denying coverage to women who have lupus?

There isn’t any that isn’t rooted in a deeply ableist bias.

How about we get outraged by the fact that there is any such thing as a pre-existing condition exclusion at all? I can get behind you on that one.

From the O-R: Khalil Young, 13, and his sisters Kiara, 9, and Khammeelah, 4, tend to their patch of tomatoes this afternoon at (the garden)… Khalil also is a garden guardian who waters all of the plants on a regular basis.

Look familiar? My thoughts are conflicted in that post, about the real root (so to speak) of our modern issues with connection to our earth, but make no mistake: this garden is an unequivocal positive for the people who use it, and it makes me inordinately happy that it is here.

---

Right-leaning media outfits are making a big deal out of this picture. “Who’s helping whom? Obama couldn’t care less”… Obama wasn’t being a “gentleman”…

There are two things going on here:

* Professor Gates, who has a cane so that he can move independently, could probably have made it down the stairs on his own. That’s not to say without pain or difficulty — but he wasn’t helpless. The reaction to this photo presupposes that the crippled man must be completely unable to help his own damn self, and that it is noble when the able-bodied officer presumes to “help” him. Do you see what this does? It removes Prof. Gates as an agent; it makes him, instead, an agency-less object, existing for the purpose of the able-bodied man: this time, as a signifier of character (taking on that noble burden).

* Speaking of noble burdens: the race of the men involved cannot be ignored. Sgt. Crowley is a white man helping a crippled man. In the right wing’s reading of this photo, Sgt. Crowley becomes a symbol of whiteness: an example of the way in which white men are Good, in which Good is defined as the way white men do things. Think boot straps: this fantastical myth is all about the inherent goodness of the white man, who does things the right way, in contrast with the minorities, who are too lazy, selfish, etc. to bother. Sgt. Crowley presuming to help Prof. Gates stands in contrast with President Obama, who is walking ahead, minding his own business. This shouldn’t be an issue, but it is seen directly in front of the white man taking on the noble burden, and thus becomes an indictment on the character of the shiftless, self-absorbed black man.

---

And speaking of that beer summit:

Who was it for?

Of course it was reported as a sort of reconciliation: a way to help Prof. Gates and Sgt. Crowley make up. But that wasn’t what it was.

To sum: Prof. Gates arrived home after a long and tiring flight, and couldn’t get in his house. Someone called the police, thinking that a stranger was breaking into his home. Police arrive when Prof. Gates was already in his home and calling a locksmith. Prof. Gates shows ID to Sgt. Crowley proving this is his home, may have been “belligerent” in doing so. Sgt. Crowley responds by luring him to his front porch, where he is handcuffed and arrested for disorderly conduct. Outrage ensues; charges are dropped. (Police insist the original caller reported that black men were breaking in; recordings prove that she said nothing about race at all.)

Journalist asks Obama about this during a health care press conference. Obama says a few predictable, innocuous things, then says that it is obvious that the police “acted stupidly” in arresting Prof. Gates in his own home for no crime committed, then makes a simple comment about the inarguable history of racial profiling in this country.

Sgt. Crowley objects loudly, saying the President is “way off base.” Sgt. Crowley is obviously very upset, and the police force is standing in solidarity with him. The country is beginning to criticize Obama for admitting the troublesome racial aspects of the story; the conventional wisdom is becoming that Obama bit off more than he could chew in “bringing race into this” — and white America will make sure that he is taken down a notch for it.

So Obama invites the two men to the White House for a beer. The country reacts with mild derision — but the attacks begin to fade. The issue is neutralized.

See what’s going on here? White man does something unfair to black man. Black man protests that this was unfair. White man’s sensibilities are offended at the accusation that he could ever be An Unfair-ist, makes this into an argument about whether or not he is a Good Man (being unfair would necessitate that he is a Bad Man). All his friends know that he is, in fact, a Good Man, and they stand up to say as much. Black man looks around, realizes that the numbers are not on his side. That everyone has ignored the unfair way he was treated, and his family and friends have been treated throughout history. That there is unrest among them, and he may face very real consequences if he presses the issue any further.

So the black man backs down. Makes conciliatory noises. To soothe the white man’s feelings. So that the white man won’t cause him any more trouble.

What was this beer summit about? Did Obama really think he was going to solve the issue of racial profiling and police officers behaving unethically by inviting two men out for a beer? Of course he didn’t. That wasn’t the purpose.

The purpose was to get the offended white man (and his white friends) to shut up and stop causing the black men trouble.

And I don’t blame him.

---

Quick, think of a disease or condition that affects only men and is considered by a large portion of the population to be fake, created by the pharmaceutical industry, or psychosomatic.  *Sound of crickets.*

An excellent look at the gendered construction of medical conditions at the Women’s Sports Blog.

Most of the language about credulous patients being duped by Big Pharma is directed at women and conditions they suffer from disproportionately.  Women are, after all, emotional and have the ability to create amazing physical symptoms solely from their minds.  At the same time, women’s bodies are considered to be in a constant state of abnormality relative to men’s bodies.  The word ‘hysteria’ is etymologically related to the Latin word for uterus, which was long considered to be the site of women’s mental health problems, and hence its removal is called a hysterectomy [...]

‘Just get out and exercise’ or ‘just change your diet’ is fairly lousy advice for anyone who hasn’t been able to get out of bed. But as a society we still maintain the illusion that changes in hormones, brain chemistry, or the like are failures of self-control or willpower.

She also discusses the disproportionate burden laid on mothers of disabled children. Read the whole thing.

---

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

The title of the press release: “Promiscuous men more likely to rape”

The title of the Telegraph article: “Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists. Women who drink alcohol, wear short skirts and are outgoing are more likely to be raped, claim scientists at the University of Leicester.”

The researcher who was interviewed spoke out about the misrepresentations of her work (she is an MSc student and this was her dissertation, which is also apparently unfinished).

According to current.com, the article has been pulled and corrections have been issued. It’s hard to see how they can explain away something like this.

The Bad Science blog offers this update:

Via @jackofkent, here are the articles Richard Alleyne of the Telegraph has written about recently. I’m not saying anything. I’m just saying. Is all.

www.journalisted.com/richard-alleyne

From Pharyngula. H/T hearshot

(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.

Oooooh boy, Dove, you have no idea what you’re getting into here, do you?

The subcontext here is incredible. Jess uses a wheelchair. She’s happy and perky and having fun. Katie is visibly healthy. She has low self-esteem and her self-hatred keeps her from even being able to greet Jess when she comes to the door. Instead, she slouches to the ground in despair.

There is a reason they put Jess in a wheelchair. In doing this, Dove sets up a contrast: the physically disabled girl who feels good enough about herself to go about her life; the able-bodied girl who hates herself so much she can’t even go out with the people least likely to judge her at all.

The only way this contrast is meaningful is if it rests on the assumption that the physically disabled girl has reason to think less of herself.

Dove, here, is deliberately driving home the message: It’s such a shame that the “normal” girl thinks less of herself than does the girl in a wheelchair!

The shame conveyed here is that each girl does not recognize her true place in the social order. The normal-bodied girl is pretty, but can’t see her prettiness in the mirror. The girl in the wheelchair does feel good about herself. This is out of order, backwards. The girl in the wheelchair should be the one who sees herself one step lower; the normal-bodied girl should recognize her innate goodness in being able-bodied and conventionally attractive.

The dissonance Dove deliberately draws here relies on the recognition that Jess is diminished by her disability, but Katie is so dragged down by her poor self-esteem that she ends up in an even lower place than Jess. This is not right! This is not how things should be!

How should they be, then?

Of course, the commercial is also contemptible for the simple reason that it uses the girl in the wheelchair as an object to develop the human character of the able-bodied girl. In this setup, Jess is not a character; she is a tool. We don’t see Jess’ character explored, developed, reflected upon. She is introduced for only one reason: to act as a foil to Katie. To demonstrate just how low Katie has sunk.

Because you know it’s a fucking shame when she falls even lower than the cripple.

DIsability, here, is set up as an awful tragedy, the lowest a person can sink in life. This is what the title communicates. Disability is a reason to be sad, upset, mournful, pitied. This is what Dove purports to save young women from — a life of suffering. This is the reason Katie is to be pitied: she has fallen into the state Jess should be in.

Finally, the issue of appropriation. I’ll make it simple. Never, ever, ever, ever appropriate another group’s cause. White folk, you are simply not allowed to flip a situation to make it on a black person to try to communicate how outrageous it should be. Abled folk, you are simply not allowed to purport yourself disabled to communicate how tragic something against you is. Period. (The comparisons are slightly different in effect and implication, but my point applies to both.)

This assumes that to be disabled (black, gay, female, etc.) should always be understood to be a bad thing. It assumes that discrimination against disabled/etc. folk, or other forms of oppresion against them, are always taken seriously. And the subtext in these comparisons just screams out: How dare *I* be treated like those people!

Like it or not, whether you were thinking it or not, when you use these tropes, you imply that wrongs against you are worse than wrongs against the other group, that people should be outraged that you have been lowered to their level. What you are protesting, like it or not, is that your privilege over them has been violated.

Seriously, there is never a good reason to use the comparison trope. So just don’t do it. Ever. Period. End of story.

Via Wheelchair Dancer

the big screen on flickr

The greatest thing to happen to the world of sports since the advent of the telecast.

During their run for the Stanley Cup in spring 2008, the Pittsburgh Penguins, teamed with Consol Energy and Trib Total Media*, decided to put up a giant LCD screen facing the grassy area outside Mellon Arena, so that fans without tickets to the game could stop by — or camp out — and watch the game. For free.

Every game (weather permitting), home and away, was shown on the Big Screen. And fans responded. The place was packed. The energy was incredible. Even better the chance to gather and watch the games that did not take place on home ice.

As entrance (such as it was) was free, the team collected no direct revenue. But they set up concessions — barbecue grill and so forth — and made a good penny off of that. But you could still bring your own food, non-alcoholic drink, your own chairs/blankets/accommodations, and so forth. It was an open and free atmosphere. The area was not roped off, not guarded, not ticketed.

And it’s the most freaking genius thing ever. Yeah, they weren’t gonna make a buck off tickets, but they drew a whole lot of fans to the arena. They fanned the flame of fandom, cementing enthusiasm for hockey in the budding fanbase of Pittsburgh — an area that previously cared only about its precious Steelers. (My husband, a Pirates fan, has quite the complex about this, and I actually share his distaste for antagonistic element of Pittsburgh football fandom.) They found a way to make money off of local fans even when the team was playing an away game. And for once, more people than those who could afford the price of playoff hockey tix were able to gather in support of their team.

It’s playoff season again in Pittsburgh. We never would’ve thought it two months previous, when the Penguins were in such a slump that they aspired to a tenth-place finish in the Eastern Conference, but their fortunes rose and here they are: first round against their bitter rivals the Broad Street Bullies. If there’s one way to draw a crowd to a Penguins game, it’s to play against the hated Philadelphia Flyers! (I think it betrays Philly’s inferiority complex: why would they care so much about little ol’ Pittsburgh if they did not see us as a threat? Ha.) And fortune indeed shone upon us: the Pens get the home ice advantage.

And the team was smart enough to agree to put up the Big Screen again this year! A fan can’t help but be excited. Having had my share of bad experiences with booking overlord Ticketmaster, and being newly unemployed, I can’t exactly afford the price of playoff tickets. But I can afford the two-dollar T fare up into the city. And indeed, we are planning to go to every game possible. Because it’s an incredible experience, one I wouldn’t miss for all the world. I will always cherish the memories of the games we were able to attend last season, when I was new to the city, settling in to my new home. Forming an identity.

And I’m glad someone had the bright idea to do it. I can’t wait til tomorrow night.

See scenes from the May 4, 2008 game against the Rangers pictured above in my Flickr stream.

* Yeah, I’m not happy that my hockey team’s fortunes were sold to** Big Coal. And I know progressives aren’t a huge fan of the Scaife media. But one out of three isn’t bad, right?

** God, I’m going to miss Mellon Arena. Oldest arena in the country, and the city sees that as a bad thing. I love that fucking place, inaccessible as it is (and O, is it inaccessible!). But I’m still both a hockey newb and a swPA transplant, so I don’t get to make that call. Unfortunately.