#Or the rampant ableism people show and don’t get criticized for

[vampstel]

Hi V u don’t have to respond if ur uncomfy or anything but I think it’s rlly funny how ppl on twt painted u out like some clout hungry person for making ur astro critique thread when like… ur the most humble commentator I watch 💀

if u were clout hungry u would’ve stayed on twt after everything but no u deleted both ur accs and just chill here with a small audience instead. u clearly dgaf about clout. still so weird how mfs attacked a disabled trans guy for his mild common sense takes. “astro renaissance is inclusive” my ass. their devs are fucking shitty and should be called out for it -🦋

Hi anon! Don’t worry, I’m not too uncomfy discussing this topic. At least on here for now, anyway…

But yeah, I saw a tweet or two from people calling me a clout chaser when the whole thing went down. It’s a baseless claim with no evidence to back it up. And trust me, you don’t wanna know how many times I’ve abandoned large audiences after losing interest in a hyperfixation…

I wouldn’t say I’m super humble. I can be confident and there are times where I’ll profit off of popular topics for my own benefit (which I’m not afraid to admit) but overall? I am not like those commentators who drag shit out for more likes and views, I can manage on my own 😭

…Unlike many of the people in the RHTC who can’t move on from RH despite talking about how horrible it is but sure lol

Honestly, if I had to be blunt with you, the clout chasing comments didn’t matter to me. The ones calling me a fetishist hurt most. Like yeah… I’m a gay guy. I like men. What’s new? Most of my audience on Twitter literally followed me because I drew men with big chests and muscles. Like don’t pretend y’all are innocent 🙃

[gatesofember]

can you expand on the canon and fanon ableism in solangelo? I sort of picked up on the infantilisation of nico (hes dealing with ptsd and i guess chronic fatigue, hes not a baby) but i always thought that was handled better in canon than in fanon? But then i havent read ToN i admit

Sure! I don’t know that I’m the best person to ask this because while I am disabled, I’m still unlearning a lot of ableism myself. But I’ll try my best to explain! Maybe some people could recommend some good posts about this if they know any?

Infantilizing—like you mentioned, this is one of the biggest problems with ableism in the fandom. There isn’t much of this in canon, but in fanon Nico’s often characterized as helpless and he’s not taken seriously. Will often plays the role of caretaker rather than boyfriend to an infantilized Nico, which creates an inherent and unhealthy power imbalance.

Will being portrayed as a savior—a common and dangerous trope in romance is that one character is saved by the love of another. It’s especially damaging when the character being saved has mental health problems or physical disabilities. I think most people realize nowadays that this isn’t okay, but you’ll still occasionally see things that portray Will as a savior. Nico entering a relationship because he’s healing and accepting himself is great! But Nico being saved by a relationship? Bad.

Victim blaming—honestly most characters who interact with Nico in canon engage in some level of victim blaming, but by far the worst one was Will (aside from like. Hades and Minos.) In BoO, Will went on an entire rant telling Nico that he was responsible for his own problems and that he manufactured his own abandonment by pushing people away, when really, Nico was the victim of bullying, rejection, abuse, and serious mental health problems—and he already blamed himself for all that so Will’s rant only would have made him feel more invalidated. Later books definitely pulled back on the victim blaming, but it was such a prevalent part of the foundation of their relationship that it’s been ingrained in the ship. It shows a severe and dangerous misunderstanding of mental health on the part of both Riordan and the fandom.

Will being Nico’s healthcare provider—What makes Will being portrayed as a savior even worse is the fact that Will is a healer. Doctors shouldn’t date their patients. Much like the caretaker issue I mentioned above, it creates a power imbalance which is usually satisfied because the doctor is paid for doing their job, but things get messy when any kind of personal relationship is involved. Will should not be in charge of Nico’s medical care. Of course he can act as Nico’s healer in emergencies, but Nico’s primary medical care provider should be someone else. If Will acts as Nico’s medical care provider out of necessity (eg, because he’s the only healer at camp halfblood), then they need to set up clear boundaries and rules. Will being Nico’s doctor should never be spun as a good thing.

Will abusing his authority as a medical care provider—most notably the “doctor’s orders” and “doctor’s note” scenes. Will was extremely overbearing in BoO, from forbidding Nico from using his powers to ordering him to stay in the infirmary, and that kind of pushiness isn’t okay. He was abusing his power, doubting Nico’s judgement and capabilities, and denying Nico’s right to make his own decisions (again, infantilizing). Disabled people’s agency is often denied and autonomy is so important. Nico should have been allowed to make the choice to stay in the infirmary on his own (or not to stay, or to follow through with his plan to leave chb; he should have had the freedom to make those choices, too), and frankly, it would have been a much more powerful ending to Nico’s pov if he had. He should have chosen to go to the infirmary because he decided he wanted to get better, not because he wanted to be around Will (see previous point about Will being portrayed as a savior) (although it would have been fine if Nico thought of Will as an added bonus). I said in the previous post that Will writing a doctor’s note to allow Nico to sit at the Apollo table doesn’t bother me, but that’s because I imagine that situation being like, Nico was denied accommodations so Will and Nico hatched a plan together to use what little leverage they have to get adults to listen to Nico’s needs and take him seriously, but both of them fully understood that Will should not act as Nico’s doctor again unless there were serious medical reasons. Other people interpret that scene as Will abusing his power as the head medic to sit next to his boyfriend. And I’m not saying that my interpretation of that scene is necessarily the correct one, just that I don’t interpret it as Will being ableist.

Nico faking his disability to get things—I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone bring this point up, but it’s something that really bothers me. The ableism regarding the “doctor’s note” for me isn’t the scene itself, but when the fandom portrays Will and Nico constantly using the doctor’s note excuse to get what they want, often having Nico fake some sort of symptom. Besides the abuse of power I mentioned before, promoting the idea that disabled people fake disabilities to get certain privileges is not okay. This is the sort of thinking that leads to stereotyping disabled people as lazy and it’s so prevalent that it makes a lot of disabled people wonder if they’re really disabled or if they’re making it all up (which ties in with the victim blaming point again).

Sometimes I agree that canon Solanagelo is less ableist than fanon, but sometimes fans do a better job than Riordan. It really just depends. I definitely think that both Riordan and the fandom have gotten better though! Will’s character and his relationship with Nico was very different in ToN than it was in previous books (different for the better but also to the point of inconsistency, but that’s a different critique). There were a lot of things in ToN that made it clear that Riordan was listening to the responses of disabled people. Some fans seem to be listening, too. There’s still rampant ableism in the fandom, but people are getting better at responding to criticism and realizing that a lot of tropes that used to be popular just aren’t ok.

Thank you for your ask! I’m glad you reached out to learn more. Again, if anyone knows good posts to read or blogs to visit for further information, please reply with them!

[demonic-ninja-cat]

To expand on what I said in the last post, where I mentioned how I hate the Supernatural Fandom with a passion, here are some of the main reasons why:

Their belief that you can't criticize any character in the show who is any sort of minority or who has any sort of trauma, and if you do then you're a prejudiced asshole who only hates them because they're a minority/have trauma and who hates minorities/people with trauma

All of the "If you hate Mary Winchester/Claire Novak/Charlie Bradbury/Any Other Female Hunter Character at all, then you just hate women/are sexist/hate strong female characters" posts

The abuse apologism(especially relating to Dean and his relationships with everyone, but especially especially Sam, Cas, and Jack)

The constant glorification, romanticization, justification, woobification, and excusing of Dean and everything that Dean says or does

The constant glorification, romanticization, justification, woobification, normalization, and excusing of Hunters as a whole and Hunting as a concept/institution

The constant glorification of Hunter Characters like Claire, Charlie, Jody, Mary, and Eileen, pretty much just for being reoccurring characters who are minorities, and acting like they're never done anything wrong ever, and saying that anyone who criticizes them for anything is just sexist/homophobic/ableist/misogynistic/racist/etc.

The demonization and dehumanization of supernaturals as a whole and the treatment of supernatural characters in fanfics, especially in regards to making them all be either Species-Traitor Hunters who mercilessly kill their own kind and are praised for it or Irredeemably Evil Villains who are nearly always killed off

The way all of the rps/fanfics/fanart/posts/etc. force SamnDean, Cas, Jack, and a bunch of characters who either barely know them or outright hate them into being their "Adorable Perfect Found Family Who All Live Together In The Bunker"

How they act like all of the unhealthy, toxic, and even outright abusive relationships in the show are "adorable" and "perfect" and "healthy" and whatever, just because the characters in the relationship in question are Main Characters/Popular Characters/Hunter Characters

The way that so many of the destiel shippers treat Cas like just an accessory for their ship and Dean's Walking Angelic S*x Toy/Love-Slave and get upset and act like he “betrays” Dean if he so much as cares about anyone besides Dean(and maybe Jack)

The way that the destihellers harass and bully people who don’t like Dean and/or who don’t ship Destiel, and call anyone who doesn’t ship their toxic ship “homophobic”, even when the person being accused of being homophobic ships other non-straight ships

All of the dad!Dean crap, and how they make Dean be Claire/Jack/whoever’s father, and how they make Claire, Jack, and other Kid/Young Adult Characters into Destiel Children

The way people get so up in arms and defensive if you criticize their favorite character for legit reasons(mostly Dean), and then will sometimes turn around and make up/exaggerate shit in order to to hate on/bash other people’s favorite characters(mostly Sam and/or Cas)

How some of the most popular ships in the fandom, the ones with the most posts and works about them, are among the most toxic, abusive, and disgusting ships in the fandom(eg. Destiel, Wincest, Samifer, etc.)

How the Wincestie and Bibro types like to bash my favorite characters(eg. Cas and Jack) and treat them like shit, and act like only SamnDean matter

How some SamnDean/Bibro/Wincest fans act like Sam and Dean are perfect, and are all annoyingly snooty with their superiority complexes about how “they understand the show and it’s all about brotherly love” and stuff like that, and bash and insult Cas in literally all of their posts and etc.  They will do things like, call Cas insulting and degrading names, and bash him for stuff that is either made up, exaggerated, or that is literally the same as or similar-to-but-not-as-bad-as things that SamnDean have done.

How they make long-ass metas and essays about destiel and homophobia in spn and shit, but refuse to acknowledge almost any of the racism, sexism, ableism, etc. in the show

How said metas and essays about "homophobia in spn" are literally almost entirely just about “Destiel not being canon” and “Charlie's death”, and occasionally “Cas' death”(but only in the Bury Your Gays and "Cas died and didn't get to be with his twu wuv after confessing his feelings!  Waaaahhh! ThEy SiLeNcEd Us!" way, of course, and no mention of how he died spewing bullshit about how "good" and "loving" his abuser was), and completely ignore any of the many other homophobic things in SPN that don't revolve around the Hunter Fan-Faves.

The rampant and disgusting hypocrisy, both with Hunters vs Supernaturals and with Dean vs Anyone Else.  

An example regarding Hunters, is how they will say that killing any human, even one who is an abuser or a murderer, is “bad” and “evil” and “villainous”, but killing any supernatural, even an innocent one, is “ok” and “good” and “heroic”.  

An example regarding Dean, is how they will say that anything bad Dean did while he had the MOC “wasn’t really Dean” and “you can’t judge him for that”, but then will go on to judge, condemn, and bash Sam and Cas for things they did while they were possessed(Both), soulless(Sam), or had hundreds of monster and leviathan souls inside them(Cas)! 

and likely more things that I'm forgetting

[thatboxylady]

Lmfao someone who I viewed as a friend calling me misanthropic in a review for a fanfic on hiatus, and it’s not even my fic.

Read more is under the cut because I’m angry that I have to keep begging people on the internet to try and act normal.

Forgive me if I’m not praising society for (checks notes) rampant police violence, charging thousands of dollars for life saving medications that cost next to nothing to make, insanely uncalled for wealth gaps, racism/ableism/sexism prevailing nearly everywhere you look, climate change that no one cares about because money, the sheer goddamn transphobia, and dictating what people can and cannot do with their own bodies.

If you haven’t been burned by any of these things, great! I’m genuinely very glad for you and hope you continue to not have anything worth being upset about.

Meanwhile my anger is mine and justified.

More than that, if you’re mad about my opinions because of how they manifest in my headcanons for a fictional television show, then clearly your priorities are... extremely skewed. Fandom has always been an outlet for people to explore pre-existing works and the narrative elements they pick up on within them.

Neotopia is a perfect utopia? Doubt it. I picked that out and wrote about it.

Did you not pick up on it? Cool! Don’t write about it or tell me I’m wrong.

The Maximals vs. Predacons beef is acceptable on a post-war Cybertron because the Autobots and Decepticons were once at war? Doubt it. I picked that out and wrote about it.

Did you not pick up on it? Cool! Don’t write about it or tell me I’m wrong.

The Vehicons are wholly without the capability for individuality and self-determination? Doubt it. I picked that out and wrote about it.

Did you not pick up on it? Cool! Don’t write about it or tell me I’m wrong.

A headcanon is not canon. Otherwise it would just be called canon and not have its own word. You cannot control other people’s headcanons, or feelings, or beliefs. This is especially true when those beliefs are rooted in that person’s real life suffering.

If there are parts of fandom you don’t like, block and move on. You literally do not have to interact with things you don’t like. We’ve already learned that changing peoples’ minds on the internet is a moot point, so don’t bother. Genuine criticism (especially in fanfic) is totally understandable, but not when that criticism is rooted in a headcanon that is not yours for dictating.

Why would you even bother commenting on a story after more than a year since it’s last update? Why are you talking about me?

The cool thing is this: it doesn’t matter.

Even if I don’t know why this person called me out, guess what? I’m not going to change their mind about their own feelings, much in the same light that they cannot change mine. So I’m not going to interact with them. At this point I don’t care to figure out why, either. I’m blocking and moving on.

That having been said, if anyone else is on this mindset that the world revolves around you and how you interact with other people’s interpretation of fictional media, I am begging you to go outside and touch grass. I’m not saying that in a bad way, either. I think you’ve had too much time on the internet and I think you need to sit outside and get some fresh air.

Maybe get a coffee.

Edit 1: I don’t think I made this clear enough so lemme add a few things.

Jetstorm deserved bodily autonomy because no means no, Molly Thatcher becoming a bad person by setting herself in her skewed mindset deserves whatever comes to her (including the people she roped in as a result of her extremism), and the Decepticons were right to start the Great War in direct retaliation to Cybertron’s government refusing to abolish the caste system that was killing them.

Also, abortion is healthcare, black lives matter, and religious conservatives are inherently actually evil. If you can’t change my mind about the latter, you can’t do it for the prior! <3

Edit 2: Actually this whole thing is so much more confusing now because the person could have been interpreted to be? Upset? Purely on the basis of my “misanthropic” headcanons as they were applied to an alternate universe setting. That’s even worse than being mad at someone about their standard headcanons in fic in general, because AUs are already once-removed from canon (at minimum) already.

I feel like I’m going to lose my mind. Why is this a problem. Why are we here.

Fuck it, man. I’m getting a coffee.

Edit 3: I’ve had my coffee and I just remembered that they also called the fic “dead,” which is such a rude thing to say? That’s not being profound about your critique towards a fanfic’s theme, or the criticisms you have with another author’s personal headcanons that should have zero (0) bearing on your own interpretation of 20+ year old media. That’s just you being a weirdo canon-purist walking into someone’s house looking like this:

Just because of this I’m going to pick up Comets again. I’m going to make Molly Thatcher and the Titans look SO cartoonishly evil. I’m going to make their motives look as unbelievably stupid and silly as possible. I’m going to make the 1% of Neotopia that think that robots shouldn’t have rights so brain-dead and loud that they’ll look like Trumpers (and they basically already are, their existence was intended to be a fiction-imitates-life situation from the start). I’m going to shove all my headcanons so deep into the story that it’s bursting at the seams. I might even reference other media. Probably Transformers: Beast Machines. Why? Just because I can haha...

The best part about all of this is that no one can stop me. No one can stop me from crushing my ugliest behaving human ocs into the ground with no remorse, or putting my favorite "evil” robot blorbos in a better light because I think they look nice there.

I write my headcanons and my stories for me. Not for anyone else. I only ever share because maybe others will connect with it, too.

[im-the-punk-who]

Toby Stephens Thirstography #6 - Vexed (2010-2012)

Toby Stephens Hotness: 20/10. One point for every time DI Jack Armstrong is clueless about being a bottom. One extra point for that time he gets in way over his head with a Dominatrix and another for the time he gets tongue-fucked in a diner.

This is another of those ‘must a show be good’? Is it not enough for Toby Stephens to be frequently naked, or singing, or handling dildos, or being topped or having his hair pet, or just having completely no clue whatsoever about what’s going on? IS THAT NOT ENOUGH. ARE THE ARMS AND THE LAYERS NOT ENOUGH. 

Seriously my favorite thing about this role is that DI Jack Armstrong is just...clueless. Zero brain cells. If it were possible to have negative brain cells, DI Jack Armstrong would possess them. And yes I have to use his full name because I just like the way it sounds. 

He’s so dumb. I love him so much. My tiniest, dumbest child.

Tasty Tidbits below the cut, as always. Plus, Outtakes: Incorrect Sitting Edition!

Plot: 5/10 There...there is no plot.

Toby plays the main police detective in this semi-procedural cop comedy. There’s no real overarching plot, it’s just an episodal show of DI Jack Armstrong being a fucking idiot and the people who are subjected to him along the way. Kate Bishop to receive an actual caring husband for her efforts, Georgina Dixon to be canonized. 

Watchability: 2/7 or 9/10, there is no in between and it really only matters how drunk you are.

Vexed is the sort of show you can only watch with all of your brain cells turned off and a thick piece of blue tape over your critical lens. 

It has sort of a live action family-guy type vibe. I say, having watched very little actual family guy but having been inundated with it through pop culture. (This is a very on brand way to describe Vexed because that’s basically how DI Jack Armstrong rolls through life. Just kind of assuming he’s right and doubling down when he’s called out for it.)

Listen IF you can watch it, this is an incredibly entertaining role for Toby Stephens, and also a great thirst role as he is...constantly in bed with someone. Every time I rewatch it I love it more because it’s just...fucking silly and charming and brain off head empty entertainment. But I’m gonna say it again, don’t go into this thinking you’re watching any sort of high brow shit. You’re gonna be offended, everyone is going to do, or be, absolutely terrible, and you will likely have to leave the room at least once screaming really?!?!? 

That said I first watched this exclusively while drunk at 2am and I was literally laughing so loud I know I woke my neighbors because this show is...it’s terrible. I’m not sure if I want to give the writers credit for knowing how bad what they were writing was, but it’s almost impossible not to. 

Anyway Toby said it best: 

“I loved it! It was almost a vacation, I had so little to do. Jack is so awful at his job that he has no clue what’s going on: my character was even less informed than me.”

No thoughts, head empty, and enjoy, pirates. 

Warnings: 

Warnings for....just about everything imaginable. Seriously, everything. The biggest ones are rampant ableism and sexism - I think the only ones it doesn’t hit are there isn’t any graphic sexual assault, no animals die, and it’s not very heavy on gore, but everything else gets at least one episode to be addressed. If anyone needs specific warnings I’m happy to provide them but there are really too many to list.

Where to Watch:

This is on Netflix in the US, and I believe a few other countries, and also available through Acorn(free trial if you have access to Prime.)

[eroticcannibal]

What's recovery rhetoric? I think I have a basic understanding of it, but I feel like I'm missing the nuance of it, if that makes sense?

Ok I’ve learned my lesson, I’m typing this up in wordpad too and also I’m lazy so I’m cribbing from previous posts  (which I will link to in case anyone wants some further reading). Also it might not be necessary for u but I’m gonna cover basics in this in case any newer followers are curious.

So, SUPER short version, “recovery rhetoric” is the eugenics-lite way that recovery is discussed and pushed on mentally ill/mad/neurodiverse people. Recovery rhetoric is essentially the intra-community version of neurotypical ableism and their ultimate goal of eradicating neurodivergency. It’s an ultimately harmful attempt to try and assimilate into neurotypical society. Now I don’t think those that perpetuate it are intentionally malicious, I completely understand the desire to get better and be “normal”, but nonetheless the impact is ultimately harmful.

Things that are typical of recovery rhetoric:

Constantly changing redefinitions of “recovery”. Recovery means the problem is gone, which for most people is not possible, ever. Most people engaging in recovery rhetoric recognise this but rather than give up on recovery, which is demanded of all of us by ableist society, they attempt to redefine it, which creates a situation of one side telling a vulnerable person that “recovery is possible!”, which sets them up for the trauma of constant and inevitable failure for not living up to The Actual Definition Of Recovery, which will usually be internalised as a personal failing.

The insistence that their is One Way That Recovery Looks. To make this easier to discuss here I’m going to define this as “improvement” rather than “recovery”, but recovery rhetoric ignores the variety of people and their situations and experiences. The standard for improvement tends to be go to therapy, take your meds, “healthy” (read: respectable by ableist standards) coping mechanisms only etc etc which is inherently harmful for prioritising respectability over what is actually helpful for an individual.

One example would be the earlier discussion on my blog regarding addiction, the recovery rhetoric approach would frame replacement and even addiction itself as “unhealthy” coping mechanisms, therefore things that should be eradicated immediately regardless of the individuals situation. Their is no consideration for those who would be worse off in their current situations without their “bad” ways of coping. No consideration for those that respond differently to different things (insulting myself is FUN it doesn’t actually damage me, the same is true of others, please leave us be). Their is no consideration of the fact that “healthy” is subjective. Their is no consideration of the fact that for some “healthy” is UNACHIEVABLE. Their is no consideration of those who would be harmed by “respectable” methods of improvement, such as therapy or meds (abuse within mental health fields exists and is rampant). And this tends to breed a lack of compassion for those in worse situations than those who can just drink a glass of water and take their meds to feel better. It’s respectability or you aren’t trying hard enough and you just want to be ill. Because recognising that personal improvement is actually antithetical to the expectations of ableist society, those entrenched in recovery rhetoric will tear down anyone who is a threat to their viewpoint so they can hold on to the hope they will be “normal”.

(Also, I’ve just realised this parallels the CBT approach: removing a negative behavior results in the problem it is a response to being solved. Which is… not how things work but given how CBT has been pushed lately above all other forms of treatment due to low costs, to the point where some other treatments have been cut away completely, I’m… much less suprised by this aspect of recovery rhetoric. I’m copywriting this insight /j)

The idea that to be neurotypical and sane is the default, what we should all aim to be, and that existence outside of that is a deviation to be fixed no matter the cost. By God You Better Be A Productive Cog In The Machinery Of Capitalism Or You Have Failed. This links in a little with the previous point, in that what is considered “healthy” and “recovered” doesn’t always correlate with what is good for someone.

The pathologising of Every Damn Thing Even If It Is Harmless. Not texting back is because you are traumatised. Don’t do toooo much self care because that’s indulgence. Don’t trust people? It’s because you’re crazy, not because people have shown you can’t trust them. I could go on.

Coercive loss of autonomy through intra-community pressure. You are not allowed to be ok with being ill or mad. You are not allowed to disagree with professionals, you must submit to them and seek treatment from them. Recovery is not optional. Don’t you dare suggest there is nothing actually wrong with you. And of course listen to some random blogger who knows nothing about your life, they just want the best for you, you aren’t anti-recovery, are you?

The denial of outside factors in mental illness and madness. If you have a problem, it’s because of you, your brain, you have to fix it. Your recovery is down to you. Homeless? Abused? Can’t get medical treatment? RECOVER ANYWAY.

It leaves no space for those who have been harmed by recovery attempts and the mental health field. Certainly no space for those that have been killed by them.

(can u tell I’m getting lazy towards the end here? My hands hurt, sorry)

Recovery rhetoric may seem quite lovely on the surface, but the end result is a few uwu recovery drink-water-take-your-meds blogs feeling all morally superior because it’s easier for them, and a culture of attacking anyone who has life a bit harder.

MORE POSTS ON RECOVERY RHETORIC, PRO-RECOVERY CULTURE AND RELATED TOPICS )some are more serious, thought out posts like this, some are fairly casual exchanges of experiences)(check the notes, there’s some good additions)

[Example of the hostility towards those who cannot perform to the standards of pro-recovery culture]

[The value of “toxic” communities like pro-ana]

[Pathologising normal behaviors]

[What is recovery culture]

[A positive approach to personal improvement]

[The cost of recovery]

[Personal accounts of psychiatric abuse][Theres a ton more on my blog if u search “psych”]

[An alternative view on living with a weird brain, which I include mostly due to the hostility in the notes as an example of the behavior directed at anyone who does not perpetuate recovery rhetoric. IDK if the worst of it will show up in the notes cus a lot of people blocked me over that post lmao]

[Pathologising healthy behaviors]

[How recovery culture can cause a lack of trust in yourself]

[”What is recovery?” a perspective by a psychiatric survivor, I’d also recommend that whole site for anyone interested in anti-psych, recovery-critical and Mad perspectives]

[An alternative vision of treatment]

My blog is not the be all and end all of reading, I’m just not looking further lmao

[sexycontainmentprocedures]

Yeah... I'm gonna say it.

it's interesting that before I transitioned and when I presented female, my BPD symptoms -- especially my sexual promiscuity -- were called "crazy," "negative," "unstable," "dangerous for my health," and "made me a target." I was seen as an asshole, I was called "manipulative," I was seen as someone who "needs help" -- but I wasn't seen as a threat. It wasn't seen as maliciousness. It was seen as a sad case of mental instability.

But now that I have transitioned, now that I look and present and sound and fully am male, my exact same symptoms became in many others' eyes not only "manipulative" but also "abusive" and most disturbingly my promiscuity -- which was, before, used to show I was unstable and a risk to myself, which was true -- became "predatory."

All this attitude does is make it harder for both cis male and trans male victims of abuse to speak out. It makes it easier to be sexually abused because all the abuser has to do is say "look at how promiscuous this guy is, he's a predator" and boom, my voice is gone.

Misogyny and misandry go hand-in-hand to oppress all genders. Let's not punish trans men for being men please. I am a CSA and assault survivor; it doesn't mean you can't criticize my behavior when it hurts people, it doesn't mean you can't ask "should he really be so actively sexual if his symptoms are this bad?" but it does mean you're being really shitty and denying me my survivor status when in your eyes I'm suddenly a "predator" for having the exact same behavioral symptoms post-transition as I did pre-transition.

This all goes for trans women too of course, but I see that get said about a thousand times more often than it is for trans men. For some reason it is incredibly taboo to talk about misandry on this website regardless of how much it hurts trans men. I've talked before about being invited to a Discord server of other trans people who have been targeted and labeled sexual predators; it's mostly trans women in there. Trans women appear to be labeled predators more often than trans men are, unless the trans men aren't speaking up because we feel like we'll get shut down for being men. I know I felt pretty hopeless until I was invited there and saw how common my situation is for trans people.

The takeaway IMO: Harassers like ours appear to think that only cis women -- not cis men and definitely not trans people -- are capable of being innocent. They also seem to think 'maleness' taints everyone and makes them evil predators, whether we are transitioning away from 'maleness' (MtF) or toward it (FtM). If they don't truly think that, they maybe should take a critical look at the results of their actions and recognize how they're making gender a factor and punishing us for being trans under the guise of "protecting people."

There's also, y'know, the rampant ableism against Cluster B symptoms, but one post at a time.

[janiedean]

I was just wondering what do you think about posts that excuse Cersei's behaviour because she's mentally ill, or that if you critique its because your ableist and hate mentally ill people? Or some variation/combination of the two? Like it just bugs me in general when people automatically excuse and even justify horrible, violent and abusive behaviour just because someone's mentally ill, particularly as someone whose been on the receiving end of that behaviour from mentally ill people.

... I think I’ve made my opinion clear, but very briefly and hoping that I don’t unleash the kraken:

c.’s issues could have been solved if someone had sent her to a child psychologist before the age of then in modern au. period. because someone who grows up not having a shred of regret over having thrown a supposed friend in a well when they were twelve over a menial thing either should have had a completely different upbringing or should have gotten therapy. which doesn’t exist in westeros, but anyway, when discussing c’s issues that’s the crux of the matter;

c’s issues also hurt other people and I’m not talking about j., I’m talking about everyone around her or mostly, and the point is that the moment someone’s issues also mean hurting others... your freedom ends where others’s starts. assuming that her MH issues mean that she’s justified in behaving the way she does means that having MH issues is a free out of jail card for hurting others, which... it’s not;

spoilers: all three lannister siblings have mental health issues. same as like, 90% of the characters in these books. I’m 99% sure that the only two POV characters who doesn’t have issues that would require immediate therapy are davos (and he’s lost four kids, he has his problems) and asha, probably, and asha is just... very functional but it’s a miracle she came out like that considering her background. everyone else has issues over issues to different degrees, so... at this point disliking anyone in these books with this reasoning would mean hating mentally illy people while at the same time 85% of the characters you like most likely also have mental health issues and I’m talking just that, because I mean... if someone likes bran and not doran or viceversa I’m not going to assume that they’re ableist since both characters are disabled and both can’t walk, but most likely it’s just a personality preference, so saying that if you don’t like c. it’s because you hate mentally ill people or are ableist to me is ridiculous because like... I don’t like c. and my top five has three pov characters who have obviously mental health issues up the wazoo and one who most likely had plenty (and two out of those five also have become physically disabled as well during the series), I have gone to therapy for a damned long time myself and I hate mentally ill people now just because I don’t like a character who has MH issues? sorry but that’s like... ridiculous. you’re allowed to not like some characters because their personality is not your thing regardless of the issues they have;

also: again, c.’s issues hurt other people. those other people have no obligation to stick by if they feel like it’s detrimental to their health, same as no one has an obligation to stick by someone who is detrimental to their MH or well-being and also has no intention of changing/is aware of that. like, I can get behind wanting to support someone you love whose behavior hurts you who has realized it and is getting help/is actively trying to get better, but if that person doesn’t care or isn’t aware then no one has an obligation to stick by if it hurts them, so assuming that people who don’t like c. or whoever else or that characters in the books should stick by c. because of her issues if it hurts them is imvho not a thing people should even bring up because it implies that people have an obligation to excuse actions that are hurtful when the person who commits them has no interest in getting better, so... nah;

also there’s critique and critique and disliking a disabled character doesn’t automatically make you ableist same as disliking a woman doesn’t make you a misogynist, but like, going outside cersei: people can dislike tyrion just because they don’t gaf about him or because they don’t like the character or because they don’t find his personality that charming, but the moment the criticism turns into calling him a monster or joking about his height or basically sounding like tywin when he talks about tyrion then it’s definitely ableism and to be quite honest when it comes to tumblr there’s a lot more ableist critique thrown at tyrion than at cersei, because the ten of us who dislike her openly do it because she’s terrible while recognizing that she has issues which explain why she’s like that but don’t justify what she does at pretty much almost any point ever, the army of people who meta about tyrion as if he’s these books’s ultimate villain when 90% it’s because he could be in the way of their ship or say that he has male privilege over c. who therefore couldn’t have abused him (YES I had to read that with mine own eyes) and the likes most likely should check their priorities because that’s not hating him bc he’s a character you don’t like, that reeks of ableism 101 and of having skimmed his chapters (also tyrion has MH issues up the wazoo too but I don’t see people on here mentioning it). same way, one thing is disliking cat because she’s not your type of character, another is the fact that this entire fandom seems to have decided that blaming catelyn for every horrid thing that happened in these books that would not have happened had she just stayed home with the kids which imvho shows exactly the level of not-so-hidden misogyny rampant around here/directed at her specifically. but I don’t think that everyone who hates cat is misogynist or does it because of misogyny, I just think that a lot of fandom bias against her is... very misogynistic;

to sum up the above thing, considering that c. is also straight up written as a negative character and grrm has said time and time again that it’s her point in the narrative, assuming that someone would dislike her just because she’s MH is pretty much fried air as we say here because given what she’s pulled up until now, I think that she has enough of a CV that people have more than enough reasons to dislike her without bringing her mental health into account. because her issues might explain why she’s like that, but they don’t justify for shit anything she does, and if that’s valid for knowing why theon was the way he was in wf but doesn’t justify him killing the miller’s kids, knowing why jaime pushed bran but doesn’t justify it, knowing why sandor doesn’t disobey ethically horrid orders but doesn’t mean he hasn’t done pretty fucked up shit etc., then it’s also valid for c. and I really would like for characters to be judged evenly, thanks.

also: everyone has their limits when it comes to understanding/explaining where a person committing wrong actions comes from. if people can relate to c. and/or see themselves in her issues and have compassion for her, that’s their prerogative and I won’t go bitch at them for it same as I appreciate if people don’t bitch at me for having compassion for theon or sandor or jaime or whoever else. but at the same time assuming that everyone has your standards is ridiculous. for me c. was irredeemable after she basically went and laughed about the red wedding/thought she was so much better than cat because cat went insane after seeing robb die because to me people finding the red wedding funny or hilarious or well-deserved is the ultimate thing that will make me stop caring about them. if for someone jaime having pushed bran out of the window is irredeemable as long as they don’t come to me complaining about why I don’t think it is, it’s their prerogative.

but assuming that all of us need to find c. redeemable or understandable or relatable because people who like her do is ridiculous because you can’t expect anyone to relate to your favorites just because you do, and calling out the social justice card is ridiculous because fictional preferences are what they are and you can’t force yourself to like someone you despise just because they belong to X category - I wouldn’t tell people they have to like jaime because he has ptsd nor I’d expect them to be automatically ableist if they don’t gaf about jaime either way and don’t make jokes about him losing his guts with his hand or about how he’s the stupidest lannister, I’d expect people wouldn’t tell me I have to like c. because she has MH issues or whatnot. because there’s plenty of reasons to dislike c. and none of them have to do with her MH and most of her have to do with her abusive behavior.

also, last thing: the one time I actually met someone who was a self-proclaimed ‘I empathize with cersei on a personal level’ person, after three days in which they were an asshole to everyone in the group we were, the moment I called her out on it after she had been even more of an asshole when someone else tried to discuss it reasonably, I got backhanded in the face twice for it. now, I handled it and tbqh I didn’t mind it half as much as I could have because I didn’t gaf about this person and barely knew them. I also know that this person had issues (and later went to therapy so good for them), but as much as I could sympathize with her issues, forgive me if I don’t really think I want to see again someone who barely knew me and saw fit to hit me in the face twice. now, am I ableist for that? I really don’t think so. it’s the exact same principle. someone else might have had another reaction to it, but I’m not obliged to give them a second chance since they hurt me first and no one would say I’m ableist for it. it’s the exact same argument just brought to fictional level. one thing is disliking a character because of their issues only (ie theon and the castration jokes), another is disliking them because you think they’re boring and/or they’re not your kind of character.

and people need to realize that their favorite character can’t be everyone’s favorite character statistically. like. none of our faves are automatically everyone’s faves and that’s fine because that’s how the world works. *shrug*

[siryouarebeingmocked]

SJWs get salty about Seth MacFarlane and family guy.

Local SYABM discovers he’s on blocklist

> Mediocre White Man

How to make SYABM assume the rest of your post is wrong, in just three words.

> but because the motherfucker donated some money to LGBTQIA groups and stumped for Bernie, he’s hailed as a progressive.

Pay no attention to the obvious leftist leanings in the shows you’re complaining about, such as repeatedly skewering conservatives.

> Seth MacFarlane created shows that dealt heavily in anti-black racism, antisemitism, ableism, Ace Ventura-levels of transphobia,

Yes, the idea that straight men might be disgused by the idea they’ve been fantasizing and admiring a trans woman is “transphobic”. 

Also, I don’t think the movie ever makes it clear whether Finkle was trans, or was just that desperate to escape the shame.

Oh, and spoilers for a 1993 movie.

> rampant and vicious misogyny,

Is it “misogyny” or “making fun of gender stereotypes for men AND women”?

>normalized rape culture,

It’s funny you should mention that, considering the show has downplayed F>M rape, which usually isn’t included in “rape culture”.

> pedophilia as a joke,

Also, Prom Night Dumpster Babies.

>and violent Islamophobia.

He’s an athiest who makes fun of Christians, but clearly Islam and Judaism should be exempt from mockery. He also makes jokes about violent Islam.

> He taught generations of young white guys 

Let’s see...Season 1 aired in late Jan 1999, Jan, so I guess someone born on that date would be 18. So it is, technically, generations of men. Two generations.

>that this shit was okay to say and believe because it was “just a joke” – hell, I’ll bet there’s a good Venn diagram between Family Guy fans and Trump supporters –

One of the most popular animated sitcoms in America? Yes, I should think so. Also with Hillary supporters.

> and anyone who criticized him was just some boring, humorless PC police asshole.

Including the people who complained about his “shoehorned atheism”. Because we all know how much religious people tend to be PC.

Also, I love the hypocrisy here; you’re complaining that FG’s critics are stereotyped, while stereotyping the show’s fans.

/

The rest of the line is “Or get ‘er done.” A reference to Larry the Cable Guy, who has a lot more than just a catchphrase. Also;

Early on in the special, Birbiglia declares that all jokes are offensive to someone. It’s a sentiment that a lot of people (not just comics) share. He smartly critiques this notion of political correctness without actually getting too political.

Oh wow, it’s almost as if someone took these quotes out of context to support their argument!

[yvylen]

TEACHING MOMENT FOR ALLIES: PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "TERF-Y" AND "TRANSMISOGYNIST"

(TL;DR: "Transmisogyny" is the way in which trans women experience the intersection of transphobia and misogyny, inextricable from one another and mutually constitutive, and also describes the systems of social power and violence that produce this experience; "TERFism" (trans-exclusionary radical feminism or sometimes trans exterminationist radical feminism) is a particular ideology and movement that is primarily structured by its transmisogyny, but which is definitely not the only manifestation thereof. The two are not interchangeable, and learning to recognize TERFism insofar as it is distinct from other kinds of transmisogyny will make you a better ally/accomplice to trans women. Scroll down for a mini field guide.)

I was at this conference over the weekend, and at one point I was talking with someone else about the sessions. One of them was lead by a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence ("drag nuns"; one of the surviving elements of older-school spectacle theater LGBTQ+ activism) and the person I was talking to expressed interest in the session, but (quote as best I can recall) "I get uncomfortable with drag queens because some of them are pretty TERF-y".

I think what this person was getting at was that drag queens (and sometimes "drag culture" more broadly, especially where it has become more commodified and whiter) often enact misogyny (and transmisogyny especially--plus racism, ableism, etc. etc. in other ways).

I appreciate this acknowledgment. I have a really troubled relationship with drag queens and drag generally because of the transmisogyny I've experienced in that context. BUT--and I understand that this might seem pedantic, but please hear me out--but, the word needed in this situation is not "TERF-y", it's "transmisogynist" (or "transphobic", but TBH I think the gender specificity here is important).

I say this because TERFism is a particular ideology with a particular history defined largely by its rejection of and hatred toward trans women--but that history and that ideology are very, very rarely the things that make drag transmisogynist. Basically, all TERFs are transmisogynist, but not all transmisogynists are TERFs.

So, for example--TERFs often argue that trans women are "appropriating womanhood" because we did not experience (cis) girlhood, which is, by their argument, a necessary prerequisite to put one in the social category of woman. They sometimes describe our identities and presentations as "womanface" (akin to blackface) because of this. It probably doesn't surprise you that this analysis does not favor drag queens either (although perhaps ironically, I think it's actually a reasonable analysis of cases where drag queens are mocking femininity or playing into misogynist stereotypes for humor value--though to be clear, "womanface" is a troubled concept given the history here is not in any meaningful way similar to blackface).

On the contrary, in my experience, transmisogyny coming from drag communities is rarely based on principle or any real gender analysis. It's mostly a reflection of general societal transmisogyny, with the same tropes (using "man in a dress" as a punchline, treating "passing" trans women as deceptive, rampant use of slurs like "shemale" and "tranny", etc.), distinguished only in that participants often feel a stronger sense of entitlement to those words, tropes, and joke. TERFs may use some of the same ideas (the "deceptive/predatory tranny" is a big archetype for them wrt lesbian trans women) but the drag community's usage does not generally add up to anything bigger, other than one more voice in the background noise of societal transmisogyny.

Now, my understanding of this was hard-won through decades of life as a trans woman, as well as no small amount of formal education on the subject. Obviously, I don't expect others to go through that, so here's a brief field guide to spotting TERFs (note: if you want counterarguments or ways to address some of these views, feel free to message me, but it'd take FOREVER to address every single one here)... . . . . -A FIELD GUIDE TO IDENTIFYING TERFs-

-SOCIALIZATION DISCOURSE-

TERFs typically argue that trans women are "socialized male", i.e. that we were raised as boys/men and that we internalized messages associated with that (entitlement to women's bodies and sexual aggressiveness, dominance in conversations, lack of stigmatization of our bodies).

This also pops up in criticisms of trans women's behavior, where if we are loud, angry, or assertive, those behaviors are read as "mannish" or "masculine" and as such as evidence of our "male socialization", because women and girls are often taught not to express themselves in those ways and are punished for doing so.

This is pretty specific to TERFism--general transmisogynists rarely analyze quite this deeply.

-SEX ESSENTIALISM-

TERFs typically argue that women's oppression is located specifically in (cis) female bodies. They'll often argue that gender isn't real (or e.g. that "gender identity" is just internalized sex/gender role stereotypes), but sex is, and that because trans women are not (cis) female that we do not experience misogyny (even if we "pass"). Sometimes this argument takes on a spiritual or mystical angle, saying that trans women have "male energy" or auras. This is often also applied to trans men, who they generally treat as women "lead astray" by trans politics or the allure of male privilege.

The particular analysis above--connecting misogyny specifically to cis female embodiment--is generally connected to TERF thought (but not always! I think, for example, some of the pushback to trans women's frustration about the whole pussy hat thing came from a not-intentionally-TERFy inability of some cis feminists to imagine or connect how trans women experience violence as women, and a strong sense that regulation of and violence against their (specifically cis) female bodies was a necessary element of experiencing "womanhood"), but sex essentialism and biological essentialism itself shows up all over. Liberal feminist thought, for example, often uncritically reproduces the sex/gender distinction, constructing trans women as "male women" in the process, and "really a man!" is like basic Geraldo-level shit.

-PENIS STUFF-

One other manifestation of sex essentialism is hyperfocus on genitals--TERFs sometimes treat trans women's penises as basically purpose-built tools for raping (cis) women (or, more specifically, they argue that all penises are rape machines and never miss a chance to remind trans women that our dicks are weapons, too). Especially when they focus specifically on trans women's genitals (and not cis men's), they overlap a lot here with far right Christo-Fascist types (see: Women's Liberation Front filing a joint amicus brief with Focus on the Family in the Gavin Grimm case), so hyperfocus on our genitals is transmisogynistic, but not necessarily TERFism. This trope also gets played for comedy (Ace Ventura, The Hangover 2, Family Guy) or drama (The Crying Game, Silence of the Lambs) all the time.

-MALE PRIVILEGE-

Between the socialization and embodiment stuff above, TERFs almost always argue that trans women had and benefited from male privilege before coming out or transitioning, and will often argue that we continue having it even after we've done so. This is the most common argument for the existence of "women's spaces" that exclude trans women (but often include trans men!)--that they are for "people who have never experienced male privilege", or sometimes they just overtly state "this space is only for people assigned female at birth". These two, especially when treated as though they are synonymous with "women", is explicitly TERFy.

Like socialization, this is typically an argument used by TERFs because general transmisogynists just aren't that engaged in feminist analysis and aren't thinking about the operation of male privilege in their day to day lives.

-SLURS, PRONOUNS, AND LANGUAGE-

In my experience, TERFs are less likely to use slurs ("shemale", "tranny", etc.) or derogatory terms ("trap", "he-she", etc.) than general transmisogynists, in part because they know optics matter, and slurs will typically push leftist people away. That doesn't mean they never do it, or that they necessarily care about leftists (see above, WoLF cozying up with FotF), but they do present themselves as "radicals" and cultivate that image with a veneer of respectability. Somebody using slurs really openly PROBABLY isn't a TERF, but might be.

What they will do, however, is aggressively misgender trans people, especially trans women. Frequently they will refer to us as "males" to rhetorically class us alongside cis men (or sometimes just use "men" with an understanding that they're including us), and will use he/him/his pronouns when talking about us. Other times--especially in spaces where they are cultivating that veneer of Legit Respectable Leftism, they will either use no pronouns for us at all, or only use "they". Some of them, in some spaces, will use correct pronouns, especially for trans women who support their politics and ideology. Obviously, though, misgendering happens all the time, and just misgendering a person is obviously transphobic, but not necessarily TERFy.

For obvious reasons, few TERFs identify with the label "TERF", and may argue that "TERF" is a slur. They may identify themselves simply as "radical feminists", or use other euphemisms ("gender critical" is a very common one) that distance themselves from the reputation that has been attached to TERFism (and to some extent, radical feminism more generally). For the most part, only TERFs think TERF is a slur. There are, however, trans-inclusive radical feminists that are determined to remediate and reclaim the "radical feminist" label, even though it fell out of favor for a while, so keep that in mind.

-OTHER RANDOM NOTES THAT DON'T FIT ANYWHERE ELSE-

Sometimes I use TWERF instead of TERF--it changes it to Trans Woman-Exclusionary/Exterminatory Radical Feminism". I do this because historically TERFs have primarily targeted trans women and CAMAB NB folks for violence in ways that they have not targeted trans men or CAFAB folks generally. I think this is an important history to remember, but I use TERF throughout this piece because it's more familiar to people.

As above, Trans-Inclusive Radical Feminism is a thing that does exist. I know radical feminists who oppose TERFs (in fact, the term "TERF" originated with radical feminists trying to push transphobes/transmisogynists out of their orgs and spaces). I considered myself a radical feminist for quite a while. That doesn't mean you can never use "radfem" pejoratively (especially, I would never tell other CAMAB women how to talk about their experiences of violence) but you should be careful about it, because IMO that demonization of radical feminism is how we ended up in a liberal feminist pit, just trying to tread water. Part of how TERFs recruit is that they're a way to escape this hell of Lean In corporate apologism and must-defend-Kellyanne-Conway liberal bullshit. Part of keeping their ranks from swelling as people realize how late-stage capitalism has turned mainstream feminism into a marketing exercise is to open up other options for them--womanism, transfeminism, and yes, TIRFism.

As I said way back, TERFism is structured around its transmisogyny. It doesn't offer a coherent gender analysis that even begins to reflect the reality of trans women's experiences because as time wears on and it continues to solidify as a sect of feminism, it more and more has to structure itself around societal transmisogyny for support. The problem is that societal transmisogyny is a VERY steady, reliable base on which to build your shit, because society fucking hates trans women and has for centuries, even millennia. So even though TERFism is essentially ideologically incoherent, there is intense social reward for participating in transmisogyny, no matter how you come by it. Remember that if you're thinking of trying to argue a TERF into reasonableness: for them, there is a reward above and beyond intellectual satisfaction to be gained by their bigotry: the creation of a trans woman underclass ripe for exploitation (especially sexual exploitation) and who attract a great deal of men's sexual and relational violence in society. In other words, you're not likely to succeed.

-CONCLUSION-

Obviously not all TERFs will conform to what I've said above. Sometimes people will say or do TERFy things without being TERFs (I'd argue that Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's comments last month were TERF-y in their emphasis of socialization, but that she herself is not a TERF). But the important take away here is that transmisogyny is different from TERFism, and it exists in the bedrock of our society.

Being able to distinguish TERFs from other kinds of transmisogynists is an important tactical ability, if you want to work alongside trans women to dismantle the systems that oppress us. Just as Mike Pence's misogyny is different from GamerGate misogyny, and just as both require unique approaches even if they are obviously aspects of the same struggle, transmisogyny is a many-headed beast, some more difficult to tackle than others. TERFs, I can promise you, are a hard one to tackle. Casting all transmisogyny as TERFism makes for both a pessimistic vision (it's gonna be hard to root out) and an overly optimistic one (in reality, transmisogyny looks like many different things, and no one strategy will work for all of them). Listening to trans women and being familiar with our history and movements will make you much more effective working alongside us.

[wordsbetweenthelines]

hey there self

today was fucking exhausting

alarm went off at 6. NOPE

alarm went off at 7. NOPE

woke up at 7:45. dogs out, clothes, on, home at 8

took a shower

went to the vet: molly got the chemo. vet said she shouldn’t have any side effects. she threw up tonight anyway. maggie got a liver ultrasound. vet said it looks good, is almost certainly the antibiotics screwed it up, and it’ll be fine, it’s just taking awhile to show that

then you: shuffled the huskies outside, despite their rampant obstinacy, and kobalt’s growling and snapping at you when you tried to even just walk past him

and got sheets in the wash

finished off the cookie goo for breakfast

vacuumed the first floor

walked boonie

and then did nothing more until huskydad’s plane landed because your brain is awful

(lies. you read fic and listened to hallelujah in yiddish like eighty times and ate cheetos)

but then you made the bed and vacuumed upstairs, as best you could, and katrina came by and did the mopping for you and you did the dishes and had a bit of a singalong and you were done

the huskies, they did not get walks. because you are useless.

at home, mom delivered unto you a lecture on katie’s behalf that you are not allowed to “question her parenting” et cetera et cetera and katie’s allowed to be upset when you, an autistic, get words scrambled or do the wrong tone (and it’s totally not ableist at all when she does this) but you, apparently, are not allowed to be upset to see the ways she blatantly disregards her daughter’s clear (to you) neurodivergence, or worry that this is the establishment of a pattern of behavior that means she will also disregard her son’s possible deafness

so you cried

oh and also there was a bit where mom accused you of saying whatever the fuck you want without caring how it hurts other people, nevermind that just this morning you discussed how much you don’t give a shit about pops dying and you hope he dies alone and miserable and he doesn’t deserve any of the attentions being paid to him et cetera and how you very deliberately have said none of this to dad because as much as you think pops should have been dead to everyone as soon as it came to light that he’s a fucking pedophile, feelings are messy and dad is sad about his dad dying and so you are not making it “worse” for him. 

and yet.

so fuck that too.

(also also the old “everyone has to tiptoe around you watch what they say around you but you don’t do the same” bullshit)(which, interestingly, is the exact same point katie made in her most recent tantrum (well, that you were witness to, anyway) about how much she hates you for being autistic, so, thanks mom, for confirming you hold those same views)(and now you’ve just had an imaginary conversation where you told them everything you hold back to prove to them how much you hold back and you’re crying again but honestly you made some really good points and you should probably try to remember them for a counterlecture sans the dickishness)(points: 

you ask them to refrain from ableism, because it makes you scared they’re gonna try to kill you. they ask you to not give valid criticisms they don’t want to hear. these things are not equal. you ask them to be better people, they ask you to be silent

just not saying these things is not enough. you already have ample evidence (their own words and actions, plus real world hard numbers science data) to feed the they’re-gonna-kill-you paranoia. if they stop saying the things to your face now, you’ll just assume they’re saying them behind your back. plus, they’ve given evidence that the vitriol will increase in this event. what you need is for them to change their attitudes 

you have spent a lifetime and vast amounts of effort learning and mimicking NT language, body language, tone, and facial expressions. no one in your family has ever made any effort to learn the same about autistics, and you get in trouble for not doing the thing

when you come across as callous or tactless what probably happened was a failure in autistic-to-NT translation. but no one ever gives you the benefit of the doubt about this, or tries to finish the translation themselves, or even asks you to try the translation again 

katie has spent most of your whole life treating you not just like a child but like her child, which, given how condescending and controlling and nasty she can be to you, causes you to fear for how she treats her own actual children

telling you what you are or are not allowed to read

dictating your bathroom habits

both when you pee and when you shower

you are autistic. mom is almost certainly some brand of ND. katie is nasty to you both. dottie is probably some brand of ND. why shouldn’t you fear that katie will be nasty to dot as well.

even beyond the evidence fueling your fears, you (want to) believe that katie and todd genuinely want what’s best for their children. but when it comes to disabled kids, doctors........don’t. and there is ample real world hard numbers science data indicating that well meaning parents are swayed towards bad things by Expert Authority Doctors who highkey hate disabled people, and you don’t want this to happen here. 

you would feel better knowing what is happening, what is planned, so that if there’s red flags (that you know to look for but they don’t), you can direct towards better resources before any terrible decisions are made

but this is Questioning/Criticizing Their Parenting, and is therefore forbidden 

(even if there’s dramatic changes in behavior and attitudes on behalf of the niblings, for which you would be glad, it still hurts that they wouldn’t do it for you)

this hasn’t even happened one way or the other don’t borrow pain)

and then dot came over and was charming in your hippo pile

and then you slept for like four years

and woke up the most groggy

and inadvisably agreed to go to aunt n’s for family dinner because somehow you thought that would be the easiest access to food??

lies.

todd went to freddy’s and brought you back a cheeseburger and fries and ice cream and you didn’t have to leave the house at all or deal with People which was Ideal

well you did have to deal with katie and todd being all the world is ending but you don’t know if henry’s hearing test was a part of that or just the rest of everything is terrible

anyway the food helped and finally everyone left and you could go back to bed

tomorrow

clothes

teeth

breakfast

cleaning

toilets

litterbox

stairs

dust

tidy

help make dinner

shows

[writemarcus]

James Baldwin's “I Am Not Your Negro” And The Revival Of The Black Arts Movement

by realmarcusscott

Community Contributor

The writing of civil rights icon and literary titan James Baldwin has recently experienced a renaissance, but recent media attention could also be signaling a revival of black thought.

In a televised interview with psychologist Dr. Kenneth Bancroft Clark, writer and social critic James Baldwin appeared in “The Negro and the American Promise,” alongside then-polarizing civil rights activists Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and Minister Malcolm X to discuss race relations in the U.S. The New York Times would later describe the 1963 broadcast (itself the product of Boston public television producer Henry Morgenthau III) and particularly Baldwin’s segment, as “ television experience that seared the conscience.” Given the zeitgeist, whilst viewing Raoul Peck’s climacteric 2016 documentary film “I Am Not Your Negro,” the heart-pounding anxiety in Baldwin’s words in that interview seem to reverberate like an atomic bomb in an echo chamber.

“That’s part of the dilemma of being an American Negro; that one is a little bit colored and a little bit white, and not only in physical terms but in the head and in the heart, and there are days -- this is one of them -- when you wonder what your role is in this country and what your future is in it. How, precisely, are you going to reconcile yourself to your situation here and how you are going to communicate to the vast, heedless, unthinking, cruel, white majority, that you are here? And to be here means that you can’t be anywhere else,” Baldwin said. He continued. “I’m terrified at the moral apathy -- the death of the heart which is happening in my country. These people have deluded themselves for so long, that they really don't think I’m human. I base this on their conduct, not on what they say, and this means that they have become, in themselves, moral monsters. It's a terrible indictment -- I mean every word I say.”

What makes Raoul Peck’s “I Am Not Your Negro” an essential viewing on par with, say, “13th,” Ava Duvernay’s incendiary documentary about race and mass incarceration? Based on 30 completed pages of James Baldwin’s final, unfinished manuscript Remember This House and narrated by actor Samuel L. Jackson, Peck’s award-winning documentary truly shines when there is more emphasis on archival footage than the words of Baldwin’s partial script due to his death from stomach cancer at 63 in 1987. Peck spends considerable time highlighting celebrities and literary luminaries of the time who were active during the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–1968). Including found footage of glitterati such as Harry Belafonte, Marlon Brando, Sidney Poitier, Sammy Davis, Lorraine Hansberry, and diverging political activists like Charlton Heston. In his directing, Peck appears to make a clear and concise distinction between artists of the 1960s and the contemporary artists of the iPhone generation. But that’s about it. The film progresses at a crawl when it delves into poetics, as Samuel L. Jackson tries to capture the color of the fallen literary titan.

That is in no way a kiss-off of one America’s Greatest Writers, nor of Mr. Jackson’s work as actor, but a reflection on Peck, whose work on the film inspires more questions of interest around Baldwin, his politics and his bibliography. Footage where Baldwin takes center stage and articulates American imperialism is more appealing and more profound than Peck’s reimagining of Baldwin’s last words. But perhaps, that’s unfair. After all, Baldwin casts a tall shadow. Marking the 30th Anniversary of his death, Baldwin’s influence continues to towers over the Afropunk collective, the Black Lives Matter international activist movement, and what appears to be a revival of the Black Arts Movement via TV, film, modern art and of course, on the proscenium stage.

In Fall 2016, his influence saturated the DNA of genre-bending musicals like Stew’s The Total Bent (which he co-wrote with Heidi Rodewald and his band, The Negro Problem) and Party People by UNIVERSES, both performed at the Public Theater. Shortly after those shows ended, the year was capped off with Can I Get a Witness? The Gospel of James Baldwin by neo-soul progenitor Meshell Ndegeocello’s Afrofuturistic concert-sermon at Harlem Stages. Each one of these gems tackled contemporary issues (Trump and a divided Capitol Hill, Standing Rock, refugee crisis, domestic terror) while grappling with the state of white America, race relations, anti-blackness and the nature of protest and revolt. In a way, Baldwin’s body of work became what he accused militant Pan-African human rights activist Malcolm X of doing during that interview with Dr. Kenneth Bancroft Clark: “He corroborates their reality; he tells them that they really exist. You know?”

It’s no wonder why black songwriter-storytellers, especially those who have infiltrated the New York City theatre constituency and openly challenge the white hegemony of musical theatre, worship at the altar of Baldwin. The politics of his message—at odds with the militancy of Huey P. Newton and The Black Panthers, the political boondoggle that plagued Julian Bond and John Lewis of SNCC, the black supremacy movement of Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam—is an earth-shattering, life-and-death kiss-off to the whole establishment while appraising the perils of every black life in a system engineered and fueled by America’s white supremacist patriarchy.

Baldwin’s worldview was equidistant of two polarizing ideological extremes: A pariah of the integrationist wing of the Civil Rights movement, Baldwin believed in a unified America and agreed in the establishing peace through the nonviolent resistance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his SCLC disciples. But he also believed equally in the deep-seated Pan-African radicalism of Malcolm X. Both incensed black intellectuals, unlike King, Baldwin and Malcolm X were unwilling to were to wait for white society to “solve” The Negro Question, and felt the dominant white culture in America was too toxic for black people and other people of color, considering the effects of systemic and institutional racism. In “The Fire Next Time,” his nonfiction objet d'art, Baldwin wrote: “Things are as bad as the Muslims say they are -- in fact, they are worse... There is no reason that black men should be expected to be more patient, more forbearing, more farseeing than whites; indeed, quite the contrary.”

For newcomers to the work of Baldwin, this may seem disorienting and discombobulating, but that is also what elevates his writing into the upper echelons of American writers. When L.A. musician Mark Stewart, better known as Stew, penned his genre bending semi-autobiographical 2008 rock musical Passing Strange—produced with the support of the Sundance Institute and The Public Theater—the book was purely inspired by Baldwin’s tesseract-warping writing style. Not only did the musical references the New Negro of the Harlem Renaissance, but one its central motifs involved the praise of black artists like Baldwin and Josephine Baker, who expatriated to Paris, France. Shortly after the closing of The Total Bent, in September 2016, Stew reported that he has begun to workshop a song cycle, Notes of a Native Song, inspired by Baldwin’s similarly titled 1955 non-fiction novel.

Other writers have also felt the effects of iconic writer: Pulitzer Prize winner Suzan-Lori Parks studied under Baldwin, who encouraged her to write for the stage and described her as “an utterly astounding and beautiful creature who may become one of the most valuable artists of our time.” Ending her post as a Residency One playwright for Signature Theatre Company this year, the various productions cherry-picked from Parks’ extensive bibliography echo Baldwin’s poetics. There’s also director-playwright Kwame Kwei-Armah. In Dr. Lynette Goddard’s “Contemporary Black British Playwrights: Margins to Mainstream,” Kwei-Armah explained that his plays mirror the ‘diasporic, black politics” influenced by the writings of Amiri Baraka and Baldwin. Journalist-author Ta-Nehisi Coates’s 2015 book, Between the World and Me, was inspired directly by Baldwin’s The Fire Next Time, and lest we forget, the same book of essays also inspired the Fire This Time Festival, which has become a launch pad for early-career playwrights of African and African American descent. Diverse artists are also taking inspiration from Baldwin, like Pulitzer-winning Puerto Rican playwright Quiara Alegría Hudes, who wrote the book for the musical Miss You Like Hell, with help of her outrage in the post-election period and Baldwin’s poetry.

In a neoreactionary zeitgeist contaminated by Breitbart News-quoting white nationalist right-wing populists, and the ever-present tinges of anti-blackness, xenophobia, fear of immigrants, anti-feminism, proliferating ableism, and rampant homophobia and transphobia, Baldwin’s work may not only be the beacon of a Black Arts Movement revival, but a war cry for all diverse artists. To put it simply, Baldwin was a futurist. His genius—highlighted by unpatrolled mordant wit, piquant rue, spill-the-tea élan and unparalleled black boy voodoo—is a master class of artistry; regardless of context, his writing accentuates and deliberates not only the consistent struggle of black people but all of the colonized English-speaking nations of the world. Woah!

Contemporary artists have big shoes to fill. But given the state of the nation, we’re in good hands. Rest in power, Mr. Baldwin.