#and if not then why? is it just because potential disabilities and how they affect a person are too vast to fit into character creation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cripplecharacters · 1 year

Text

Media Representation and Writing Characters with Facial Differences

[Large Text: Media Representation and Writing Characters with Facial Differences]

A writing (?) guide (?) consisting of an explanation of what facial differences are, some basics about the community of people with facial differences, a terminology guide that is extremely subjective, a very long explanation of the real-life effects of misrepresentation of facial differences, a subjective guide on why most tropes surrounding facial differences are awful and unoriginal, and the part that people actually want to see (I hope at least) AKA "types of characters I do actually want to see". As always, this post is meant for people who have no experience with the subject, and not in any way an attempt to tell writers with facial differences on what to do in their own writing.

What Does "Facial Difference" Mean?

[Large Text: What Does "Facial Difference" Mean?]

"Facial Difference" (FD for short) is an umbrella term for any kind of scar, mark, or condition that makes your face visibly different. This encompasses anything from not having parts of the face or having less of them (e.g. anophthalmia, anotia, hemifacial microsomia), having "more" to the face (e.g. tumors, neurofibromatosis), conditions affecting how the face moves (e.g. facial paralysis, ptosis, cranial nerve diseases), ocular differences (e.g. hypertelorism, nystagmus, strabismus), conditions affecting the colors of the face (e.g. rosacea, vitiligo, pigmentation conditions in general), a "look" that signals a specific disability (e.g. Down Syndrome) and approximately a million more things - scars, burn marks, craniofacial conditions, ichthyosis, cancers, and a lot more.

Despite popular opinion (popular ignorance would be more accurate because no one knows about it in the first place but opinion sounds better-) people with Facial Differences have both a movement (Face Equality) and a specific word for the oppression we experience (Disfiguremisia). There is even the Face Equality Week that happens every year in May! This is a real thing that has been happening, and we are generally going unnoticed, even in the "representation matters" circles, the body positivity movement, disability spaces, and so on. There is an alliance of organizations dedicated to this called Face Equality International, who can help you learn about the real-world community and movement! They even have sections specifically about media representation, which is foreshadowing for how important this topic is to the community and for how long the "explaining the issues of representation" part of this post is.

And of course, if you have a facial difference/disfigurement, you can do whatever the hell you want when writing! Call your characters how you call yourself, subvert the tropes you want. I don't want to preach to people who already know all of this firsthand. This post is meant to explain some things to people who don't have experience with having FD.

Terminology

[Large Text: Terminology]

There is a lot of words to describe people with FD. Some of them are alright, most of them are awful.

Please keep in mind that all of these terms (maybe except for the... last one...) are used by real life people. This isn't me saying "you can't say that about yourself" (more power to you!) but rather to educate able-bodied people that some words they refer to use with aren't as neutral as they think (at least not to everyone).

"[person] with a facial difference" - generally the most polite and widely accepted way to refer to us. That's what is generally used in the Face Equality movement, sometimes alongside the next term which is...

"[person] who has a disfigurement" - an alright term that is sometimes used interchangeably with the one above. However, most things that involves the term "disfigurement" to me sound kinda medicalized and/or like lawyer speech. It's not offensive, but just generally used in more official ways etc. Has the potential to make you sound like a medical report or a legislature sometimes. lol.

"A disfigured [person]" - starting to steer into the "uhh" territory. Describing a whole person as disfigured is, to me, just plain weird. I get that some communities push for the identity first language, but this just isn't it most of the time. Could be way worse, could be slightly better.

"[person] who has a deformity" - "deformity" is such a negatively charged word that I don't understand how people (without FD) still use it thinking it's neutral. This sounds awkwardly medicalized in a "case study from the 80s" way which is definitely not a good thing.

"A deformed [person]" - pretty much the jackpot of bad terminology, the term deformed, the calling of an entire person by it, it has everything I hate about writers describing people like me. The only one that I think is even more awful is...

"Horribly/gnarly/nasty/monstrous deformity/scar/[name of the specific condition]" - again, I'm impressed by what some people think is neutral wording. If you're searching a thesaurus for synonyms of "scary" to describe your character, I think it's time to just stop writing them. This is about using ableist terminology, sure, but I just can't imagine that someone calling their character that actually will represent FD well. It shows the negative bias and attitude of the writer.

However, there is also one pretty awesome and simple way to describe them!

Say what they have specifically. Really. Assuming you know what condition your character has (which... you should) it should be very easy. "She has Treacher-Collins Syndrome." "Xyr forehead has a port wine stain on it." "They can't fully open one of their eyes." It's clear and lets your readers know what you mean. You don't always have to throw around euphemisms to describe someone not having a nose.

Tropes and Current State of Representation

[Large Text: Tropes and Current State of Representation]

If you have read basically any of my previous posts about FD then you probably know what I'm about to say in this section. Still worth a read though? I hope. Warning that this is long, but you probably expected that already.

One thing I will note at the start is that I'm aware that a lot of writers were already turned off from this post just because of the terminology section. I know that artists love describing people like me as ugly deformed monsters! It's literally a tale as old as antiquity, and that's how overdone and stale it is. Visibly disabled = ugly. I get it, I heard it a thousand times before, I hear it majority of the time someone is excited to tell me about how horrible and gross their OC's scar is. But now some guy (me) from that group is telling you to like, maybe stop calling your disgustingly deformed character that!

I want to make it very clear that FD representation in media is not treated like a real thing that's worth anyone's time, even by the most "representation is so important!" writers. I guess it's too inconvenient to unpack the amount of baggage and uncomfortable implications this would cause. It's too good of a device in writing; everyone knows that if a guy with a scar shows up that it means he's evil, the easiest way to make a villain visually interesting is to make them a burn survivor, and if you need a tragic backstory for a serial killer just give them a congenital disability that caused literally everyone in the world to treat them horribly, so of course they started killing people. It's such a good moral signifier that literally every book and tale has done - pretty is good, ugly is bad. Dichotomy is so helpful. What is less helpful in the real world is that what is considered "ugly" is generally very tightly bound to what visibly disabled people look like. Ugly Laws weren't just like, coincidentally including disabled people and disability activists aren't still forced to speak out against being put in those "Ugliest People" lists by accident. This is all to say that facial differences are considered to be "ugly" completely uncontested, and you probably have this bias too, as the vast majority of people do. The whole "the character is ugly, then they become evil, if they're evil, they become ugly"... you need to be conscious to not do that. Don't make them evil if they're visibly disabled because it will always end up being the same old trope, no matter how many weird excuses and in-universe explanations you give. I want to put it in people's heads that you are writing about a community of people who are technically visible in real life, but have no large voices that the general public would listen to when it comes to how we are seen. The general public relies on media to tell them that.

Putting people with FD in your books or your art seems to suddenly be intimidating for a lot of artists when they realize that not only is facial difference a real thing, but people who have it can see what you write or draw (and your other readers will take some things out of what you write, subconsciously). When an author is faced with the fact that maybe they are doing harm with their writing, they either: suddenly don't want to do that anymore at all, or say: "I don't care! I'm going to be very innovative and make my very evil OC be deformed!" which is kinda funny to me that people actually seem to think it's edgy and cool to repeat the most tired Hollywood tropes but that's the best we can get I guess lol...

The attitudes that people have around the topic of facial difference and the whole "media impacts reality" are very interesting to me in general. On one hand, when I tell someone that I was bullied or ostracized because of my disabilities, no one is ever surprised. On the other hand, everyone is for some reason uncomfortable when I say that this doesn't just... appear out of thin air. People are taught from childhood that facial differences and the people who have them are scary, untrustworthy, or literal monsters. Media is a major factor in that. Like, looking back at it, it makes sense that my parents told me not to stare at other kids because they would get scared. After all, I looked like a kindergarten version of the bad guy from some kid's book. Other kids were able-bodied and looked like the good guy, I was visibly disabled and looked like the bad guy. That's the lesson kids get from media on how people with visible disabilities are: evil, scary, not to be interacted with. So they avoided me because of that while I had adults telling me to not even look in their direction. Dichotomy is so helpful, right?

And this doesn't magically stop at children. When I post a self-portrait or a selfie, I usually deal with multiple grown people comparing me to sometimes an animal, usually a specific character from a movie, sometimes even making my face into a meme right away. But if people don't generally see people with facial differences on the daily, then how are there so many specific reactions and so many similar problems that we go through? If it's so rare, then how are people so quick to tell me the character I remind them the most of- Yeah, media. It's always media. It's almost funny how everything circles back to one thing.

I want you, the author, to understand the impact of misrepresentation of facial difference. If you feel uncomfortable because you have done these tropes before, good! That's a sign of growth. If you want to help instead of harm, you need to get over your (subconscious) biases for a minute and think about how a person with the same condition as your character would feel like reading about them. Maybe you are even currently realizing that that one OC with scars is just five harmful tropes glued together. Maybe you are going to reblog this and tell me in the tags that somehow your character decided to be like that, as if they have free will instead of being written by a biased human being. Or, as I said earlier, a lot of people will be annoyed by this post and keep doing their thing. Which is like... whatever, I guess ?? There are a dozen huge movies and TV shows every year that do this. It's so basic and normalized that whatever reach this post will have will change very little. I have been signaled "we don't care what you think about how we portray people like you" my entire life, I'm frankly more surprised when people do actually claim to care. You can, practically speaking, do whatever because the FD community is fully ignored by uh, everyone, and even if I'm disappointed or annoyed I'm just one man and I know (from experience) that most people won't have my back on this topic. It's too ingrained in our culture at this point to challenge it, I suppose. I mean, there have been multiple media campaigns telling writers to treat us as people, and they had practically zero impact on the writing community. But even with my absurdly pessimistic view on this subject, I still decided to write all this. Sure, there are no signs of the industry changing and the writing community doesn't seem to care much, but I still naively hope that maybe the right person will read this and at some point in the future I will be watching or reading about a character that looks like me and actually have a good time, and even more naively that maybe people will gain some amount of awareness of the damage that has been and still is happening to people with FD through media, so that the next time they see that the villain has facial scars for no reason they will think "damn, this sucks" the same way I do. And very, very naively, I hope that people who read this will start seeing us as people. Not villains, not plot devices, not monsters.

Sad part over(?), now the fun(?) part. AKA the tropes! Yay.

"Dramatic Reveal of The Deformity".

Use of the word "deformity" very much on purpose here. This is arguably the most common trope when it comes to FD, and it's always awful. At the very best it links FD with trauma and talks in a Very Sad Voice about how having a FD is the worst thing imaginable, I guess (think a "X did this to me... now I'm Deformed For Life..." type of scene) and at worst it does the classic revealing that the main villain actually was a burn survivor under his mask, because of course he was. In media, people with FD are evil. If they're not, then it's because someone very evil did it to them (the most evil thing of all - causing someone to have a facial difference. the horror!). It can't be a thing unrelated to someone's morality, there's gotta be evil somewhere around it. There is literally nothing good about this trope. Showing FD as something to hide? Check. Dramatizing FD? Check. Placing the way someone's face looks as the worst thing possible? Check. General treating FD as some kind of circus attraction to stare at with your mouth open? Check!

"Wearing a Mask*."

I made a whole post about this one actually, that's how much it annoys me. Putting your character with FD in a mask is so overdone, lazy, and boring I'm not even offended as much as I thought I would. It's like... really? Again? For the millionth time, the character with FD is forced to hide their disability? Is the author scared..? What is the point of giving your character a visible difference if all you're doing is hiding it? And yes, I know that your character chose to do that for reasons that you as a writer somehow can't control. It's always so strange how it's the character that's in control and the writer is in the passenger seat when it comes to annoying tropes.

Found yourself already waist-deep into this trope? Take a look at this post I made.

*"mask" here refers to anything that covers the character's facial difference (e.g. eye covering, surgical mask, whatever. It's about hiding it and not a technical definition of "what is a mask").

"Good Guy has the Tiniest Scar You Can Imagine, but Don't Worry! The Villain is Deformed As Hell."

A genre on its own. In the rare instance that a positive character has a facial difference, they have a curiously limited choice - you can have:

the thinnest, definitely-very-realistic straight line going through the eye (the eye is always either perfectly okay or milky for reasons the author couldn't tell you),

the same exact line but going horizontally across the nose,

and if you're feeling spicy you can put it around the mouth,

regardless of location, just make sure it doesn't look like an actual scar (certainly not a keloid or hypertrophic one) and is instead a straight line done with a red or white crayon. Interestingly, villains have unlocked more options which stem from scars, craniofacial conditions, burn marks, cleft lips, ptosis, colobomas, anisocoria, tumors, facial paralysis, to pretty much everything that's not infantilized, like Down Syndrome. These are always either realistic or extremely bloody. I sound like a broken record by now, but no, your morality has nothing to do with your physical appearance and being evil doesn't make a visible disability get more visible. Shocker. And don't get me started on...

"The Villain turned Evil Because They Have Scars."

Ah, how nice. Disabled people are evil because they're disabled, truly a timeless classic for able-bodied writers whose worst fear in life is being disabled. In case that needs to be said, having a facial difference doesn't turn you evil, doesn't make you become a serial killer, doesn't make you violent, doesn't turn you into an assassin with a tragic backstory seeking revenge for ruining their life. If anything, having a FD makes it more likely for other people to be violent towards you. Speaking from experience.

"The Villain Just Has Scars."

An impressive attempt at cutting out the middleman of "clumsily and definitely not ableist-icly explaining why getting a scar made them evil" and not even bothering with a tragic backstory or anything. They are evil, so of course they have a facial difference. What were you thinking?

"Facial Difference is a Plot Point."

As anyone who's read like A Book will tell you, the only way to get a facial difference is to be in a very dramatic fight or an extremely tragic accident who will become a plot point and thus the facial difference is now Heavily Emotionally Charged and a symbol of The Event/The Tragedy. If you look at media, congenital FD isn't a thing, illness-related FD doesn't exist and boring domestic accident or a fall causing FD has never been seen. It has to be dramatic and tragic or else there's no point in them having it. A true "why are they [minority]" moment, if you will.

"Character gets a FD but then Gets Magically Cured Because They're Good."

Truly one of the tropes that make me want to rip my hair out. Curing your character with FD sucks just as much as curing a disabled or neurodivergent character. Who is this even for? That's not how real life works. This is some actual Bible shit, that's how old this trope is. The only thing you're doing here is making people think that those who do have FD just aren't "good enough". Every time I see it, I wonder what the author would think of the congenital disorder I have. According to this kind of in-universe rules, was I born evil and just never got good? or ??

"Character with FD has Self-Esteem Issues and Hates Their Face."

I admittedly mocked all the previous tropes because they're absurd, ridiculous, offensive, boring, all of the above, and have zero basis in reality. This one however... ouch, right in my own tragic backstory. This is unfortunately a very real experience that a lot of people with FD go through. I even have a hunch there wouldn't be as many if the general public didn't think of us as monsters, but I digress. Yes, a lot of us have or had self-esteem problems, and a lot of us wished that we wouldn't have to go through all the BS we were put through because of it. Thankfully for you, you don't have to write about it! Seriously. You don't need to. As one million people have said before me, "maybe don't write about things you haven't experienced" and I agree here. I have yet to see an able-bodied author get anything about this right. Instead of the deeply personal, complex experience that involves both you, everything around you and the very perception of what others think of you that this is, somehow writers keep giving the tired "character crying and sobbing because they're "ugly" now", because the author thinks we're ugly. Or maybe they're sad because all the other characters with facial differences are evil, and they didn't have the time to prepare their evil monologue for when they inevitably become evil in the sequel? Who knows.

"The Author Doesn't Know."

I'm not sure if a trope can be the lack of something like this, but the author not knowing what their character actually has going on medically is common to a ridiculous extent - this applies to all kinds of disabled characters as well. You don't need to name-drop the Latin term for whatever your character has, but you need know what it is behind the scenes. You need to know the symptoms. You need to know the onset and the treatment or lack of it. Please do your medical research.

Things I Want to See More of in Characters with Facial Differences

[Large Text: Things I Want to See More of in Characters with Facial Differences]

The thing you might have noticed is that I want Facial Differences and People with Facial Differences to be presented as normal. Not killers, not SCP anomaly whatever, not monsters. I'm aware that the term is tired, but I absolutely want Facial Differences normalized as much as possible.

I want to see more characters with facial differences...

who have friends that don't bully or make fun of them because of their appearance.

who have support from their family.

who know other people with facial differences - even if they're just background characters, or mentioned in passing. Marginalized people tend to gravitate towards each other, people with FD aren't an exception to this.

who are queer.

who aren't only skinny white cis dudes in general.

who are disabled in other ways! A lot of us are Blind, Deaf, both, unable to speak, intellectually disabled, having issues with mobility, and a million other comorbidities.

who are fantastical in some way - preferably not the "secretly a monster" way. But a mermaid with CdLS or an elf with neurofibromatosis? That's cool as hell.

who are allowed to be cute or fashionable.

who have jobs that aren't "stereotypical bad evil guy jobs". Give me a retail worker with a cleft lip or a chef with Down Syndrome!

who are reoccurring characters that just happen to have a FD.

who are those stock/generic characters that aren't typically associated with FD. Hero's mom has septicemia scars? Cool! The popular cheerleader at school has alopecia? Awesome! The bartender of the place the heroes secretly meet up at has Möbius Syndrome? Goes hard! The kid that the MC used to hang out with before they moved somewhere else has Crouzon Syndrome? Great!

who have their FD be visible.

who aren't ashamed of their FD.

who are feeling very neutral about their face.

who are proud of how they look.

who got their FD in a very boring way or were just born with it (and maybe make up very silly, obviously not real ways of how it happened when annoying people ask them. Think "oh, I was fighting a shark").

who have facial differences other than small scars.

who's angst is fully unrelated to their FD. I love me an angsty teen character! Even more if they are angsty about their crush, or basically anything that's not their disability.

who have a significant other who doesn't do the whole "I love you despite your looks" thing. It just kinda sucks. Sorry. I would hate if someone said this to me.

who are children and aren't implied to be "cursed" or "demonic".

in genres that aren't just horror or thriller. RomCom or slice of life, anyone?

who aren't evil.

I want to see stories with multiple characters with facial differences. I have nerve damage and facial asymmetry, and I am friends or mutuals with people with Williams Syndrome, Bell's palsy, Down Syndrome, neurofibromatosis, facial atrophy, ptosis... and a lot of other things. Your character would have (or, would probably want) some connection to their community. We aren't rare!

And, I want stories with the whole spectrum of facial differences shown. Of course you can't represent the whole spectrum, but you can still aim for at least a few. Don't give every single character with FD the same scar-through-eye + eyepatch combo. It's not unrealistic to have a range in your writing. Here is a list of facial differences you might want to check out for inspiration. Don't be scared to give them something rare - no matter how uncommon, people still have it. My specific condition is allegedly extremely rare - I still want representation!

Closing Remarks

[Large Text: Closing Remarks]

Facial difference and the media is a topic that plagued me for the past almost two decades and won't stop ever, I think. It's a very unique relationship of a group of people who just aren't allowed to get into the industry and an industry that clearly hates them, loves to use their image, and defines how people see them all at once. There's this almost overrepresentation that is consistently awful and damaging to an absurd degree. Most people know more villains with FD than actual people. Certainly doesn't feel great to be one of the aforementioned actual peoples. But I hope that this will change - the negative portrayals that are plaguing the FD community will slowly fade out and a newer wave of portrayals will come in, hopefully this time realizing that we are real people and care about us a bit more.

The thing with facial difference is that it's pretty much impossible to make a specific guide of what it's like and what to do in context of writing because it's an incredible vast category that includes conditions that are very different from each other. That's why this post was more focused on "why you should care in the first place" (sorry for the clickbait) rather than being a straightforward guide that would still be very lacking even if 20 different people were collaborating on it. I really, really encourage everyone who got through this rather long post to do their research on what they plan to write about, be conscious of their own biases, don't pull inspiration from movies because they're all hellholes full of tropes and just sit down for a minute, think of the real-world people with facial differences, and read what we have to say. I know that drawing a guy with a line across his eye is more fun than realizing you're low-key scared of or uncomfortable around the real-world equivalent, but sometimes you have to get over yourself and try to be a better person. Caring about the people you write about is, dare I say, essential. That will certainly make your writing of us better :-) (smiley face with a nose)

If you have any specific questions, feel free to send an ask

Mod Sasza

#mod sasza #face difference #writing advice #writing ref #writeblr #writing disabled characters #long post #writing reference #writing resources #writing guide #writing resource #writing tips #writing help #burn survivor representation

1K notes · View notes

nekropsii · 3 months

Note

asking you this since you’re the only person who understands mituna in the entire fandom in my perception of the hs fandom

is it okay to headcanon mituna as autistic? sorry if you get this type of ask a lot/have already answered this type of ask

Instead of answering this question, I will give some food for thought: Mituna has a TBI. He has Brain Damage. This is a core element of his character. Probably the biggest one. In fact, it's so important to him that it's an injury that has remained with him in death. His TBI is a huge, huge part of what makes him... Well, him. It's why he's interesting.

So... Why is a need felt to also declare him as Autistic? Assuming this is a projection thing, since it tends to be most of the time - if you relate to him for his already canonical Neurodivergency, which is Brain Damage, why does one need to give him Autism as well?

Oftentimes when people headcanon him as Autistic, they tend to minimize or even outright erase his TBI. Oftentimes, people say he's Autistic as the reason he's canon Neurodivergent representation... Even though he's shown no real signs of it, but instead is fully written as a character with a Frontal Lobe Injury, and is constantly stated to have Brain Damage.

TBIs and other Neurodivergencies are often seen as less palatable than Autism. On Tumblr especially, it's far more "acceptable" to be Autistic or ADHD or headcanon a character as such than it is to have Brain Damage or literally any other Neurodivergency or acknowledge that a character is written with those. Autism and ADHD are seen as cute and relatable - even though they're very complex and at times devastating disabilities that do have the potential to seriously fuck up your livelihood, much like Depression and Anxiety, and I'm saying this as someone who has and struggles with all 4 - and are often used to erase the presence of other Neurodivergencies. Hell, it's to the point where people use "Neurodivergency" as a synonym for ADHD and Autism.

Again, I'm not going to answer this question for you. I think there's a way someone could potentially make the narrative of Mituna having Autism prior to the TBI compelling - the TBI has essentially stripped him of his ability to mask, after all, so one could make it be a situation where some of these symptoms are ones he already had, but is only just now really getting shit for because he's no longer able to hide it, and part of that tragedy is knowing that had he never been good at masking, his "friends" would have never accepted him. You could get some interesting questions about that. Was the repression worth it? Would it have been better if he'd just been himself the whole time? I think it's extremely valuable to ask yourself why you see any character as any specific minority - necessary, even - and how that affects not only the character's writing in its original text, but also your relationship with said character. Consider optics. Consider the way in which this character is meant to function in the source material. What purpose do they serve, and what is the driving force behind this character? Is Occam's Razor applicable? Are there other explanations as to why they are the way they are? Perhaps ones that are more succinct, and cover more ground?

Yesterday, I watched a film that has provoked a response in Tumblr that I think is applicable. I Saw The TV Glow. It's a film about a Trans Girl who never finds the strength to accept herself or come out. It's an incredibly gut-wrenching watch. It made me cry several times, and there are parts that made me feel a deep pain in my chest. I sat through 95% of the film with a pit in my stomach. I had to lay on the floor in the dark for a while after I finished. There's a scene where the main character is asked whether she likes girls or boys. She says she thinks she likes TV shows, and elaborates by saying that every time she tries to think about that kind of thing, it feels like someone's cutting her open and shoveling out her insides until there's nothing left. Not that there was anything in there to start with, of course - she says she knows there isn't, but she's too scared to look for herself and see.

That scene was about how Gender Dysphoria can completely disrupt your sexuality and repulse you from the thought of that level of connection with others, because it is, in essence, a deep disturbance with the nature of who you are as a person. Many people who are Asexual, or Aromantic, or both, related to that scene because it, on the surface, depicts discomfort with romance and sexuality. What they failed to understand by chalking it up to its own sexuality, is the fact that that scene wasn't depicting a Sex-Repulsed Asexual, or a Romance-Repulsed Aromantic, it was depicting a Trans Girl who is at such deep odds with herself and her identity that she cannot grapple with the concept of loving or being loved.

What, functionally, is the purpose of slapping an extraneous label onto a character that is meant to depict a certain thing? What is the purpose of assigning the label of "Autistic" to a character meant to depict the tragedy of a loss of support after gaining a disability, or "Aromantic" or "Asexual" to a character meant to depict a deep internal struggle with unresolved Gender Dysphoria?

Ask yourself these questions, and carry on from there. See where your mind takes you.

#today we are pondering the nature of headcanons and fandom #homestuck #homestuck analysis #homestuck meta #i saw the tv glow #alpha trolls #mituna captor #cw ableism #cw transmisogyny #<== frankly... a lot of ISTTVG discussion dips straight into that. especially with this extraneous labelling stuff #mituna.pdf #nekro.pdf #nekro.sms

131 notes · View notes

fancyfade · 5 months

Text

Thinking about the representation of characters with chronic pain and... part of why I don't believe that any writer besides the batgirls writers was ACTUALLY trying to represent invisible disabilities with babs is because being an invisibly disabled person with chronic pain does not mean that you do everything an able bodied person does, but with one line that things hurt or you have to be careful.

Like now I use a wheelchair, but I used to do karate when I was still getting fibro. There was a bit where we all had to run for conditioning, and I had to sit out . Not "oh no this will feel in my knees". If I ran I would be able to do nothing else bc how much pain there would be. I still could do kata and stuff and sparring (probably unwisely) with a bunch of braces on every joint (ankles, knees, wrists, elbows), because that was low impact and hurt less. And I was completely wiped out after practices and lessons.

But my point is - being an active person with chronic pain does not mean looking like an able bodied person. Obviously it changes based on severity, and each person's individual experience, but I'm like... really babs has chronic pain and potential risk of reinjury and she's keeping up with the other batfam members on the rooftops in fear state? She's frantically lifting rubble and not immediately collapsing the instant she hears the people she was trying to rescue are safe? She pretty much just does everything an able bodied person does, but since the author said she had a back brace were supposed to pretend its reprentation and not CYA for ableism?

Like. Should note - I don't want babs to be a part time wheelchair user with chronic pain. I'm fine not being represented in this way, because she originally had another disability that was erased. But it's baffling to me when people act like dc actually intended her to be representation for people with invisible disabilities. I mention batgirls being an exveption bc that was what inspired this post - I was so surprised to see babs mention not getting up because her back hurt that I was like "wait literally no other writer of this era has done that amd acted like her disability might affect what she does'

#like inb4 i still dont like the Batgirls thing #but reading more comics of this era its like .. ok so that's the only place where dc pretends its for rep #and thats probably on the vwriters not the company #dc comics #barbara gordon #disabled characters #chronic pain

80 notes · View notes

five-thousand-loaves-of-bread · 2 years

Text

“people only say i’m low support needs / high functioning autistic because i can speak 🙃” often followed by this is why functioning labels are BS or support needs labels are bad or why they are actually high support needs they just internalize it (while being able to perform bADLs and some iADLs independently on typical day, able to keep own safety, etc).

while able to verbally speak is not the only way to have significant support needs or be low functioning, being nonverbal not required to be high support needs (and also some nonverbal ppl aren’t high support needs),

being nonverbal or nonspeaking or minimally verbal is a significant thing that requires a lot of help, and it often doesn’t exist alone. as in, the people who say the quote above don’t realize nonverbal people are not “just like them but just can’t speak.”

being nonverbal/nonspeaking/minimally speaking/unreliably speaking (unreliable as in apraxia not as in lose speech) by itself is a thing that need significant attention to because need give extra! additional! support to gain functional communication. for most (if not all!) nonverbal nonspeaking people, functional communication is not guaranteed, it doesn’t develop naturally like most speaking people, either because of skills barrier, or external barrier like lack of resources, or both.

so, being nonverbal alone needs often intensive and long term intervention like speech therapy and AAC. even if you do everything right, give the most up to date affirming therapy, learning any AAC takes time, whether high tech or low tech. and they almost always require external help to reach their full communicative potential.

being able to functionally communicate (speech/sign/AAC, etc, but society put most emphasis on speech so you will have easier time if can speak) is such a fundamental part of our lives, it is severely limiting when you don’t have access to it. it inherently puts you at a disadvantage.

but being nonverbal often don’t exist alone.

being nonverbal means you have trouble with expressive language. sometimes that expressive language trouble is just you can’t speak.

but more often, there is more. like trouble communicating with more than one word at a time / multi word phrases / short broken sentences. or have small or basic vocabulary. difficulty remembering words. cannot grasp basic or complex grammar. have trouble find words. etc.

others may have extremely limited expressive language in all areas, even if you give them the best AAC and instructions, give them picture cards and photos, give them pen and paper, etc. yes, there are nonverbal people who may not be able to ever learn most or any form of AAC for it to be functional or reliable.

many nonverbal people may also have receptive language issues and have trouble understanding language. they may not understand the question being asked or the instructions given to them. they may only learn to read picture books with simple sentences, or not learn to read at all.

or, they also have intellectual disability, which affect everything not just language. they may be nonverbal because of their ID. they may struggle with everything above, and have trouble with problem solving, have trouble understand cause and consequence (not just rewards/punishment), difficulty remembering things, developmental delay, etc.

or, they have global apraxia (full body apraxia), or severe dyspraxia, which means they have trouble coordinate movements. they may have trouble dressing themselves, feeding themselves, physically follow directions, fine motor, gross motor, drooling, etc.

i have heard nonverbal people w severe full body apraxia describe it as a brain-body disconnect, their body have mind of its own. their mouth make noises they don’t want to make and cannot control, their body point to “yes” for a question when they mean “no” (so you can see how this impacts AAC use, yes?), their body running around when they just want to be still, etc.

it gets even tricky because! many of our understanding of intelligence and IQ tests require good enough motor skill. they assume that the way you act is the way you are internally. they assume you pointing to “no” when being asked “is the sky blue” if you genuinely not understand color, the sky, or language, not that your body pointed to the wrong thing.

many people w ID have poor motor skills. but many people w severe apraxia don’t have ID.

and this is just things i’ve seen in nonverbal autistic people. there are so many nonverbal people who are nonverbal because of brain damage, genetic disorders, and so on.

not to mention that being nonverbal and not having access to functional communication—not able to communicate what you want, don’t want, boundaries, socialize, etc. is a frustrating experience to say the least. having someone speak over you, make every decision for you, assume you can’t understand (whether you can or not), not even bother speaking to you, talking about you in front of you, etc. and when nothing else works, and you are frustrated and in overload, you meltdown, you “act out” to try to regain control or get others to listen to you, or you act out bc “other people say these things about me that’s not true so i might as well make it true.” then you get labeled with having behavior issues!

so yes, while it’s ignorant for people to dismiss speaking autistics just because they can speak, which is an issue that needs to be addressed, the way many low support needs speaking autistic talk about it is also ignorant.

#originally wanted to go in one direction but ended up going a different one instead??#sorry if the beginning doesn’t really correspond w the rest #actually autistic #actuallyautistic #actually nonverbal #nonverbal #nonspeaking #autism #autistic #🍞.txt

595 notes · View notes

hadesoftheladies · 3 months

Text

"you are killing a baby"

i am killing a fetus, not an infant. an egg is not a chicken. potential is not actuality.

"you are murdering an innocent."

it doesn't matter who is innocent. a hungry lion may be innocent in wanting to eat me only because it is hungry and may not have the cognitive capacities to exercise something like restraint or conscience. that does not mean i should not defend myself from harm. it is still self-defense. all animals are expected to protect themselves first and foremost. you are just so used to the idea that women (especially mothers) are supposed to sacrifice their lives for their children in order to be good people--like they aren't human beings with self-preservation instincts.

harm equals anything that threatens the life or health of a person and pregnancy does both.

"your body was meant/designed to do this"

miscarriages are as natural as pregnancies. why do you think the placenta exists? pregnancy sickness? the female body can grow a person, yet also has resistance mechanisms for a pregnancy.

also, just because i have genes that make me a good runner doesn't mean i have to become a marathoner. like think for a second.

"what will the father think?"

women don't owe men or society themselves. i know that's very hard for you to grasp but there's no time like the present to start. there is no ethical way to make a woman a commodity or government assigned asset for reproduction or sex.

"the baby is conscious"

so is the lion in the hypothetical. also, that's debatable. also, what are your thoughts on veganism? since you care so much about the suffering of conscious beings (that is beings with selves)

"but animals aren't humans. they don't deserve the same rights as humans because of their lower cognitive capacities"

great. now apply this ethic to babies and mentally disabled people and then try to explain to me why that has to be different without mentioning how you feel or your religion. :)

"a baby has more potential than an animal."

okay, and why does that potential automatically mean better or more valuable? higher cognitive capacities haven't stopped wars and mass murders have they? (and i would argue that bringing a child into a violent world increases their chance of becoming unhealthy or complicit persons, so you can almost know what the character of your child will be like for certain based on where you're raising them).

"a baby has a soul"

there are two kinds of dualisms within christianity: thomistic and cartesian. cartesian dualism has gone out of fashion even amongst christian theologians and philosophers.

Substance dualism, or Cartesian dualism, most famously defended by René Descartes, argues that there are two kinds of foundation: mental and physical. Descartes states that the mental can exist outside of the body, and the body cannot think.

'Thomistic substance dualism' (TSD) centers around two beliefs: 1) the rational soul is an immaterial substance, and 2) this immaterial substance is the human person.

aside from the fact that both of these philosophies are rife with problems, I think thomistic dualism is the stronger of the two. the rational soul is, in a way, a word for the self.

regardless, both of these describe a self as a soul. so i'm just going to define a self.

The psychology of self is the study of either the cognitive and affective representation of one's identity or the subject of experience. The earliest formulation of the self in modern psychology forms the distinction between two elements I and me. The self as I, is the subjective knower. While, the self as Me, is the subject that is known.

a self is a centralized consciousness with their own memories, introspection and reflections. we know through neuroscience, psychology, behavioural science and sociology that a person or self is formed via experiences (where memories and impressions are gathered, how people learn), language and socialization (economy, history, family, culture) and possibly some genetic expressions (although i think this is more about capacity than actualization).

this is why things like dementia or alzheimer's are so scary and difficult. when a person loses memories, they lose aspects of themselves. when a person changes their environment, they also become different people (even while maintaining some similarities with their past selves).

this is mirrored in popular media, characters that lose their memories lose versions of themselves. this is also why, when you look at stories that feature a multiverse, the same character becomes a different person in different lives. in short, you are not born a person. you become one, and although your self remains singular and centralized (even with age), that self still changes. both the self and the people around the self create the self.

this is also why socially isolated individuals devolve and become mindless or sick (and even have reduced lifespan). certain higher human capacities like "conscience" or "empathy" can be socialized out of a human being, as well. i'd even go so far as to say that children begin conceptualizing themselves as individuals only when they begin to sense the presence of other human beings. they cannot conceptualize their own identity without the presence of other people. they probably don't know they are a self until they recognize other people and then realize they themselves are also people, and people are individuals.

legally a person is:

. . . an entity that the law recognises as having its own distinct personality. This usually means one that is able to act in its own right, and capable of possessing legal rights and liabilities, including individuals (or "natural persons") and corporate organisations.

my point is, how can a fetus with virtually no experiences (which born animals have), no language or skill (learned) to introspect or reflect (or abstract), possibly have a self? when they are not exposed to the outside world? certainly they have the capacity to develop a self, but as established earlier on, potential is not actuality. so legally and psychologically, a fetus is very likely not a person.

but we do not need this to be true to justify abortion regardless, because an innocent person is still causing harm, whether directly or indirectly. so the woman/girl has every right to resist.

#radblr #abortion #pro abortion #pro choice #veganism

47 notes · View notes

pastafossa · 2 months

Note

hi pasta :) hope your week is going well so far !!

i dunno if you’ve spoken about this or been asked before (i apologise if you have) but i was just wondering how you always get matt’s characterisation so spot on?? if i didn’t know any better, i’d have thought you wrote the show. i can literally always picture him doing/saying the stuff you write <333

😭😭😭 This is like, an AMAZING compliment oh my god, thank you so much!

As for the question I'm not sure if I've talked about it before but ironically seeing it in my ask box triggered a discussion with sis. Like, I know there are folks who have a different take on Matt than mine. That's valid! So I don't want to be like... 'I did the research and delved and etc etc' because they do too. But eventually me and sis arrived at a conclusion that it's a few combos of things that makes Matt easy for me to click with:

A lot of psych classes in college that ironically I've used more for writing than anything else. This helped me understand some of how Matt's background of abandonment and trauma would potentially affect him and influence his coping techniques and behavior. I like learning psych stuff in general so that all wound up being an influence. I'll always recommend digging into this when working with characters!

I've watched Daredevil over and over and over and over and the more I've rewatched, the more I wind up picking up on new things and analyzing what Matt is thinking or feeling (bless Charlie for giving Matt so many little hints and fidgets and subtle touches of what Matt's internally feeling). This includes interviews, behind the scenes stuff, anything breaking down the why of Matt. I'm familiar with him at this point.

There are certain parts of Matt's character that I relate to incredibly strongly as a disabled person with chronic pain raised in the church, and also as someone who went through a long lonely period of depression where I felt very isolated, and then was afraid when I did finally make friends that they'd leave me. So. There's always an element with Matt that's like, 'ah I get it', this sense of resonation. I feel like that natural click with Matt really helped me when writing him, cause... been there, get the motivation, also dude needs to cry more and let that stress out, trust me.

This sounds weird but me and my sis love to break characters down, rip them apart to examine their insides. We love our favorite characters and talking about all their wholesome or badass elements, but we also gd love and have fun dissecting flaws, fuckups, the shadow self, character trauma, are they the asshole, is EVERYONE the asshole, what does this mean when he did this or that. The whole Pasta clan is immersed in that - Dad was a theatre major so got a lot of practice, Mom's loved lit forever, and we all have this tendency, so I got very comfortable very early with taking characters apart in a really honest way to figure out how and why they tick and what the writer/actor is trying to tell you. And since we've all seen Daredevil, and dad has also read a lot of the earlier comics, we've all more than once metaphorically laid Matt out on the table like a frog and dissected his character. I feel like having someone who's not only willing to talk about these layers with you, but also comfortable enough with you to kinda push back and go 'Or what if he was doing it because of this' or 'Ok yeah you love him but he was actually being the asshole here because *valid reason*' is important. Get you some allies who love to know why characters tick!

So basically lots of reading, really enjoying picking characters apart with fam, and familiarity, all mixed up in a bucket of 'Ooooh poor thing, I've been there and that was not fun. You really need therapy and maybe some antidepressants.'

#daredevil #basically i blame psychology courses and a family where we all like digging into characters and obsessive rewatches #and also the way i've been there if you subtract the Vigilante stuff #he is a very very special character to me that's helped me process a lot of my own shit and trauma #every once in a while as a writer you wind up finding a character that just... clicks #(in real life i'm frequently foggy tho i won't lie like that is my vibe on a good day)

27 notes · View notes

wormbraind · 6 months

Text

based on @glassknee's post and @notevenalittle1294's addition, i present to you: the sims endbringer mod, pho style (but not really, this is a fictional sims forum)

♦ Topic: [Self-promo] Endbringer Mod In: Boards ► Modding FKNSHJ (Original Poster) Posted On Apr 20th 2012: Hi all. 🙂 I’m excited to share this mod I’ve been working on. It involves randomized Endbringer attacks. By default they’re fairly more common than they are in real life, happening maybe once every ten in-game years, but if you look at read_me.txt in the downloads I’ve enclosed information on how to alter the probability and how to trigger specific Endbringers as well as how to make them easier or harder to defeat. Besides that I also included CC and a few Easter eggs that won't affect your gameplay.

(Showing page 1 of 2)

►termina2 (2011 Sim Comp Finalist) Replied On Apr 20th 2012: whoa, so cool :D i dont play with my sims much so ill try activating some endbringer attacks and see how it goes. im pretty bad at coding tho... ^_^

►tritebuilds (2011 Build Comp Semi-Finalist) Replied On Apr 20th 2012: Hey what the fuck? Endbringers aren't a joke. You've clearly never seen the aftermath of an attack, this is making a mockery out of the trauma of Endbringer victims such as myself. Who even comes up with this stuff???

►hshater Replied On Apr 20th 2012: im getting my popcorn lmfao

►termina2 (2011 Sim Comp Finalist) Replied On Apr 20th 2012: trite let's keep this civil, please, don't swear...

►oldlostsea Replied On Apr 20th 2012: Wait, isn't this the guy who posted those *suggestive* images of Leviathan?

►hshater Replied On Apr 20th 2012: +oldlostland what?? on here?? where?? not in a weird way like i don't want to see them but proof?

►oldlostsea Replied On Apr 20th 2012: +hshater Ok weirdo. It was on some PHO dupe (it has better information but worse moderation) and I only remember because it was weird + the random letter username stuck with me. I'll DM you the link once I find it.

►hshater Replied On Apr 20th 2012: +oldlostsea yeah yeah take your time. FJSKJ you've got anything to say for yourself?

►oldlostsea Replied On Apr 20th 2012: +hshater I found his account on the site and I downloaded the mod. Definitely the same person. The art style resemblance is uncanny. Sending you the link RN.

End of Page. 1

(Showing page 2 of 2)

►spaceg1rl (Suspended) Replied On Apr 20th 2012: why does the mod's art look like that? yeah he definitely wants to fuck them screenshot(64).png

►hole (Moderator) (2011 Simp Comp Winner) Replied On Apr 20th 2012: @spaceg1rl This is your fifth infraction this year. Suspended for two months.

►hshater Replied On Apr 20th 2012: +oldlostsea sorry i was walking my dog. and yeah that looks exactly the same as what spacegirl (rip) posted +hole i mean this as kindly as possible pleasedontgivemeawarning but with that username what grounds do you have to stand on

►hole (Moderator) (2011 Simp Comp Winner) Replied On Apr 20th 2012: @hshater It's a reference to Hole, the band, of which I made many Sims. You can see them in my Round 2 submission to last year's Sim Comp

►hshater Replied On Apr 20th 2012: yeah i'm sorry to break it to you but your tag says simp comp. congrats though!

►termina2 (2011 Sim Comp Finalist) Replied On Apr 20th 2012: i really love the atmosphere and the art and the cc... really surprised this was made by one person! good job!

►tritebuilds (2011 Build Comp Semi-Finalist) Replied On Apr 20th 2012: +termina2 You are literally contributing to the normalization of Endbringer attacks.

►termina2 (2011 Sim Comp Finalist) Replied On Apr 20th 2012: ?? im going to log off for a bit to work on a school project. really dont like how toxic you all are getting :( it's just a mod

►tritebuilds (2011 Build Comp Semi-Finalist) Replied On Apr 20th 2012: @cookiecrumbles @tenovertwosmallstones PLEASE remove this. It's extremely offensive and potentially f*tish content.

►cookiecrumbles (Moderator) Replied On Apr 20th 2012: I'm disabling replies while we discuss this. Please avoid harassing each other anywhere else in the meantime.

End of Page. 1, 2

#writing #parahumans #endbringers

47 notes · View notes

majycka · 4 months

Note

hi quick random question, do you think Kyoto students and utahime especially her dynamic with Gojo could have been utilised a bit better in shibuya because they have potential if they were fleshed out.

what are your thoughts i just feel there could have been potential.

There certainly was a potential anon!

Reading this linkspooky anon ask, she said that the mechamuru traitor plot line could've been fleshed out more to point out the flaws of the school system(which gege isn't really interested in exploring) thus also allowing us to explore the differences between teacher Gojo and Utahime plus their kids. I agree with what the anon and she had to say so imma try to explain it further.

I know canon told us that Utahime was able to figure out the mole via process of elimination but if we were to really to draw out the traitor plot line, I can imagine Utahime, the investigator, digging deeper into the motive on why possible Mechamaru even considered doing it. She's an attentive teacher afterall so I wouldn't doubt she probably cares about why her kid ends up like that. In this way, we get to see the differences between how Gojo and Utahime treat their kids as well as how the school system using these kids as child soldiers affects them. Through this way, we get to see Gojo and Utahime interact more. I’d dare say that Utahime will probably call out the way how absent and “sink-or-swim” Gojo’s ways of teaching are. I mean, it does work for his students, but sometimes he ignores a crucial and obvious part that they are STILL kids.

That’s the whole point of Nanami’s care for Yuuji who’s originally under Gojo’s wing, and how Yuuji expressed that it’s Nanami underestimating his skills when in fact, Yuuji is STILL a child, and Nanami, as the adult, has to protect him.

Gojo is not too aware of this fact that they ARE still child soldiers because he is raised in the same system afterall. However, with Utahime’s caring, and doesn’t-take-any-bullshit-from-Gojo personality, there’s no doubt she’ll call the fuck out of him.

Moving on to the actual students themselves, I actually like how Gege kept the Kyoto kids lowkey in this arc and when they showed up, they were a team (even Todo included with his help with Yuuji). I'd like it more if we were shown how the Kyoto kids navigated the culling game arc because the game could have forced Kyoto plus Tokyo to cooperate with each other. Maybe even under Utahime's wing because most of the adults got nerfed in Shibuya. Also, Kyoto kids offer the weaker pov things in the series, and I'm all out for underdog characters. There’s just lots of inner conflict going on when you’re in a world who favors the strong while the weak gets hammered down.

Moreover, another thematic potential I can think for the kyoto-tokyo dynamic is sharing comradery on entering adulthood. This is somehow shown with Kamo & Maki vs Naoya fight, and imo, this fight is a good CANON example that "at the very verryyy least" fulfilled the potential of the Kyoto-Tokyo dynamic.

More yapping under the cut cuz this is actually one of my fav fights in CG arc >.<

The goodwill event shows the battling philosophies of the schools, however it also shows how complementary they are..Kyoto wants to be understood in a lashing out way but Tokyo merely responded with callousness to it and has the "who cares what others think" mindset.

Nobara and Momo fight on misogyny

Mechamaru expressing his disability with panda

Megumi vs Kamo "We are the same"

Maki and Mai "why didn't you left the Zenin clan"

I mean Tokyo ain't wrong about their individualistic mindset but at the same time, it just sounded unsympathetic especially when all those kids are all in the SAME boat being child soldiers under the jjk ruthless system. Kyoto kids unhealthily lashes out but they aren't wrong about it either cuz it's a reality that they suffer a lot from this system. These openness of Kyoto Tech however did make them closer like mutamiwa and kyoto girls (mai, miwa, momo).

Overall, Tokyo needed the Kyoto comrade nature while at the same time Kyoto needed the independence of Tokyo kids and in that kamo-maki vs Naoya fight, it showed us how these philosophies made a great working teamwork for them...

Recap to that fight, Naoya shows up as a cursed spirit and boom maki has to deal with it now luckily Kamo is there to help. With the help of Kamo's teamwork, Maki was bought some time to recover (deal with those samurai and sumo duo) and boom defeat him.

Kamo sympathised with Maki’s situation after the fight. Even back in the fight with Megumi, Kamo seems to be one trying to seek understanding from kids under the big clans because he kinda understands the pressure they are under. Despite barely interacting on screen, it's no wonder 100% Kamo backed up Maki. Moreover, what makes this fight pair up fulfilling is the parallels they have despite being different ends of the spectrum. They even opened up about their family problems, and this is coming from Maki who tends to keep to herself.

"Don’t fall in the same rut."

Maki opens up and give advice in communicating more to their family because Maki regretted not doing the same for their mom, and we cut to throwback of the Kamo’s mom was that she named him Noritoshi just to spite the Kamo clan.

I've seen criticism about this part. It's pretty shitty the mom named her kid practically Hitler, abandoned the same kid, and expects the kid himself to come back, and I agree with the criticism. However, looking at it from a different angle, it's shown at the same time that jjk is a coming of age series, kids growing into adulthood aka shouldering the shit that adults have failed to do...

Adults can be shit at doing their job to their kids like what Kamo's mom did to Noritoshi. Like c'mon mom! you could have done your job as an adult and be the one to approach your kid or pull him out of the clan situation but no. Sometimes the Reality is fully accepting that parents are shitty sometimes and the kid of the situation has to push themselves to be mature and take over the adult's work, and as for Kamo, that is having to be the one to find his mother to find closure and from then on, he will be the one to decide what will be next.

41 notes · View notes

communist-hatsunemiku · 2 months

Note

I saw you made a post about people "burying their head in the sand" in regards to choosing not to discuss politics, and basically saying "you types of people are the problem, and if you choose not to involve yourself in politics, you suck." I have a very genuine question about it, I guess. Apologies if this is an odd ask.

If someone is say, developmentally disabled - despite being an adult, or of an age most consider to be able to understand, discuss, and debate such topics. And they can't comprehend these things in a manner that would make it anywhere near beneficial for them to involve themselves in it...

Would you still feel the same way?

Would you still pressure someone who is incapable of understanding how politics work, how those those impact the world, etc?

Do you consider such a thing "privileged," despite being disabled? Since they can potentially live in a bubble, ignorant to such topics?

This is not meant to be accusatory, I am genuinely curious as to your answer. Thank you.

These people you're referring to have been consistently in my life for the past decade, and guess what, they are capable of empathy and caring about other people even if they like, don't read articles or theory or participate in discussions like this one online. They are often some of the most caring and empathetic people you'll ever meet. And they are capable of listening and learning just like anyone else. AND some of these concepts like free healthcare, worker's rights, racism, income inequality etc etc are not like inaccessible academic abstractions, they're pretty straightforward! With patience and thoughtfulness, I guarantee a large portion of the people you refer to could grasp these concepts and understand why they are important to talk about.

And they also have a lot of stake in these conversations because these people are lacking in agency and rights and fucking healthcare. They are marginalized and disadvantaged, and to be honest, you invoking them in this ask is kind of insulting to them. Whether this is a genuine good faith ask or not. They do not live in bubbles, full stop. The people who live in bubbles are overwhelmingly white, and overwhelmingly upper middle class to wealthy.

Anyone reading my post that you're referring to can see that I'm not saying we should berate developmentally disabled people for not "getting" politics or whatever the fuck. It is about the people who think they can opt out of politics because they think they are not directly affected by them. Their apathy is a choice they get to make because of privilege. Developmentally disabled people often don't get that choice, they aren't insulated from the real consequences that uncaring privileged people's apathy and lack of empathy enables.

And this answer could get very long once we start actually analyzing the disparities between rich people and poor people, white people and poc and the disabled populations within these different groups.

18 notes · View notes

crookedkryptonitebeliever · 9 months

Note

this might be a touchy subject and you don’t have to answer but, as one myself, how would Yves act with a chronically ill/physically disabled person? or even someone who constantly deals with chronic pain that is debilitating for everyday life? btw i love your writing, no matter how cursed. 🤍

Yves feels his heart wrench whenever he sees you break down in tears, frustrated at yourself for not doing as well as other able-bodied people, frustrated that you have to surrender your autonomy at times to Yves. He truly does, he hates to see you in such a state. While he doesn't mind, even prefers you to be dependent on him due to his strong caregiver personality, Yves doesn't want it to be at the cost of your happiness.

He will read up on all the papers published about your illness or disability. Past and modern ones, there must be a pattern or some sort that he could identify. Yves will try his best to find a cure or at least something that will improve your symptoms greatly.

But the first thing he will get done is to talk to you. Discuss what you ultimately want; is it freedom you seek? His undying support? The unyielding truth that Yves will stay by your side no matter how bad it gets? Do you want to keep fighting for yourself, or do you want Yves to do it for you?

You will have the latest, cutting-edge prosthetics if you're struggling with an amputated limb or body part. All the helpful, relevant, accessible gadgets will be installed in the house in hopes of making your life much easier and giving back the level of independence you need to maintain your mental health. Yves will remember all your appointments for you, that fills his planners up. Your dosages, your medication, and the procedures of your treatments.

He will remind you, pre-pack your pills, and help you with your IV drip. Yves is very careful with his tone and words, he knows the stress, humiliation, and pain that come with living as a chronically ill person can easily set you off. Everything can be overwhelming, he does not want to see tears of anger or hopelessness in your eyes. It's not your fault, you never wanted this and it just happened to affect you.

Yves spends nights perusing through all experimental treatments, weighing between the risks and benefits. He will present his carefully curated selection to you, but he makes sure to pace it out appropriately. Because if he were to show you thousands of pages of medical reports, chances are you're going to be upset, overstimulated, and angry at him. You have very limited energy and focus, he needs to get his words as concise and accurate as possible.

Watching him kneel with you on the bathroom floor, as you experience your seventh vomiting tonight, truly shocked you. Understandably, you're in such a terrible state, that you've barely gotten any sleep for the past month. But Yves sleeps even less, he is always awake, always looking after you. Ready for any emergencies and constantly preparing items or foods that will ease you. Yet, he looks glowing, as if he wasn't caretaking a bleeding ball of misery. His hair is always silky and brushed, no bags under his eyes, and his movement is still crisp. And he always knows what to do, much better than you or your practitioners.

He knows your body well enough to administer his own dose of painkillers, going against doctors' orders and obtaining drugs that fully alleviate your pain. Strategically timing your doses so it won't be too hard on your liver. Taking your blood samples himself and ran them through his own trusted pathology lab, potentially proving that your doctor might have misdiagnosed you. Maybe you wouldn't need to suffer, Yves could find a cure.

You were very apprehensive at first when Yves suggested that he does his own testing. He has no credentials, why should you trust him? The doctors have much more experience than him and they went to school for this. You're not trusting a random to cut you open either, he's a mathematician, not a medical doctor or a surgeon-

You were dumbfounded when he produced his own certifications and licenses. Proving that he worked in hospitals, researched institutes, and even published his own medical papers that universities used as teaching material for decades. Everything he presented is legitimate, he even demonstrated the validity of them by your request. You could call his universities and they will all confirm his contributions, You can confirm with the government and the relevant boards, you can search for him anywhere, and early pictures of him will resurface.

He looked so different. Yves looked unremarkable in them with short hair. He looks unhappier and more exhausted, though. Makes you wonder how old he really is.

But that was all. You cannot find further information on Yves other than the ones he allows you to know about.

So you reluctantly let him stick a needle in you, only to realize that he's done. You blinked multiple times and darted your eyes from your arm and his gloved hands holding vials of blood. Unlike the usual nurses or doctors, you can't feel the needle going in or out. Yes, you saw it, but it was unbelievably fast.

Your jaw dropped as he didn't even need to palpate your arm. Yves just calmly inserted the syringe, gathered what he needed, and finished. You didn't experience any bruising later, which was astonishing with the speed he was working with.

He labeled them and packed them in a plastic bag with a biohazard symbol on it and into a padded envelope. Yves disposed of his gloves and washed his hands.

You expected him to enlighten you. Tell you stories while he was in the field, brag about his accomplishments, complain about difficult patients, anything! You needed to know more! Just who the hell is he?

But all he did was smile, give you a kiss on the forehead, and help you back to your room.

#yandere #yandere x reader #yandere oc #yandere male #yandere concept #yandere x you #tw yandere #yandere oc x reader #male yandere oc x reader #oc yves

45 notes · View notes

cripplecharacters · 1 month

Note

Hi! So I’m writing a non-verbal autistic toddler. I wanted to ask about large stereotypes I should avoid? Part of my writing him is making him have some of my experiences (such as the “gifted kid”) but also some of the experiences of other autistic individuals such as being put into therapy as children and being raised by parents who were given terrible coping skills or just adults with terrible coping mechanisms for the child )such as restraining them when they have a meltdown). I’m not sure if there’s anything I should be avoiding but I don’t want to make a mistake and end up never writing an autistic or disabled child in general

Hi asker,

I want to start off with a note about stereotypes about autism, specifically. Some people will tell you to avoid 'stereotypical' portrayals of autism, like intellectually disabled autistic people, or ones who can't have jobs, or ones who stand 'weird,' or ones who are very obviously visibly disabled, or ones who need caregivers, or ones with no empathy. What I want to say about this is that there are autistic people who are these things, maybe all of them even. And that's fine. It's one thing to say "don't write every autistic character this way, which is true – the experiences of people with autism are very, very varied, and not a monolith. But it is another to say "Never write an autistic character who [insert common characteristic of autism here]," because that's harmful and disingenuous, and often just done as a way to distance oneself from those more affected by their disability.

Now that I'm off my soapbox, onto your actual question.

One stereotype I would urge you to avoid is "Everyone around them sees their autism as negative and no one supports this kid how they are." Does this happen in real life? Unfortunately, yes. Do we already have enough of this in stories? Also yes. The kid's parents can have bad coping skills. They can put them into various therapies to try and help or maybe even to try and make them more typical, not just to help them gain skills and get support, because that happens. But I would urge you to include at least one or two aspects of their autism that their parents appreciate and support. Maybe they stim with the kid, or maybe they really truly find it endearing how much their kid likes lining things up, or maybe they're really determined to get their kid an AAC device because they're okay with their kid being nonverbal and just want them to be able to communicate in the best way possible.

Another thing I would ask you to consider is: when it comes to referencing terrible coping mechanisms that are actually harmful, like dangerous modes of restraints, it's important that if you are going to be depicting them in the first place, you make sure it's not posed as a good idea – this is the kind of thing that can kill people. When Sia's Music came out, the character gets put in a dangerous restraint and within the movie it's posed as the right thing to do when it is actually potentially deadly. No one in the making of the movie condemned it outside of the movie's canon, either. That's dangerous.

Also, how old is your toddler character? Were they diagnosed recently, or is it more like the character is almost 5 and they were diagnosed at 18 months? Parents will deal with a diagnosis a little differently when they just get it as opposed to when they have had a little more experience with it, and have gotten to know more about why their kid does what they do.

Lastly, something I'd ask you to avoid as well is for the autistic character to be nothing more than a plot device to make others look good (or bad). Now of course I don't know your story, but even if the toddler character is a minor character, they should have a little to do in the story that isn't just be there for others to look like better or worse people. They can have scenes with other characters that help progress the story forward, even if it's just a scene or two. This really depends on your story and plot, though, so you have a lot of leeway.

Hope this helps!

– mod sparrow

#autism representation #mod sparrow

68 notes · View notes

addictedtostorytelling · 2 days

Note

i’m sure you’ve written about this before, but i would love your perspective on the age-gap between GSR - not in a ‘is it good or bad?’ sense, just in how it affects their relationship.

because on one hand, i think that on a day-to-day basis they don’t think about it at all. (particularly once we reach the end of the show, when sara is in her mid 40s and grissom in his late fifties, the difference is pretty much negligible). but on the other, we have sara saying she ‘looks for validation in inappropriate places’ and grissom’s ‘younger woman’ monologue in butterflied. when they meet she’s a student and he’s a professor; then later on he’s the boss and she’s the subordinate.

personally to me GSR is much more a ‘kindred spirits’ relationship than a ‘the boss and the hot young woman’ relationship but at the same time that fifteen-year difference is definitely there. i’m just interested in how you feel that informs - or doesn’t inform - their whole relationship.

hi, anon!

so i have two different metas that touch on the age gap issue:

this one conjectures on whether or not the age gap plays a role in grissom’s initial reluctance to be with sara.

this one considers whether or not the age gap is ever a problem once grissom and sara are actually together.

more discussion after the "keep reading," if you're interested.

to answer your question more specifically:

i, like you, tend to believe the age gap plays more of a role in their dynamic before they get together than it does once they’re actually a couple.

as discussed in the posts linked above, i think prior to when they start dating, sara is somewhat concerned grissom will look down on her for being “immature,” and she is so largely because she misjudges grissom’s level of romantic/sexual experience, based on his age. she sees him as this dashing, worldly older man who knows his way around the block and worries she will come across as some naïve, young ingénue by comparison. she doesn’t want grissom to think she doesn’t know what she’s doing, which is why she uncomplainingly tolerates a lot of his more maddening behaviors (and particularly his chronic unwillingness to commit)—i.e., for the sake of convincing him she’s “cool” and can “keep up.”

meanwhile, on grissom’s side of things, he does harbor fears about how his and sara’s age gap might affect her willingness to stay with him in the long term, were they ever to get together. while he is fairly assured of her feelings for him at present, when they’re officially unattached—because she’s not exactly quiet about them, after all—he can’t help but wonder what might happen if he and sara actually were to end up as a committed couple someday. sure, she may be fine with the idea of being with an older man now, when he’s in his forties, but what about as he ages? as a twenty- and thirtysomething, issues like declining health and mobility probably aren’t even really on sara’s radar at the moment, but grissom worries someday they might have to be, on his account. particularly as he grapples with hearing loss during s2/s3, he can’t help but picture a day when he is elderly and potentially disabled and sara is still middle-aged and on-the-go. how would she react if he could no longer keep up with her? would she still want him then? and especially if there were things she might want in her life he (due to age) might be unable to give her—like children or adventure or even just an active lifestyle? he has always been afraid if sara gets close to him, she will eventually recognize his inadequacies and her love for him will cool, and his concerns about his age definitely factor in to that fear for him.

*cue lana del rey singing “will you still love me when i'm no longer young and beautiful?” here*

of course, in addition to their hang-ups regarding how the age gap might affect any potential relationship between them from within, i also believe, prior to getting together, they—and i'm talking 99% about grissom here—have some concerns about how it also might come into play from without, specifically in terms of optics.

grissom knows how older men dating women young enough to be their daughters tend to be looked at by society at large, so while he is himself no larry king or mick jagger, he’s fearful he might be seen as one, were he and sara to get together. (just check out his wince when catherine and brass’s mockery of the may-december couple in episode 03x03 “let the seller beware” hits a bit too close to home for him.) he’s also aware of how such a relationship might negatively affect sara’s reputation, especially on a professional level, and is loath to subject her to that particular brand of slander.

while on sara’s end of things, she is less concerned with “how things appear,” she also isn’t entirely oblivious to the fact grissom does care about that kind of stuff, especially after she overhears his monologue at the end of episode 04x12 “butterflied” and so has to care herself by proxy; she gets he has some serious inhibitions about being with a younger woman, which makes her somewhat cautious about how she might be perceived in relation to him on his behalf—which is at least part of why she is willing to keep their relationship on the dl for so long once they finally do get together (i.e., to spare him of having to confront his fears for her sake).

of course, all of the above said, i think these fears are eventually allayed for the both of them.

in sara’s case, she gets over her fears of being "too green for grissom" because she finally realizes where grissom is concerned, his age does not necessarily translate to experience. while he may have fifteen years on her, he isn’t at all the don juan she had initially imagined him to be. just as she has to this point never had a serious long-term relationship, neither has he.

hell, he may even have less sexual experience than she does!

hearing his confession to dr. lurie during episode 04x12 “butterflied” offers her some first hints as to the fact he has no more idea what he’s doing in love than she does, but, frankly, i think the thing which really helps her to place her old misconceptions regarding him to bed is simply just being with him, for realsies.

once she finally starts seeing him up close (and especially in intimate contexts), i think baby girl finally realizes just how artless grissom is when it comes to romance, and contrary to what he might fear, she isn’t disappointed by his general lack of experience but rather charmed by it and even relieved. for so long, she had thought he was playing chess while she was playing checkers, but now she realizes he was never really (purposefully) playing any game at all; he was just fumbling along.

and upon coming to that conclusion, i think she is no longer daunted by him being older because, frankly, it doesn’t matter—because it’s not like he has had decades and decades of experiences she hasn’t. he is literally just figuring things out in real time alongside her, which is very comforting to know.

then, on grissom’s side of things, i think the thing which helps him overcome his fears about sara potentially rejecting him once he becomes “too old for her” is just her dogged persistence in wanting to be with him and the passage of time.

after so many years of them working together and her continually pursuing him, it becomes clear to grissom hers is not just a passing interest. she’s not just a young woman infatuated with her former teacher—which, side note, he was never her actual professor, just the guy who ran a seminar she attended at a professional conference—and her attraction to him isn’t based in ignorance of who he really is or what he can (and cannot) offer.

while he had always feared the more she got to know him, the less she would like him, the opposite is true. she spends 5+ years in vegas looking at him with eyes wide open, seeing all of his flaws and failings up close, watching him age in real time, and her desire for him never diminishes but rather grows into a deep, grounded love; one which compels her to stick with him, even when he has been less than at his best within her view many, many times over. the fact she sticks around that way finally after many years convinces grissom she knows what she’s getting into and will face the future by his side, whatever it may hold.

as for his concerns about what others may think of the age gap, i think grissom forgets them around the same time he realizes he cares more about making sara happy than he does about anything else—i.e., circa the events of episode 05x13 “nesting dolls.” at that point, he just seems to make an active decision he no longer cares about what being with sara might do to his career and/or reputation; all he cares about is showing her the love she deserves, regardless of what anyone else may say, you know? furthermore, since she doesn't seem to care about how a relationship between them might affect her reputation and is willing to accept whatever consequences there are, he follows her lead.

of course, it does also help matters that for the first few years he and sara are together, their relationship remains a secret at work, so they don’t actually face any scrutiny down those (or any) lines from their coworkers—and by the time they finally do make their relationship public, he’s already largely over the whole issue, no longer bothered by it because he’s so blissfully happy being with sara, no matter what anyone else thinks.

as for how the age gap actually comes into play once grissom and sara are together, as stated above, 90% of the time, i don’t think it factors in at all—aside from maybe in the form of some good-natured intergenerational teasing, of the kind we see in episode 07x02 “built to kill” pt. ii.

while grissom and sara may occasionally have different frames of reference for pop culture, honestly, all other age-related discrepancies in their relationship are fairly negligible. between grissom being a something of a social novice for his age and sara being an old soul for hers, they meet up fairly nicely in the middle. though they may occasionally discuss variances in his upbringing in the 60s vs. hers in the 70s and 80s in an anthropological way, they’re squared enough on their worldviews, politics, life philosophies, core values, interests, hobbies, etc., regardless of generation or age, they just generally align.

the only place i can ever see the age gap as being at all more of a pressing issue between them is in terms of their future planning and some difficult conversations they may end up having to have.

while all spouses regardless of age should talk about issues like power of attorney, advance directives, organ donation, end of life and palliative care wishes, life insurance, funerary and burial preferences, legal wills, etc., for may-december couples like grissom and sara, those discussions can take on an air of urgency and even inevitability that can be difficult to swallow, especially for the younger partner.

grissom is pragmatic enough i'm sure he’d want sara to be prepared for what might be waiting around the corner for them, in terms of his health and life expectancy. however, i can’t imagine it’d be very easy for sara to talk about those eventualities with him, and especially not in a brass-tacks kind of “here are my wishes and here’s what i'm leaving you and here’s what i hope for you once i'm gone” kind of way.

while she manages to deflect away from the topic at the end of episode 06x24 “way to go” deftly enough (“i'm not ready to say goodbye”), there would come a point when grissom would want to sit down and actually talk though the ins and outs, and she might have a very hard time reckoning with some of what he has to say to her, even though she knows—on a logical level—what he’s saying is all valid.

the same might also be true to a lesser degree when the time comes to discuss grissom's retirement. of course, he's long gotten out of the csi game, but what about when he's ready to stop being an active conservationist (and particularly given the job is integral to his and sara's seafaring lifestyle)? would she still want to keep working after he called things quits once and for all? or would she take an early retirement with him? if she didn't retire with him, how would such an arrangement work?

of course, it's never quite clear how grissom and sara make money on the ishmael, but there are practical concerns to consider regarding savings and having enough to live on not just for the rest of his life but hers.

likewise, given the rigors of seagoing, they might also have to mull moving inland at some point, depending on grissom's health.

outside of those few and far between “tough talks,” though, i think most of the time, grissom and sara pay little mind to their age gap overall and are probably only really reminded of it when others perhaps react to it—which, honestly, most likely happens less and less the older they both get, and especially sara.

like you say, especially by the time sara is in her fifties, i think the difference not only feels insignificant to them on the inside of their relationship but also looks insignificant to onlookers on the outside, too.

though the gap might eventually come more to bear as grissom ages, i think for a long, long time, it's just a nonfactor—something to occasionally smirk about but on the whole infinitely less important than someone uninitiated might suppose.

fifteen years or no, they're just so intensely compatible with each other, the time doesn't really much matter.

soulmates are forever.

thanks for the question! please feel welcome to send another any time.

#answered #anon #asks: csi #**#my meta #meta: csi #meta: gsr #let's talk shop #csiverse

10 notes · View notes