#one that nondisabled people might not understand

[oldtvandcomics]

To get some positivity in this tag: Let me tell you about my recent bustrip to Prague! While narcoleptic. It was really great, and a bit tricky, and I think we can use some stories of disabled people doing fun things.

Background story: I was visiting my grandmother, and took the bus both there and back, because it's different, and because I really wanted to actually see some more of the Europe I spent my life running there and back through (we live in the West, my Grandmother in the East). On the way back, I spent two nights in Prague. It was a highly anticipated part of the trip, as I still kind of miss the city after my one year there. It was also the most tricky part of the whole thing to manage.

You see, my bus arrived at 6.00h, and check-in at the hotel was at 15.00h. Which is a good nine hours between the two.

I am pretty much guaranteed to fall asleep every three to four hours.

Rest of the story under the cut.

For those not aware of the weather right now in Eastern Europe: It's COLD. And SNOWY! So when I arrived at the bus station, my first reaction was pretty much "Nope!", and I went into the bathroom to put on an extra layer of clothes. I was fine after that.

You can walk from UÁN Florenc bus station to the Old Town pretty easily, which I knew because as I said, I've been there before. So I walked there, and stopped to buy myself some breakfast in a big supermarket at a metro station. After that, I went the usual way down to Old Town Square and the clock, and continued on to Charles Bridge.

At that point, it was still only between 7.00h and 8.00h, so of course there was close to nobody on the streets, only the people who had to be there. And snow. Lots of snow. Charles Bridge. People. Charles Bridge, normally black with age and full of tourists, was WHITE! And almost completely empty. I was there at sunrise. It was impossible to describe beautiful.

Pictures don't do it justice, but here are some. The river. People. The river was damping!

And yeah, this is Old Town Square.

I usually don't get this magic-place-feeling from Prague, because the people cover it up. Which is actually one of the reasons I like it, they cover up some of the useless noise in my brain, too. I'm more functional in a big city.

Anyway. This was clearly an exception. It really felt like walking in a wintery fairy tale. The only thing missing was a ghost.

After that, I went to the hotel, and dropped off my backpack. I like to travel with a light luggage, which made moving around earlier possible. And hotels are fine keeping luggages locked up in some room before check-in and after check-out.

I then took the tram number 22 direction Nádraží Hostivař. This was planned. One, I know the line, and know that it passes by two big shopping centres. Two, I know that I always fall asleep on any moving vehicle, and public transportation is a reasonably safe place to sleep.

Which is exactly what happened, I woke only when I was at the second shopping centre. So I went and looked at some shops, and bought myself a gift of three ice bear figurines. I sometimes like to take pictures of these plastic figurines, and the snow triggered that. I'm very sorry that I didn't have my actual collection with me. But the bears did a wonderful job, too.

This was behind a random tank station, where there was a table with benches where the snow was still completely untouched. So I played a little around there.

Then I took the tram to the other shopping centre, fell asleep again on the way there, looked a bit more at shops, had lunch in the KFC on the top floor and finished my book, then it was already time to take the tram back to the hotel. I fell asleep during that trip again, then I went to the hotel, checked in and got my room. All in all, I had managed to survive those 9+ hours without any greater discomfort, which is, honestly, better than I'd expected.

The end. Here are some more bears from the next day.

City wildlife. <3

[disabledunitypunk]

There is a troll going around trying to sow discord in the disabled community.

If you see this message in your inbox:

[Image ID: An anon ask reading "It is deeply irresponsible of you to promote the neurodiversity movement. The founder of the movement - a certain Japanese "Baedell" trans woman (one of those denyers of transandrophobia) named Kasaine - is a petulant destructive asshole who has torn apart numerous autism conferences, alleged murder and anti-epileptic or anti Asian sentiment or whatever simply for conferences refusing to browbeat a severely autistic nonverbal young man into turning off his flash camera. (Never mind that she could have just you know looked away.) I have spoken to countless Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, American Indians and others who also disagree with Kassaines utter petulance, as well as that of those like Amanda Baggs (a blatant faker/liar who I refuse to call by her "trans name" but you might know her as Mel.) She was also making the patently false claim that she had Rett syndrome. She also is deeply anti-physical disability, believes the abled can be cripples and believes that there is no difference between any disorder that affects the brain. I tried talking to (blog name is crossed out) about this and she sent me to your blog, let her explain her deep deep misconceptions." /end ID]

First of all, the term neurodiversity was coined by Judy Singer in 1998.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that even if the flash camera statement was true, epileptic seizures can cause severe brain damage and even death. There is absolutely no reason that an autistic person using the flash on their camera, regardless of support needs, should take precedence over someone's own life. If an autistic person refused to stop using it, ideally they would have been separated, but in the end the epileptic person would have a higher priority support need!

"She could have just looked away". Could she? How dark was the room where this was occurring? How reflective was the environment? How bright was the flash in contrast to ambient light? How willing to risk her life are you?

Thirdly, the transphobia. "I refuse to call [them] by [their] trans name". Translation: I think it's acceptable to deadname and misgender trans people if I don't like them.

Finally, the ableism of calling neurodivergent people who reclaim cripple (for reasons including but not limited to: being physically disabled as well; feeling their neurodivergence physical disables them despite not having a strictly physical diagnosis; acknowledging the long history of usage of the term against neurodivergent people including in medical literature and refusing to erase their own experiences being attacked with it; for rejecting the false dichotomy of mind-body dualism and understanding that the brain is a physical organ that is heavily integrated with every other physical organ and can therefore not be separated from it; and so on).

Note the dogwhistle: "believes the abled can be cripples". The anon does not even attempt to dress it up as "the physically abled". They openly state they believe neurodivergent people are abled, without even the caveat of "except those who also have physical disabilities". Even with that caveat, however, neurodivergence can and often is disabling. Sometimes it is severely so.

This further contributes to the erasure of high support needs neurodivergent people, aside from being inaccurate to the vast majority of neurodivergent people. While nondisabled neurodivergent people exist, they are the minority, and disability is an opt-out label for neurodivergent people, not an opt-in one. Meaning, if you are neurodivergent, you are disabled by default unless you identify out of it for whatever reason (usually for reasons like nondisordered plurality or finding the framework of the social model of disability most fits your experiences).

This is even aside from the actual discourse about who can reclaim cripple. Calling all neurodivergent people - even all neurodivergent people who do not identify as physically disabled, "abled", is abject ableism. I don't care what you think about cripplepunk discourse. If you absolutely feel you must debate the subject with the mods of this blog (both of whom are physically disabled, and who have made our position exceedingly clear), please do so off this post. True to the nature of this blog, solidarity and unity in the face of an ableist harassment campaign is necessary.

Let me also be very clear. The person being referenced in the crossed out part is the victim of a harassment campaign and has never sent anyone to any of these blogs. This ask is being sent in mass to blogs - seemingly blogs belonging to disabled people, possibly those who post in the neurodivergent or neurodiversity tag. They have nothing to do with this. I have censored their name anyway to attempt to preserve their anonymity, but if they wish to make a statement about this, we are happy to platform it on this blog to reach more people.

If you receive this message, please delete it. We hesitated about whether or not we might be making a mistake by platforming it, but figured that as it is making the rounds anyway, informing people was the better option.

Tagging any applicable tags for reach.

[librarycards]

Among the crippling bad crip feelings that the antisocial thesis allows me to name is my frustration with the category of disability, the way it, too, is increasingly being used to promise a kind of future that I don’t want. This is a future geared not only toward reproduction, á la reproductive futurism, but also toward a form of rehabilitation that “fantasize[s] the eradication of disability” (Mollow 2012, 288). According to Anna Mollow, such “rehabilitative futurism” works alongside reproductive futurism to ensure the continuity of heteroablenormativity through the elimination of disability, whether by way of “a recovery of a crippled (or hobbled) economy, a cure for society’s ills, [or] an end to suffering and disease” (288). Channeling the reflexive negativity described above, we might also understand rehabilitative futurism in terms of disability’s subjectification, its capacitation. I am referring to forms of state and institutional recognition that interpellate disability into a respectable and perhaps even desirable subject position, one that can be invoked to justify the ongoing abjection of poor and racialized populations. This is a futurism marked not by the rehabilitation of disabled people into nondisabled people but by the rehabilitation of disabled people into proper citizens of the state: people granted rights and protection under antidiscrimination laws by a nation occupying the unceded lands of native and Indigenous tribes, built by enslaved peoples trafficked across the Atlantic, and sustained by a combination of extractive wage labor, stolen resources, a militarized police force, and a privatized prison system. Rehabilitation has never only been about altering the material bodymind; it’s also been about revising what the bodymind means, how it signifies. Rehabilitative efforts to resignify the disabled bodymind work in concert with attempts to secure integrative access: both are more concerned about the facade of inclusivity than with the conditions of embodying alterity.

J. Logan Smilges, Crip Negativity.

[emphasis added]

[neon-sunsets]

how to write disabled characters in a not ableist way

(a very incomplete guide by one singular disabled person who cannot possibly cover the vastly diverse range of disabled experiences and opinions)

for some quick background: i am neurodivergent (autistic/adhd, ocd) and mentally ill. i have chronic pain (fibromyalgia and migraines), me/cfs, and i’m currently using a cane for good old fashioned Mystery Illness reasons. this post is mainly directed at people writing viktor from arcane since he’s really the only canonically disabled character from the. two whole fandoms i’m in (at least, the only one i routinely see being mishandled), but a lot of these points can apply to any character or fandom. so, without further ado:

disability is an inherently neutral state of existence. there are both good and bad things about being disabled, but ultimately it is a state of existence just like any other individual marginalized state of existence. most of the issues we face come from lack of access to resources, systemic and social ableism, and the intersection of disability both with class and with other marginalized identities. that’s not to say that we don’t struggle in and of ourselves, but it is to say that in a perfect society our disability would have a different impact on us. 

please don’t write magical fantasy cures. i understand where the desire comes from, believe me. but as a nondisabled person, it’s insensitive and ableist to remove this important aspect of a character’s identity. we get so little representation in general, and so taking this away from a character just stings. also, the idea that all disabled people need or want to be cured stems from deeply ingrained ableism that impacts us on a daily basis. 

this goes for all groups you aren’t part of, but do your research. even as a disabled writer, my insight only extends to my own disability and that of my disabled friends and family. so i do research! it’s not hard — there are plenty of disabled people on the internet who talk about their experiences, as well as countless factual articles about various disabilities. i would suggest finding multiple perspectives, and please seek out disabled voices!! this will make your fic more accurate — you have no idea how many times i’ve laughed at a fic where a character with back pain sits in a soft chair to supposedly help the pain, when that’s not what you should be doing at all! in this specific instance, hard chairs or lying down is generally a much less painful option. this information exists and you can find it!

don’t ignore the character’s disability. being disabled is only one aspect of a character or person’s identity, but it should not be ignored or erased. consider all of the ways that their disability impacts them and work them into the story in subtle everyday ways. 

similarly, don’t make it their only personality trait. this one seems pretty self explanatory, but there’s a balance between acknowledging that a character is disabled and making that all you talk about. 

don’t infantilize the character. disabled adults are adults. they should not be treated like children or less capable purely because they’re disabled. disabled adults do pretty much everything that abled adults do. don’t make other characters constantly have to take care of them. this is especially relevant for neurodivergent disabled characters, because neurodivergent people are more likely to be infantilized. 

don’t use AUs as an excuse to erase disability. be creative with your fantasy and sci-fi AUs. some good places to look for inspiration might be table-top rpg disability projects — i can think of @/dnd.disability on instagram off the top of my head, but a quick google search tells me there are definitely others. also, there are some things that are fairly consistent, regardless of universe: most mobility aids can be translated easily into different aesthetics, and potions or elixirs can substitute for medication. 

final note: this post is meant to educate, not accuse or “cancel” anyone. we’re always learning, and there’s no shame in not having known something. if you’ve done any of the negative portrayals that i’ve listed, that doesn’t make you a horrible person nor does it make you inherently ableist. it makes you a human being who lives in a society full of ingrained ableism. there’s always room to learn. 

disabled folks please comment additions!! if i’ve missed anything or misrepresented anything please let me know - this is only based on my own experience and other folks may have different insights!

[fierceawakening]

@ragingceliac’s tags on the post to the radfem

I’ve never understood the appeal of separatism tbh. Like, back in my intense SJ days a lot of people seemed to not be separatists themselves but to think there was something respectable about it, but I could never get them to explain what it WAS in ways I could understand.

Like, one of my professors in grad school told me she thought women only colleges were profoundly important because women in classes without men in them were willing to say things that they were afraid to say around men, and freedom of expression is important for an education. So some women need separatism, if only just for undergrad.

Which… all the individual pieces of that make sense, but I… never really found spaces without men to be spaces where everyone was more honest. Maybe I just am bad at pattern matching or only remember bad events but in my experience, a space with no men in it was MUCH more likely to be a space in which I was scorned for not performing femininity than to be a space where I could speak freely.

And I always felt from the time I was small that I had way more in common with the disabled boys in the same class getting abused in the same way I was than I did with nondisabled girls.

ID say maybe I just needed disabled only space rather than women only space but I’ve honestly never had that feeling either. Like, anything I can say to my close disabled friends, I SHOULD be able to say to my nondisabled ones?

They might not totally get it right away, but if they’re my FRIENDS, they’re people I’ve already vetted and trust to listen.

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

I'm very curious to hear your take on Zuko as a disabled character? All of your analyses of disability in fiction have been very interesting to read so far, thank you for sharing your thoughts/expertise.

Thank you!  Follow-on from this post about Toph.

What I mean by saying Zuko is a disabled character: the social model of disability basically states that disability is any bodily difference that gets problematized and/or treated as abnormal by society.  This definition includes facial differences, AKA any scarring, skin marking, and so on that leads to staring by nondisabled society or other forms of stigma based on the person’s appearance.  Part of the reason for this inclusion is about complicating the disabled-nondisabled dichotomy; facial difference and facial scarring are identities within that framework.  Part of the reason comes from the U.S.’s history of Ugly Laws, which literally made it illegal for people with facial differences to appear in public in some cities as late as 1974.  Part of it is the huge overlap between ableism (giving more privileges to the nondisabled) and lookism (giving more privileges to the normatively beautiful).

Avatar: The Last Airbender has some high-quality anti-ableism in showing Zuko’s story, including how other characters respond to Zuko and how Zuko’s appearance informs but does not define his characterization.

One of the ways this comes out is by turning nondisabled characters’ gaze back on them:

In “The Serpent’s Pass,” Jet says to Zuko “You know, as soon as I saw your scar, I knew exactly who you were…” and then goes on to describe his almost hilariously wrong conclusion that Zuko’s a Freedom Fighter waiting to happen because Zuko’s village was presumably also destroyed by the Fire Nation.  We get to see Zuko’s moment of terror that he actually has been recognized turn into incredulity as he then gets invited to join a guerrilla force opposing everything he (currently) stands for.  Jet looks stupid for jumping to conclusions based on appearances.

In both “Zuko Alone” and “The Cave of Two Lovers,” that same jumping-to-conclusions works in Zuko’s favor, because both Song’s mother and Li’s parents assume that anyone with a burn scar must be a veteran of the fight against the Fire Nation.  Again, the emphasis is on the fact that the people judging Zuko based on his appearance are wrong.

In “The Chase,” Azula becomes the only person we ever see mock Zuko for his appearance, when she covers her own left eye to draw out the “family resemblance” for Aang.  The moment gets a horrified reaction out of Aang — Zuko’s his enemy, but Aang also realizes that this is a nasty thing to do — and helps to establish Azula as not just a villain, but a sadistic one.

In “The Beach,” Zuko blows up at Ty Lee for commenting that stress can cause breakouts.  His response is unnecessarily mean-spirited, but it also draws attention to the relative level of privilege (the biggest skin problem she has to worry about is acne) that informed her careless comment.

In “Crossroads of Destiny,” Zuko assumes that, when Katara calls him “the face of the enemy,” it’s a way of calling him frightening to look at — and it’s Katara who looks like a jerk for implying it, even accidentally.

The other big way that this comes out is clapping back at the implied treatment of disability as demanding explanation, or the “But why are you like this?” form of ableism:

The show makes it clear that Zuko does not owe anyone — not Song, not Li, not Jet, not his crew, not his friends — an explanation for why he looks the way he does.  None of the Gaang ever ask Zuko what happened, and the few characters who do (Li, Song, Lieutenant Jee) don’t end up looking good when they do so.

“The Cave of Two Lovers” clearly underlines the show’s theme of “my body, my business” in the scene where Song tries to touch Zuko’s face.  The tone (including literal musical tones) signals that Song is being inappropriate and invasive.  It’s understandable that she wants to make a connection, but it’s also emphatically not okay to touch body parts of strangers one has not received permission to touch.

To be clear, taking people’s ostrich-horses is also not okay, Zuko, but Baby’s First Grand Theft Auto helps drive home just how thoroughly Song has let her curiosity and rudeness sour a budding connection.  It also shows that, while she’s right that she and Zuko have some things in common, she has privileges he lacks because she doesn’t have to disclose her scars if she doesn’t feel like it.  Plus, that moment contrasts to Katara and Mai both touching Zuko’s cheek — Katara just after they’ve shared a moment of vulnerability, Mai just before they start smooching — because they’re both doing so in a way that’s respectful to Zuko himself.

When he wakes up from a dream of turning into Aang, the first thing Zuko does is touch his left eye to make sure he’s still himself.  It’s part of his identity, and the only time we see adolescent Zuko without it (earlier in the dream sequence) it’s a way of showing that Zuko isn’t truly himself.

Zuko grapples with the fact that he’s always going to bear evidence of having survived abuse, and a big part of his character journey is concluding that he’s free to make whatever meaning he chooses of that scar, regardless of what Ozai might’ve intended.

There are other elements of Zuko’s story the Avatar writers do well.  He bears a superficial resemblance to the thousands of villains (especially in SF) who become villainous because they incur facial scarring, but of course his story is infinitely more humanized and nuanced than “skin bleached in a vat of acid, might as well go rob banks now.”  His appearance incurs very different reactions depending on his current wealth and political power, emphasizing the intersections of disability and imperialism.  He discusses the possibility of a cure with Katara, but also goes on to live a long and fulfilling life without one.

Maybe there’s no clearer evidence that Zuko counts as disabled in the sense of “society treats your body as a problem that needs to be solved” than the way that adaptations of AtLA treat the scar.  They tend to minimize, hide, or otherwise avoid it.

[Image description: Sepia-toned image of the Gaang from a Legend of Korra promotional that appeared on the Nickelodeon website.  Zuko has his head turned and his hair swept forward in such a way that none of the left side of his face is visible.]

[Image description: Screenshot of Zuko from the 2010 adaptation The Last Airbender.  Dev Patel has a very subtle amount of makeup meant to convey minimal scarring around his left eye.]

Like I said: facial difference counts as a disability because society treats it like one.  In the social model, that’s what counts rather than, for instance, how much peripheral vision Zuko does or doesn’t have.

I’m not linking to any of many works of fan art that depict Zuko tilted to the right, occasionally even when other characters are presented facing directly ahead.  Nor am I going to link to any of the equally-plentiful works of fan fiction that keep most other elements of canon the same but specify that Zuko’s face is unscarred.  (A similar number, it’s worth noting, also make Toph sighted.)  This isn’t a callout.  It’s an explanation of how Avatar does an effective job of showing how Zuko’s facial difference informs his identity without making that difference the sum total of his identity.

[mxadrian779]

How Not to Be an Ableist Dick.

Lame is ableist. Deal with it.

Disability metaphors abound in our culture, and they exist almost entirely as pejoratives. You see something wrong? Compare it to a disabled body or mind: Paralyzed. Lame. Crippled. Schizophrenic. Diseased. Sick. Want to launch an insult? The words are seemingly endless: Deaf. Dumb. Blind. Idiot. Moron. Imbecile. Crazy. Insane. Retard. Lunatic. Psycho. Spaz.

Lame is fucking ableist

New meanings aren’t random

At the same time, much media attention has been paid to the use of slurs such as retarded. Similarly, the stigma associated with psychiatric disabilities has left its mark on many words, rendering them insults, such as crazy and insane.

So why isn’t more attention being paid to words like lame?

In the case of physical disability, once-neutral lame now describes someone who is “inept, naive, easily fooled; spec. unskilled in the fashionable behavior of a particular group, socially inept.”

Those who use these expressions tend to try to justify their use in one of two ways.

First, disability is (in their view) actually a bad thing. As one blogger explained:

It’s not okay to call a coward a pussy, or a bad thing gay, they argue, because there’s nothing bad about having a vagina or being homosexual. But there IS something bad about not being mobile! In fact, it’s no fun at all, just totally miserable. All other things held equal, isn’t it better to be not-lame than lame?

(It goes without saying that many people with disabilities would object to having their identity hijacked as the automatic stand-in for all things bad.)

Second, it can be argued – and with some legitimacy – that some of these terms no longer generally refer to disability. Languages change. New meanings emerge from old ones.

But that’s the point: new meanings are not random. Having undergone a process linguists call semantic bleaching, lame has lost some elements of its meaning over time. While physical impairment is no longer part of its (new) meaning, my study of its use in Time Magazine since 1923 showed that it has retained the social meanings associated with disability in the 20th century: awkwardness, stupidity, femininity, lack of social graces and sophistication, and more.

Lame is fucking ableist

Everyday terminology can insult a group of people, even unintentionally. Calling someone a “schizoid,” and expressions like “that’s crazy” and “the last Avengers movie was insane” can be considered offensive to people with mental disabilities. Saying someone is a “basketball junkie” diminishes the seriousness of addiction.

What about saying “that movie was really lame”? A limping horse can be called “lame,” in the sense that it has an injury. But because “lame” can also mean “weak,” “inferior,” or “contemptible,” among Merriam-Webster’s definitions, it’s best avoided in reference to a person or their actions.

An excellent source for disability terminology is the style guide from the National Center on Disability and Journalism, which gives background, Associated Press style guidelines, and advice for its entries.

Lame is fucking ableist

Disability metaphors are abound in our culture, and they exist almost entirely as pejoratives. As Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg wrote on DisabilityandRepresentation.com, “If a culture’s language is full of pejorative metaphors about a group of people, that culture is not going to see those people as fully entitled to the same inclusion as people in a more favored group.” This handout’sprimary purpose is to serve as a reference for linguistic microaggressions and everyday, casual ableism.

Lame is fucking ableist

Why is it so difficult to see that using these words as pejoratives is just as problematic as the once-popular put-down “That’s so gay”?

Despite the reality that nearly one in five Americans has a disability, the fight to extend human dignity to people with disabilities seems an uphill battle. We live in a culture that systematically devalues individuals with disabilities. This group is disproportionately subject to discrimination, underrepresentation and criminal violation. And while these issues may seem far more significant than the problems of labels and slurs, the common language of ableism contributes to a state in which the dehumanization of people with disabilities is culturally acceptable.

Lame is fucking ableist

Lame is a common enough term that even the most “woke” websites and bloggers will use it in their regular language, articles, and posts. Every single time I see it in print or hear it thrown out in casual conversation, my stomach turns a bit. These are people who I know are otherwise politically aware, culturally sensitive, and careful with their word choice. They would never use a racist or homophobic epithet, so why do ableist words seem to get a pass?

First a quick primer on ableism: as racism is to race, ableism is discrimination against disabled people, in favor of able-bodied people. This can take the form of lack of equal opportunities, inaccessibility, word choice, bias, prejudice, and more. Ableism is stairs with no ramps, it is construction crews and delivery vans parking sideways across blue spaces, it is healthcare companies refusing to cover those with pre-existing conditions, and it is calling someone or something you don’t like “lame.”

To be completely clear, lame is a slur. There are countless others out there, but this word in particular seems to be forgiven or forgotten more than any others.

The primary dictionary definition is “having a body part and especially a limb so disabled as to impair freedom of movement.” A few definitions down, it’s defined as slang for “square, inferior, or contemptible.” Originally, this first definition was the only one. Society eventually moved on to other problematic terms such as “handicapped,” but only once “lame” started to colloquially be used to describe anything negative.

Lame is fucking ableist

While only trolls would use a word like ‘retard’, concern with ableist language extends much more widely. There was a time when lots of educated people, with no intent to offend, used words we now regard as sexist, like ‘mankind’ or the male pronoun as a universal. Some of those who used this sexist language were actually supportive of gender equality, and failed to see any connection between their words and reinforcing gender hierarchy. Today, this attitude is much less common. Those concerned with ableist language claim the cases are closely analogous: many of us unthinkingly use words that are ableist without recognizing that fact. They want to alert us to our ableism and have us change our linguistic usage.

For instance, they claim that phrases like “turn a deaf ear to” associate deafness with ignorance; that to call someone or something “lame” metaphorically is to associate walking difficulties with an unrelated (perceived) defect that reduces value; that to describe someone who acts unthinkingly as “dumb” is to inappropriately associate communication difficulties with mere foolishness.

Lame is fucking ableist

We don’t say the r-word anymore. But have you heard someone say one of these recently?

“He’s so crazy.”

“The weather is schizophrenic.”

“Our workload is insane.”

“That’s lame.”

I have, and I’m trying to stop. All the phrases use ableist language.

Ableism is the discrimination of people with disabilities. Ableist language is prejudiced words or phrases against people with disabilities. Disabilities can range from visible to invisible; similarly, ableist language can seem invisible to us (until we start paying attention to our words!) because the phrases are so ingrained in our cultural lexicon.

Lame is fucking ableist

Lame Refers to people with physical or mobility disabilities. Often used as a metaphor. Consider instead: Boring, uninteresting, monotonous, lacks excitement, uncool, out of fashion (if using metaphors); physically disabled person, person with a mobility impairment, paralyzed person (if referring to a disabled person)

Lame is fucking ableist

In the same way that a stranger should not appropriate your body for his commentary, you should not appropriate my disabled body — which is, after all, mine and not yours — for your political writing or social commentary.

A disabled body should not appear in articles about how lame that sexist movie is or how insane racism is. A disabled body should be no more available for commentary than a nondisabled one.

The core problem with using a body as a metaphor is that people actually live in bodies. We are not just paralyzed legs, or deaf ears, or blind eyes.

When we become reduced to our disabilities, others very quickly forget that there are people involved here. We are no longer seen as whole, living, breathing human beings.

Our bodies have simply been put into the service of your cause without our permission.

Lame is fucking ableist

If one of these 12 words is still in your vocabulary, it's time to reframe, rethink and reimagine your word choices.

1. "Lame"

If you're still using the word "lame," you might want to give your internal dictionary a serious update.

"Lame" was originally used in reference to people with reduced mobility due to physical disability. The word is now tossed around schoolyards and workplaces everywhere to mean "uncool" and "unappealing." Even singer-songwriter Ellie Goulding recently included the word in an activist-oriented tweet addressing misogyny in song lyrics.

For a lot of us, "lame" doesn't have that same bad-word sting many offensive terms have. But that definitely doesn't mean it's OK to use. Disability rights activists have long called for the word to phase out. We have a responsibility to respect that.

Lame is fucking ableist

Then it clicked for me. Whether or not I saw any important difference in my use of language, it was having real effects on other people, effects I might not understand. And if that was the case, which my colleague was saying it was, why not make the small change in my language that would matter quite a lot to people around me? It’s so easy. It goes a long way. It doesn’t cost me a thing, but it makes a big difference in the lives of others.

The same is true for ableist language. ‘Lame’, ‘crazy’, ‘dumb’, ‘schizo’, ‘deaf’. We throw around a lot of words whose primary purpose is to describe a mental or physiological condition. Often without thinking, we’re supporting damaging stereotypes about disabilities. But we can change this kind of language, and once we learn to catch it, it’s so easy to do.

...

We need to reframe conversations about marginalizing language to consider the actual damage it causes. Using a word like ‘lame’ as a disparaging catch-all  (which, full disclosure, is a habit I’m still working to change) means that actual lameness—the inability to walk—registers as less than non-lameness, the ability to walk. It pushes people who can’t walk into the margins of what’s considered normal and good.

Lame is fucking ableist

Besides being hurtful and harmful to people who have disabilities, the use of these filler words also decreases the effectiveness of our communication. We stop using the wide variety of words in the English language that communicate precise meanings and, likewise, understand things less precisely. Consider, for example, the difference between saying, “He’s crazy!” versus saying, “He acts in outrageous and unpredictable ways!” Or instead of saying, “That movie was lame,” explaining, “That movie was unoriginal and unenjoyable.” In truth, the world is a more exciting place when we are thinking precisely about what we actually mean, and can communicate our precise meanings to other people. And when we do, we demonstrate love and respect for our fellow human beings.

Lame is fucking ableist

What we sometimes say: “That is so lame!”

Being lame does not mean uncool. Being lame means you are physically impaired from using your legs, yet even within this context it is still an offensive and outdated term.

If a person who has use of their legs, they should not be using a word describing a physical inhibition to describe something they are not a fan of.

What we actually mean, and what we should say: Uncool, cheesy, tacky, corny.

Lame is fucking ableist

Ableist language is any word or phrase that intentionally or inadvertently targets an individual with a disability.For the most part, these words are filler, nothing more. Examples of ableist language include “crazy,” “insane,” “lame,” “dumb,” “retarded,” “blind,” “deaf,” “idiot,” “imbecile,” “invalid (noun),” “maniac,” “nuts,” “psycho,” “spaz.”

Each of these words, when used flippantly, can be extremely insulting to individuals who find themselves with physical (“lame,” “invalid,” “dumb”) or mental (“crazy,” “retarded,” “psycho”) disabilities. A full explanation of why these words are so problematic, along with alternatives that can be used can be found over at Autistic Hoya.

Lame is fucking ableist

Words like as “crazy," "lame," and "retarded," instead of “ridiculous," "pointless," and a thesaurus-full of others, stigmatizes people with disabilities. What's more, such language is often used to deride other marginalized groups.

“[H]ow the world is wired… may be invisible to those who do not have disabilities,” read the Web site for Stop Ableism Inc., a disability rights organization in Guelph, Ontario. Unless you are one of the roughly 56.7 million, or one in five, Americans who have disabilities, or know someone with a disability, you’re less likely to notice the “physical, attitudinal, or systemic” discrimination built into everyday life. Unawareness of ableism is everywhere, said Lydia Brown, a student, writer, and autism activist.

“There is a power structure that non-disabled people can ignore as a result of their privilege as able-bodied and neurotypical,” Brown told Campus Progress, “but which we as disabled people must confront for every moment of our existences.”

Lame is fucking ableist

Because it has been normalised to such an extent, most people using ableist language do so without being aware of the implication behind their words. Subtle insults, directed at minority groups, may seem harmless at first glance but such microaggressions, when accumulated over a lifetime, result in lower self-confidence, depression and higher mortality. Thus, language too can become a medium of oppression. Let’s take a look at the meaning behind certain words which are most definitely ableist but are very much part of everyday conversation.

“That joke was so lame!”

This is a commonly heard phrase. In fact, there are entire websites dedicated to ‘lame’ jokes. ‘Lame’ was originally used to refer to people unable to walk due to physical disability or neurological disorders affecting their feet. In modern day parlance, it has come to mean unoriginal, uninteresting or dull. Next time you use the word ‘lame’ to describe a film or a song, bear in mind that you are equating people who have to rely on canes or crutches with all those negative meanings.

Alternatives: Unimpressive, Boring, Tedious, Uninspiring, Tiresome, Lacklustre, Meh

Lame is fucking ableist

To understand ableism, it is imperative to recognize how society is structured to favor able people. Able privilege encompasses accessibility, language choice, low expectations, microaggressions, and lack of knowledge. All of these aspects are a part of everyday life. Everyday language like “lame”, “insane”, and “idiot” have roots in medicine and a history of discriminatory use about people with disabilities. This builds on the assumption that disability is a detriment. The language we use towards and about disabled individuals (e.g. “wheelchair bound” and “special ed’) disregards their autonomy.

Lame is fucking ableist

They spoke about ableist language and the way that influences, both consciously and subconsciously, people’s view of those with disabilities and what they are capable of doing. For those not familiar, ableist language is when a term that is associated with people with disabilities – things like the R-word, “lame,” or “crazy” – take on a negative and belittling meaning.

Lame is fucking ableist

2. "That's Lame."

Although "lame" is often used to disparage something these days, its original definition refers to the inability to walk. When you say something is lame, you equate lameness with negativity.

Lame is fucking ableist

The use of the words lame, gimp, or   retarded reinforces an underlying assumption that people who have a   disability are also lesser and worthy of scorn, which in turn reinforces the   underlying assumption that people with disabilities are inherently less than   those without disabilities.

Lame is fucking ableist.

Unintended ableism

Just as language is gendered, it can also be ableist. Ableism is simply the discrimination against anyone with a physical or mental disability. And our everyday, casual speak can unfortunately be ableist, reinforcing insensitivity and negative stereotypes.

Words like “blind”, “deaf,” “dumb,” “idiot,” “insane,” “lame,” “nuts,” and “psycho” are all ableist.

Instead of using words like these, take this opportunity to practice clearer communication. Instead of saying, “My manager is nuts if she thinks we’re going to meet that deadline,” you can say: “This deadline is unrealistic.”

Saying what you mean can prevent the use of offensive shortcuts. For some inspiration, check out the work of some great disability activists.

Lame is fucking ableist.

When you insist on using words like “crazy” or “lame” in your speech — or worse, when brands use these words in their marketing copy, which is subject to several layers of internal review — you effectively draw a straight line between people’s physical conditions or mental health issues, and that which is unfortunate and undesirable.

Lame is fucking ableist.

Don’t be an ableist dick.

[realsocialskills]

Struggling more with disability in times of political emergency

Everything gets harder under extreme stress. The situation of constant political crisis we’re living through is extremely stressful situation, and a lot of people are struggling.

This is not a normal situation. Donald Trump has been doing horrific things since the moment he assumed office, some of which we saw coming, and some of which have been awful surprises. Both the work that has to be done and the terror we’re facing on a day-to-day basis are draining. We have faced one crisis after another, and it has been completely exhausting.

The baseline level of stress and work we’re facing right now makes everything harder in and of itself — and new emergencies can intensify that. (And sometimes you might think that you’ve gotten used to it and then find that a particular crisis hits you particularly hard.)

If you have a disability, this may be affecting you differently than it’s affecting nondisabled people. Most people are having trouble right now; most disabled people are having additional disability-related trouble. That’s true in both the background sense and in the sense that the impact emergencies have on you may be different for disability-related reasons.

If you have a mobility disability, moving might be harder right now. If you have a speech disability, speaking might be harder or impossible right now. If you have sensory issues, some sensory input you are normally able to deal with might be intolerably painful at the moment. If you have an eating disorder, it might be harder to control it right now. If you have seizures or migraines or other neurological problems, your threshold might be lowered. If you have trauma-related triggers, they might be harder to tolerate, or you might be more hypervigilant than usual. If you are hard of hearing, it might be much harder to understand spoken conversations right now. And so on.

Things you’re used to being able to do might be harder or impossible right now. Coping mechanisms you’re used to relying on might not be working. This is true for everyone, disabled or not. But with disability, we’re also having functioning problems that most people around us aren’t having. That can in itself be difficult to cope with. 

For many of us, self acceptance as disabled people is a struggle. Under extreme stress, acceptance can be even harder. Acceptance is a skill just like everything else — and under extreme stress, many of us are dramatically more impaired. Acceptance gets harder, at the same time that there is suddenly more to accept. But you’re still worthy of acceptance. You’re not broken. It’s just hard.

Being disabled isn’t a failure. Being more impaired in a time of extreme stress isn’t a character flaw. You’re not alone in struggling. Nondisabled people are also more impaired right now; and they also can’t make it go away through sheer force of will. The particular things you can and can’t do may be different — because you have a disability, and disability matters.

Tl;dr The times we’re living in involve a lot of fear and extremely stressful political crises. This kind of stress makes everything harder. If you have a disability, some of your coping skills might not be working very well right now. Acceptance may also feel a lot harder. It’s worth remembering that it’s normal to struggle in situations like this — and it’s not your fault that disability matters now. Your body is not a character flaw.

[itsclydebitches]

My response to there's not enough art with (insert thing) is to first, make it yourself. Be the change you want to see. Ok you aren't interested making art. that's fine. Support people who do make it financially. Give them money. Show everyone that you can make art that has this in it and can be financially viable. Art made on big budgets for big audiences needs assurance it can make that back. Niche art exist for that very reason. To please a smaller audience with a more specific thing.

Hard same, anon. I mentioned this in another message to someone else, but just to reiterate: I never intend to come across as antagonistic, aggressive, etc. Though I’m also fully aware that can easily happen when you have no tone of voice/body language to draw from and you’re discussing subjects that everyone is already passionate about lol. So yeah, not in any way here for insulting anyone. 

I already laid out  that same stance you hold: art should be allowed to exist, even if we end up critiquing it later. Broad-stroke censorship is definitely not the answer here. 

And I 100% agree with the idea to “be the change you want to see in the world,” with the caveat that everyone acknowledge how difficult that can be. Meaning, it’s easy to say, “If you want [X Representation] just write your own book.” So you do... and then no one wants to publish it.*** Because (as you mention with Hollywood) the major industries tend to be dominated by certain demographics and they also tend to be stuck in their ways. Change is hard and, sadly, very slow moving--so when we see a foothold in anything substantially popular, like RWBY, it’s sometimes good to make the most of it, pointing out where representation might be improved upon (which is again admittedly subjective) so that the next time someone manages it we take another step forward. 

(***Granted, we are living in a digital age where the lines between mainstream and personal publications are blurring. We can also say, “If no one will publish your book with [X Representation] just publish it yourself,” but we also have to acknowledge that self-publication will never get the traction that mainstream publishing does. Certainly not the same money, the same chance at adaptations, the same chance at impacting people, etc. We do see the occasional self-published hit, but I think of those like airplane crashes. Meaning, we THINK there’s a lot of them because only the crashes are reported on the news; no one emphasizes the thousands of planes landing safely every day. In the same way, we might THINK there’s a lot of self-published hits because those are the ones that get all the attention. No one is pointing out the thousands of novels out there with forward-thinking rep that languish.) 

Yes, there’s certainly more queer art out then there ever was before, but in my opinion it’s also a mistake to act like that’s enough. After all, there’s a reason we usually have an LGBTQ section in bookstores. The implication is that this is removed from the rest of fiction; it’s a niche interest that only a few are interested in. As opposed to, you know, an accurate representation of a huge portion of the population. I just finished A Discovery of Witches--a series I utterly adored--but that’s nevertheless an excellent example of the (still) standard storytelling setup. We got one minor gay character, which was great, but when you compare that to everything else... the het main couple, the het relationship that can’t be, the main het side couple, the het grandparents, the numerous other het side pairings... it reinforces that one type of relationship is “normal” and the other is tucked in as a “rare” treat. And this is actually what a lot of queer stories are. Not stories about queer characters. Not stories with queer characters. Just stories that happen to have one (1) queer person somewhere in the world. That’s actually something I love about RWBY now. Ilia’s initial treatment aside, we have her, the Cotta-Arcs, and now presumably Blake and Yang. That’s a ton more than you usually find in more mainstream media. 

Also, as a sort of side note, I came across a section in one of my readings that pertains to our discussion as a whole. This is from Ronald Berger’s Introducing Disability Studies where he talks about the “What’s wrong with the artist’s vision?” question. Here he’s tackling Million Dollar Baby where, if you haven’t seen it, a boxer who becomes a quadriplegic begs her coach to help her commit assisted suicide. 

Disability scholars and activists were dismayed that so many viewers and reviewers of the film seemed to sympathize with the decision to kill the disabled character, as if her life no longer had meaning. Maggie did not even have the opportunity to receive counseling or physical therapy to adapt to her new condition and consider her options for living in the world. “Disability Is Not a Death Sentence” and “Not Dead Yet” read protest signs in Chicago, Illinois, and Berkeley, California (Davis 2005; Haller 2010).

Some nondisabled film columnists, such as liberal writers Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich, were equally dismayed at the protesters’ response: What’s all the fuss? Isn’t this just one artist’s view of the situation? Doesn’t Eastwood, as a filmmaker, have the right to make any film he wants? ...

Lennard Davis (2005), among others, wants people to understand that disabled people’s opposition to the film was not about Eastwood’s anti-ADA politics, or about the storyline of Million Dollar Baby alone, but about the entire social and cultural apparatus that invalidates the experience of people with disabilities. According to Davis, the issue is not simply

“that Eastwood is speaking his mind. It’s that he’s speaking the mind of a country that is largely ignorant of the issues and politics around disability. . . . The history of oppression of disabled people is unknown to most people, and so they see disability as an individual tragedy, worthy of being turned into a movie, and not as political oppression and the struggle to fight that oppression. . . . It’s a lot easier to make a movie in which we weep for the personal defeat of a person who loses a leg or two, or cry with joy for the triumph of an individual with disabilities, than it is to change the whole way we as a society envision, think about, and deal with people who are disabled. (p. 2)”

[Gestures vaguely at people more eloquent than me as I align the same broad arguments with the queer movement] lol 

[echolalien]

Reading notes, A Fish Can’t Judge the Water, Femke Snelting

Link to extract: http://www.constantvzw.org/verlag/spip.php?page=article&id_article=72&mot_filtre=9&id_lang=0

I feel really conflicted about this essay. It seems to alternate between an almost complete naivete and profound understanding of disabled experience. I can’t tell if it’s my own bias that makes me so shocked it doesn’t use the word “prosthetic” once. it reminds me of this Sara Hendren clipping https://sarahendren.com/2018/04/27/openings-and-closures/ and another one I can’t find right now about how “biohacking” and “cyborg” and “prosthetic” are terms nondisabled people use to appropriate disabled narratives of body autonomy and ownership. Maybe I’m falling into the same trap of thinking of this as a necessarily disabled experience rather than a universal truism about bodies and their use.

Regardless, I’m deeply invested in this logic of tool-as-body and environment-as-body. Calls to mind Wattsian & Buddhist assertions of all phenomena being the universe experience parts of itself, but also specific martial arts teachings from related traditions. I was taught Jian (Chinese straight sword) via treating the blade tip as an extension of my hand, essentially a 2 foot finger with a sharp fingernail. I think there’s something kinetically valuable in this analogy; thinking about the grip hand as a second elbow and moving the joints in this way affords control in a way treating it like something being held does not. You can reach around things with a hinge joint, for instance. Brains are so good at abstraction; to use Femke’s analogy, you can’t actually feel the sauce burning, you can feel the vibration feedback from an already-established baseline of resistance to motion of your spoon. Given that your fingers aren’t even controlled by muscles inside your hands, what’s the difference between a limb controlled by muscular impulse, and an object controlled by one? Level of abstraction from point of force. Is a finger less body than a forearm? If my prosthetics act up I feel distress and discomfort that’s only nominally distinct from physical pain. If my prosthetics are used improperly or they’re physically damaged, they literally cause me physical pain. How organic is a fingernail? Less than a tool made from organic material? Why? Less than a whip made from your own hair? Mental note to think about the abject as that-which-is-cast-off and disgust. Are prosthetics “gross” because you can separate them from “body”?

Anyway. “Body” is whatever you want it to be.

I feel like the real political meat here is in infiltration and ownership of body by the state, market forces, capital etc. Snelting seems to be trying to evoke a sense of violation of body that pertains to closed-source software and I’m totally behind it. I don’t want malware pushed to my prosthetics, but I also don’t want signal to close-source its encryption codes. I’m wondering if nondisabled people see a really clear distinction between those anxieties? For me they’re just two points on the same scale. Someone close to me has a nest-house run by Alexa for access reasons, and we’ve had to move our organising conversations to other locales because surveillance. Disability tech is always a devil’s bargain but like, there’s not really a clear distinction between tech that’s convenient and tech that’s enabling.

The final 2 paragraphs are interesting. Could be read as a call to critically examine any kind of universality of experience or design, or as some kind of provocation? What kind of cracks? Cracks between differing experiences? Or cracks between what is understood to be “thing” and “un-thing”. I feel like I got stuck thinking about physical technology and lost sight of how this applies to software. I guess software tends to be built on other software built upon hardware, cracks between program, compiler, language, firmware, hardware?

I’m uncertain how informal this journal is supposed to be. This is pretty stream of consciousness in terms of where the piece led me, I’m wondering if a more structured reaction might be more valuable going forward.

[shadowkat678]

Guys. I just had a thought regarding disabilities and the "inherently violent" bullshit stereotypes surrounding mental illnesses and many developmental disorders

So. Does everyone know about "farel children" such as Genie?

Often times it's speculated these children were abandoned or locked away due to disabilities. It's caused reported violence many times from the kids found in these situations, and difficulty helping them learn to speak and understand language due to passing a specific time period in their childhood.

So, follow me here, and this is something I've known but not put together quite like this with evidence to back me...it's not necessary the disabilities. Look at history. Look at OUR history.

There's a repeating theme. Those who were born obviously disabled were routinely locked away, being deprived of emotional support, love, and experience with others. All the reports in history that frame disabled people and violent and such...where did they go to observe?

Often asylums, which many of us already know the inhumanity of. Or they visited the reported child locked away from sight in so and so's home. The traits were most commonly seem in those isolated and shut off by parents and caregivers.

We know this has negative affects on children, but has anyone done ANY studies on this in regards to the history of the disabled? And, further, how it continues? Even those who can't speak, or write, can communicate if given alternate routes. Sign language. Typing. Boards. How many kids are still passed up due to parents not giving their kids ways to have voices, thus shutting them off and bypassing that crucial period?

Abuse amoung nondisabled has been frequently tied to anger issues, self harm, etc. And yet we are often seen as inherently having these traits. Stereotyped as violent. How much though, is that, and instead something tied to the statistics of abuse our communities deal with?

We have the highest rates of abuse from caregivers. We're more likely to be isolated. Suicide rates are higher. Statistically we have a harder time forming connections due to differences and remaining prejudices.

Where are the reports? Someone else must have looked into this, and if someone has, how could we use this information to reduce the stigma surrounding mental illnesses and developmental disabilities? If they won't listen to us personally, what if we had some study?

I don't know. I feel like there definitely could be something. Also, by socialization I 100% do not mean nor ever will ABA, so hopefully no one will suggest that. ABA is just another form of abuse, plain and simple.

@marauders4evr You don't have to answer, but since your pretty active when it comes to disabled advocacy on this site, and I know you've done research into disabilities to write the characters in your book, I was wondering if you might have possibly run into anything?

[fierceawakening]

@chavisory That's also just not necessarily what "marginalized" means.

Yeah.

She has this... thing about no one caring about disabled people. It’s just... bizarre. Maybe it’s just how weird intense SJ looks once it’s no longer your thing? But it just seems really... I can’t tell if she’s exaggerating to get headpats or if she really believes it, but... it seems like not ALL her friends are disabled, so she’d have to *technically* know that some nondisabled people care about some disabled people.

But she goes on and on talking about how nobody but us understands us, we can be discarded/betrayed at any time. She wastes time at meetings telling us this and it’s just... it turns any good mood anyone might have been in to suspicion and upset.

It’s like my worst insecurities/fears about “what if people don’t really accept me” came to life... and *never shut up.*

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

Speaking about disability in fiction, would you say Toph from a:tla is one of the best written disabled character? Is there anything that could've been improved about her character?

DEAR FUCKING GOD do I love Toph.  I would humbly submit to have Lady Toph “The Blind Bandit” “The Runaway” “Greatest Earthbender of All Time” “Inventor of Metalbending” Beifong harvest my organs to achieve eternal life if such a thing were possible.  There are a ton of things that Avatar: the Last Airbender does really well when characterizing Toph, and a few I wish they’d done differently.  [PLEASE NOTE: I am nondisabled, so if I err, please tell me so.]

Is she one of the best-written disabled characters?

She’s certainly a damn cool character whose disability informs but does not define her.  I can’t really say if she’s “the best” or one of, because I haven’t read everything, but I can say that I really like her.

First of all, her story is intersectional AS FUCK.  Toph’s gender, her disability, and her social class are so inextricably linked that there’s no analyzing any single element in a vacuum.  She’s all about being tough and independent.  Partially that’s about being underestimated because of her disability.  Partially that’s about being commodified because of her gender.  Partially that’s about being privileged due to her upper-class upbringing.  All three interact to inform her identity.

“Tales of Ba Sing Se” shows that blindness bars Toph from certain aspects of femininity — she can’t perform the traditional motions of making herself up, attracting young men, being pretty and delicate — which causes her to embrace a more accessible masculine identity.  “The Runaway” shows that Toph enjoys femininity as well as masculinity, but that she struggles to build nurturing relationships when she’s concerned with appearing weak, and that that sometimes leads her to cross ethical boundaries.  “The Chase” and “Bitter Work” are all about how Toph values her independence above all else — because she’s had to struggle against her gender and disability influencing others’ perceptions, but also because she’s had the privilege to avoid helping others due to her social class.  In “The Ember Island Players” she loves being represented by a big tough strong man, but she also clearly associates masculinity with power in a way that becomes troubling when contrasted with Aang’s horror at being played by a woman.  Etcetera.

Even the whole Earth Kingdom’s role as a sort of middle rung of imperialism – less powerful than the Fire Nation, more powerful than the Water Tribes and Air Nomads — informs both the relative strictness of its gender roles and the ability of individual Earth citizens to subvert those roles.  Toph’s identity, like the identities of the other Avatar characters, is inextricably linked to her position in society.

Secondly, Toph has a lot of the features of a complex and agentic character, and her disability is neither ignored nor centralized.  She’s often right, as when she becomes the first person to trust Zuko and the only person capable of making Aang an earthbender.  She’s often wrong, as when she tries to justify theft with a “they started it” argument or belittles Sokka for being a non-bender.  She’s often somewhere in between, as when she chooses to let Appa get taken by sandbenders in order to protect her friends or gets into screaming matches with Katara over matters of procedure.

There’s also the fact that Toph interacts with certain environments differently based on her blindness, drawing attention to (in)accessible aspects of those environments the others wouldn’t have necessarily noticed.  She finds sand and wood flooring inconvenient, she hates navigating water and ice, and she initially avoids walking on metal.  Although she’s not a big fan of flying, she mostly adapts as long as her friends actually remember that she can’t navigate when they’re on Appa’s saddle.

When conflicts do occur with the environment, Toph puts the onus on the environments and on other people to adapt or help her to adapt.  She’s amused and annoyed when Sokka tries to fake correspondence between her and Katara, or stupidly asks why she doesn’t like libraries.  She rips the bottoms off of her shoes.  She calls attention to her inability to do things like scan the ground while flying when her friends are at risk of forgetting.  She plays into others’ assumptions to try and get onto ferries or get away with breaking the law.

Another thing I like: the art style for Toph avoids the trap of “draw sighted person, change eye color, call it a day.”  She doesn’t turn to face people most of the time when she’s talking to them, but also doesn’t seem totally clueless as to their relative locations.  She gets the lay of the land by stomping her feet or pressing a hand against the ground, not turning to “look” in various directions.  She doesn’t bother to keep her hair from blocking her eyes, because her bangs don’t interrupt any sight lines.  She’s neither a comically blind character who apparently can’t navigate at all with sound or touch, nor a dramatic “blind” character whose every action comes off as those of a sighted character.  Toph repeatedly mentions that she doesn’t get the value in sight, clapping back at the assumption that of course she’d want to be nondisabled.

[Image description: A screenshot from “The Chase,” which shows Toph shouting at Katara, with her face turned away from Katara.  Toph is pointing in anger, making it clear that she’s addressing Katara and that she knows Katara’s location relative to herself based on Katara’s voice.]

One last small but important victory for Avatar: it passes the Fries Test.  It has two or more disabled characters — I can explain why Zuko counts as disabled if anyone’s not sure — who survive to the end of the story without being cured, and who have their own narratives rather than existing primarily to educate nondisabled characters.  As a bonus, they have at least one conversation with each other about something that isn’t disability-related.  The Fries Test is meant to be a minimum standard for representation, much like the Bechdel Test, but it’s still nice to know that Avatar passes.

[Image description: A screenshot from “The Ember Island Players,” which shows Zuko and Toph sitting on the floor in a hallway of the theater, talking about the play and about Zuko’s uncle.]

Is there anything that could’ve been improved about her character?

If I ruled the world, or at least the Avatar writers’ room, I’d start with two changes.  One’s small-ish, one’s big and controversial.

The small-ish change: tweak Toph’s narrative to make her earthbending super-abilities less directly counter to her blindness.  As it is, she has shades of a superpowered supercrip: a disabled character from SF whose superpower primarily acts to nullify their disability, thereby giving them the lived experience of a nondisabled person for most or all of the narrative.  Toph is definitely not an egregious example — she’s not Daredevil, who can use his superpowers to read handwritten papers, navigate unfamiliar environments, “feel” colors, detect tiny gestures, and shoot guns.  She does embody experiences with blindness like disorientation when flying and frustration with hanging posters.  She just also has several instances of not experiencing blindness when she (as she puts it) “sees with earthbending.”  I’m not sure what that tweak would look like, precisely, but I’d like to see one all the same.

The bigger change: I’d cast a different voice actor.  Jessie Flower is, based on what little I can find on Wikipedia or IMDB, not blind or visually disabled.  Disability rights activists are right now fighting hard against the trend of “cripping up,” wherein nondisabled actors use mimicry or makeup to pretend to have disabilities on TV and in the movies.  Avatar doesn’t go that far, because it doesn’t have Jessie Flower onscreen in (for instance) contacts that mimic blindness.  However, it nevertheless does not cast a blind actor for the role.  The issue here is that disabled actors are almost never allowed to play nondisabled roles… and disabled actors are also almost never allowed to play disabled roles either.  By failing to find a blind voice actor, the show denied that opportunity to a less-privileged talent.

The Guardian compares the issue to the way that cis actors of the wrong gender are too-often cast in trans roles, men used to play female characters onstage, and white actors used to play black characters in American movies.  I never know how much those comparisons make sense, because among other things they completely ignore intersections of those identities.  But I also think that it’s sometimes the best way to help people understand why excuses like “but it’s haaaaaaarrd to find blind female actors of Asian descent” don’t hold water.

And here’s where I go from “slightly controversial” to “extremely controversial” and might have to enter Witness Protection.  Avatar is getting a live-action adaptation in a few months.  I predict that it will cast a nondisabled actor to play Toph.  And I predict that the same voices which (rightly!) raised such a cry against “racebent” white actors playing Aang and Katara will be completely silent on the topic of “abilitybent” actors playing Zuko and Toph.  I’m saying this on Tumblr partially to get this statement out there:

I am an Avatar: the Last Airbender fan who will ONLY support the live-action show if it casts disabled actors to play disabled characters.

I’m saying it partially because I hope to be proven wrong, either because a blind actress will be cast as live-action Toph or at the very least because Avatar fans will object when a sighted actress is cast.  I’m also saying it because I think that fans can and should protest responsibly when marginalized voices are erased by beloved works of fiction.  Will casting a blind actress require more “work” to make the set accessible?  Probably.  Will casting a blind actress perhaps necessitate more CGI for fight scenes than using a sighted one?  Maybe.  Will it be worth it to cast a blind actress anyway, so that a girl with the lived experience of Toph can portray her on screen and actually get the chance to break into an industry that bars most blind girls from participating?  YES.

[ficdirectory]

The Fosters: Our Thoughts on Episode 5x08 “Engaged”

Time for another twin recap with me and my sis, @tarajean621.  Truth time?  These are getting tough to do.  I guess it’s a good thing that there’s only one more week?  :(

FAMILY DINNER - KITCHEN:

Mariana: We moved prom up this year, so we don’t have to compete for venues, but now we’re way behind.  So I was hoping my lovely family could pitch in?

Jesus: Can I even GO to prom?

Callie: I’m probably not gonna go...  Aaron’s in college.  

Brandon:  Yeah. Same here.

Tonia:  So...is no one gonna answer Jesus’s question?

Tara: It is referenced later that Moms have been actively avoiding conversations that may lead to “outbursts.”  However, in doing so, Stef is literally pretending Jesus does not exist here.  Please don’t be like Stef.  All people appreciate being acknowledged and feeling heard - disabled people included.

Brandon:  I know this is kinda last minute but Dad and Ana’s engagement party has to be this weekend.

Jesus: Uh, can Emma come?  Come on, it’s been a week.  So I can see her, right?  

Tonia:  I was surprised to learn Lena specified a time limit on banning Jesus from seeing Emma.  It’s been a week since Jesus has been threatened with institutionalization.  A week since Lena started her scary-as-hell search for cures for him.  We know they’ve gone gluten free for him, controlling what he eats, already.  I guess I should be glad he’s eating spaghetti with the fam?

Tara: It has also been a week since the 3.5 - 7 hour proficiency test and less than a week since the neuropsychological assessment that took “all day.”  It is a fact that these tests took place within days of each other.  I am so horrified.

Lena: Honey, it’s a family party, so no girlfriends or boyfriends.

Tonia:  Since when don’t Moms allow SO’s at parties?  (Just since trying to control every move Jesus makes?  Yeah, I thought so...)

Jesus: [scoffs]  Uh... Emma’s not just my girlfriend...

Mariana: [teasing] Right.  She’s your FIANCEE.

Stef: Mariana...

Jesus: [puts his napkin down, gets up from the table]  I’m done.

Tonia:  This stuck out to me when we watched.  The re-emergence of “I’m done” which we heard Jesus say really early on in his recovery.  He’s clearly stressed.  And Mariana just gets a mild reprimand for totally mocking the legitimacy of Jesus’s engagement to Emma.  No wonder he’s done...

Tara:  Aphasia worsens with stress.  Aphasia worsens with stress.  Aphasia worsens with stress.

Moms and Mariana do not take his engagement seriously.  

Jesus is forced to revert to what he can say, which is “I’m done.”  It is important to note that this is not an issue of impoliteness. 

Also, remember that with aphasia, the phrase “I’m done” might communicate more than “I am finished with my dinner, and I would like to be excused.”

Other possible meanings include but are not limited to:

- “I’m frustrated, and I need a break.”

- “I’m overwhelmed, and I need a break.”

- “I’m upset about Mariana teasing me, and I need a break.”

- “I’m upset that Moms won’t allow me to see Emma even though I’m not grounded anymore, and I need a break.”

Lena:  Hey.  Could you please ask to be excused?

Jesus: Yeah.  Can I be excused?

[pause]

Lena: Yes, you may.

Jesus: Thanks.  [Jesus leaves the kitchen]

Tonia:  My favorite thing about this is the way Jesus asks to be excused, because as words on the page, his tone might read as Jesus “being good.”  Quiet.  Obedient.  But there’s an urgency here.  His tone of voice communicates so much more than his words.  He’s losing patience.  Can’t put up with being treated like this.  Nor should he have to.  

Tara: Lena does treat this as an issue of politeness.  She is policing Jesus’s speech and forcing him past his limits.

In this instance, Jesus has enough framework to be able to complete the required exchange, but the fact remains that Forcing “Acceptable” Speech When Confronted With Someone’s Limits Is Abusive.  

Consider what may have happened if Jesus had been unable to ask to be excused:

1) He may have been forced to sit with the family, while stressed and physically unable to take a break.

2) Jesus decides to leave the table without being excused, prompting Moms to reprimand him.

If either one had happened, Jesus would be receiving punishment for his communication disorder.  

As the scene played out, Jesus’s limits were not respected.  He was treated not with understanding, but as someone being willfully rude.

Tips: 

1) Accept the communication the person is able to give you.  (Remember that behavior is communication.)

It may not be pretty.  It may seem “rude.”  But give them the benefit of the doubt.  Chances are high that they are using the only words available to them at a given moment.

2) Ask clarifying questions that the person in question can say/indicate yes or no to if needed.

3) Set aside a time (ideal for the person with aphasia) to discuss how you can best support them communication-wise.  Realize that this will likely be an ongoing conversation.

4) Be patient.  Know that the person with aphasia is doing the best they can.  

Mariana: Is he ever gonna be normal again?

Tonia: Okay, Moms you seriously need to derail this ableism train.  I’m not kidding.  Jesus is normal.  It’s normal for someone to want to get away from being consistently dismissed, controlled and not taken seriously.  The fact that Stef and Lena are just letting comments like this slide and not taking anything Jesus says seriously is only hurting him more.

Tara: This notion hurts not only TBI survivors but disabled people in general.  Our brains and bodies will never conform to a nondisabled standard.  To ask us to “be normal” is asking us to hate ourselves.

JESUS AND GABE - GARAGE APARTMENT

Gabe: [eating a plate of spaghetti]  Mmm.  Thanks for the food.

Jesus: Yeah, it would’ve gone bad anyway.  So, we’re having a party on Saturday for Mike and Ana...

Gabe: I know.  Ana invited me.

Jesus: Yeah, well, you gonna go?

Gabe: I don’t think Mike would want me there.  I know her parents won’t.  

Jesus: But they wrote you the letter.  To get you off the sex offender list.

Gabe:  It’ll get awkward.  Trust me.

Jesus: Why?  ‘Cause you still love her?

Gabe: I never said that.

Jesus: Yeah, you did.  You said she’s the only woman that you’ve ever loved.

Tara: (What was that about Jesus having trouble with memory and recall?) ;)

Gabe: Okay.  But she’s marrying Mike, so--

Jesus: Because she doesn’t know how you feel about her!  Maybe.  I--

Gabe: Well, neither do I.  But I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t make a difference anyway.

Jesus: Okay.  Well, they’re getting married in a MONTH.  So just...if you figure it out?  Don’t wait until it’s too late.

Tonia:  So much about this exchange stands out to me.  First, I just breathe a giant sigh of relief that Jesus and Gabe are having a legit conversation where Jesus’s words have weight.  

But also?  Jesus only knows one way to relate to his bio parents (referenced in season 2) and that is to take care of them.  Here, he brings Gabe food.  This always feels especially poignant knowing how thoroughly the twins were neglected as babies and prior to foster care at age five.  He’s looking out for Gabe.  Taking care of Gabe.  Making sure he has enough to eat, and also trying to ensure that Gabe’s relationships are repaired and he has no regrets.  

Because if Gabe is happy, then he won’t leave, and Jesus won’t be abandoned again.

STEF AND LENA - THEIR ROOM, BEFORE BED:

Stef: How long are we gonna let Jesus think that he’s engaged?  I mean, I say we go in there right now and tell him that he’s not getting married.  He is going back to school or I WILL arrest him.

Tonia:  Oh that sounds like a perfect plan, Stef <--- Sarcasm  Also, newsflash?  Emma accepted the ring! 

Tara: Jesus does not think he’s engaged. He is actually engaged.

Lena: That’s not gonna work.  Trust me.  I’ve seen it.  The more we demand, the more defiant he gets.  Besides, does it matter what the motivation is if it gets him back to school?  

Tonia:  OH MY GOSH MOTHERS.  

Maybe you could try this thing you seem to employ with all your other children?  And instead of assuming Jesus is automatically going to get defiant you sat down and talked with him.  

Since his brain injury, I have not seen one conversation that is just them checking in with their son because they genuinely want to know how he is feeling emotionally.  Even the conversation when Jesus found out about Emma’s abortion was brought about because he came to them, and they were checking in with him to cover the fact that they already knew about the abortion...

I wish they would just respect him enough to talk to him...

Tara: I don’t even know what to say.  Stef thinks the engagement is a figment of Jesus’s imagination. Lena doesn’t care that he (thinks he’s) engaged as long as it gets him back to school? 

Stef: What does Emma think about all this?

Lena: Well, you said yourself she’s got a good head on her shoulders.  And for all we know, with Jesus’s TBI?  This whole thing could be in his head.

Tara: Dismissal is ableism.  

Lena:  I seriously doubt she agreed to MARRY him.

Tara: Wow. And here we have the notion that Disabled People Are Unattractive And/Or Unworthy Of Being A Spouse.  By Jesus’s own mother. A kick to the chest would hurt less.

Stef: I think that we should find out.  

Tonia:  I can’t explain how painful it is to see, so consistently, how little faith Moms have in Jesus now.  Just how little they value him and respect him as a human being.  

This is a very real depiction of ableism that people with brain injuries can and do endure.  But it’s also shown that Moms are right in treating Jesus so terribly, because he has a brain injury.  And that is just plain dangerous.  No matter what disability someone has, always presume competence (assume they are capable of understanding you, of making decisions, etc.)  A brain injury is not a free pass to abuse someone.  Being family to someone with a brain injury is not a free pass to control and dismiss them.  To threaten them with institutionalization and look up torture methods to “cure” them.  That’s not love.  That’s not help.  That is ableism.  That is abuse.

I guarantee you, though, if the ableism around Jesus were not a thing (even just from his family) he’d feel that.  His stress level would go down, and then, maybe, he’d be able to open up to his family when he needed to talk, or needed advice or help with something.  Jesus would be able to start to come to terms with what’s happened to him.  And he’d be able to feel loved while he did it.

Tara: These types of comments chip away at the self-worth of the disabled community.  

LENA AND EMMA - LENA’S OFFICE AT SCHOOL, THE NEXT DAY:

Emma: You wanted to see me?

Lena: Oh, Emma.  Hi. [Lena walks over and takes Emma’s hands, looking to see if she is wearing Jesus’s ring.]  How are you?  [Emma isn’t wearing the ring.]

Emma: Is everything okay?

Lena: [Lets go of Emma’s hands.]  Yes.  Everything is fine.  We just wanted to let you know why you haven’t been allowed at the house.

Emma: [nervously] I get it.  I told him, he shouldn’t have gone to that party.

Lena: Well, we didn’t want you to think it had anything to do with YOU.  And we are so grateful for how supportive you’ve been of Jesus and his recovery.  Thank you for convincing him to come back to school.  Honestly, we don’t know what he’d do without you.

Emma: I--I’m happy to help.  Whatever it takes.

Lena: [nods and smiles.]

Tonia:  Of all the comments I have seen on this scene with Emma and Lena, none have addressed how truly gross this scene is.  

To call Emma down to your office just to tell her how awesome she is and how grateful you are for her to be there for Jesus.  Like, would they do that for any of their other kids’ SO’s?

Making a point to praise a nondisabled student for being a friend/SO to a disabled one (and your son at that) communicates that disabled people are hard to be around and hard to love.  That we are burdens and that it takes someone heroic to “put up” with us.

Moms truly think so little of Jesus, it’s breaking my heart.

Tara: Let’s also not forget that the real reason she’s checking in is to check the legitimacy of the engagement.  Jesus has told her that they are engaged, but Lena needs the Authorization of a nondisabled person to make it true.  Jesus’s words do not carry weight on their own.

STEF AND LENA - THEIR ROOM, THAT NIGHT:

Lena: So...Emma is not wearing the ring.  I called her into my office today just to, you know, check in, and thank her for supporting Jesus.

Stef: Well did you happen to ask if they were engaged?

Lena: No, I didn’t want to embarrass her.  But she seemed perfectly fine.  Everything between her and Jesus seemed status quo.  You know, I really just think this whole engagement thing is all in his head.

Stef: Alright.  Good.

Lena: Oh, also...I invited her to Mike and Ana’s party tomorrow.  

Stef: Oh?

Lena: If she’s the one keeping Jesus on track, I really don’t think keeping them apart is the best idea, do you?

Stef: I guess not.

Tonia:  Emma’s keeping Jesus on track?  So Jesus gets no credit for his own progress?  (And way to micromanage everything Lena, after you said that Emma couldn’t come to the party...)

Tara: Notice how Lena is concerned with not embarrassing Emma.  She is unconcerned about embarrassing Jesus because she feels he is not himself - just a pile of TBI symptoms. 

JESUS AND EMMA - FRONT DOOR, AS EMMA ARRIVES FOR THE PARTY:

Jesus: [smiles] Come in.

[They kiss]

Jesus: I missed you so much.

Emma: I missed you, too.

Jesus: You look amazing.

[Emma laughs as Jesus looks at her in her dress.  They are still holding hands]

Jesus: Oh.  You’re not...wearing...the...ring?

Emma: Oh, yeah...  I was worried about your moms seeing it.

Jesus:  Don’t be.  They know we’re getting married.  And they’re totally cool with it, too.

Emma: [looks freaked out] Really?

Jesus: Yeah.

[Emma searches her purse, finds the ring and puts it on]

Jesus: Come on.

Tonia:  Really, though, what else is Jesus supposed to think?  When Moms don’t talk to him.  They haven’t said a word to him about his being engaged.  I’m sure he figures if they didn’t approve he’d know it.

And Emma accepted the ring!  (I know I said it before, but it bears repeating, especially as Emma’s carrying it around in her purse!)  I resent the fact that Moms are persisting in believing it’s “all in Jesus’s head” when no one around him has given him a reason not to think it’s not true.

Emma said, “I can’t marry someone who isn’t going to school.”

Not, “I can’t marry you.”

So of course Jesus thinks if he goes to school, Emma will marry him!

Tara: Right.  These are not Unreasonable Assumptions.

ANA, MIKE AND ANA’S PARENTS, VICTOR AND ELENA AT THE PARTY:

[Victor spots Gabe across the yard]

Victor: Is that...?

Ana: Yes.

Elena: What’s he doing here?

Mike: Oh good!  Gabe decided to come!

Ana: Stef and Lena are letting him live here while he helps Jesus with a school project.  Please be nice.

Tonia:  A reminder that Gabe is here only and essentially as a pity gift for Jesus and that as soon as Moms are tired of having him there (which, they were from the start) Gabe won’t be there anymore :(

JESUS ARRIVES AT THE PARTY IN THE BACKYARD:

[Jesus spots Gabe across the yard and acknowledges him happily.  Then, he stops to say hi to Victor and Elena]

Victor: Look at this guy!

Elena [hugs Jesus] So handsome!

Jesus: [hugs Victor.  Poses for a picture with Victor and Elena.]

Tonia:  The moments with Jesus, Victor and Elena were very much background, but I noticed them, because of how happy Victor and Elena were to see Jesus.  How warmly they received him.  How, to them, he is the very same boy.  With the very same worth.  To whom they give the same love and the same respect they ever did.

Especially as Jesus missed out on spending time with Grandma and Grandpa Adams, it was nice to see him being loved on by Victor and Elena.

Tara: This was a much-needed breath of fresh air.

STEF AND EMMA - PARTY:

Stef: Emma.  Hi. [hugs her.  Emma looks uncomfortable probably because she knows Stef is not a hugger.]  How are you?  

Emma: Good!

Stef: Good to see you!  Thanks for coming!

[Emma gets water from the water cooler.  Stef sees the ring on her finger]

Stef: Oh!  The--  That’s the, um, the ring that Jesus gave you?  

Emma: Yeah.

Stef: [takes Emma’s hand] Oh, it’s--that’s--  Wow, that’s very pretty...

Emma: Thanks.

[Stef tries to catch Lena’s eye across the yard.  Eventually gets her inside with some excuse about Stef having something in her eye.]

Tonia:  Again, Stef can barely disguise her disgust for the ring Jesus made.  She says it’s “very pretty” but her tone says the ring is dirty, cheap, and worthless.

Tara: I think it may have been less disgust and more Oh-My-God-I-Can’t-Believe-It’s-True-I’m-Freaking-Out.

STEF AND LENA - KITCHEN, CONVERSING IN HUSHED TONES:

Stef: She’s wearing it!

Lena: What?

Stef: The ring!  The engagement--it’s out of Jesus’s head and on her finger!

Lena: [sighs] Well, maybe she doesn’t think it means what JESUS thinks it means.

Stef: I think we need to ask her: ARE THEY ENGAGED?

Lena: Right now?  In the middle of the party?

Stef: No, not now.  But soon.  Very, very soon.

Tonia:  Because God knows now that Jesus has a brain injury, he clearly does not know what being engaged means... <-- Sarcasm  Moms, please stop this nonsense.  You need to start accepting the child in front of you.  Because your ableism, your lack of confidence in him, your abuse of him is harming him more profoundly than his brain injury.

Tara: Um yeah. It was out of Jesus’s head the moment he proposed.  Catch up, Moms.  And stop being gross.

JESUS AND GABE - PARTY:

Jesus: Hey!

Gabe: Hey!

Jesus: Did you talk to Ana yet?

Gabe: What?  No!  No, I’m not going to, Jesus.  This is her engagement party.

Jesus: Maybe that’s why she invited you.  So that you’d realize that this is happening and you would say something.

Gabe: [considering]

Jesus: Come on.  What’s the worst that happens?  She says no?  [Ana walks up, Jesus tells Gabe under his breath] Say something.

Ana: Hey!  Glad you came!

Gabe: Yeah, I’m not so sure your folks feel that way...

Ana: Oh, they’re fine.  I promise.

Jesus: I am gonna go grab some food.

Tonia:  Jesus, still working so hard to make sure Gabe is happy.

Tara: In this week’s episode of AfterBuzz TV, Brandon Quinn who plays Gabe was being interviewed.  He made a point to say that the episode made it seem like Jesus was leading Gabe, but that actually those thoughts had been in Gabe’s head all along.  Jesus is not being Unreasonable here.

Adriana (Jesus and Mariana’s bio cousin, and the official photographer for the party): All right!  Let’s take a birth family photo!  Come on!

Jesus: Come on! (Jesus, Ana, Gabe and Mariana all stand in a line, arms around each other)

Adriana: Okay, everybody, get close!

Victor (looking on with Elena) They are a beautiful family.

[Stef and Lena look uncomfortable and do their best not to watch as Adriana takes the picture.]

Adriana: Three, two, one!  Perfect!  Oh, it’s so cute!

[Jesus takes the camera and shows the picture to Ana, Gabe and Mariana.  Jesus and Mariana are really happy.]

Tonia:  Moms’ reactions to this picture is just aggravating to me.  Your kids have biological parents.  One of those biological parents is getting married to Stef’s ex.  You both agreed to host their engagement party at your house.  So your twins’ biological family is going to also be present.  

We saw back in Quinceanera, that Jesus and Mariana have very few pictures of themselves from when they lived with Ana.  Mariana kept one in her room in the pilot, that Jesus ripped.  In the Quinceanera photo montage, there is one baby/toddler photo a piece for the twins.  They go from being babies to five in no time flat.  They had maybe one picture with Ana.  They have no pictures with Gabe, and certainly none of the four of them together.

in short?  This picture is important to Jesus and Mariana.  Moms have a ton of pictures with their twins over the last eleven years.  You can’t let Jesus and Mariana have this one with Ana and Gabe?  It’s probably the only one they’re ever gonna have.

Stef and Lena have had the privilege of having family pictures.  They have so many they probably don’t even consider it a privilege.  But to be photographed with a biological parent or parents is a privilege.  To get to see your own features reflected back in someone’s face. To have proof that you look like them.  You came from them.  To see your smile in their faces.

Jesus and Mariana look so happy that this picture is being taken.  I wish Moms at least tried to act supportive.  After all, when the party ends and everybody goes home?  Jesus and Mariana are their kids.  The twins know it and so do the Moms.  I just wish they could have been happy their kids get to have this moment with Gabe and Ana, and this picture, which, they might never get an opportunity to get again.

And particularly after Victor and Elena talk genuinely about “what a beautiful family” they are, Moms’ reactions just seem rude and immature...

Tara: Yes, it is a shame that they seem so threatened by something so small that will mean so much to their kids.

JESUS AND EMMA - PARTY, LISTENING TO BRANDON AND GRACE SING FOR MIKE:

Jesus: Someday soon they’re going to be throwing a party like this for us.

Emma: [looks uncomfortable] Be right back.  [She walks in the house.  Lena sees this.]

Tonia:  Ugh, Jesus is so happy.  And again, no one is telling him the truth.  Stop lying to him, please.

Tara: She still can’t treat him as fully human by giving him the dignity of the truth.

MARIANA AND JESUS - PARTY, TOASTING ANA AND MIKE:

Mariana: Hi!

Mike: Hi!

Mariana: That was beautiful, Grace and Brandon.  Ana, I just wanted to say congratulations.  I’m so happy that you found Mike.  He’s an amazing guy.  And you guys are totally soulmates so... I’m so happy for you!

Jesus:  Uh, yeah!

[crowd laughs gently]

Jesus: So, I, um--  Well, I guess I never really...uh, thought that I’d be at an engagement party for my birth mom.  I never really thought that we’d have a relationship with you.  Or you, Gabe.  But um...one thing that I know is that it’s never too late.  Even if you think it is.  So, yeah, that’s pretty much what I wanted to say...

[crowd laughs again]

Tonia:  I was so secondhand embarrassed when Jesus was giving this toast, but it wasn’t out of bounds. 

It annoyed me, though, that we heard Stef say: “Hear, hear!” to Mariana’s toast and when Jesus is speaking, she and Lena are just standing there with their arms crossed.  Like they are waiting for him to say something wildly inappropriate...

Tara: Very sweet toasts. 

[Brandon shepherds Jesus aside, whispers]  What the hell was that toast?!

Jesus: What do you mean?

Brandon: This is my dad’s engagement party!

Jesus: Okay.  Look.  Brandon, if Gabe and Ana still have feelings for each other?

Brandon: It’s none of your business!

Jesus: Do you really want your dad to marry Ana if she still loves Gabe?

Brandon: You’re unbelievable.  Just stay out of it, okay?

Tonia:  One of the only moments in the episode where ableism was not at the center of the family’s interactions with Jesus.  But he’s still shown to be out of line here.  Like he needs to be taken in hand.  So maybe the ableism isn’t so distant as I thought?

Tara: Just because Brandon read into the toast doesn’t mean that it wasn’t completely sweet and appropriate.  Jesus does not need scolding. Ana, Mike and Gabe are all grown adults.  Let’s just take a breath.

LENA AND EMMA - LIVING ROOM:

Lena: Hey.  What are you doing in here all alone?

Emma: [tearfully]  Sorry.  I was just taking a break.

Lena: Honey, are you all right?

Emma: [nods, holding back tears]  I really want Jesus to get better and go back to school, but I’m not ready to be engaged.  

Tara: Emma is verbalizing the trope that Romantic Love Cures Disability.  She thinks because she agreed to marry Jesus, that he will not only go back to school but Get Better.

Lena: Jesus’s recovery is not your responsibility.  It’s his.  And it’s mine and it’s Stef’s.  And I’m so sorry that I didn’t think about the burden I was putting on you.

Tonia:  Lena!  Seriously? Jesus’s recovery is his responsibility?  What kind of ableist ridiculousness is that?  Your son has a brain injury.  No matter how hard he works, he will always have a brain injury.  You cannot change him.  He cannot change himself.  Please stop trying and start being there for him.  He doesn’t need a drill sergeant, another doctor or another therapist.  He needs a mom.  

He is not a burden.  He’s your son.

These kinds of depictions of disability...they like...slowly seep in. And when we must watch them over months?  Without a single contrary voice daring to speak up and say, “This is wrong?”

It feels like Moms are right.

And that is devastating.

Tara:  re·cov·er·y rəˈkəv(ə)rē/noun 1. a return to a normal state of health, mind, or strength.

Again, usually there is a certain amount of improvement to be expected post-brain injury.  A certain amount of recovery, if you will.  But the brain injury will never go away.  

Burden, Lena?  Kick me in the chest again.  As disabled people, we are constantly expected to justify our existence because of ableist beliefs like this.  The belief that disabled people are burdens leads to the justification of our murders at the hands of our caregivers.  

Emma: So you’re not okay with us being engaged?

Lena: No.  No, of course not.  Honestly, honey, we just thought that maybe it was all in his head.  We should have asked you.

Emma: It’s okay.  I think it sort of IS all in his head.  I never said that I would marry him.

Lena: We’ll talk to him, okay?

Emma: Would it be okay if I talked to him first?

Lena: Yeah.  Yes, of course.  Come here.  [Lena hugs her]

Emma: Thank you.

Tonia:  Emma, you gave Jesus a nonverbal yes by accepting the ring.  You didn’t give him solid no, verbally or otherwise.  You put the ring on today in front of him.  That’s not in his head.  It’s a reasonable conclusion to draw.

Tara:  Lena tells Emma OF COURSE WE DON’T APPROVE, but has said nothing to Jesus over the past week to indicate this.

[Stef comes in, Emma says “hey” as they pass.  Stef comes to join Lena in the living room]

Lena: Maybe my mom was right about indulging Jesus.  

Tara: Indulging him how? I am seriously asking. 

Lena: I can’t take the path of least resistance just because I’m afraid of the outbursts.

Tara: Hello Ableism, my old friend... It’s the tried and true TBI = AGGRESSION stereotype.  Can’t say that I’m happy to see you.

Stef: Hey.  There’s no “I” in this.  It’s “we.”  We’re not giving up, okay?  We’re not giving into this thing with Jesus.  We’re going to fight to get our boy back.  Whatever treatment it takes, we’ll try ‘em all until something works.  Okay?  When are we gonna see that doctor in LA?

Lena: In a couple weeks.

Stef: Okay.  So in the meantime?  We take away that treehouse and whatever else we have to, to get his attention.

Tonia:  So many things disturb me in this conversation:

The notion that they are in a “fight” to get “their boy back” when Jesus is literally right there in front of them.  He did not get body-snatched or stolen.  

That they are cavalierly going to try “all” the treatments.  Including shock therapy, because that’s what’s in LA.

Their method of “getting Jesus’s attention.”  Perhaps the treehouse was a project that Moms let Jesus do out of pity or indulgence, but that is not on Jesus.  He has done nothing that would merit their arbitrarily revoking the one thing that’s giving him any joy.  It’s been days and I still, truly don’t know what Jesus did wrong that would merit such a crushing consequence.

Also?  By taking away the treehouse?  They will be sending Gabe away.  The only person other than Emma who Jesus has felt like he can confide in.

I keep saying this - but it keeps being true - I am so beyond devastated for what this will mean for Jesus.

Tara: This “thing” with Jesus?  It is called disability.  It is not something to fight, but rather something to accommodate. His brain is not holding him hostage.  It is working overtime to create new pathways - trying to help him.  

There is no cure for brain injury.  There is adaptation.  Accommodation. Apology when you make a mistake. Patience. Presuming competence. Respect. Love. 

Shock treatment  is abuse.  It induces seizures and causes subsequent brain injury.  To continually pitch this as a legitimate treatment option is irresponsible and harmful.  

It makes me sick that while Moms would never consider ECT for each other or Jude to cure their homosexuality, they would jump at the chance to use it on Jesus. 

Please writers, value disabled life more than this.

And as if the looming threat of torture is not enough, Moms are now taking away the treehouse and presumably Gabe.  

Because existing as a disabled person is wrong and apparently requires punishment.  

JESUS AND EMMA - JESUS’S ROOM:

Jesus: [smiling]  There you are.  Should we, uh--  Should we shut the door, or?

[Emma does]

Emma: I love you.

[Jesus smiles]

Emma:  But...  But I can’t wear this if it means what you think it does.  [Emma takes off the ring and gives it back to Jesus]

Tonia:  It means engagement, and you knew that when you accepted the ring, Emma.

Tara: Yes, let’s not keep up the facade that it’s all in Jesus’s head.  Just admit that you didn’t want to hurt his feelings and that’s why you accepted the ring.  Tell him you don’t want to marry him.

Jesus: Wait.  Wait, wait, wait, um...  Are you...breaking up with me right now?

Emma: No.  I’m...not.  But we’re too young to be engaged, Jesus.  And I can’t be your only reason for going back to school.  You need to do that for yourself.

Jesus: Wait.  I’m sorry.  So that’s why you said yes. [He drops the ring on his desk]

Emma: I never said yes.

Tonia:  OMG Emma, just say you’re breaking up with him!  Stop pitying him.  You’re not doing him any favors by staying with him because you feel bad for him.

Tara: The truth’s out. Even accepting Jesus’s proposal was a manipulation.

Jesus: Well, if that’s how you feel then maybe we SHOULD break up.

Emma: Jesus.

Jesus: No, I’m not a charity case!

[Mariana overhears, comes into the room]

Emma: I never said that you were!  

Jesus: Well you think that I can’t survive without you?!

Emma: That’s not what I meant!

Jesus: You know what, Emma?  I don’t need you.

Tonia:  Yes, Jesus!  So happy to hear him tell Emma he is not a charity case!  It feels so beyond gross to know that you are a “project” to someone, not an equal.

Tara: Trust that we can tell when you hold these beliefs about us.  And consider whether you would want someone to hold these beliefs about you, right now, as you are.

Mariana: Yes, you do, Jesus!  She stuck by you this whole time!  She’s been, like, the best girlfriend ever!

Tonia:  Again with the Nondisabled Savior nonsense.  Stop it, Mariana.

Tara: You do not get to tell Jesus what he needs, Mariana.  He can figure that out for himself.

Jesus: Oh, and now, all of a sudden, you like her?  You guys are friends again?  Well, that’s great, but you know what?  Leave me the hell alone.

Emma: Jesus.

Jesus: I mean it, okay?  Let’s just call it.  

Mariana: Don’t do this.

Jesus [to Mariana] You need to stay out of this.  [To Emma]  And if you don’t want me forever, then I don’t want you at all.  So just go.

[Emma and Mariana stand there as Jesus turns away]

Jesus: Just GET OUT, Emma!

[Emma leaves]

Mariana: You’re so stupid.  [leaves too]

Tonia:  So again, we have Emma and Mariana not taking Jesus seriously.  He has to tell Emma to leave four times - has to raise his voice and yell before she will.

Tara: And stupid appears to be Mariana’s go-to insult for Jesus these days.  This word is second only to the R-word in terms of the harm it does to those with disabilities, particularly those with brain injuries.  She does not respect him or his decisions. She does not view him as competent.  It is heartbreaking that even his twin thinks so little of him.

Jesus [slams his hands on his desk.  Looks up and out his bedroom window to see Moms talking to Gabe and Gabe walking away from them]

Tonia:  And cue my heart breaking some more, because this moment?  Is Moms telling Gabe he has to move out because they are taking the treehouse away from Jesus.  And Jesus has no idea yet. :(

Tara: This just keeps getting worse.

MARIANA AND EMMA - FRONT STEPS:

Mariana: Emma!  He doesn’t mean it!

Emma:  I know.

Tonia:  Ladies, lets have a talk:  Jesus does mean what he says. Feeling like a charity case sucks and it’s completely reasonable for him to want to break up with Emma after finding that out.  

Tara: Yet another version of Not Presuming Competence.  Saying Jesus “doesn’t mean” something because he is disabled takes away agency over his own life.  It is another means of nondisabled control.

Mariana: He’s gonna get better.  He really is.  

Emma: When?

Mariana [hugs her]  I miss him, too.

Tonia: Jesus may make more progress, he may not.  He has a brain injury.  That did change him, but not the way you think.  Because it did not steal him.  He is not gone.  He’s right in front of you.  And he’s rightfully angry that no one is treating him with any dignity or respect at all.

You both are the ones who need to change.  Accept Jesus as a person.  Talk to him, don’t just react to what you think he might do.

Tara: This conversation spoke to my worst fear post-brain injury - that I was a different person.  An unlovable burdensome shell.  

I felt so different in my brain and body that I could not fathom that my family’s love for me had not changed.  Despite their reassurances, this is still something I am struggling to come to terms with almost 20 years later.

Mariana and Emma don’t love Jesus for who he is now - they tolerate him.  

They’re waiting for the “old Jesus” to come back.  And that specific version of Jesus does not exist anymore.  This is a new version of the same person.  

And the notion of “getting better” in the colloquial sense will not happen with Jesus.  His brain is injured.  And while the brain is able to make new pathways, the injury itself will never go away.  Waiting and expecting him to “get better” in the way one “gets better” from a broken leg is an exercise in futility.    

JESUS AND MARIANA - HANGING POSTERS AT SCHOOL, THE NEXT DAY:

Jesus: You know, Stratos doesn’t even care about Anchor Beach Academy.  He just wants revenge against Anchor Beach ‘cause of Nick!  

Mariana: [shakes her head]

Jesus: I mean, it’s crap! If anyone deserves revenge, it’s you and me because of what Nick did to us.

Mariana:  You’re right.

Tonia:  It’s interesting.  This is the first time I can recall that Jesus has mentioned Nick and what he did to both of them.  (Previously holding Mariana at gunpoint and then in a later episode, knocking Jesus out, causing his TBI.)

Tara: This strongly mirrors my experience.  It took months for me to 1) heal physically enough and 2) to even begin to come to terms with what happened to me to be able to discuss it.

[Jesus and Mariana continue down the hall]

Jesus: I gotta go to the bathroom.

[Jesus stops short of the bathroom to look at the model of Anchor Beach Academy]

LENA AND STEF - KITCHEN:

[Mariana and Jude walk in]

Lena: Hey!  How’d it go?  Did you get the posters hung?

Jude: Yeah.

Mariana: No one was there.  It was perfect.

[Lena’s cell phone buzzes with a call from Drew Turner, principal at the kids’ school]

Lena: Hello?

Drew: I need you to come to the school now.

LENA AND DREW - AT SCHOOL:

Drew: So, I come in today to get a little work done, and I find this.  [Drew gestures to the model of Anchor Beach Academy, smashed]

Lena: Oh my God.  Who did this?  Why would someone--

Drew: No idea!  So I checked the security cameras...and your kids were the last ones in the building.

Tonia:  I don’t like the insinuation that Jesus hulked out and smashed the Anchor Beach Academy model.  And it makes me really nervous because I still feel like Moms have it in their back pocket to send him away, especially if they are sure it will “help.”

Tara: Hmmmmm... I wonder who will be the fall guy? :/

JESUS - GARAGE APARTMENT:

Jesus [knocking]  Yo, Gabe!  

[Jesus opens the door to find Gabe gone.  His stuff is gone.  The bed is stripped.  Blankets folded on top.  There’s a letter left behind, Jesus’s name is on the envelope.  He sits down, holding the envelope.  His face is stunned and sad.]

Tonia:  No matter what that letter says, you can bet Jesus is going to take Gabe’s leaving personally.  

(And I love how Moms did not even bother telling Jesus and Mariana that Gabe moved out.  So Jesus - and eventually Mariana - will have to find out whenever and however, and be shocked and hurt.) <-- Sarcasm

So now, Jesus doesn’t have Emma or Gabe to talk to and confide in.  I am so worried for him.  I hate that Moms did this.  :(

Tara: This show gets harder and harder to watch every week.  We feel a sense of duty to speak out against the horrific offenses against our community.  

Representation matters.  

TV teaches people how to treat people who are different from them.  

But we are hurting.  And we are tired.  And we have never been more glad that the hiatus is just a week away.  Because we need a break.

And during that break, we will hope that our words have made a difference.

For more: Fosters Recaps

[juniperpublishersnursing]

Perspectives of Hospitalized Older Patients About Practices of Intern Nurses-Juniper Publishers

Authored by  Belgüzar Kara

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to determine the views of hospitalized older patients about practices of intern nurses (fourth-grade nursing students) and their related factors.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed among 70 adults aged 65 years or older hospitalized for different reasons in a tertiary hospital in Turkey. Data were collected by using a questionnaire form including socio demographic characteristics and the views about the intern nurses. Data analysis were conducted using descriptive statistics and Chi-square test.

Result: The majority of the older patients reported that the intern nurses got into communication with them and helped them to feel better (92.4%) and the intern nurses respected for their privacy (86.9%). Some older patients (35.7%) reported that they would be worried if the intern nurses perform invasive interventions. The patients who perceived support for themselves and their caregivers from intern nurses were more likely to be aged 75 years or older (x2 = 20.01, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: The results of the study showed that intern nurses mostly communicated with their older patients, informed them concerning the applications to be performed and respected their privacy. A better understanding of the views of hospitalized older patients about practices of intern nurses would help to develop effective interventions.

    Short Communication

According to the estimates of the World Health Organization [1], the number of people aged 65 or older is projected to reach 1.5 billion (or 16.0 % of the world's population) by 2050, compared with 524 million (or 8.0% of the world's population) in 2010. Within this context, it is very important to provide comprehensive healthcare services for older adults. On the other hand, in-hospital risk factors such as low mobility, suboptimal continence care, and low nutrition consumption are related to functional decline at discharge and at 1-month follow-up in older adults hospitalized for nondisabling conditions [2]. Therefore, nurses play a key role in caring for older patients and their families [3-6]. However, studies have demonstrated that some undergraduate nursing students hold negative attitudes toward older adults [7,8]. To our knowledge, few studies have investigated how older patients perceived the care received from undergraduate nursing students in hospitals. This study aimed to determine the views of hospitalized older patients about practices of intern nurses (fourth- grade nursing students) and their related factors.

This cross-sectional study was conducted between March 2014 and May 2014. A convenience sample of hospitalized older patients was recruited from a tertiary hospital in Turkey. Patients aged 65 years or older, provided with the service by the intern nurses, hospitalized for at least 2 days, and those who were able to communicate in Turkish were included in this study. Patients with major psychiatric disease and cognitive impairment, and those with clinical instability were excluded from the study. Of the 110 eligible older patients, 70 (58.6% female) agreed to participate (response rate: 63.6%). This study was approved by the Hospital Ethical Committee, and written informed consents were obtained from participants before their enrollment. Data were collected by using a questionnaire form including socio demographic characteristics and the views about the intern nurses that was developed based on a comprehensive review of the literature. Data analysis were conducted using descriptive statistics and Chi-square test. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

The mean age of the patients was 72.6±6.2 years (range = 65-88). Most of the patients were graduated from primary and secondary school (57.1%) and high school (22.9%). Forty nine hospitalized surgical patients (70.1%) and twenty one medical patients (29.9%) enrolled this study. The majority of the older patients reported that the intern nurses got into communication with them and helped them to feel better (92.4%) and the intern nurses respected for their privacy (86.9%). Interestingly, some older patients (35.7%) reported that they would be worried if the intern nurses perform invasive interventions such as intravenous cannulation or taking a blood sample. It was found that most of them (85.7%) would not feel uncomfortable to be provided with service by the intern nurses when they apply to the hospital next time. The patients who perceived support for themselves and their caregivers from intern nurses were more likely to be aged 75 years or older (x2 = 20.01, p < 0.001).

The results of this study indicated that intern nurses mostly communicated with their older patients, informed them concerning the applications to be performed and respected their privacy. In order to decrease the concerns of the older patients caused by the invasive interventions of the intern nurses, it might be suggested to increase the applied training opportunities and to perform these applications under the supervision of clinic nurses. A better understanding of the views of hospitalized older patients about practices of intern nurses would help to develop effective interventions.

For more Journals in Juniper Publishers please click on https://juniperpublishers.com/journals.php

For more articles in Journal of Nursing & Health Care please click on https://juniperpublishers.com/jojnhc/index.php

[lulaurentt-blog]

Why Everyone Should Get Familiar With ADA Areas

In 1990, a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life was created and passed. This is known as The Americans with Disabilities Act, aka the ADA. Since then, it has been amended and revised time after time to expand the ADA, the definitions of disability and more. The ADA applies to all aspects of life including employment (or lack of thereof), transportation, education and public and private places available to the general public among other things. That last bit includes places that may be a favourite above all - concerts and the venues they’re held at.

Concert accessibility resides under Title III of the ADA for equal access alongside places like doctors’ offices, restaurants, and movie theatres. The list goes on. Title III exists to try to give disabled people similar, if not the same, admittance that the nondisabled public get during both everyday activities and special occasions. Now, whether or not it’s as effective as it should be is a whole other discussion to be had. Regardless, the ADA remains very important and thanks to Title III there are different sections and accommodations for disabled people.

Firstly, lets break down what an ADA area is. ADA areas don’t all look the same, not every venue even has one or multiple, but they are spaces for disabled people to safely attend shows. This includes people with chronic pain, chronic illness and other disabilities. You may know these as disability sections and if you have encountered one before, know that every person will need different accommodations. So what you may have seen might be accessible and safe for one person, but not for another. 

Fellow concert-goers should get briefly acquainted with disability sections so they can understand how their disabled peers, their chosen friends and family, are treated. Get acquainted to help boost disabled people’s voices and experiences and hear them out when they speak up about mistreatment and inequality.

More reason to get familiar with ADA areas is simply to know where not to be. Whether you’re a photographer, crew or just another person at a show, this applies to you. All sorts of disabled people will need a safe space at a concert for numerous health reasons. Try not to crowd around the area as people who have a hard time breathing may be seated there; remember that they’re not in the pit for a reason. Attempting to get a cool photo or a nice livestream is not worth the disruption in an area that isn’t for you, especially when you can get one from a non ADA area.

Traveling bands and artists who play or show at said venues are probably the most important people who need to know and understand ADA areas next to actual disabled people themselves. When artists are soul-searching to find a deeper connection with their fans they should include all of their fans. How are their disabled fans being treated at these venues? How will those fans experience their show? Do they have the interpreters and companions they need? Where will they be? How will these venues and areas be properly accessible? How can you keep them included? These are all questions that artists should be asking while keeping in touch with their fan base and while thinking about live shows and VIP encounters.

Venue owners should also ask a likewise array of questions. How can you make your venue more accessible to disabled people who wish to reside in your space for a period of time? How can you effectively communicate and assist all sorts of disabled folks? How can you help create a safe space for those who are in need - whether they look disabled or not?

HOW TO HELP

☆ Recognize that disability doesn't have just one or two looks. Disability is different for everyone, sometimes there are visual or verbal signs of disability and other times people may appear to you as an able-bodied person while in actuality they are disabled.

☆ Be sure to vote for representatives and bills that strengthen, improve and protect the ADA as it is. 

 ☆ Venue owners and workers be upfront and very clear on what accessibility you can provide online and around your venue (ex. Is there an elevator? Specifically where are your ADA area(s), educate your workers to understand the ADA, ADA sections and disabled customers.

☆  Artists, crew and other workers should have on-stage interpreters well lit and undisturbed. It is the venues’ or companies’ responsibility to hire adequate interpreters or aids upon request since the first passing of the ADA in 1990.   ☆  Artists, please provide both on-stage interpreters and off-stage interpreters/companions/aids with a setlist in as much advance as possible so interpreters/companions/aids know what to interpret and when. 

☆  Venue owners and workers, read up on parts of the ADA, specifically Title III and ask for disabled attendees’ to review their experience(s) they have had at your venue.  Listen to fans and make sure you know what's working and what isn't. It may take awhile since there is a wide range of disabilities.

☆ Attendees can campaign and boost disabled voices in conversations about accessibility and what it's like to be disabled in a music scene. If you see a harmful or dangerous situation, call it out. There are many ways to be a good ally. 

 ☆  Artists and managers, even venue owners and staff, utilize articles and websites like Half Access that are dedicated to making accessibility transparent and keeping accommodations on their toes. All whilst keeping disabled peoples’ experiences validated, heard and seen. If you can, research on what kind of venue you’re playing and how it will house those who visited.