Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
white people can sympathize with rapists, mass murderers, psychopaths and cannibals but nah that dead black kid had it coming
That’s because you’re describing their ancestors/brethren. Of course they can sympathize with something they’re familiar with.
Disabled characters are written into stories for one reason: the disability. Do most people actually believe real disabled people spend our days obsessing about being cured? Or rhapsodizing about killing ourselves? Here is the truth: Disabled people barely ever even think about our disabilities. When we do think about them, it’s usually because we are dealing with an oppressive, systemic problem, such as employment discrimination. Can’t there ever be a disabled character in a book or film just because? Where the topic doesn’t ever come up? All sorts of interesting stories can be written about a disabled character, without the disability ever being mentioned. You know, just like real people.
The vast majority of writers who have used disabled characters in their work are not people with disabilities themselves. Because disabled people have been peripheral for centuries, we’ve been shut out of the artistic process since the beginning. As a result, the disabled characters we’re presented with usually fit one or more of the following stereotypes: Victim, Villain, Inspiration, Monster. And the disabled character’s storyline is generally resolved in one of a few ways: Cure, Death, Institutionalization."
"You won’t be happy until there’s a Black transgender autistic lesbian in a wheelchair on tv!"
See it’s funny because the people who say shit like this are the people who aren’t happy unless every protagonist is a white cisgender dyadic allistic neurotypical abled straight man.
We grow up being shown by the media that this is the “default,” and any departure from this form becomes an item on a list. People don’t notice the fact that the first list even exists because - especially if it’s a mold they fit, or mostly fit - they internalize it as a blank slate.
like do these people not realize that they are describe actual people
do they think that you can only be one or two things beside whatever the default(i.e., white, cis, able-bodied, etc) is? how does this type of thinking even work
Whaddaya Call Normal People?
First, please don’t use “normal” to refer to people without disabilities. That implies that PWDs are abnormal, which is a perception we’re trying to change. Having a disability is as much a part of the human experience as anything else. It is normal to have a disability!
I’m sure some of you are thinking or have read “able-bodied/AB” or “TAB” (temporarily able-bodied). The problem with “AB” is that it indicates that all disabilities are the result of physical impairments, such as mobility issues. However, there are a multitude of disabilities that don’t fall into this category. Mental health disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and autism are examples of disabilities that do not necessarily have anything to do able-bodiedness.
TAB seems cool, but it’s actually problematic. It’s based on the belief that everyone will develop some disabilities in old age. Some people use TAB to try to raise awareness that disability is a normal part of life and something that can happen to anyone. I definitely support the goal of non-otherizing PWDs. After all, I lived my first twenty-odd years without disabilities, and now I have multiple disabilities.
However, the fact of the matter is that not everyone does develop a disability. Some people never reach adulthood, let alone old age. You can be perfectly healthy and nondisabled until you die in a car accident or of a heart attack. My grandmother was much healthier and more active at 82 than I was at 28.
In addition, I’ve seen people use TAB to dismiss the validity and uniquely different perspectives and experiences that come from living with disability. It’s much like saying, “Well, I have glasses, so I’m disabled, too,” or saying to a lesbian or gay person, “Well, everyone’s bisexual,” to negate the reality that living as a queer person in our culture is different than living within normative sexual/familial culture.
So, what’s the answer to what to call nondisabled people — i.e., people without disabilities? It’s in the question! It’s “person/people without (a) disability/ies” OR “nondisabled person/people”! What could be simpler?
This is a common expression I’ve seen used a lot which makes me cringe a bit whenever I see it.
Language is different everywhere, and especially language relating to disability, so I don’t think that do/don’t lists work universally. However, there are definitely some don’ts, and “able bodied” is one of them.
What would be appropriate instead depends on context - in North America it seems like “nondisabled” would be considered appropriate by people with disability and their advocates, but here it definitely would not.
Also, ageing is not the same as disability. Ageing processes occur for everyone, but differently for people depending on a whole range of factors (most often, the social determinants of health). And people with disability also age - their bodies and brains change over time due to both processes of ageing that happen for everyone, as well as issues relating specifically to their disability or health condition.
Whenever I’ve seen the international adoptee community get together to break down this ish — which is far more frequent than outsiders imagine given how our adoption
market prices fees are literally determined by the intersection of our disability, race, nationality, and assigned sex —
we employ what best translates to in English as not “normal” but conventionally abled.
I find it severely annoying when white disabled folks try to claim certain words as ablelist words that are actually were coined as a way to demean people of color but once white people began to refer to other white suddenly the term is an ableist slur and people of color shouldn’t be using it.
Are you kidding me?
Stop associating stupidity/idiocy etc with mental illness or autism, it is more demeaning to try and reclaim something that isn’t against me.
^THIS. The neurodiverse community especially is so fucking whitewashed and Eurocentric, there aren’t enough spoons in the world…
From the article:
A pregnant woman has had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section by social workers.
Essex social services obtained a High Court order against the woman that allowed her to be forcibly sedated and her child to be taken from her womb.
The council said it was acting in the best interests of the woman, an Italian who was in Britain on a work trip, because she had suffered a mental breakdown.
The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery.
And we thought eugenics were a thing of the past? It hardly ever makes news in Europe but refugee and migrant women are disproportionately affected by similar Social Services involvement regularly. I have spoken with many Women of Color (who will not speak on record for fear of retaliation) who have mentioned similar vigilantism going on in The Netherlands. It usually starts with Dutch neighbors “notifying” Social Services that there is an “unfit” mother (cultural differences can be perceived as signs of “bad motherhood” over here) and it escalates to full blown investigations that go as far as monitoring what children are fed (“ethnic” foods being subjected to special scrutiny under the guise of “nutrition value”). The women I’ve spoken to have mentioned situations like this with family members, friends, acquaintances, etc. It’s one of the reasons communities are kept tight, as usually positive outcomes depend on strong collective reactions to the injustice.
The case involving the Italian woman in the article is extremely unfortunate but I very strongly suspect it’s not as isolated as the news make it appear. The only difference is that when it happens to Women of Color it remains unreported because of victim’s fear and the normalization of violence.
LOL, only white bio spawn are gullible enough to frame eugenics as a thing of the past.
This particularly ableist incarnation of the white savior industrial complex forcibly taking “orphans” from our birth mothers is exactly what class bastards and adoptees have been saying for decades (of course the masses don’t listen to us as they’re busy demanding why we aren’t “grateful”…)
Who actually goes into this system as a small child? Who has to survive growing up in this system while enduring incessant accusations that our birth mothers were mentally unfit&/whores? Who gets warehoused into foster care at historically unprecedented rates? Who gets kidnapped by the police when they arrest our mothers for the “crime” of being poor? Who gets put in white Christian households if we meet some bullshit Eurocentric standards of physical appearance? No fucking shit isn’t an isolated incident.
You don’t need a sea change in news media to gain an accurate perspective on this epidemic — all you need is to stop the silencing of those who survive it.
John Elder Robison, "I resign my roles at Autism Speaks"
Robison was the only openly autistic person among 37 people on the Autism Speaks Scientific Advisory Board and the only openly autistic person among 19 people on the Autism Speaks Treatment Advisory Board. Zero members of the AS Board of Directors, most senior executive staff, or Government Relations Team are openly autistic.
And now, after three years, Robison has resigned as well.
Page 1 of 11