Sasha's Dreams

Thanks to those of you who took the poll and/or left comments! I ended up going with green tone outfit and no hat. Well, I wore a stocking cap because it was a whopping -1 F (-18 C) when I left the house. I had time to comb my hair a bit before the interview. Anyways, the interview went fine.

I watched most of the inauguration the other day. I quite liked it but here is a rhetorical thing that some people have pointed out on Twitter:

Regarding fair pay for women: "Our wives, mothers, and daughters..." This excludes women, making men the rhetorical "we", and also reduces them to roles in relation to men.

Response from Laura Bassett (@LEBassett) on Twitter: "As an experiment, I'm going to start referring to men as "our husbands, fathers and sons." Just to see if anyone finds that a little weird."

Regarding LGBT rights: "Our gay brothers and sisters": Similarly, this excludes gay people by making straight people the "we/our". It also excludes people who are queer but do not ID as gay.

Obviously I'm very happy the president is acknowledging these issues. But here is another way to phrase it which I learned from WisCon activists:

"Those of us who who are gay..." "Those of us who unfairly receive less pay due to the simple fact of being women in society..."

Very. Simple.

So the AP has decided not to use the word "homophobia" any more, but to go with words like "anti-gay" instead, apparently, which has prompted some discussions around these terms. Whatever your feelings, I would like to remind you of one of the best Onion articles of all time:

Revolutionary New Homophobia Immersion Therapy Involves Lowering Patient into Tank of Gays

I apparently have a lot to say today-- that's because I've had three days off in a row and finally feel rested.

Instead of saying "it's not a choice", which I think you all know by now that I have a problem with, I propose we say that being gay/queer/whatever is "not negotiable".

I got this idea from an interview with Tyler Clementi's mother. She also has some other wisdom to share in this article, although it is painful to read.

Friday:

28: Dressing to make a statement
The Rotund, Sarah Emrys, Laura, Beth Shupe, Betsy Urbik

Mostly a very good panel. Panelists spoke a lot about Steampunk and Lolita styles. Gender and class were discussed. Style is one's personal expression; fashion is the culture's moment. Fashion's major purpose is to signify gender and this is why people can get angry at those of us who dress outside traditional gender types. The Rotund talked about dressing as a fat person and dressing "agressively". She talked about getting sent home from work once because of what she was wearing (a professional dress that showed some cleavage), implying that her body was unacceptable. One panelist talked about dressing in a Victorian style to express a type of femininity that is both visible, but not sexually available. Ageism and classism within Lolita were brought up. Some people brought up that white men in particular tend to limit themselves style-wise. It'll be nice when men can wear feminine styles more openly.

One hiccup when a panelist did not understand cultural appropriation at all!

I know most of you get this but let me explain! When one culture is colonizing, they have the power to appropriate, to pick and choose elements from the colonized culture.

The colonized culture cannot appropriate from the dominant culture. If they are taking elements from it, they are either assimilating, ie trying to fit in, or they are transforming, turning one thing into something else. Or perhaps they are doing something else! But it's not appropriation.

*sigh*

After this I hosted the first-time WisCon dinner, went to Opening Ceremonies, then went to the Vid Party. For me, the most fun part of the vid party was the sing-along with captioned vids.

FWD/Forward: Today in Journalism: Simply Overcome by s.e. smith


...The thing about terms like ‘suffers from’ and ‘victim of’ is that if someone self identifies with them, that’s fine. But when they get used as generic terms to refer to people with disabilities in general, it sets a precedent. It tells people that disability is suffering, and that people with disabilities are victims. The reason that we ask people to use neutral language when talking about disability is not because we want to tell other people how to feel about their disabilities, but because we don’t want to tell nondisabled people to think negatively about disability.

This is an important thing, when talking about language. There’s a big difference between identifying with a term and using it, and using a term in general to refer to everyone like you, or, in the case of nondisabled people, using a term you’ve heard someone use as self identification to refer to everyone like that person. If the media presented disability in neutral terms, ‘The locals known Ray Magallan, a man with cerebral palsy who…,’ it allows readers to approach the article with neutrality. But here, from the very start, the subject of the article is a victim.

Maybe if disability wasn’t routinely framed this way, it wouldn’t be such a frightening identity, and people who find the word upsetting or frightening would view it with more neutrality. As a facet of identity, rather than an all-consuming tragedy...

"pimping" a show, book, or fandom

I suppose an argument could be made that we're reclaiming this word, (I have changed my mind on this point) but it still seems suspect to me. Thoughts? Is there another word we could use instead? "Tipping" someone into a fandom?

Using "teenage girl" as an insult

There are two elements to this, one is ageism (young people are undeserving of respect), the other is misogyny (young women are *especially*) undeserving of respect.

The moment that sealed it for me was a couple of lines from a fanfic called Ordinary Life by Cesperanza and shalott:

( excerpt below the cut )

-----

In linkspamming "The Special Disability (Fail) Episode" of Glee, I saw several people say, "I wonder if any people in wheelchairs tried out for the role of Artie?"

The producers claim that they did have wheelchair users audition, but that none were as talented as the able-bodied actor who was cast.

I'd like to point out that there is a different way to frame the question. Did the producers actively recruit wheelchair users for this role? Did they go out of their way to create an accessible and welcoming environment? Is there a reason that a wheelchair using actor might stay away from such an audition? Oh, like maybe discrimination and oppression?

It's been called to my attention that certain language I've been using related to eating is disturbing and possibly triggering. I will stop using it. I apologize. In addition, it's always de-friending amnesty day at this journal; and if you want to be taken off filters amnesty applies there as well.

Today is Ursula K. Le Guin's 80th birthday. I'm celebrating by thinking about The Dispossessed, which I re-read recently for my book club, Beer and Marmalade.

( warning for discussion of rape )

OOOOOH there is some fail going on at Feministing with regard to ableist language.

Click at your own peril.

For background, there is the Open Letter to Feministing.

I've been collecting a few of these in my Mini-Link Spam on Disabling Language, and trouble has some more links here, if you are someone who likes to read up.

I found particularly helpful the post, Why Inclusionary Language Matters, and if you read just one link, read THIS ONE.

So stop it. Stop using exclusionary language. Start including people.

And stop trying to defend it. If you’re too lazy to find a better word or phrase to use, that’s your problem, not society’s. If you can’t be creative enough to think of a different word or phrase, a word or phrase which does not exclude or silence someone, you apparently have not heard of a thesaurus.

Since linkspam seems to be on hiatus due to drama or something? Maybe people could collect links as they see them and post them in the access_fandom comm or in disability comm, what do you all think?

There is a language convention in journalism that goes, "she suffered from OCD", "he suffers from Parkinson's disease", "sufferers of chronic pain."

I would prefer the more neutral language "has". "She had OCD," "he has Parkinson's", "those who have chronic pain."

What I mislike the most is the implication that having a disease automatically means suffering from them, when in reality many people who have diseases manage them well; and even if they don't, the tone is one of pitying and emotionality rather than neutrality.

Obviously having a disease usually involves some suffering. But John Kabat-Zinn (and others) tell us that suffering does not automatically have to follow from pain. "Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional," as the saying goes. Diseases will always exist. Suffering does not have to be equated with having a disease.

I realize that I am more careful with language than a lot of people are. I realize that some of these battles I'm not going to win. But one thing we can do: I don't say that I suffer from chronic pain. I say that I have it. One simple change.

If you are comfortable editing Wikis, you can go into Wikipedia and make changes like this. Another one is change "confined to a wheelchair" to "uses a wheelchair". (Idea from badgerbag.