[syndicated profile] sociological_images_feed

Posted by Paige Connell and Danielle Antoinette Hidalgo

Mild Spoiler Alert for Season 3 of House of Cards

Where is Rachel Posner?

Representations of sex workers on popular shows such as Game of Thrones, The Good Wife, and, of course, any version of CSI, are often stereotypical, completely incorrect, and infuriatingly dehumanizing. Like so many of these shows, House of Cards offers more of the same, but it uses a somewhat different narrative for a former sex worker and central character, Rachel Posner. Rachel experiences many moments of sudden empowerment that are just as quickly taken away. She is not entirely disempowered, often physically and emotionally resisting other characters and situations, but her humanization only lasts so long.  

The show follows Rachel for three full seasons, offering some hope to the viewer that her story would not end in her death, dehumanization, or any other number of sensational and tumultuous storylines. So, when she is murdered in the final episode of Season 3, viewers sensitive to her character’s role as a sex worker and invested in a new narrative for current and former sex worker characters on popular TV shows probably felt deeply let down. Her death inspired us to go back and analyze how her role in the series was both intensely invisible and visible.  

Early in the show, we learn that Rachel has information that could reveal murder and corrupt political strategizing orchestrated by the protagonist Frank Underwood.  She is the thread that weaves the entire series together. Despite this, most characters on the show do not value Rachel beyond worrying about how she could harm them. Other characters talk about her when she’s not present at all, often referring to her as “the prostitute” or “some hooker,” rather than by her name or anything else that describes who she is.

The show, too, devalues her. At the beginning of an episode, we watch Rachel making coffee one morning in her small apartment.  Yet, instead of watching her, we watch her body parts; the camera pans over her torso, her breasts in a lace bra, and then her legs before we finally see her entire body and face.  There is not one single scene even remotely like this for any other character on the show. Even the promotional material for Season 1 (pictured above) fails to include a photo of Rachel while including images of a number of other characters who were less central to the storyline and appeared in fewer episodes. Yet, whoever arranged the photoshoot didn’t think she was important enough to include.

Another major way that Rachel is marginalized in the context of the show is that she is not given many scenes or storylines that are about her—her private life, time spent with friends, or what’s important to her. This is in contrast to other characters with a similar status. For instance, the audience is made to feel sympathy for Gavin, a hacker, when an FBI agent threatens the life of his beloved guinea pig. In contrast, it is Rachel’s ninth episode before the audience sees her interact with a friend, and we never really learn what motivates her beyond fear and survival. In this sense, Rachel is almost entirely invisible in her own storyline. She only exists when people want something from her.

Rachel is also made invisible by the way she is represented or discussed in many scenes.  For instance, although she’s present, she has zero lines in her first couple scenes. After appearing (without lines) in Episodes 1 and 2, Rachel reappears in Episode 7, although she’s not really present; she re-emerges in the form of a handwritten note to Doug Stamper (Underwood’s indispensable assistant).  She writes: “I need more money.  And not in my mouth.” These are Rachel’s first two lines in the entire series; however, she’s not actually saying them, she’s asking for something and one of the lines draws attention to a sexualized body part and sexual act that she engaged in with Doug. Without judging the fact that she engaged in a sexual act with a client, what’s notable here is the fact that she isn’t given a voice or her own resources. She is constantly positioned in relation to other characters and often without the resources and ability to survive on her own.

This can clearly be seen in the way Rachel is easily pushed around by other characters in the show, who are able to force their will upon her. When viewers do finally see her in a friendship, one that blossoms into a romance, the meaning that Rachel gives the relationship is overshadowed by the reaction Doug Stamper has to it. Doug has more contact with Rachel than any other character on the show; in the beginning of the series, he acts as a sort of “protector” to Rachel, by finding her a safe place to stay, ensuring that she can work free from sexual harassment in her new job, and getting her an apartment of her own. However, all these actions highlight the fact that she does not have her own resources or connections to be able to function on her own, and they are used to manipulate her. Over Rachel’s growing objections, Doug is able to impose his wishes upon her fairly easily. The moment she is able to overpower him and escape, she disappears from the show for almost a whole season, only to reappear in the episode where she dies. In this episode, we finally see Rachel standing on her own two feet. It seems like a hard life, working lots of double shifts and living in a rundown boardinghouse, but we also see her enjoying herself with friends and building something new for herself. And yet, it is also in this episode where she has leveraged her competence into a new life that she also meets her demise. Unfortunately, after seeing this vision of Rachel on the road to empowerment, more than half of her scenes relate to her death, and in most of them she is begging Doug for her life, once again reduced to powerlessness. 

Every time we begin to see a new narrative for Rachel, one that allows her to begin a life that isn’t entirely tethered to Doug Stamper and her past, she is almost immediately drawn back into his web.  Ultimately, in this final episode, she can no longer grasp her new narrative and immediately loses hold of it.  In her final scenes, after kidnapping her, Doug temporarily lets her go.  She begins to walk in the opposite direction of his van before, only moments later, he flips the van around and heads back in her direction.  The next scene cuts suddenly to her lifeless body in a shallow grave.  The sudden shock of this scene is jarring, yet oddly expected, given how the show has treated Rachel’s character throughout the series.  It’s almost as if the show does not have any use for a sex worker character who can competently manage their own affairs.  Perhaps that idea didn’t even occur to the writers because of the place in our society in which sex workers are currently situated, perhaps it disrupts the fallen woman narrative, or perhaps for some reason, a death seems more “interesting” than a storyline where a sex worker has agency and takes an active role in shaping her own life and affecting those around her.  Whatever the reason, House of Cards ultimately fails Rachel and sex workers, in general.

Paige Connell is an undergraduate sociology student at Chico State University. Her areas of interest include intimate relationships, gender, and pop culture. 

Dr. Danielle Antoinette Hidalgo is an Assistant Professor in Sociology at California State University, Chico, specializing in theory, gender and sexuality, and embodiment studies.

(View original at https://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

Tall, Fit and Handsome

Sep. 24th, 2017 09:00 am
[syndicated profile] rollingaroundinmyhed_feed

Posted by Dave Hingsburger

We were having breakfast. I had decided that I really wanted a big bowl of porridge, even though that's not on the list of things I should eat, and I was tucking into it. There were two people working the room, cleaning up tables after guests left. It was a busy spot. Both of them wore the company uniform and both were friendly and efficient. The worked together well, and joked with each other comfortably as they did so.

They were different though.

He was an able bodied white man who was tall, fit and extremely handsome.

She was an able bodied person of colour who was short, a bit pudgy and quite pretty.

Beside us was a group of middle aged parents with two teen children. Their conversation almost immediately went to the man who was working the room cleaning up tables. In essence they thought it was a pity that such a man was 'reduced' to doing such menial work. They said he looked like he should be in an office somewhere in charge of something important. Mom said, "What a disappointment he must be to his family."

None of them mentioned the woman. Not a word was said about her at all. They felt the work was beneath him but not her. She fit in their mind as being in her place. He did not.

When we were done he came over to pick up our stuff and we chatted briefly about the day. He was tall and fit and handsome and also quite charming. He carried himself proudly and clearly did not see himself as some huge failure and disappointment.  I found myself praying that he didn't hear the people at the next table.

How does it come to be that we judge people so harshly based on superficial characteristics? It happens to me all the time but I realized after this experience that I am so not alone with this, I get a constant barrage of prejudice because my difference is multidimensional which multiplies prejudice. But it's everywhere, if this handsome, tall, fit man has to deal with those who feel, without knowing him that his work is beneath him and that he failed in his quest of 'white man destiny' then I wonder if it is possible for anyone to go a day simply respecting everyone in their path?

I'm not sure it is.

What do you think?

Ticked Boxes

Sep. 23rd, 2017 10:34 am
[syndicated profile] rollingaroundinmyhed_feed

Posted by Dave Hingsburger

All the boxes were ticked:

flat entrance
bars around the toilet
bars in the shower
doors wide enough to accommodate my chair
toilet on floor not hanging from wall

Those are my basic asks. This had been checked assiduously and everyone was confident that we were good to go. So we arrived at the hotel, tired from a full day lecture and a long drive. Rolled into the lobby to find that a wheelchair user couldn't get from the lobby to the room because there were three steps up to the elevator.

To get up to the elevator we had to leave the hotel, go back into the parking lot push uphill to the next door, the door they brought luggage through from large tour buses, and then push up the really steep ramp leading to the door. It was hard to do. I usually push myself and rarely ask Joe for help but I simply couldn't do the ramp. Joe himself had difficulty, even with my help making it up the steep slope to the door.

In the morning we went down for breakfast only to find that they had two huge luggage carts piled high with luggage and one cleaning cart blocking my way out. We moved the cleaning cart and then I carefully picked my way by the luggage cart really hurting my hand along the way. But I got by and I got out.

Then it was back into the lobby but something had happened to the door overnight and now it opened and closed quickly. I rolled back to the door because, again, the slope was steep and I had to use hands and feet to get up it. But the door would close just before I got there, the automatic sensor couldn't see me. So it was down and back up, down and back up, down and back up, the third time Joe stuck his foot in the door and held it as it pushed hard against his foot to close. But I got in.

I went straight to the desk, told them that I hated going into hotels through back doors and that if they had one disabled entrance and a car park full of cars parked in disabled bays they shouldn't be blocking that one door, I told them I had hurt my hand in trying to get by and that my hand was integral to my movement.

They stared at me.

Said not a word.

Just stared at me.

It is amazing what the privileged think is good enough for others. It's amazing no one though that it might be a problem for people having to use back door entrances. It's amazing that they call themselves accessible yet treat their disabled guests as second class citizens.

Let me give a hint. If what you think is good enough for others isn't good enough for you ... you are, without question a bigot.

Punk Rock Resisting Islamophobia

Sep. 22nd, 2017 02:00 pm
[syndicated profile] sociological_images_feed

Posted by Neeraj Rajasekar

Originally posted at Discoveries

Punk rock has a long history of anti-racism, and now a new wave of punk bands are turning it up to eleven to combat Islamophobia. For a recent research article, sociologist Amy D. McDowell  immersed herself into the “Taqwacore” scene — a genre of punk rock that derives its name from the Arabic word “Taqwa.” While inspired by the Muslim faith, this genre of punk is not strictly religious — Taqwacore captures the experience of the “brown kids,” Muslims and non-Muslims alike who experience racism and prejudice in the post-9/11 era. This music calls out racism and challenges stereotypes.

Through a combination of interviews and many hours of participant observation at Taqwacore events, McDowell brings together testimony from musicians and fans, describes the scene, and analyzes materials from Taqwacore forums and websites. Many participants, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, describe processes of discrimination where anti-Muslim sentiments and stereotypes have affected them. Her research shows how Taqwacore is a multicultural musical form for a collective, panethnic “brown” identity that spans multiple nationalities and backgrounds. Pushing back against the idea that Islam and punk music are incompatible, Taqwacore artists draw on the essence of punk to create music to that empowers marginalized youth.

Neeraj Rajasekar is a Ph.D. student in sociology at the University of Minnesota.

(View original at https://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

Her Smile My Chair

Sep. 22nd, 2017 12:12 am
[syndicated profile] rollingaroundinmyhed_feed

Posted by Dave Hingsburger

We had to park very close to the front door of the hotel. There was little room for dropping off, the cut curb was extremely close to the door and the slope of the driveway made it both dangerous and daunting to attempt as an exit from the car. Just as we pulled in a woman, pulling a suitcase from the parking lot, gave Joe a really dirty look for having parked where he did. He had not blocked the door but she did have to step around the front of the car. Oh, well, people get upset for a variety of reasons and who knows what kind of day she'd had.

By the time I was out of the car and into the hotel she had been checked in and was long gone. I then went through the check in procedure, double checked about the accessibility of the room and then received a map of how to get from the lobby to the room. It was a large hotel and the room was not accessible from the lobby. To get there we were recommended to get back into the car and then drive down the fairly steep driveway to the second building.

I really, really, really, didn't want to get back into the car. So when I got out I decided it might be fun to roll down the hill, a tad risky, but fun. I am almost 65 but occasionally I get the 'testosterone-stupids' and they hit full force. I pushed off and headed down. It was a wild ride but I never once felt any real fear because I had really good control of the chair. I reached the bottom and then started pushing over to the room.

As I was on my way, pushing on the flat driveway, the woman who'd been upset at where we parked came out of her room. She saw me in the chair, I saw her face react to the realization that we had been parked where we were parked so I could have easy access to the lobby. She broke into a smile and wished me a good day.

Nice.

But, here's my thought.

Why did that matter? Shouldn't we all be just a little more patient with each other, a little more forgiving and understanding? Why does my wheelchair matter? There are all sorts of reasons that people may have parked there, up to and including, momentary selfishness. Who cares? There are so many things we have to deal with in our days that you'd think that the practice of giving and receiving understanding would be commonplace. You'd think that we'd all have a sense of proportion. Let me tell you if the worst thing that happened to me in a day was that I had to push around a car, I'm having an awesome day.

Anyways, her smile and my wheelchair interacted in such a way that I felt excused.

I didn't like it.

But if that's the worst that happens in my day ... it's a pretty good day.

One

Sep. 21st, 2017 09:12 am
[syndicated profile] rollingaroundinmyhed_feed

Posted by Dave Hingsburger

There is an idea about inclusion that I think needs to be examined. I also think the only people who can examine this are those who are out in the community working or participating in some way. Those who have been 'included.' More and more I believe that the end result of the movements towards community living and integration and inclusion should be evaluation by those who, firstly had no say in the development of the idea, and secondly, those who are at the mercy of other people's good intentions. The disabled voice is an important voice and it's the only one that can determine if what was done met their internal goals of belonging and feeling welcomed.

I went into a place where they had a man with a disability, both intellectual and physical, who was a ticket taker. When I came in, he spotted me and smiled, I couldn't get my chair around an entrance barrier so he came over and undid a clip that would let me in another way. I thanked him, gave him my ticket, which he ripped, gave back, and said, smiling hugely, 'you're welcome.'

On our way out he spotted us heading to the exit door. He took a quick look around and saw that at that moment he wasn't needed. I also noticed that the other staff in the area were all laughing and joking and he was seated quietly on the chair set up for him to sit on while taking tickets.

He came over and asked how I had enjoyed myself, keeping his eye on the door at all time, this guy took his job seriously. I told him that I had and he said that he was really glad. On his way back I said, "It's hard being the only one sometimes isn't it?" His eyes filled with tears and he nodded.

I understand that. I am often the only disabled person in a place. I feel, sometimes, so isolated and so alone that it takes my breath away. Seeing another disabled person, not even speaking to them, just seeing them, is a big deal. That alone reduces my sense of being alone.

I am glad he was there. I just hope that those who support him understand that the work isn't done. He's alone. Really alone. Yes, it's a job. Yes, that's wonderful. But he didn't have a job like others in the same place the others that were laughing and talking and making work a social experience. He sat on the edge of exclusion while a number in a column somewhere would count him included ... inclusion at work.

One is the loneliest number that there can ever be. 

I doesn't have to be.

But it often is. And all it means is that the first step has been taken, and many more are yet to follow.

What’s Trending? The Crime Drop

Sep. 20th, 2017 02:00 pm
[syndicated profile] sociological_images_feed

Posted by Evan Stewart

Over at Family Inequality, Phil Cohen has a list of demographic facts you should know cold. They include basic figures like the US population (326 million), and how many Americans have a BA or higher (30%). These got me thinking—if we want to have smarter conversations and fight fake news, it is also helpful to know which way things are moving. “What’s Trending?” is a post series at Sociological Images with quick looks at what’s up, what’s down, and what sociologists have to say about it.

The Crime Drop

You may have heard about a recent spike in the murder rate across major U.S. cities last year. It was a key talking point for the Trump campaign on policing policy, but it also may be leveling off. Social scientists can also help put this bounce into context, because violent and property crimes in the U.S. have been going down for the past twenty years.

You can read more on the social sources of this drop in a feature post at The Society Pages. Neighborhood safety is a serious issue, but the data on crime rates doesn’t always support the drama.

Evan Stewart is a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at the University of Minnesota. You can follow him on Twitter.

(View original at https://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

I'm Reviewing The Situation

Sep. 20th, 2017 09:35 am
[syndicated profile] rollingaroundinmyhed_feed

Posted by Dave Hingsburger

We were considering going to an area of town called The Old Mill Market and had nearly dispensed with the idea. These kinds of markets, in old buildings are often less than accessible and really frustrating for me as a shopper. So I went to a review site where customers can rate a place and write commentary. I was hopeful because there were nearly 100 ratings. I did a search for the word 'accessible' and when nothings showed up 'wheelchair and found, again, that nothing showed up. Not one review mentioned accessibility.

The front desk was our next shop and we were informed that, without a doubt the area was accessible. They explained that the name was misleading because it was where the old mill was but it was a fairly new development. Thus assured, we went.

When we got there we were met with a completely accessible experience. Although I never had to use the toilets so don't know about that, but all the stores I went to, I got into. And, most importantly, Joe and I spent time talking about things other than disability, accessibility, cut curbs and ramps. A nice break. We had a good time.

Got home and went to the review site and reviewed the area both from a shoppers point of view and from an accessible point of view. I used accessible in the title of my review and the word wheelchair in the body of the description of the area. I wrote about other things too, of interest to all readers, but I wanted any other disabled sod who wanted to find out if it was accessible to be able to search and find my review. We almost never went. We would have missed out.

Please, those of you who have the time and the inclination go to a travel review site and review the places in your own town from a disability perspective, write reviews when you travel. It doesn't take long and it's a way we can help each other out. Even if you don't have a mobility disability, write about your own personal disability experience for others with similar disability or accommodation needs.

We'll help each other and occasionally, a bad review of a place will change things. I had a hotel write a response and then talk to me on the phone, when I called as asked, and they completely altered how they did the barring in the bathroom and shower. They loved feedback from someone with a disability rather than from a consultant without one. So it can  make a difference. It's the power of social media to inform and to inspire change.

I'm beginning to feel like an advert so I'll stop now.

The Meaningless Chair

Sep. 19th, 2017 12:30 am
[syndicated profile] rollingaroundinmyhed_feed

Posted by Dave Hingsburger

Back in my chair I pushed into the gate area through a wide doorway. There was nothing in front of the door, of course, nothing that would block the flow of a lot of passengers disembarking. Off to the side was a podium, the kind where they check your tickets and documents when you are being loaded on to the plane. Behind the podium was a tall chair, on swivel wheels. Again, it was well off to the side. No one was at the podium or on the chair. There was, however, an agent working the next podium over.

She must have noticed me out of the corner of her eye. I was, as I always am, the last off the plane. I'd been frantic moments before because my chair had disappeared in the hands of other passengers and it took more time than you might imagine for me to calm down about that. But I was pushing my own chair and getting ready for the long push to the luggage area when she saw me.

It would have been comical if it wasn't so entirely odd yet entirely expected at the same time. Some people just panic when they see a wheelchair. It might happen a little more often with me because of my size, but I know from other wheelchair users that it's not just the size, it's definitely also the wheels. So, she saw me.

She flew out of her seat.

She left behind the person she had been serving who gawked after her as she fled her post.

She ran over to the chair behind the podium that was well off to the side.

She grabbed the chair and moved it, swiftly almost toppling it over.

She smiled at me, letting me know that the way was now clear.

I'm sometimes just dumbfounded when this happens. The chair wasn't in my way and even if it had been the podium was still there. It provided exactly zero help at all. There was no need for any action, for anything to be done. The pathway was wide and open.

She then, noticing I'm sure my lack of gratitude, returned to her post.

I pushed down to the large, long ramp, where I stopped and started laughing. It was comical. It was frenetic and meaningless and made no sense at all.

But, after having my chair nearly stolen, my heart gripped by panic, it was good to laugh.

So moving the chair, meaningless as it was, did actually help.

Odd, huh?

When Bros Hug

Sep. 18th, 2017 01:12 pm
[syndicated profile] sociological_images_feed

Posted by Hubert Izienicki

In February, CBS Sunday Morning aired a short news segment on the bro hug phenomenon: a supposedly new way heterosexual (white) men (i.e., bros) greet each other. According to this news piece, the advent of the bro hug can be attributed to decreased homophobia and is a sign of social progress.

I’m not so sure.

To begin, bro-ness isn’t really about any given individuals, but invokes a set of cultural norms, statuses, and meanings. A stereotypical bro is a white middle-class, heterosexual male, especially one who frequents strongly masculinized places like fraternities, business schools, and sport events. (The first part of the video, in fact, focused on fraternities and professional sports.) The bro, then, is a particular kind of guy, one that frequents traditionally male spaces with a history of homophobia and misogyny and is invested in maleness and masculinity.

The bro hug reflects this investment in masculinity and, in particular, the masculine performance in heterosexuality. To successfully complete a bro hug, the two men clasp their right hands and firmly pull their bodies towards each other until they are or appear to be touching whilst their left hands swing around to forcefully pat each other on the back. Men’s hips and chests never make full contact. Instead, the clasped hands pull in, but also act as a buffer between the men’s upper bodies, while the legs remain firmly rooted in place, maintaining the hips at a safe distance. A bro hug, in effect, isn’t about physical closeness between men, but about limiting bodily contact.

Bro hugging, moreover, is specifically a way of performing solidarity with heterosexual men. In the CBS program, the bros explain that a man would not bro hug a woman since a bro hug is, by its forcefulness, designed to be masculinity affirming. Similarly, a bro hug is not intended for gay men, lesbians, or queer people. The bro hug performs and reinforce bro identity within an exclusively bro domain. For bros, by bros. As such, the bro hug does little to signal a decrease in homophobia. Instead, it affirms men’s identities as “real” men and their difference from both women and non-heterosexual men.

In this way, the bro-hug functions similarly to the co-masturbation and same-sex sexual practices of heterosexually identified white men, documented by the sociologist Jane Ward in her book, Not Gay. Ward argues that when straight white men have sex with other straight white men they are not necessarily blurring the boundaries between homo- and heterosexuality. Instead, they are shifting the line separating what is considered normal from what is considered queer.  Touching another man’s anus during a fraternity hazing ritual is normal (i.e., straight) while touching another man’s anus in a gay porn is queer.  In other words, the white straight men can have sex with each other because it is not “real” gay sex. 

Similarly, within the context of a bro hug, straight white men can now bro hug each other because they are heterosexual. Bro hugging will not diminish either man’s heterosexual capital. In fact, it might increase it. When two bros hug, they signal to others their unshakable strength of and comfort in their heterosexuality. Even though they are touching other men in public, albeit minimally, the act itself reinforces their heterosexuality and places it beyond reproach.

Hubert Izienicki, PhD, is a professor of sociology at Purdue University Northwest. 

(View original at https://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

Again

Sep. 18th, 2017 12:30 am
[syndicated profile] rollingaroundinmyhed_feed

Posted by Dave Hingsburger

Once again, and I know this is hard to believe, a fellow passenger attempted to steal my wheelchair from the door of the aircraft. My chair is old, well worn, and easily identifiable as a personal chair. It bares faint resemblance to the airport chairs. But just as I was told that my chair was up, a flight attendant noticed that it had disappeared and sent the gate agent fleeing after the people who took the chair. No one sat in it, no one has any idea why it was taken, but the fact is that it was. The fact also is that this is now the second time my chair has been taken from the door of the craft.

Second.

Last time it was when we landed in Buffalo and the security guards got the chair back as they were putting it in the trunk of their car. I kid you not. That time I got the chair back without the foot pedals, this time my chair was intact.

But I'm not.

I'm really not.

I find, and found, this incredibly traumatizing, so much so I can't even begin to tell you.

Every time I get on a plane I tell the purser about what happened in Buffalo, and now will add Vancouver to the list, and ask them to keep a sharp eye on my chair. That's what happened and because of that I have my chair.

I go into deep panic when I think about the 'what if's' ...

Don't people know that?

Why doesn't it matter?

The psychological pain that this causes me is deep and real. I don't know what I'd do. I'm fat, I fit my chair, it's not easily replaced.

Now I'm afraid of the next flight and the one after that ... I'll never feel safe again when traveling by plane.

Ever.

Again.

Wait HERE

Sep. 17th, 2017 12:30 am
[syndicated profile] rollingaroundinmyhed_feed

Posted by Dave Hingsburger

I couldn't believe how I was spoken to, any of the three times it happened.

First I was directed by an airport staff to wait in a section roped off for disabled people to wait to be pushed to their flights. I am able to push myself to the flight, I didn't need and hadn't asked for the service. Second, another staff directed me to wait off to the side while Joe took the bags to be dropped off. When I ignored the direction and started to go along with Joe the same woman stepped in front of me and commanded that I wait off to the side and let Joe take care of the bags. In all three instances, across both people, the tone was like irritated parent with a naughty, disobedient child.

I ignored all the commands, asked the woman who had stepped in front of me to move, and I went with Joe. She was really, really angry, as had been the woman who had commanded me to the roped off area , that I didn't listen.

Joe and I always go up to the baggage drop off together, we need to get a tag for my chair and I always have questions about seating. I'm part of this too.

I get that people may think that suggesting that I not participate in my life think that they are offering good advice. I don't get why they get angry when I make my own decision. In both cases I had at least 20 years on them. I clearly am of age.

The freedom that people have to speak to disabled people so disrespectfully is astonishing to me.

The presumption that people make that we need to be governed by their tone and their intent shocks me.

The audacity to treat disabled people so differently without noticing the difference and the prejudice makes me shake my head in disbelief.

All because they think they are being:

helpful

kind

benevolent.

As a general rule when you think you are doing someone a favour because of who they are ... you aren't.

As a general principle when you think you are needed by someone who is busy about their own lives, leave them the fuck alone.

As a general guideline when you open your mouth and disrespect falls out notice, apologize and for heavens sake LEARN.
[syndicated profile] sociological_images_feed

Posted by Evan Stewart

In an era of body positivity, more people are noting the way American culture stigmatizes obesity and discriminates by weight. One challenge for studying this inequality is that a common measure for obesity—Body Mass Index (BMI), a ratio of height to weight—has been criticized for ignoring important variation in healthy bodies. Plus, the basis for weight discrimination is what other people see as “too fat,” and that’s a standard with a lot of variation.

Recent research in Sociological Science from Vida Maralani and Douglas McKee gives us a picture of how the relationship between obesity and inequality changes with social context. Using data from the National Longitudinal Surveys of Youth (NLSY), Maralani and McKee measure BMI in two cohorts, one in 1981 and one in 2003. They then look at social outcomes seven years later, including wages, the probability of a person being married, and total family income.

The figure below shows their findings for BMI and 2010 wages for each group in the study. The dotted lines show the same relationships from 1988 for comparison.

For White and Black men, wages actually go up as their BMI increases from the “Underweight” to “Normal” ranges, then levels off and slowly decline as they cross into the “Obese” range. This pattern is fairly similar to 1988, but check out the “White Women” graph in the lower left quadrant. In 1988, the authors find a sharp “obesity penalty” in which women over a BMI of 30 reported a steady decline in wages. By 2010, this has largely leveled off, but wage inequality didn’t go away. Instead, that spike near the beginning of the graph suggests people perceived as skinny started earning more. The authors write:

The results suggest that perceptions of body size may have changed across cohorts differently by race and gender in ways that are consistent with a normalizing of corpulence for black men and women, a reinforcement of thin beauty ideals for white women, and a status quo of a midrange body size that is neither too thin nor too large for white men (pgs. 305-306).

This research brings back an important lesson about what sociologists mean when they say something is “socially constructed”—patterns in inequality can change and adapt over time as people change the way they interpret the world around them.

Evan Stewart is a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at the University of Minnesota. You can follow him on Twitter.

(View original at https://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

[syndicated profile] tanehisicoates_feed

Posted by Kasia Cieplak-Mayr von Baldegg

“The foundation of Trump’s presidency is the negation of Barack Obama’s legacy,” writes Ta-Nehisi Coates in his feature for The Atlantic’s October 2017 issue. In this animated excerpt from a recent interview with Coates about his article, the writer explains how tribalism and white supremacy paved the way for Trump. Gallup research shows that white voters overwhelmingly supported the candidate across demographics.

Here's an Idea

Sep. 14th, 2017 06:24 am
[syndicated profile] rollingaroundinmyhed_feed

Posted by Dave Hingsburger

I was reading an article on line about a new tourist attraction in NYC that I'd like to go to see. As is typical, the reviewer never mentioned any form of accessibility. I know, I know, I know, it wasn't published on a disability blog, but it was a piece that was meant to inspire tourists to go. I made a comment stating that when a journalist reviews a venue, or show, or restaurant, there should be an expectation that they are writing for the whole of their readership and that a mention about wheelchair accessibility would be nice.

I received almost an immediate reply, "Call the venue."

Shortly later, "Yes, call the venue."

But the writers of these comments don't acknowledge that they don't have to. They don't ever have to think about whether or not they can get in. They don't see this as privilege but it is - to know that you will always automatically be given entry and given bathrooms you can use, is privilege. They are telling me that, even though the journalist could have written two lines about accessibility, I was going to have to track that information down. I was going to have to talk to some employee who isn't really sure what accessibility means and it takes so much time.

The suggestion to call the venue is kind of a way of saying 'shut up' and it's kind of a way of saying that my issue of entrance isn't worthy of a mention in an article. It's also a way of saying, 'don't be so lazy.' Disabled people have unlimited stores of energy and of time and of course we can spend that time waiting on hold to find out if we can get in and if we can pee in a venue.

Did the two people who left these comments think they were being helpful? That I had never thought about simply calling the venue? Were they seriously thinking that I would smack my head and say, 'of course, call the venue, freaking brilliant?'

I wrote the comment for the publication and for the author, I wanted them to think about it. I knew I'd get other comments but ... 'call the venue' ... as a comment tells me that they have no idea about how easy it is for them, and how much work that simple suggestion turns out to be.

And by the way, if I can't find accessibility on a restaurant ad, I don't go. If I can't find it on the ad for a show, I don't go. If they've put in a ramp but don't want me to know about it ... welcome is always chilly. So screw it.

Profile

sasha_feather: Retro-style poster of skier on pluto.   (Default)
sasha_feather

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
345678 9
101112 13141516
171819 202122 23
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 26th, 2017 12:00 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios