notes for something longer

(This looks better in my notebook in a bunch of little squares and lumps and stick figures, but oh well.)

PRESCRIPTIVE IDENTITIES (this was a flow chart)

A. Identities which are based in transcending stigma.--->Not everyone can or wants to transcend.
B. Identities which are based on denying the reality of stigma, embracing stigma, and/or denying categories.--->Stigma is real. Not everyone can afford the consequences of embracing it. Some people need or want to think about their lives in terms of categories so they can understand the ways they are disadvantaged and try to function.--->B ultimately becomes a denial of difference and privilege
So, A and B, as descriptors for minority groups, fail because they make assumptions about members of the group. An A or B identity may pretend to mean one thing, but actually it means many unspoken things. More than one fact must be true for a person to belong.*

*"People whose favorite color is blue" comes to be synonymous with "people who have a blue car." John's favorite color is blue, but he doesn't have a car. Where does he go?--->Actually, it is worth discussing blue cars and maybe blue cars could be considered a blue issue or a bluish issue, but this must be done without erasing John.

(the other side of the page)

Intersectionality is sometimes invoked as a weapon and marginalized people are criticized for not having enough marginalized identities. In the most aggressive forms of this, the actual top-level oppressors disappear. "Gay white men," "disabled white men," etc., are responsible for the problems. "Gayness" or "disabledness" can't be discussed as individual factors. Sometimes people start to imply that you can't have real oppression unless you have more than one kind. To me this is a misuse of intersectionality and privilege/oppression thinking, which should be mathematical.

OPTION C--OPPRESSION MATH

Identities are facts. They're constructed, but presently they are real.
John has X marginalized identity. No matter how many other marginalized identities and/or privilege identities he has in addition to X, he has X.

JOHN<--------X oppression Say John also has Y marginalized identity. JOHN<--------X oppression JOHN<--------Y oppression is what we know for sure, and in various complicated ways, something like this is probably happening: X oppression-------->JOHN<--------Y oppression JOHN<--------X oppression + Y oppression JOHN<--------(X oppression)(Y oppression) JOHN<--------X oppression^(Y oppression) JOHN<--------(X oppression + Y oppression)(X oppression) The possibilities are endless. This was better as a drawing, by the way. But anyway, this is all we know about John.
To me, intersectionality means that we don't take X to mean anything else but X because there are so many other factors that work on an individual. X is not a prescription, it's a fact.

OTHER NOTES

1. Obviously when I talk about the misuse of intersectionality (which actually isn't intersectionality at all)...well, if you think I'm insulting you or people like you, then I can't stop you. The misuse of intersectionality is like Oppression Olympics in that sometimes people really are engaging in it, and other times they're being accused of engaging in it by someone who is just an asshole.

2. What is the definition of a marginalized identity? Some axes that obviously count, like class and disability, are often ignored or even scoffed at.

2a. What about factors that interact with a marginalized identity, that can't really be called a marginalized identity, such as certain life experiences or subcultures? These things start to feel kind of political and intersectional when they mean that someone feels locked out of their identity because of them. I think these things are very important, but what do you call them?

I was going to make a post saying that I'm trying to give up this blog for Lent again, but I know that it's ridiculous to say this is about Lent, because giving up this blog is really the opposite of what I should be doing in terms of God. Out of my usual perverse avoidance of the medical model, I'm going to avoid saying that disability and anti-ableism is my special interest, and say that it's the thing I am called to right now.

When I am called to something it's the thing my mind always returns to. It becomes very hard to focus on other things. This is obviously problematic because I am in school.

Last time I went to church the sermon was about the lillies of the field and the pastor, I thought, impressively TMIed the congregation by saying that his marriage had fallen apart but that God was there to look after him. Unfortunately, I guess I do not feel this way. I cannot feel safe in God's hands, because if I do not graduate from college that would not be okay. I know the way my mind is going, it's very difficult to do anything. I try to avoid writing here when I feel called to do so, because I know that it will keep me from doing other things. So I walk around with notebooks full of very long pieces of writing about exactly the kind of thing I write about here, because even when I don't allow myself to actually write here, it is always the core of me. I really don't know what to do with this. I know that the core of me needs to be, if nothing else, my independent fiction project. But it's hard for me to be as interested in that project as I am in all of this.

Sorry to go on about this here.

When I really think about it, I know that graduating doesn't really matter, not just in the grand scheme of things, but in the specific. I don't even have plans for my life that heavily depend upon having a college education. At the same time, I can't help but feel that if I didn't graduate, it would not be okay. I would not be okay if I couldn't succeed in this particular way.

But I wake up and do nothing because there is so much I am not called to do and it's so hard to move toward it and I get trapped in nothingness, not even writing here, because everything starts moving too slow and too fast at the same time. I don't know if this is making sense. Basically, I know on the one hand I should write more because I know not as many people are reading this any more and I also feel strongly that it's the most important thing I do even though in the eyes of a lot of people it wouldn't be important at all--but the people I most care about I guess are the people to whom this kind of writing is important. I feel like I'm throwing something away here. But I know I have to leave, so I can do what I think is okay instead of what I think is right. And yes I know this is a very dramatic way to say, "I'm trying to write in my blog less so I can focus on school more."

But I have a slow nature and this kind of transferring my mind from one thing to another feels really miserable. Especially because right now I feel so confused about the right thing to do and I feel like I'm trading in a sense of purpose for colorlessness.

ding ding ding, ding, ding ding

I'm thinking of writing some Skins recaps because a)there seem to be no recaps of gen 1, which is a heartbreak, b)there aren't that many sites recapping gen 3 because two of the three sites that recapped gen 2 are lesbian sites, c)no one who recaps Skins writes about disability very well, which is frustrating because d)there are a few really good portrayals, and a lot more that are worth discussing.

I don't know when I will do this and I'll probably just write on whichever episodes I feel like writing about. I'm also not sure whether I should do the recaps here or on Bad Brains Wearing Clothes (Zoe is that legit? At all?).

Some thoughts: (SPOILERS)

1. JJ/Emily isn't offensive to me as a lesbian. Should it be offensive to me as an Autistic person?
2. 1x02=awesome. But what are Cassie's food issues like after this? Do they immediately go away or are there signs of them still being around later?
3. 2x09: "I stopped eating and everyone had to do what I said. It was the happiest time of my life." Is this a)a retcon by the writers, b)a retcon by Cassie, c)actually supported by series 1?
4. Why 4x06 sucks both because of the series arc, and because it unnecessarily brings in disability issues and then doesn't address them properly.
5. Did Sketch turn evil because she has to OMG physically support her mom?
6. Does Cassie actually change dramatically, or did we just read her wrong because of her scripts?
7. What would have been a better way to introduce and portray Effy's bad brains?
8. True or false: if someone can't get an erection, you can't have sex or a relationship with them.
9. Overprotective parents and their relationship to real or imaginary disabilities--Cadie, JJ, and Pandora. Also, what is lost in the transition from Cassie to Cadie.
10. Terrible doctors and their relationship to real or imaginary disabilities--Cassie, Cadie, JJ, and Effy.
11. Why is Mini so awesome?
12. Josh. (I'm referring to both the character, and the only person who will probably read these recaps.)

PS--I'm actually thinking I may do this in the summer. We'll see.

I made a post on Fear Claws about how everyone should watch Skins.

You Should Watch Skins Everyone is Beautiful!!

You maybe shouldn't look at this post if you have problems with flashing lights etc., because I used gifs from this scene where all the characters are playing with sparklers. Maybe that's a really clueless thing to say, I don't know exactly which kind of images trigger people with seizure disorders and migraines, but I don't want to assume.

But otherwise you should look at it because they're GORGEOUS and I don't care if you have other plans for your life right now. I want to talk about Skins with you.

isn't that a cliche?

Oh my gosh tumblr pretended to be back for one minute, but it really wasn't and now I have to make dumb posts on my important blog. (I know this blog isn't actually important but I refer to it as my "important blog" sometimes.) For some reason I was tweaking out on how much I love Chase Stein from Runaways even though I haven't been into Runaways for a really long time, but this is how I felt about it when I was into it:


(circa three years ago)

And I was thinking about the fact that I stopped respecting Joss Whedon when he wrote some issues of Runaways and he portrayed Chase as liking comic books and basically talking like Xander Harris. Which is like--Victor Mancha could have had all those lines. But it seemed like Joss Whedon's understanding of Runaways was just: oh, it's just like my stuff because they're teenagers with superpowers or whatever, so I'll just write all of them as talking like my characters, and all the dude characters will be Xander, and all the girl characters will be Willow and Buffy.

I mean, I guess that in theory there's nothing wrong with only being able to write one kind of dialogue, but I feel like if you are that way, then you shouldn't write in other people's universes if they have characters who don't talk like that. But it's seriously not just my ridiculous love for Chase talking. Well, it is. But to me the way Joss Whedon wrote Chase indicated something deeper and it got on my nerves.

Basically, I guess Runaways is a geek-centric comic in that most of the main characters are geeky/alternative in some way. And I think this is sort of what makes Chase like my favorite comic book character of all time. Let me explain. I feel like a character like Chase (who is introduced as a "dumb jock," and is a lot more than that; but that description never stops being true) is normally only presented sympathetically in really mainstream narratives, which tend to not have a ton of depth and tend to portray geek characters stereotypically. Brian K. Vaughan, the incredibly baller person who wrote Runaways, sort of decenters Chase from being the character we're supposed to identify with (which he would be in a mainstream narrative) but still portrays him with a lot of depth.

Chase reminds me of my favorite person from high school, John M. John was a jock, and he was dumb. He said dumb stuff about me being gay. He made gross jokes. He was also one of the best friends I've ever had, and he was an outsider in his own way. I feel like writers, especially genre writers, tend to be geeky/alternative and don't portray "dumb" or non-alternative characters in a compassionate way. Although I guess in a lot of ways I am Hipster Scum, I just don't really identify with the value of rejecting people who aren't intellectual or aren't alternative. I can't imagine feeling that way. I mean, maybe it's because I'm disabled or something (see you guys, I got it in there somehow!) but I try to relate to people based on how I get along with them emotionally and not based on their subculture or what they want out of life. Wow, I sound like an asshole--I mean, I can certainly be a dick and cut myself off from people for other stupid reasons. But I guess I just get annoyed by people who are anti-anti-intellectual and I got irked with Joss Whedon because I realized that he was maybe that way.

And now I'm going to pretend to be in class.

watching Huge AND writing a paper

This is seriously like the best TV show I've ever seen. Like it's too bad it was canceled and everything, but I can't believe it was ever on TV.

LOVE Alistair especially when he was pretending to be a cat. But he's also just very dear to me because of the whole trope of queer and gender-variant characters always being really "sassy" and brave...I almost feel like it's a form of homophobia, this assumption that we can take care of ourselves, even as children/teenagers, so don't worry about supporting us. I love that he is very guileless (seriously my fictional diagnostics fingers are twitching) and is a person you feel protective of. [eta: oh man when he was saying he couldn't shower with the other guys my heart just completely fell out of my chest and started dripping goo all over the floor. Poor kid.]

Really love Becca, wish she was a real person and a little bit older and went to my school. She clearly is possibly gay right? "Well, I don't know, I don't know any lesbians my age." What kind of straight person thinks about something like that when asked if someone seems gay?

my only complaint: [just kidding, was wrong. show is best show.]

then I got excited

after I made that post and didn't do my homework, because I was thinking how cool it would be to do a project collecting writing/talking from people with ASD who pass or have passed

some areas of LOOK HOW SUPER COOL THIS WOULD BE:

insecurities about stimming/gait etc. Or other things, like speech, or intensity, that people think will give them away
opting out of initiating things, getting too close to people, going into certain environments, because of a fear of getting into a situation where you won't be able to pass
covering rather than/in addition to passing. Passing to avoid covering.
being put in a position of assumed normalcy in relation to people with disabilities and/or mental illnesses--special ed teacher or staff person, student in a psych class, psychiatrist, parent of a disabled child, sibling of a more "visibly" disabled or ill person
intersections of unread ASD with other identities that aren't always read, and/or that the person consciously hides or covers (including ethnicity, class, being same-sex-attracted or trans, other illnesses or disabilities)
intersections of unread ASD with identities that are obvious to everyone (basically everything I just listed can also be "visible")
people who feel disconnected/unreal because of passing, or feel their relationships are damaged by their passing
people who are not read as ASD, but are read in some other negative way instead
decisions to stop passing, how they are made and their affects. Or, people who stop passing and feel they can't help it or don't really have a choice
having people tell you that your ASD isn't real or significant, because of the way you look or speak

anything else?