Conventional vs. unconventional timers and problems with people in the household

So a big issue with timers is how other people are going to feel about them, especially people you live with. I guess I'm assuming a reader who is making some decisions about how to conduct their life and possibly having to explain some things about their disability to roommates or family members.

If you use a conventional timer (which I guess regular people mostly use for cooking?) then it's confusing to people because you're obviously using it for things that don't have to do with cooking and sometimes it seems like you're not using it for anything at all. Also, it can be a problem because a lot of people find the sound of a timer going off to be really unpleasant and/or stressful and then it's an issue of being considerate to the people you live with.

Actually, even unconventional timers like TV shows and singing are things that you can have to explain. If your family is really fussy about your disability, they might get upset because they perceive watching TV or listening to music as a leisure activity and they think that you should be doing something constructive. Even if you are doing something constructive and you try to explain that TV and music are making it possible for you to do it, they might just think it's an excuse.

Something that I find frustrating is that even if people are not annoyed with me for watching TV a lot, they don't understand my relationship to TV. Sorry that just sounded ridiculous, but what I mean is that people think I'm just really into watching TV shows and I want to sit down and watch TV shows with them. To me structuring my time around watching TV, instead of structuring TV around what I want to get done, is a waste of time, energy, and episodes. It can be fun sometimes just like any waste of time and energy can be fun, but it's a completely different activity from my usual TV watching (TV as timer).

Even if I do sit down and watch TV with someone (which is fine as a leisure activity and sometimes I'm prepared to do leisure activities), I feel tense because I'm not used to just watching TV and doing nothing else, so I like to eat, play games, or be on the computer at the same time. Obviously some people don't like this much so I try to make my secondary activity be eating or drinking because it bothers people less. Also, if I get drunk enough, dealing with being drunk can be the secondary activity.

I guess it's kind of a stupid thing for me to take personally but it can be hard for me to know that other people perceive me as doing leisure activities all the time when I am literally working hard at something right then.

Also there's the fact that people are a bit less likely to put up with something that mildly inconveniences or annoys them if they think you're doing a leisure activity than if they think of it as an actual support that you need. Some disabled people might think it's good if singing in the shower helps a person take showers properly, because it doesn't come off as different from other people. But it is also hard if someone says it's annoying to hear you singing in the shower, and they don't understand that by saying that they are making it hard for you to take care of your hygiene which affects your quality of life.

After much thought I’ve decided that the best way to spend my twenties is by watching live action tween shows on the Disney Channel. My favorite show is called ANT Farm. It operates under the dubious premise that an 11-year-old would be forced to attend high school just because she is a good singer, and that people in San Francisco use cable cars to get to and from places.

If you can believe it, this is actually a better concept than most of the Disney shows and I'm pretty into it. There are a lot of references to Internet memes, which are presumably intended for older geeky family members, unless 11-year-olds are just a lot cooler than I think they are.

But let me tell you what happens every time I watch the show.

I notice this character using a mobility scooter. Then I notice myself noticing him and I realize that I never see people using scooters or wheelchairs on TV, especially not the kind that I usually see people using in real life (i.e. electric ones, instead of the hospital wheelchair that sad disabled people get pushed in on TV, or for the occasional supercrip character, who is always paraplegic from a spinal cord injury, a manual chair that he pushes with muscular arms).

When I see this character, I think, how weird to see a disabled kid on TV. Maybe things are going better than I thought.  After this initial reaction, which takes about half a second, I remember that this character isn't disabled--he's lazy and geeky, and one of the jokes of his character is that he uses a scooter because he's too lazy to walk around. It doesn't really surprise me to see jokes about scooter users being fakers since that is an idea normal people are really in love with, but I am a little surprised to see it on a kid's show since it's just so mean spirited. Other times when I've seen something like this on a Disney show, I've looked it up and it looks like there has been some reaction--for example when they made a joke about someone having an eating disorder. But apparently even Disney is allowed to make jokes about people using mobility devices they don't need.

What always strikes me isn't the existence of the joke, but just the fact that this is the only kid getting around like that on the Disney channel, and probably one of the only ones on TV. More than anything else, the joke makes me notice what isn't there.

You're (Still) Going To Die In There: boring uses of clueless sensitivity

“If you like the jar with the baby’s leg, wait until you see the jar holding the baby’s head. If one actress with Down syndrome doesn’t provide enough Tod Browning-style otherness for you, don’t worry — there are two. If the line about snorting cocaine off a high school girl’s nipples doesn’t do it for you, maybe the scene of the sobbing naked man masturbating will.”

—New York Times American Horror Story review

One of these things is not like the others!

It’s perfectly reasonable for critics to take issue with portrayals of disabled characters that use them as a genre trope or try to shock the audience with the disabled character’s appearance. Lots of horror movies and TV shows do this.

(While we’re on the subject can I just show you my favorite horror DVD cover of all time:



LOLOL. Terrifying.)

However, I really wish critics, in their rush to be sensitive about disability issues, would actually take a step back and look at what they’re saying. Which in this case, seems to boil down to the idea that a person with Down Syndrome is the same as a jar with part of a dead baby in it. And that an actor with a disability that affects their appearance would only be cast in a TV show or movie as a circus freak.

To be fair, I don’t really think this critic would be against an actor with Down Syndrome appearing in some kind of inspirational/depressing movie about the family of someone with a disability. I don’t think they would consider that a “freakish” performance. But in addition to the fact that you shouldn’t assume all disabled characters in the horror genre are functioning as freaks, I’m also not sure why critics are quick to jump all over the “insensitivity” of characters like Addie in AHS, when they don’t seem especially plugged in to notice what is wrong about more “tasteful” portrayals of disability—which in my opinion can be equally offensive.

I definitely don’t speak for all disabled people when I say this, but I prefer horror tropes of disability to tasteful tropes. Disabled horror characters have style—rusty, terrifying wheelchairs and braces more suited for steampunk conventions than actually helping someone get around. Their unsteady gait isn’t depressing, it stops you in your tracks with fear. If they’re bad, they kill people, and if they’re good, they can help you with their psychic powers. They’re not people to underestimate.

Of course they’re usually shitty characters, but as shitty characters go, I love them a lot. And because their very nature means they are not “tasteful,” they often become more human and likable than the disabled characters in a straight-faced portrayal of disability.

I wish that critics would wait to talk about disability until they’re ready to actually care about it and engage with it genuinely. The more I see people complain about Addie on AHS—in exactly the same way, and for some reason never mentioning other disabled characters on the show, like she’s the agreed-upon thing that’s offensive—the more it looks like they’re doing it to earn some kind of merit badge. “I’m sensitive to portrayals of disability in pop culture!” No, you’re not. Because if you were, you would care about things like whether disabled characters are unique, have realistic problems, are charismatic, are POV characters, and don’t tragically die at the end of the movie. Your primary focus wouldn’t be whether you can lazily compare Jamie Brewer to the actors in Freaks—which happens to be a great movie despite not being “tasteful” in the slightest.

As long as so few disabled characters are good, it’s really hard for them to be notably bad, and there’s something so clueless about condemning Addie Langdon when there are so many worse characters running around in this and other genres. In the end it doesn’t matter if the Burned-Face Man chokes you with a pillow in the attic, or a Lifetime mom ends your suffering in a more wholesome way—you’re going to die in there.

note to myself for future annoying pop culture posts

tv shows I've adopted this fall and my feelings about disability on those shows:

the vampire diaries (n/a, just as tvd is n/a for anything that relates to minorities in any way, except for the hilarious black witches thing which is as bizarre as it is partly because of the show's refusal to acknowledge that anything bad ever happened to black people in America)
china, il (n/a it's brad neely)
my little pony friendship is magic (really great)
the fades (good--not a big thing but they cast actors with disabilities)
bedlam (worst thing EVER, as I explained here)
game of thrones (awesome)
american horror story (awesome, this might take some explaining, but I'm sticking to my guns)

(I also finished united states of tara and six feet under, both of which I can imagine having things to say about, but I've been watching both shows for so long I don't think I ever will)

cassie ainsworth & redemption rejection

this is just some Skins gibbering, mostly character- and not plot-based, which I think is interesting in terms of ideas of covering (or "disability redemption").



me: that was me being a bitch like oh wow but fuck you style
have I mentioned that's like my favorite line ever?
Joshua: haha, it's a good moment. I dunno Jal is being kind of patronising, and though she never deserved to be the target of evil Cassie, you can see why that would hit Cassie's angry spot!
me: like, it sort of reminds me of having to act really cute to make up for being disabled
Joshua: nice interpretation
me: that's what "oh wow but fuck you" means to me.
Joshua: and like.. even more charitable to S2 Cassie than I usually am.. which is very charitable.
me: oh I mean, I don't necessarily mean that's what she means. it's just sort of what it means to me. Like, I think she just says oh wow because she always says it, and then she gets to the actual content of what she's saying, which is fuck you. But to me like oh wow is a very important line, even though people act like it's stupid and annoying, it means something really important.
me: I remember once telling Ari that I liked working with severely disabled people because lots of the people I worked with hugged everyone they met, and for some reason I'd observed this was more common in adults than kids with similar disabilities
Joshua: like they feel they have to be like that?
me: and Ari suggested that some people are very isolated and it's like "oh wow a person! I never get to interact with a person!" He said something like, "I hope the next generation of pwds can decide that they're not particularly interested in someone or they don't like them"
I think this is interesting in terms of how Cassie is introduced in the first episode. I haven't seen it in a while, but I think she hugs tony, possibly hugs sid, and then hugs abigail--"YOU'RE SO LOVELY!!!"
the plot thickens!
then obviously throughout the season there's the constant "oh wow" and manic pixie dream girl reactions to everything--coupled with starving, suicide attempts which often seem in her cases to be engineered to hurt people or cause as much trouble as possible, and occasional moments of being pretty mean or pissed off.
me: I am sort of getting this from you because I remembered when you said that Cassie doesn't really change from s1-s2, not in a deep way.
Joshua: No she really doesn't.
me: yeah so in conclusion, the line "Oh wow, but fuck you" line means a lot to me because it's almost like Cassie sort of rejecting the things that she previously did to try to "earn" people's friendship and support.
Joshua: Cassie would not mean nearly as much to me without s2 as much as I love S1 Cassie. If she'd been left at that without the contrast of S2 she'd be a standard Manic Pixie Dream and a fairly borderline offensive idealised picture of mental illness.

Oh wow US Skins, but...fuck you!

WE LOSE. (Actually I lose every time I remember that I don't look like Hannah Murray.)

The American Skins remake is pretty bad, but the last episode was all right. If I saw it on its own I probably wouldn't think it was that bad. However, since I'm familiar with the original Skins the episode illustrated something that I think is problematic about portrayals of the less visible mind disabilities (say psychiatric disabilities, learning disabilities, and verbal autism) on TV and in movies. As I see it, it can go two ways.

1. the person has a very obvious disability, correctly diagnosed by professionals who give the person exactly the right kind of help. Very medical model--the disability is the problem. Everyone else (parents, friends, etc.) wants to help and is super helpful all the time. Usually this character appears in a Lifetime movie or is a minor/guest character.

2. the person is diagnosed with a disability and given treatment by professionals who seem kind of incompetent. It seems like parents, friends, etc. are treating the person in an overprotective or disrespectful way because of the diagnosis. Maybe the person gets put on meds that have some bad effects. Amanda gets excited--is this a three-dimensional, realistic portrayal of disability? Probably not. The person, it's implied, doesn't really have a disability at all. Their parents are just overprotective.

(I won't go into the implications of this dichotomy but I think something similar is explored in the FWD/Forward posts about TV shows, movies, and books, where people without psychiatric disabilities end up in institutions.)

This ubiquity of these two portrayals can be observed by reading recaps and discussion threads about my beloved Skins 3x07. To me, the issues in the episode are twofold: a)JJ has autism and can't handle some stuff that's going on, b)his mom, friends, and psychiatrist are all dicks. But I always see people talking about the episode this way:

"I feel so bad for JJ's mom, his condition has had a big effect on her. It's so sad that he has to take so much medication to control it. He's so lucky he has such nice friends! Emily was so nice to help JJ! It was great at the end of the episode when JJ's mom was happy because she saw how Emily was helping JJ become more normal and get better at socializing."

Or this way:

"JJ is starting to realize that he was misdiagnosed and shouldn't freak out about things because he's normal."

In Generation One, the one that's currently being remade in the US, there was a disabled main character too. Her name was Cassie and I have to make a Bad Brains Wearing Clothes post about her because she basically got me started wearing lipstick for the first time and she has perfect sunglasses and a perfect jacket and perfect hair. Cassie had anorexia and was suicidal, but she was also super cool and funny; and, as with JJ, she was surrounded by douchebags but this wasn't set up as being the reason she seemed disabled.

Cadie, the Cassie character in the American Skins remake, is probably the only character in the remake I especially like. Her episode wasn't that bad. But listen to this! She's not anorexic anymore. She's just on a bunch of medication and one of her doctors said she has OCD but it kind of seems like Cadie is faking it to get pills? And her mom is also a huge bitch who doesn't think anything Cadie does is okay, which could be how she ended up going to doctors in the first place. Basically, in the transfer from UK to US, Cassie has changed from a character who was actually disabled, but wasn't just disabled, to a character who might not be disabled at all.

something else about Skins

(stfu you can't imagine how much I love this show)

in 3x04 when Freddie finds JJ at Pandora's party and looks after him--I generally hate Freddie, but he's really sweet in that scene. and the whole fact that Freddie, Cook, and JJ all use the phrase "locked on" to refer to instances when JJ becomes obsessively upset; then people who aren't in the trio, like Emily, also start using the phrase about JJ when he is upset.

I think this is cool for multiple reasons.

We eventually learn that JJ has a diagnosis of "lower autism spectrum" (is this really what they say in the UK?). But the truth is, we really don't need a word to tell us about JJ. Often, pop culture portrayals of verbal people with ASD are very superficial and behavioral. It's hard to explain what I mean by behavioral, but you'll just have to take my word for it that JJ isn't portrayed like that. It's something like...you could watch a lot of clips of the show and not realize that JJ is written and played as having autism. But those moments of his character aren't at odds with the moments in between, where he certainly seems like an unusual person but it could be a lot of things, or the moments when he's quite stereotypically (but not inaccurately) "locked on" or having a meltdown.

He's just himself, the whole time.

As far as we know (well, I'm only seven episodes in, but still, that's a lot) none of JJ's friends know about his diagnosis. I'm guessing Freddie and Cook probably do, but we're not actually told that. The only time words related to ASD have been used are a)when we learn JJ's diagnosis by seeing his diagnostic papers and articles on autism that his mother has, and b)when JJ is upset and calls himself a bunch of slurs: "Retard! Nutjob, headcase, spazzo, mong, autistic fucking fruitcake, mental basket, shitty, in a fucking cuckoo's nest."

The first instance is kind of cheesy forced exposition, but the second is really interesting because we get a sense of autism not by itself, but as part of a whole group of stigmatized conditions. I think it's really--well, I can't say it's more realistic for everyone, but personally, I think that, assuming you're not part of any kind of Autistic culture, and especially if you are really upset about your disability, it makes sense that you wouldn't really identify as having "autism" or "Asperger's" or "ASD," but just as Not Being Normal. After all the idea of abusing someone for being "autistic" is not as established as abuse against people who are "retarded" or "mental baskets." So abuse against people with ASD is often done in the name of another disability that ASD superficially resembles. And therefore, it's not really strange that almost every term JJ uses in his outburst is a derogatory term for people with either psychiatric or intellectual disabilities, except for "spazzo," which I think is generally an insult based on CP and/or epilepsy; "autistic;" and "shitty."

Anyway, where I'm going with this, and with the fact that none of the other characters so far have ever had a discussion about JJ having "autism" or "lower autism spectrum" or "Asperger's," or whatever...is that the tendency to repeat a bunch of diagnostic labels in fiction, or to have a character who constantly "acts autistic," is often done in a clumsy attempt to educate, or to sensationalize the disability. In real life, people with ASD, and the people around us, don't usually behave like this.

The risk is, though, that if an ASD fictional character just behaves like themselves and isn't stereotypically, classically ASD all the time, and we don't use the word much, then consumers may just say, "Oh, I didn't realize he was supposed to be autistic, and he was just a little weird anyway. It didn't seem to really affect him." Which is annoying, because the character isn't really making a difference then. Plus there's the whole sense that if someone's ASD isn't immediately visible to you, then it's not really affecting them. But how do you show effects that aren't as obvious as a monologue or something?

What I think is really lovely in Skins is that JJ's disabled-ness is kind of like a ghost--although it's not something that people intentionally don't mention, like a ghost, but it's just something that everyone is very used to and doesn't state outright most of the time, and it's also something that isn't always apparent.

JJ has two best friends. This already takes him away from the worst of autism pop culture, where he would often be portrayed with no friends. But we soon see that there is something strange in the way Freddie and Cook treat JJ. They say some things to him that are kind of harsh, when he's being genuine ("She's not looking at you"). Cook roughhouses with JJ in a way JJ doesn't seem super thrilled by. JJ seems obligated to go along with all of Cook's plans*. There's an element of bullying in the way the two of them treat him, like he inherently has less authority or less value. At the same time we see Freddie and Cook's tenderness and sense of responsibility toward JJ when he is distraught.

(*I should note that there are some times when Freddie starts asking JJ to keep Cook out of trouble; the relationship between the three of them is certainly not a one-dimensional thing where Freddie and Cook always control, bully, and take care of JJ, but I think that's a very strong element.)

This is a really fantastically realistic and complicated portrayal of a trio of teenage friends, regardless of the disability aspect. But with the disability it becomes almost miraculous. Without the help of words like autistic or disabled (although Cook uses some words related to mental illness), we get the picture: JJ is guileless--which makes him funny, and easy to use--and afraid to stand up for himself, because he sees himself as inferior to other people--which, again, makes him easy to use and push around. He is very loyal to his friends, partly because he doesn't like things to change and partly, I think, because he doubts his ability to make new friends. Freddie and Cook sometimes treat him in a way that's really patronizing and disrespectful. (And despite this fucked up stuff, all three genuinely care about each other, because in real life friends can treat each other terribly without meaning harm.)

We also see that JJ feels guilty because his mom is stressed out about him. Which is really classic disabled kid stuff--real disabled kid, not TV disabled kid--and is conveyed really briefly and effectively.

So we kind of see JJ's disabled-ness, or what it means to him socially at least, through the way Cook and Freddie treat him and the way he reacts; and the way he feels guilty about his mom, and sometimes hates himself for looking like all those words. We definitely see straight-up impairment. But sometimes we see how the experience of growing up as disabled--not specifically ASD, but you know, "spazzo, headcase, fruitcake, retard"--has in some ways really shut down JJ's sense of what he can be and what he's allowed to pursue.

Also--the scene that started this for me, at the party, with JJ getting locked on. Freddie comes to the party, finds JJ, helps him to come outside, and then tells off Effy for not looking after JJ; and Effy apologizes. What I was originally just going to say is that Freddie and Effy are both talking about JJ as someone who needs this particular kind of support, but they're not using any words that are explicitly related to disability. Which is just an example of something that I like and think is realistic.

But another thing is just the complicated thing of being disabled and having friends who don't seem to need as much support as you need. To paraphrase, for the third time on this blog, a line from my favorite book: "They needed to treat him like an autistic person, but they also needed not to treat him that way." How is JJ supposed to say that Freddie's pissing him off and needs to stop ruffling his hair, when JJ was dependent on Freddie to come and rescue him from the party? Thinking about this really kills me. Gosh (oh my giddy giddy giddy aunt?) I love television.

ETA: Really annoyed with JJ's portryal in 3x09 though.

I watched this Skins episode and had some gay thoughts and some Autistic thoughts

So for a really long time I've been wanting to watch Skins because I knew the following information: there was this lesbian couple that everyone liked. And then one of them had sex with a guy with ASD because she felt sorry for him, and all the lesbians on the Internet were mad because it was like she was really straight! Argh! And hearing this, I was kind of like, gosh that's fucked up for the guy with ASD though. What about him? Queer Autistic TV investigation time!

So, I watched the episode where the lesbian sleeps with the guy with autism. And it was like...I actually can't believe it exists. The character with autism is the best fictional character with ASD I've ever read about or seen. It's so easy to explain why something is wrong, and so hard to explain why something is right, so I almost don't even know how to talk about why I love him so much. (Spoilers, obviously.)

The walls of his bedroom are covered with a chart he made about his relationships with other people. And that sounds so stupid and offensive, but somehow it's not. And he walks like he has ASD and he talks like he has ASD; like, the real kind, not the TV kind. And and and...I just can't even talk about it. I'll probably end up watching the entire show and then maybe I can try to write about him again.

It was such a good episode though. Like the wall chart, the "once-only charity event" sex wasn't as offensive as it sounds. Towards the beginning of the episode, JJ says something like, "If I could be normal for one day I'd lose my virginity, and then I'd tell my friends not to fight with each other and they'd listen to me instead of ruffling my hair." Emily (the lesbian character) replies that maybe he could have the things he wants if he actually pursued them. So he sets out to tell his friends what he thinks of them, with terrible results, but in the process he and Emily become closer and she announces that they should sleep together. It's not like, "I'm going to have sex with you because no one else would ever have sex with you," it's like, "I'm going to have sex with you because you think that you'll never have sex, and this will change the way you think of yourself." Which is kind of a messed up reason to have sex with someone, but it's not insulting. (And apparently he later has a real relationship.)

The episode ends with JJ's mom watching the two friends talking and laughing together, and realizing that she doesn't need to worry about him--which was one of the things he most wanted. And then I almost cried. It was so good. I just like, couldn't even handle it, from a gay or an Autistic perspective. Emily and JJ were, like, humans!

Like, if I can put on my other hat--as a person who's gay in a weird way--I really appreciated this. I feel like if people think a lesbian sleeping with men is just inherently offensive no matter what, then they don't understand what's so offensive about most "lesbians sleeping with men" plotlines. I feel like the problem is the implication that men trump women--so women can be involved with women, have sex or even a relationship, and they can even identify as gay or bi--but a guy can change everything, or a guy is the root of everything. For example, my understanding is that on House a female character was having sex with random women because she was depressed, and afraid of a relationship with a guy she liked. This obviously devalues sex/relationships between women because it's just presented as something you do, not something important like heterosexual relationships.

But what happens on Skins is basically the opposite of this. Emily is in love with a girl, she has sex with JJ as a gesture of friendship, and at the end of the episode she's still in love with her girlfriend. It shows that lesbian feelings can be secure and stable and aren't completely dislodged the minute you get the chance to sleep with a guy.

Like, I guess I'm gold star because I've never had sex with a guy, but I feel very un-gold star sometimes because I've had so many really close, affectionate friendships with guys, which have sometimes had a sexual dimension. These guys have always thought of me as gay and I've always known when involved in these friendships that if I get married I want it to be to a woman, and that when I'm sexually moved by something involving a guy, it's in spite of the fact that he's a guy which tends to mean my reactions are weaker.

To try to explain the sex thing without being too explicit, guys are like a bunch of grapes or some Easy Mac or something. I mean I love Easy Mac, but it's not a whole meal. And I don't think the fact that guys are sexual Easy Mac to me (instead of some disgusting food that I would never eat in any circumstances) makes me any less of a lesbian. I'm sorry but it's completely heterosexist to say that my feelings towards guys are on the same level as my feelings towards girls. If you say that, it's like you're saying men are just so super important that the weight of anything involving men gets multiplied by a billion so that it automatically outweighs anything involving just women.

Yeah so anyway I really liked this episode of Skins and I think it's awesome that they showed a lesbian doing stuff with a guy and still very much being a lesbian. And it was the Best Autism Ever. And I'm excited to watch more.

On Shambling

I had the creepiest dream about zombies, you guys. They were pretty out of it, but they could talk so even though you could tell by looking at them that they were dead a lot of people wouldn't read them as zombies. I got on one of those really big elevators with a guy my age and his little son, and then this older guy started to get on who I knew was a zombie. I told the guy my age not to let the guy on the elevator, and he ineffectively tried to stop him but he got on anyway. The whole time we were on this elevator, I was telling the zombie to stay on the other side of the elevator, and picking up this folding chair that was in the elevator and threatening to smash his head. By the time we got to my level (we were in a parking garage) the living guy in the elevator obviously thought there was something wrong with me because I was being so aggressive and rude to this other guy, who seemed really gentle. As I got off the elevator I grabbed the living guy and whispered in his ear, "He's a zombie. He will kill you."

When I got in the car two zombies I knew were just sitting in there like we were friends. Riding shotgun was this really nice female zombie (she reminded me a lot of a particular lady with a disability who I worked with this summer). In the back was the zombie from the elevator who was a little more calculating. I couldn't convince them to get out of the car, so I just started driving. The zombie from the elevator kept saying, "What did you whisper to him in the elevator? He was staying away from me. Why did you do that?"

Finally I was at the end of my rope. "Because if you bite people, they will die," I said. "When you bite people, they die, okay? I didn't want you to bite him."

"Oh, I see why you said that," said the female zombie.

I think this dream was interesting because it was the culmination of a lot of thoughts and feelings I've been having about zombies lately. I've been watching The Walking Dead a lot and obviously--and, yes, this does skeeve me out--pretty much every horror entity can be read as disabled in some way or another. Well, I don't read vampires that way, but lots of supernatural figures and ghosts tend to be creepy because they have nonstandard faces/bodies and/or they move differently. For example, in this completely terrifying short film Mama--which I've never been able to watch all the way through so don't be too hard on yourself. Another example is The Grudge where one of the ghosts often crawls around instead of walking. The Orphanage and Darkness Falls have ghosts that cover their faces because their faces are supposed to be so horrifying.

Recently I saw a YouTube video of people dressing up as and impersonating zombies. One commenter said that "they look like they have cerebral palsy," and was lambasted by other commenters for "making fun of people with special needs." I can't help seeing this as really disingenuous--not that the first commenter was awesome, but are you seriously going to pretend to be some kind of gooey champion of "special needs" when you're into zombies, which resemble disabled people more than any other monster? Like, look at this video of extras in The Walking Dead learning to "walk like zombies":



I mean, without the makeup there is kind of a sketchy feeling in watching this, at least for me. Some of the people still look supernatural, but a lot of them just look like they're doing an awkward impression of a disabled person. (By the way, I'm definitely including people with mind disabilities, including myself, in the "people who zombies movie like" category. For whatever reason, weird gaits tend to be a thing for a lot of people with ASD and ID.)

I think I ended up having a dream where I was kind of friendly with zombies because for the last month I've been developing a sense that I'm basically a zombie. Like, it seems like a pretty simple way to explain stuff. Look at this from the Walking Dead comics Wikipedia page:

Zombies may follow something that has caught their attention for hours, such as a gunshot, after which they may follow in the general direction for days, even if they have forgotten what they originally were pursuing.

From the page describing Romero zombies vs. other kinds of zombies:

The animated dead retain vague impulses derived from former living behavior. For instance, zombies often return to specific locations they frequented when alive...Lacking immediate victims to hunt, zombies will often fumble through crude motions reminiscent of life activities, often when prompted by a familiar artifact such as a telephone or car.

Yeah, pretty much.

I was thinking of writing a story about a person who is bitten by a zombie but thinks she can remain human through willpower. Then I found out from TV Tropes that this is already considered a trope, but I think there would still be mileage in it. Especially because I don't think a zombie apocalypse would happen (can you imagine a bunch of AWVs being powerful enough to destroy society?), I think that the infected person could still be trying to go to school or work or whatever, while losing the cognitive function that enables them to succeed in those environments. And they do a pretty good job, until one day they can't anymore.

(Note: if you found this post when you were googling The Walking Dead or something, please don't start making comments about how I'm too politically correct or whatever. I'm not trying to attack/call out anyone for being into zombies--I mean, I'm into zombies and I obviously am into/am affected by some of the other tropes I'm reading as disability tropes. It's probably kind of fucked up that that's the case, but I'm more interested in reclaiming this stuff and thinking about what it means instead of just saying it needs to go away.)

Whyyyy did this happen

This post is the dumbest example of Oppression Olympics I've ever seen. I know that they come from a place of caring about their friend, but that isn't a reason to set up a weird competition between depression, eating disorders, and autism. This person is jealous of all the portrayals of autism in pop culture, because "so many more" people have depression and eating disorders, and every TV show and movie about eating disorders doesn't count because it's either too cheesy or not popular enough. "Don't let society get you down just because YOUR mental health issue isn't 'popular'," the person admonishes. Oh, the joys of having a "popular" "mental health issue."

Okay dude, I know the pull of Oppression Olympics is a strong one, but seriously? It's almost always wrong. God knows I find myself thinking, "Oh man, wouldn't it be cool if people thought about autism the way they thought about intellectual disability? Instead of thinking it just makes people be insensitive geniuses who do weird shit, who we should all crowd around and stare at like zoo animals, wouldn't it be cool if people just understood that autism makes you not be able to do things that most other people can do? Which sometimes seems to result in insensitivity, genius, and weird shit, but isn't really those things?" (Note that despite all the autism pop culture Southpaw has consumed, they haven't realized that autism is a disability not a "mental health issue.")

But then I remember that even though people with ID aren't treated like circus freaks, they have their own giant pop culture pile of shit. The fact that they're not seen as ~fascinating geniuses~ often means that they're not treated as present at all. Most references to intellectual disability in pop culture consist of making fun of people with ID or using words like "retarded," in a tone that implies people with ID don't actually exist except as the subjects of jokes. A little space is reserved for glorifying the non-disabled people who live and work with people who have ID. Since pop culture forgets that people with ID can be fun to be around, or even have unique personalities, they can think of nothing more saintly than spending time with one of those boring blank slates.

I think about Precious, and I think about Glee, and I totally stop feeling jealous of people with intellectual disabilities.

Similarly, I remember being a kid and watching a Lifetime movie about a girl with anorexia and bulimia. Lifetime movies are too cheesy according to Southpaw, but let's for a second ignore the implication that all eating disorder pop culture has to be good in order to count, since most autism pop culture sucks and therefore doesn't count either. I have never seen a Lifetime movie about someone like me. I have never in my fucking life seen any movie or TV show where a person with autism was the protagonist instead of a device to shock or burden the protagonist. (I know that at least two movies exist with Autistic protagonists, but a sitcom also existed where all the main characters had eating disorders. Being able to point out some exceptions doesn't disprove the overarching trend.)

I also feel really fucking scared and uncomfortable when I realize that a TV show or movie contains a character with ASD. It is so often that the character hurts or kills another person or is involved in crime. Even when the character doesn't do anything worse than unknowingly insult people (which is pretty much a constant factor in autism pop culture), that is still damaging to the lives of people with ASD. We are portrayed as more likely to hurt people than help them.

It is not very fun to talk to some person who has become "interested in autism" thanks to consumption of autism pop culture or the almost as deadly autism pop science. These lovely people will insist that a verbal person has Asperger's even if the person has a different ASD diagnosis (or simply doesn't identify as having Asperger's, which should be enough). They will patronize the fuck out of people with ASD and explain a bunch of basic shit to them because they mistakenly think we can't learn. Awesomest of awesomes, they will announce that someone is "claiming to have autism when they're just a little awkward." You see, based on the wacky, overdramatic behavior of Autistic fictional characters, APC consumers think that all ASD people act really weird in a very specific way, all the time. And since they'd rather listen to pop culture than real PWDs, these poor creatures never get better. They are truly trapped inside a shell of autism pop culture, which prevents them from connecting with other human beings.

However, I'm not saying it doesn't suck that depression and eating disorders aren't portrayed that much in pop culture. It sucks a lot. Good observation! But why can't you just write a post about that, instead of a post about how people with autism have it sooo easy with our "popular" "mental health issue" (a post which includes the bizarre caveat "I love discussing Autism"--well, good for you, I fucking don't)? Wouldn't that be nice?

(By the way, I was googling "Oppression Olympics" and I found this post on Racialicious about it. I really love comment #13, and the whole comment thread in general.)

acquired disability is hardly the only kind

I was thinking about Battlestar Galactica and how two of the characters who acquire disabilities are bitter about it and one becomes evil. On FWD/Forward this was said to be a bad thing, and although I do think it's cliched, I guess I don't find the trope as inherently offensive as some people do. I don't think it's unreasonable for a person who acquires a disability to be quite upset about it. It's a very different experience from being born with one.

[Fun fact: The third acquired disability on BSG was actually written in at the last minute as an accommodation for the actor's temporary disability. I really think that inflexible notions of "the way things have to be done" is a huge barrier for PWDs in many different areas--actually, one of the biggest barriers of all--and the fact that the BSG writers don't subscribe to that shit redeems them in my eyes for anything they've done wrong.]

However--why are fictional characters with physical disabilities almost always people with acquired disabilities? Usually paraplegia? Don't quote me on this because I'm too lazy to do an analysis of all the recent TV shows and movies that have included characters with disabilities, but I think I'm right. For example I think Avatar was the most recent big movie that had a character with a disability, and he of course had paraplegia. I think it's usually paraplegia. (Actually, House is an extremely good example--it's probably the most popular TV show with a major disabled character, and he is played not very convincingly by a non-disabled actor, and though he is well-developed he fits the bitter/evil disabled person stereotype in a way that wouldn't be possible if the character had been born disabled).

One obvious reason is casting. As we all know, people with disabilities can't act, so you can only write disabled characters who can be played by nondisabled actors. There are some disabilities where people who have them look physically different. There are also disabilities where people move differently--a person who doesn't have CP probably could play someone with CP, but it would take actual study and work. Which would be terrible.

(I want to start watching Breaking Bad for the sole reason that there is a character with CP. He's played by an actor with CP, which makes it 400 times better, but even if he wasn't, I'd just be so excited to see a character with something besides a spinal cord injury.)

But the other reason, I think, is just that the idea of someone being born with a disability is unrelatable or unattractive to audiences/writers, or threatening, or just inconceivable--which makes me really angry. I'd like to think this isn't true but I think it's not only tremendously rare to have characters who were born with disabilities, it's especially rare to be given anything from those characters' perspectives (this includes telling their friends how they feel, having a relatable emotional outburst, and so on).

I think that:

1. It is hard for normal people to relate to someone with a disability who is not upset about having a disability. It's a lot more logical for someone to be upset about having a disability if they didn't have a disability before. Then the normal people can just be like, "yeah, I can relate, that would suck." Whereas someone who's just never been able to walk very well and is used to it would be impossible to relate to because...HOW CAN YOU BE OKAY WITH NOT BEING GOOD AT WALKING?? THAT'S SOOO TRAGIC!

2. Maybe people who acquire disabilities don't "feel disabled," at least at the beginning of their life with a disability. Maybe normal people can't identify with people who feel disabled, or they don't think of us as real, maybe because we're not good enough at being upset. So if we are portrayed, the focus has to be on our relatives and how upset they are, because watching a non-upset disabled person is just not possible for most people?

What do you think?

Okay someone better get excited

A few months ago I made a post about how much I liked the TV show United States of Tara last year. The first episode of the second season is airing on Monday and I'll probably be posting about every episode so I thought I would briefly shill for it and attempt to get other people interested.

Before I start, though, I should say that I wasn't as conscious of ableism when I watched the first season as I am now. I'm also probably much less conscious of ableism regarding mental illness than I am regarding any other kind; writing about ableism tends to focus on physical disabilities, and in real life my experience is with developmental disabilities, so I think I'm less likely to notice when people with mental illness are being discriminated against. United States of Tara is about a woman with a rare, "exotic" mental illness, Dissociative Identity Disorder. It's a comedy (/drama). Even though I don't know anyone with DID, I am pretty sure that Tara's experience in the show is very unrealistic. She has very distinct, cartoonish alter egos who are different ages and genders from her, have their own specific styles of dressing and talking, and behave outrageously. Tara's feelings about her mental illness, and people's reactions to it, are often portrayed as serious--but the actual behavior of the alters is usually meant to be funny.

I don't know how I would feel about this if I had DID or a similar illness. I think that I like how Tara's DID isn't portrayed as something incredibly tragic and heavy. It obviously is a problem, but for Tara's family, the alters are just another part of life and they can be funny. Of course, maybe I'm just rationalizing this because I like the show. I'm hoping that FWD/Forward or another blog that writes about disability issues in TV shows will have some posts about United States of Tara.

But yeah, now that I've done disclaimering here are some reasons I watch the show:

1. I love Toni Collette a lot (because I'm gay okay, fuck you, it is not my fault).

2. It's written by Diablo Cody--which I know is the opposite of a reason to watch something in some people's opinion, but I really don't get all the hate. I mean, so what, the characters say snarky things and make references. I think it's fun.

3. Some of the reactions people have to Tara's DID are really spot-on depictions of the stupid things people say about invisible disabilities, like when Tara's sister refuses to believe that Tara's DID is real and claims that she fakes it for attention, or when one of Tara's clients says "I think all women have DID, a little, because we all have to be so many different people in one day."

4. Tara's 15-year-old daughter is a cool character because she is a stereotypical rebellious teenage girl (she dresses in an "edgy" way, has sex, etc.) but she is really smart and resourceful. Tara gets stressed out about the things her daughter does, but we're not actually made to think that the daughter is stupid or a bad person.

5. Tara's 14-year-old son is even better because he's a gay character who is neither written as a stereotype or written against stereotypes. He happens to be quirky and kind of girly, but not in a really obvious musical-theater way like Kurt from Glee. He's just an odd kid who is gay. Also, even though there are problems that come from him being gay, they're not necessarily the expected ones. His parents and sister are completely used to him being gay, for example, and don't even see it as an issue.