This is still a response to The Feminist Wire being ableist and douchey, but elaborating more on some things.
The call for whatever it was treated disabled people as a monolith. Disability, according to The Feminist Wire, is one thing. A homogenous experience, or at least all related, right? No. Not in the slighted "The Disabled" do not have necessarily that much in common except dealing with this horseshit. I am multiply disabled but unquestionably able bodied. And there are folks in other parts of the disability community who think "at least our minds are fine" is an acceptable thing to say. Those are different disability experiences. The experiences of neurodivergents differ-from each other, from those with physical disabilities, from those who are able in all ways. We are not a monolith.
And my disabilities were the ones that were erased.
Usually I hate comparing oppressions, but this has happened to me in other oppressions. Every once in a while academicy people will decide to talk about the Of Color Experience. And they treat PoC as a monolith, as though our experiences are the same. They are not. My experience as a Hapa woman are not the same as those of a Latina woman or a Black woman or an Arabic woman or a monoracial Asian woman. I get glimpses of some, because I am ambiguous like woah. But these lives are all going to be different. People are going to experience racism differently. My "you'd be so hot if you dressed as *insert anime character here*" is not the same as the ways other WoC are sexualized and ironed into stereotypes-other women are assumed hypersexual or supremely submissive or what have you. They're all shitty, but they are not the same experience. The fears we learned? Are not the same. It does us a disservice to talk about WoC as though we are a monolith.
It does all diverse groups a disservice to speak about us as a monolith. Invariably you are going to fuck right up and erase people and stereotype people and be terrible. If you don't understand that there are nuances, much less what they are, you are not the person to lead the conversation.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Feminist Wire, you may not colonize my community.
Alrighty, so Feminist Wire put out a call for papers (I think. I still have no idea what it is supposed to be!) and it was utterly cognitively inaccessible.
I sent them this:
And this is the revised version at the link: The Feminist Wire Call for Submissions.
Go read it. I'll wait.
Try to make sense of it. I'll wait a bit longer.
Note how it still makes no damn sense? Alyssa of Yes, That Too wrote to them, again, and the response she got can be found here: Yes, That Too.
My favorite part is the part where Feminist Wire tells us to translate it ourselves and share it with our communities, completely ignoring the part where they have been told we can't make head or tail of it.
This is the background for what I actually have to say to Feminist Wire:
Feminist Wire, this is colonizing bullshit. This is why I want very little to do with most feminism. I am an anti oppression activist, but I do not identify as a feminist because of behavior like this.
You may not colonize my identity. Disability is not a "trend". It isn't acceptable for able folks to sit around talking about whether or not it's ok to use disability as your go to metaphor for bad things (it's not) or why disability is suddenly popping up as, like, a thing (because we got loud and connected, that's why) or any of that. White feminists love to claim that the struggles of WoC are their struggles too. They aren't. That the struggles of poor women are theirs. Largely organized feminism is middle class-of a class that can afford to go get higher education in a discipline that's about sitting around talking about shit in fancy ass words, and teaching other people to do so. Your struggles up there? Not the same as those of poor women. At all.
And now you are trying to do it to one of my other identities. No. You may not. You can't handle the topic responsibly, as evidenced by your apparent assumption that disability = physical (I'm not convinced y'all should be using the word "Cripestemology" except to reference the conference, incidentally. Shit, I'm not sure it's my word and I actually have disabilities. Plural. Just not that kind). As evidenced by your refusal to make the teenieweeniest little effort to actually include the people you are talking about.
I read your call for whatever, and what I got was "oh, disability is a thing now. Maybe we can get money if we talk about it. But I don't want any actual disabled people there, ewww. If we say we're intersectional we don't actually have to be intersectional, if we just so happen to exclude people of multiple marginalizations with our language. If disabled people show up we might have to listen to them, pretend we think they're people, and objectively talking about our assumptions of their experiences is what I really want".
That is what I got out of your call for papers, Feminist Wire. And your responses to criticism didn't really change that. If anything, they made the gatekeeping look flat out intentional. It's so damn inconvenient when people you're trying to talk about 'objectively' (because only outsiders have an objective view...oh wait, where have I heard that before? right, anti feminist men) actually show up.
Get off my identity, Feminist Wire. You may not colonize it. Whatever fascinating insights you think you have are pedestrian, mundane, sophomoric, simplistic, and probably flat out wrong. Your efforts to keep us out unless we are already colonized have been noted. Your flagrant ableism has been noted. Your sounding just like every other damn able people organization ever has been noted. You think you're clever, telling us that we should just make our own accommodations if it matters so much? You aren't. We hear that all the time. It's not acceptable from anyone, and it's especially revolting from people who decided they're allowed to have a voice in disability discourse.
Simple guide for cognitive accessibility (which is fancyass for 'everyone can understand it): can your non academic friends read it without a dictionary? If no, it is definitely not accessible. If they need a specialized dictionary you're not even trying.
And if you can't explain what you mean in everyday speak, you clearly don't understand it well enough to be talking about it at all.
I sent them this:
Sooo I saw your call for papers. At least I think it was a call for papers. It was so full of cognitive inaccessibility that I cannot tell. Given that I actually am pretty fluent in SJese, this is kind of an issue.This is a whatever it is supposedly intersectional, supposedly about disabled people (assuming the disability community has come to realize, at this point, that folks with neurological disabilities are people too. I haven't heard "at least our minds are fine" since 2003). Supposedly including people without class privilege (which also tends to come without that-kind-of-education-you-need-to-understand0this privilege). Supposedly trying to cross racial lines, which feminism and disability circles are both absolute pants at.
So cognitive inaccessibility is unacceptable, both on the account of "a lot of disabled people are going 'buh?'", on account of a lot of people who couldn't afford a fancy pants education are going 'buh?', and on account that a lot of disabled people, PoC, and disabled PoC could not afford said fancy pants education. Language like this is why disability discourse (or is it rhetoric? I'm a disabled WoC who couldn't afford a fancy pants education & had to go into something besides academia, something with job security, at a community college) is so white and so upper middle class. Because no one else can understand it.
Can I get the plain language version please?
KassianeRadical Neurodivergence Speakinghttp://timetolisten.blogspot.comWe Are Like Your Childhttp://wearelikeyourchild.blogspot.com
And this is the revised version at the link: The Feminist Wire Call for Submissions.
Go read it. I'll wait.
Try to make sense of it. I'll wait a bit longer.
Note how it still makes no damn sense? Alyssa of Yes, That Too wrote to them, again, and the response she got can be found here: Yes, That Too.
My favorite part is the part where Feminist Wire tells us to translate it ourselves and share it with our communities, completely ignoring the part where they have been told we can't make head or tail of it.
This is the background for what I actually have to say to Feminist Wire:
Feminist Wire, this is colonizing bullshit. This is why I want very little to do with most feminism. I am an anti oppression activist, but I do not identify as a feminist because of behavior like this.
You may not colonize my identity. Disability is not a "trend". It isn't acceptable for able folks to sit around talking about whether or not it's ok to use disability as your go to metaphor for bad things (it's not) or why disability is suddenly popping up as, like, a thing (because we got loud and connected, that's why) or any of that. White feminists love to claim that the struggles of WoC are their struggles too. They aren't. That the struggles of poor women are theirs. Largely organized feminism is middle class-of a class that can afford to go get higher education in a discipline that's about sitting around talking about shit in fancy ass words, and teaching other people to do so. Your struggles up there? Not the same as those of poor women. At all.
And now you are trying to do it to one of my other identities. No. You may not. You can't handle the topic responsibly, as evidenced by your apparent assumption that disability = physical (I'm not convinced y'all should be using the word "Cripestemology" except to reference the conference, incidentally. Shit, I'm not sure it's my word and I actually have disabilities. Plural. Just not that kind). As evidenced by your refusal to make the teenieweeniest little effort to actually include the people you are talking about.
I read your call for whatever, and what I got was "oh, disability is a thing now. Maybe we can get money if we talk about it. But I don't want any actual disabled people there, ewww. If we say we're intersectional we don't actually have to be intersectional, if we just so happen to exclude people of multiple marginalizations with our language. If disabled people show up we might have to listen to them, pretend we think they're people, and objectively talking about our assumptions of their experiences is what I really want".
That is what I got out of your call for papers, Feminist Wire. And your responses to criticism didn't really change that. If anything, they made the gatekeeping look flat out intentional. It's so damn inconvenient when people you're trying to talk about 'objectively' (because only outsiders have an objective view...oh wait, where have I heard that before? right, anti feminist men) actually show up.
Get off my identity, Feminist Wire. You may not colonize it. Whatever fascinating insights you think you have are pedestrian, mundane, sophomoric, simplistic, and probably flat out wrong. Your efforts to keep us out unless we are already colonized have been noted. Your flagrant ableism has been noted. Your sounding just like every other damn able people organization ever has been noted. You think you're clever, telling us that we should just make our own accommodations if it matters so much? You aren't. We hear that all the time. It's not acceptable from anyone, and it's especially revolting from people who decided they're allowed to have a voice in disability discourse.
Simple guide for cognitive accessibility (which is fancyass for 'everyone can understand it): can your non academic friends read it without a dictionary? If no, it is definitely not accessible. If they need a specialized dictionary you're not even trying.
And if you can't explain what you mean in everyday speak, you clearly don't understand it well enough to be talking about it at all.
Dear Alyssa,
We appreciate your feedback and
comments. We've discussed the concerns, and rather than rewriting the
CFP again, or creating multiple versions, we invite you (and others) to
share your own interpretation of the CFP with your communities. This
seems to us the most reasonable and helpful way to proceed.
Best wishes,
Editorial Collective
- See more at: http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/2013/08/see-you-and-social-media-crisis.html#sthash.5bbI0t0U.dpuf
Dear Alyssa,
We appreciate your feedback and
comments. We've discussed the concerns, and rather than rewriting the
CFP again, or creating multiple versions, we invite you (and others) to
share your own interpretation of the CFP with your communities. This
seems to us the most reasonable and helpful way to proceed.
Best wishes,
Editorial Collective
- See more at: http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/2013/08/see-you-and-social-media-crisis.html#sthash.5bbI0t0U.dpuf
Dear Alyssa,
We appreciate your feedback and
comments. We've discussed the concerns, and rather than rewriting the
CFP again, or creating multiple versions, we invite you (and others) to
share your own interpretation of the CFP with your communities. This
seems to us the most reasonable and helpful way to proceed.
Best wishes,
Editorial Collective
- See more at: http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/2013/08/see-you-and-social-media-crisis.html#sthash.5bbI0t0U.dpuf
Dear Alyssa,
We appreciate your feedback and
comments. We've discussed the concerns, and rather than rewriting the
CFP again, or creating multiple versions, we invite you (and others) to
share your own interpretation of the CFP with your communities. This
seems to us the most reasonable and helpful way to proceed.
Best wishes,
Editorial Collective
- See more at: http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/2013/08/see-you-and-social-media-crisis.html#sthash.5bbI0t0U.dpufDear Alyssa,
We appreciate your feedback and comments. We've discussed the concerns, and rather than rewriting the CFP again, or creating multiple versions, we invite you (and others) to share your own interpretation of the CFP with your communities. This seems to us the most reasonable and helpful way to proceed.Best wishes,Editorial Collective- See more at: http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/2013/08/see-you-and-social-media-crisis.html#sthash.5bbI0t0U.dpuf
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
What I would do if...
If I was triggering someone's potentially fatal and nearly uncertainly uncomfortable medical issue, I would stop whatever I was doing. I would not stop to argue about it. I would not tell them that their medical issue is not a big deal-even if I thought I knew something about it. Dunning-Kruger is a thing. I might ask later how that worked, depending on the person.
But I would stop what I was doing, apologize, and move on with my life.
If a friend of mine failed step one, and was feeling anything but proper remorse in the fallout, and for some reason the victim of their asshattery was someone I had to deal with, I would. I would do that first. My friends have more than one friend. My friend should have stopped the damn trigger. If I am responsible for a group of people, my priority in the triage is not my friend who feels sorry for themselves because their fuckup had consequences. My priority is the person who was fucked up at.
And then I certainly would not spend hours trying to make the victim feel sorry for my friends because Reasons. I would not invalidate their experience in this way. If I did, and someone called me on it, I would stop what I was doing, apologize, and try to get back on track. In that situation my first priority is to make the person who was actually hurt feel better. Not to say "well my friend feels bad too". Not sorry, just bad. That's not right.
If I did that? The correct response would be to apologize, stop doing it, and move on.
And then! If the person whose emergency it was, for whatever reason, was still not doing awesomely the next day, but had responsibilities, there are a number of things I would do:
-I would check on them early, especially if they were nowhere to be seen.
-I would check on them often, especially if they were nowhere to be seen.
-I would do everything in my power to not pressure them to do whatever it was. Even if I really wanted them to. Because it wasn't my emergencies. I have plenty, I don't need to appropriate theirs.
-I would not separate them from people acting as support people. Even if I could not stand those people. People don't always like my support folks either. Tough shit for them, & tough shit for me.
Basically, it would be about the actual injured party being the first priority. Their safety. Their feeling like they were part of the community rather than a means to whatever they were scheduled to do. They need to be ok.
There are certain assumptions I'd make. If someone is melting down up until the point they're supposed to do whatever? It's probably not going to happen. No matter how much I want it to. No matter how many folks want it to. That person is probably not ok if they are still at that space in spite of precautions. That is how it is. I'm a grownup & need to learn to deal.
If for whatever reason the person did the thing, and later said they felt manipulated because Reasons, I would not argue with them. I would not say that I shit golden crusted good intentions and therefore did nothing of the sort. I would not make myself a martyr to their being mean or their not feeling ok or them feeling icky or what have you. I may not have meant to fuck up, but that is a situation where I fucked up. We all fuck up.
The response is not to throw a big fit. That is not helping the person whose emergency escalated into a crisis. It's kind of a douche move, to keep centering myself in their narrative. It's majorly a douche move to make myself the victim of their being hurt. And I am not a douche.
I'd apologize. I'd listen, if they wanted to tell me what I did that made them feel so icky about the whole thing. I'd try to not engage in whatever it was that I did again. Even if it was really really hard. I would stop, apologize, go forth and do better. Even salvage a relationship with the person, if that is what they wanted.
There are lots of places to turn a big situation around. But it takes work from the person doing the wronging, even if they didn't mean to do wrong. Intent is not what matters. What matters is what you do. And the further down the line these things get, the harder it is to believe in golden intentions or even giving any shits at all about the original harmed party. If I fuck up, I am not the harmed party, no matter how defensive I am. That's appropriating someone else's pain and it is bullshit.
But I would stop what I was doing, apologize, and move on with my life.
If a friend of mine failed step one, and was feeling anything but proper remorse in the fallout, and for some reason the victim of their asshattery was someone I had to deal with, I would. I would do that first. My friends have more than one friend. My friend should have stopped the damn trigger. If I am responsible for a group of people, my priority in the triage is not my friend who feels sorry for themselves because their fuckup had consequences. My priority is the person who was fucked up at.
And then I certainly would not spend hours trying to make the victim feel sorry for my friends because Reasons. I would not invalidate their experience in this way. If I did, and someone called me on it, I would stop what I was doing, apologize, and try to get back on track. In that situation my first priority is to make the person who was actually hurt feel better. Not to say "well my friend feels bad too". Not sorry, just bad. That's not right.
If I did that? The correct response would be to apologize, stop doing it, and move on.
And then! If the person whose emergency it was, for whatever reason, was still not doing awesomely the next day, but had responsibilities, there are a number of things I would do:
-I would check on them early, especially if they were nowhere to be seen.
-I would check on them often, especially if they were nowhere to be seen.
-I would do everything in my power to not pressure them to do whatever it was. Even if I really wanted them to. Because it wasn't my emergencies. I have plenty, I don't need to appropriate theirs.
-I would not separate them from people acting as support people. Even if I could not stand those people. People don't always like my support folks either. Tough shit for them, & tough shit for me.
Basically, it would be about the actual injured party being the first priority. Their safety. Their feeling like they were part of the community rather than a means to whatever they were scheduled to do. They need to be ok.
There are certain assumptions I'd make. If someone is melting down up until the point they're supposed to do whatever? It's probably not going to happen. No matter how much I want it to. No matter how many folks want it to. That person is probably not ok if they are still at that space in spite of precautions. That is how it is. I'm a grownup & need to learn to deal.
If for whatever reason the person did the thing, and later said they felt manipulated because Reasons, I would not argue with them. I would not say that I shit golden crusted good intentions and therefore did nothing of the sort. I would not make myself a martyr to their being mean or their not feeling ok or them feeling icky or what have you. I may not have meant to fuck up, but that is a situation where I fucked up. We all fuck up.
The response is not to throw a big fit. That is not helping the person whose emergency escalated into a crisis. It's kind of a douche move, to keep centering myself in their narrative. It's majorly a douche move to make myself the victim of their being hurt. And I am not a douche.
I'd apologize. I'd listen, if they wanted to tell me what I did that made them feel so icky about the whole thing. I'd try to not engage in whatever it was that I did again. Even if it was really really hard. I would stop, apologize, go forth and do better. Even salvage a relationship with the person, if that is what they wanted.
There are lots of places to turn a big situation around. But it takes work from the person doing the wronging, even if they didn't mean to do wrong. Intent is not what matters. What matters is what you do. And the further down the line these things get, the harder it is to believe in golden intentions or even giving any shits at all about the original harmed party. If I fuck up, I am not the harmed party, no matter how defensive I am. That's appropriating someone else's pain and it is bullshit.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Abused kid survival skills, & the abuse thereof.
So it's no secret that I was an abused kid. Like, a really abused kid. And that my adulthood has not been all grand treatment either. And that I had compliance training, the outcome of which looks a lot like the survival skills I developed as an abused kid.
Why talk about this now?
I had these survival mechanisms exploited this week, by folks who should know better-folks who have seen the outcomes of abuse, seen the outcomes of compliance training, who should be able to tell the difference between genuine enthusiasm and "anything to make it stop please make it stop".
Saying "no" is an early, basic way of asserting boundaries. Here's the thing about asserting boundaries: when you are dealing with manipulative, abusive-especially emotionally abusive-people, you have to keep asserting them. This takes effort. This takes a lot of effort in the face of unrelenting pressure and fear. It is hard, and when you are used to standing alone, it's scary as fuck.
In my life, emotional manipulation was often, though not 100% of the time, followed by sexual or physical abuse if I didn't respond to what the abuser wanted. I do have a defiant streak a mile wide, but the fact of the matter is, I feel visceral fear that one has to be a survivor to understand. Emotional manipulation is as much a PTSD trigger as telling me that my access needs don't matter (a thing that says "your life doesn't matter", given that I have a history of actually stopping that whole heart and breathing thing & a clustering tendency) and more triggering than someone twice my size screaming at me. Yelling? I know when to duck.
So, predictably, if one speaks the right psychological words, sounds the right kind of reasonable, it is very easy to get me to shut down. It is easy to get a stream of "I don't know", which should be a sign that no meaningful agreeing is happening-no meaningful anything is happening. All the "I don't know"s in that situation? They mean "tell me what to do, I don't know what to do to make this stop, just tell me stop stop stop please". That is what the string of "I don't know" means. I cannot access my own wants and needs in that state, because the parts of my brain that control such things are hooked into survival, not agency.
Once you have hit that particular string, it is easy, oh so easy, to tell me to do whatever the fuck you want. And I will likely do it. I have an autopilot for many many things that is better than the thought out manual pilot of other folks. I had to in order to survive. I was also taught that my own self care doesn't matter, only other people do, and it's so easy to override that with the right words about honoring commitments or disappointing others. I can talk a big game about not many shits given, but I, too, have programming. And the programming beneath what I have actively worked to build up in order to save myself? It says I don't matter. It says only other people matter. It says putting other people everywhere but last is how to survive. Survival trumps self care. It always does.
So, I shut down. It's so much easier to do what they want, all disconnected, then it is to continuously assert your boundaries. Saying no is how you get physically or emotionally beat to shit. Turning off means that it hits eventually, but in the moment you get whatever it is done and hate yourself for giving in afterwards. And I have started giving myself permission to acknowledge that people who take advantage of this are perpetuating abuse, too.
Taking advantage of my survival mechanisms is wrong. It is abusive and it is bullshit and it is a threat to my continued psychological health. Manipulating me without giving me time to think isn't acceptable behavior. Without processing time, without a chance to figure out what is going on, my agreement means nothing. This is not unique to me. Taking advantage of this is emotional abuse. Those scars are just as real as those from physical maltreatment-you just can't see them. But that doesn't mean using them doesn't hurt.
Do not violate my trust that way. It is bullshit.
Why talk about this now?
I had these survival mechanisms exploited this week, by folks who should know better-folks who have seen the outcomes of abuse, seen the outcomes of compliance training, who should be able to tell the difference between genuine enthusiasm and "anything to make it stop please make it stop".
Saying "no" is an early, basic way of asserting boundaries. Here's the thing about asserting boundaries: when you are dealing with manipulative, abusive-especially emotionally abusive-people, you have to keep asserting them. This takes effort. This takes a lot of effort in the face of unrelenting pressure and fear. It is hard, and when you are used to standing alone, it's scary as fuck.
In my life, emotional manipulation was often, though not 100% of the time, followed by sexual or physical abuse if I didn't respond to what the abuser wanted. I do have a defiant streak a mile wide, but the fact of the matter is, I feel visceral fear that one has to be a survivor to understand. Emotional manipulation is as much a PTSD trigger as telling me that my access needs don't matter (a thing that says "your life doesn't matter", given that I have a history of actually stopping that whole heart and breathing thing & a clustering tendency) and more triggering than someone twice my size screaming at me. Yelling? I know when to duck.
So, predictably, if one speaks the right psychological words, sounds the right kind of reasonable, it is very easy to get me to shut down. It is easy to get a stream of "I don't know", which should be a sign that no meaningful agreeing is happening-no meaningful anything is happening. All the "I don't know"s in that situation? They mean "tell me what to do, I don't know what to do to make this stop, just tell me stop stop stop please". That is what the string of "I don't know" means. I cannot access my own wants and needs in that state, because the parts of my brain that control such things are hooked into survival, not agency.
Once you have hit that particular string, it is easy, oh so easy, to tell me to do whatever the fuck you want. And I will likely do it. I have an autopilot for many many things that is better than the thought out manual pilot of other folks. I had to in order to survive. I was also taught that my own self care doesn't matter, only other people do, and it's so easy to override that with the right words about honoring commitments or disappointing others. I can talk a big game about not many shits given, but I, too, have programming. And the programming beneath what I have actively worked to build up in order to save myself? It says I don't matter. It says only other people matter. It says putting other people everywhere but last is how to survive. Survival trumps self care. It always does.
So, I shut down. It's so much easier to do what they want, all disconnected, then it is to continuously assert your boundaries. Saying no is how you get physically or emotionally beat to shit. Turning off means that it hits eventually, but in the moment you get whatever it is done and hate yourself for giving in afterwards. And I have started giving myself permission to acknowledge that people who take advantage of this are perpetuating abuse, too.
Taking advantage of my survival mechanisms is wrong. It is abusive and it is bullshit and it is a threat to my continued psychological health. Manipulating me without giving me time to think isn't acceptable behavior. Without processing time, without a chance to figure out what is going on, my agreement means nothing. This is not unique to me. Taking advantage of this is emotional abuse. Those scars are just as real as those from physical maltreatment-you just can't see them. But that doesn't mean using them doesn't hurt.
Do not violate my trust that way. It is bullshit.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Presuming competence: not just about what I *can* do.
As a disabled person, I have experienced failure a lot in my time. I have experienced the kind of failure that can be turned into success by fine tuning the failure. I have experienced the failure that comes from being sabotaged by low expectations or unreasonable demands. And I have experienced the kind of failure that comes from just not being able to do what I am trying to do.
What does this have to do with presuming competence?
Well, the first part of presuming competence is presuming capacity. Presuming that the ability to learn and understand and do new things is there. This is good. I like this. Please, keep believing that I can do things, or at least should be able to give them a good honest try before doing them for me or moving on and putting it in the permanent failure pile. Assuming what you are asking of me is possible here in reality land (deciding to not have a seizure in face of triggers doesn't fall in this category, FYI. And is the inspiring events, plural, for this post), let me try it. I want to try it. I want to fine tune it. Probably.
So, presume I can learn. If I tell you I can do something, or may be able to do something but I need to try it first, run with that. Allow me to try. Help me fine tune if I'm close but not quite. Rephrase. Demonstrate. Whatever. If I think it's in my eventual capacities, and you support that, that is presuming competence and is good.
But. I have failed a lot in my day. There are things I just cannot do. It doesn't matter that I can speak usually or can do a backflip or follow complicated written down chemistry lab instructions or calculate gymnasts' trajectories preternaturally fast, I still cannot hold more than 2 auditory directions in my head on a good day. I still can't read a map in any useful fashion. Whether I can make food without setting it on fire is iffy. I cannot just block sounds out. I cannot sit still and think at the same time. I cannot always make decisions without substantial field narrowing. I cannot always write a thing on demand without significant scaffolding. Et cetera.
When I tell you I cannot do something, presume that I am competent to understand my own limitations. I am not being lazy. I am not manipulating others into doing things for me. I have legitimate support needs. I have workarounds for most of the things I listed above. Slow, ponderous, time and spoon consuming workarounds, but workarounds nonetheless. But the truth of the matter is there are things I cannot do and I know that I cannot do them.
Assume that when I tell you something is not in my skillset and never will be, that I know from experience, or am making an educated guess. If you want me to cross an unfamiliar city on transit using nothing but maps and paper timetables without getting lost? You are dreaming. That is not going to happen. Have I tried this in recent memory? No I have not. But I know:
-I cannot read a map in realtime
-I am significantly time agnosiac
-My ability to navigate places I know very well is pretty iffy, much less new places
-I know the above well enough to struggle deviating from any initial plan, even if the initial plan deviates from me.
So it isn't a stretch at all to say that this is a thing that is not going to happen. This is an educated statement based on my knowledge of my skills and skill holes.
If I say I cannot do something, I do not need to prove to you, and myself, yet again, that I cannot do it. To demand that I show you my inability is presuming incompetence: you are telling me that I am wrong about my inabilities, and my ability to know them, until you determine otherwise. This undermines both my own agency and the ideal of presuming ability. We all have inabilities. It's ok to have inabilities-unless, it seems, you are disabled. Acknowledging a difficulty is not the same as presuming global inability. It's part of seeing me as a whole, really real person. Really real people are allowed to not be able to do things.
Proving yet again that I cannot do something so that you can say you presumed competence, even when I told you something is not a thing I can do doesn't do wonders for me, either. The chances of me waking up one day with that set of skills in infinitesimally small. Forcing me through that particular failure above rather than meeting me somewhere or giving me detailed written directions for several options? That's anxiety attacks. That is an anxiety attack squared, because being late makes me panic, not knowing where I am makes me panic, and plan changes that I have no good way of dealing with? Those are near inevitable, and also make me panic! Putting me through that because maybe I magically obtained abilities heretofore unprecedented? That's actually really mean. Don't do that. It sucks.
The ideal of presuming competence is lovely. I am all for it. But one of the skills we need to develop, and have acknowledged, is knowing where we struggle, where we fail again and again. Do not undermine this very important skill by telling us we are able to do everything but describe our own inabilities. That's not presuming competence. That's something else.
What does this have to do with presuming competence?
Well, the first part of presuming competence is presuming capacity. Presuming that the ability to learn and understand and do new things is there. This is good. I like this. Please, keep believing that I can do things, or at least should be able to give them a good honest try before doing them for me or moving on and putting it in the permanent failure pile. Assuming what you are asking of me is possible here in reality land (deciding to not have a seizure in face of triggers doesn't fall in this category, FYI. And is the inspiring events, plural, for this post), let me try it. I want to try it. I want to fine tune it. Probably.
So, presume I can learn. If I tell you I can do something, or may be able to do something but I need to try it first, run with that. Allow me to try. Help me fine tune if I'm close but not quite. Rephrase. Demonstrate. Whatever. If I think it's in my eventual capacities, and you support that, that is presuming competence and is good.
But. I have failed a lot in my day. There are things I just cannot do. It doesn't matter that I can speak usually or can do a backflip or follow complicated written down chemistry lab instructions or calculate gymnasts' trajectories preternaturally fast, I still cannot hold more than 2 auditory directions in my head on a good day. I still can't read a map in any useful fashion. Whether I can make food without setting it on fire is iffy. I cannot just block sounds out. I cannot sit still and think at the same time. I cannot always make decisions without substantial field narrowing. I cannot always write a thing on demand without significant scaffolding. Et cetera.
When I tell you I cannot do something, presume that I am competent to understand my own limitations. I am not being lazy. I am not manipulating others into doing things for me. I have legitimate support needs. I have workarounds for most of the things I listed above. Slow, ponderous, time and spoon consuming workarounds, but workarounds nonetheless. But the truth of the matter is there are things I cannot do and I know that I cannot do them.
Assume that when I tell you something is not in my skillset and never will be, that I know from experience, or am making an educated guess. If you want me to cross an unfamiliar city on transit using nothing but maps and paper timetables without getting lost? You are dreaming. That is not going to happen. Have I tried this in recent memory? No I have not. But I know:
-I cannot read a map in realtime
-I am significantly time agnosiac
-My ability to navigate places I know very well is pretty iffy, much less new places
-I know the above well enough to struggle deviating from any initial plan, even if the initial plan deviates from me.
So it isn't a stretch at all to say that this is a thing that is not going to happen. This is an educated statement based on my knowledge of my skills and skill holes.
If I say I cannot do something, I do not need to prove to you, and myself, yet again, that I cannot do it. To demand that I show you my inability is presuming incompetence: you are telling me that I am wrong about my inabilities, and my ability to know them, until you determine otherwise. This undermines both my own agency and the ideal of presuming ability. We all have inabilities. It's ok to have inabilities-unless, it seems, you are disabled. Acknowledging a difficulty is not the same as presuming global inability. It's part of seeing me as a whole, really real person. Really real people are allowed to not be able to do things.
Proving yet again that I cannot do something so that you can say you presumed competence, even when I told you something is not a thing I can do doesn't do wonders for me, either. The chances of me waking up one day with that set of skills in infinitesimally small. Forcing me through that particular failure above rather than meeting me somewhere or giving me detailed written directions for several options? That's anxiety attacks. That is an anxiety attack squared, because being late makes me panic, not knowing where I am makes me panic, and plan changes that I have no good way of dealing with? Those are near inevitable, and also make me panic! Putting me through that because maybe I magically obtained abilities heretofore unprecedented? That's actually really mean. Don't do that. It sucks.
The ideal of presuming competence is lovely. I am all for it. But one of the skills we need to develop, and have acknowledged, is knowing where we struggle, where we fail again and again. Do not undermine this very important skill by telling us we are able to do everything but describe our own inabilities. That's not presuming competence. That's something else.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
The helper personality scares me...
Some of the scariest people I have ever met are people in helping professions. They're teachers, or therapists, or alt med healers, or whatever. And they have nothing but the best of intentions.
This sounds lovely, but is actually very scary. See, they mean to do good. Often, their entire self concept is built around being a Good Person and their mission in life being Helping People. These are noble goals and all, but when you make them your whole Who You Are, you can become a scary person.
These helpers just cannot wrap their head around the idea that they can mean well all the live long day, but that doesn't mean they are doing well. Some people who are helpers? Their chosen method of helping actively hurts people. And they cannot process this-they are Good People and Help Others, they can't possibly be doing damage! That's the other social skills therapy or whatever, not theirs! They mean well, you see. They are Doing Good. They couldn't possibly be accidentally hurting people!
And they take it as a personal attack. People do not react well to what they perceive as a personal attack, especially against their very core, in this case the idea that they are Good People who are Helping Others. Rather than evaluating if, from the perspective of their victims...uh, clients...they are causing harm, they lash back. They can't wrap their heads around the idea of anything but their intent, as if trying is the same as doing. Their self concept seems to be more important than actually being helpful. It's like it doesn't compute that they could be wrong.
This is really scary. You never know what people are so caught up in this idea, so you don't know how they react if the harsh truth that their chosen therapy hurts people. Unpredictability is scary, as are people who would rather believe I am trying to hurt them because I am an asshole then believe that maybe, just maybe, their intention is not magical.
This sounds lovely, but is actually very scary. See, they mean to do good. Often, their entire self concept is built around being a Good Person and their mission in life being Helping People. These are noble goals and all, but when you make them your whole Who You Are, you can become a scary person.
These helpers just cannot wrap their head around the idea that they can mean well all the live long day, but that doesn't mean they are doing well. Some people who are helpers? Their chosen method of helping actively hurts people. And they cannot process this-they are Good People and Help Others, they can't possibly be doing damage! That's the other social skills therapy or whatever, not theirs! They mean well, you see. They are Doing Good. They couldn't possibly be accidentally hurting people!
And they take it as a personal attack. People do not react well to what they perceive as a personal attack, especially against their very core, in this case the idea that they are Good People who are Helping Others. Rather than evaluating if, from the perspective of their victims...uh, clients...they are causing harm, they lash back. They can't wrap their heads around the idea of anything but their intent, as if trying is the same as doing. Their self concept seems to be more important than actually being helpful. It's like it doesn't compute that they could be wrong.
This is really scary. You never know what people are so caught up in this idea, so you don't know how they react if the harsh truth that their chosen therapy hurts people. Unpredictability is scary, as are people who would rather believe I am trying to hurt them because I am an asshole then believe that maybe, just maybe, their intention is not magical.
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Classic Neurodivergence: You aren't autism. We are. Shut up and listen.
This was originally posted Sept 23, 2009. I stand by the swearing. Not so sure about the drive off a bridge implied suggestion. Go drive over it and far away, sure. I no longerst would choose to make the ageist comments about juvinility or adolescence either. But I totally stand by the swearing. And have not edited the post in any way.
This was a reaction to that awful "I am Autism" video. Simply ghastly.
**Profanity ahead. It's well earned,**
I saw the new Autism Speaks video shortly after finding out they've got a fundraiser in my stay-weird-pride-and-hippies-and-nonconformity city. And all I have to say to that is:
Autism Speaks, shut the fuck up and get the fuck out. There are a number of bridges here. You like driving off bridges, right? Go pick one but leave us the hell alone. And do the right thing, the responsible thing, and leave your children with a responsible adult (you are neither of these things, either as individuals or a collective) while you do so.
The vast majority of the autistic community utterly LOATHES you, Autism Speaks. Why? Because you purport to speak for us. YOU DON'T. You don't speak for your children either. You speak with the voice of spoilt parents who don't want children, but puppets. You are SPOILED.
Now, there is NO acceptable, none whatsoever, NO acceptable justification for anything in that video. "Faster than cancer and AIDS", REALLY? REALLY? I'm in my mid 20s and haven't died yet. What the hell? Oh wait. Autism doesn't kill you. This is profoundly disrespectful to people with fatal diseases. STOP DOING IT. It's also disrespectful to autistic people. Haven't you heard? We are people. Yep, that child who embarrasses you oh so much (oh poor you. Be a grownup and get over it) is in fact their very own person, and spreading that kind of hate is disrespectful.
No one kidnapped us. We are not the destroyer of hopes and dreams-as awesome as Kassiane, Destroyer of Dreams sounds, that's not how it is. Children do not exist to live your dreams. We have our own dreams. Time to get over the myth of the perfect child--everyone has to, not just the parents of autistic children--and learn to accept that your children are their own people. Time to let them dream their own dreams instead of wanking for DECADES on the fact that they aren't the child you wanted. It's disgusting. It's juvenile. It is narcissistic and it is tired. Your adolescence is over.
Shut the fuck up and go away. Let AUTISTICS speak. Stop trying to rob us of the communication which we fight so hard for. You don't speak for us. You don't fight for us. You fight against us, with lies, hate, bigotry, and your own self centered lack of empathy. I feel for your children, but not because they're autistic. Because they have to live with such monsters for parents. Monsters who fight the very core of their childrens' beings, demonize them to everyone, just to make it all about mommy. Screw that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)