#in a world where people are not ableist and people can get accomodations disability is not pure suffering | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

doberbutts · 11 months

Note

I don't support everything he has ever said, but you should understand that this is coming from decades of abuse. Cripple course didn't start this year. Or the last. MIABs have been sending us death threats for a very, very long time. They literally stole our terms, closed their communities to us, and demanded we thank them for it. They called my friends ableist for wanting our own spaces and drove them to suicide. Let me ask you this. How many PD only spaces have you found? Compared to the numerous MI only, or even Autistic Only spaces?

Is one angry cripple really the bad guy?

I gotta tell you in 30 years on this earth never once have I thought that any of the various things wrong with me were properly accomodated unless I was specifically in a space that was intentionally curated to accomodate my specific needs. Including in so-called "disability-friendly" spaces. Sometimes it was the neurological. Sometimes it was the physical. Sometimes it was the mental. But without shaping my life around my needs, I was never really supported.

And for the record I don't love labelling folks as acronyms. It always seems somewhat combattive to me.

But I'm seeing some pretty bad takes on my dash, including "people with such severe sensory issues that sensory devices don't help them are rare and don't really go on the internet" (um. Hi?) and "at least you can get in the door" (yes I can physically move my body to go in the building but then I will vomit everywhere and pass out on the floor in minutes and that means there's accomodations that are lacking here) and "neurodivergent people are always coddled" (lmao yes I was literally beaten by my second grade teacher for having add symptoms in class but go off I guess).

Maybe it's because I was raised by a disabled man who was born in a time where the world was so hostile to disability that he didn't even know he was deaf until he was in his 20s, he just thought he was genuinely stupid because he interpreted it as "can't understand" instead of "can't hear". Because I was raised by his wife who specialized in teaching disabled children. Because I was born with multiple disabilities and from a young age was taught to fight for my rights and advocate for myself.

But, honestly? I think attacking other disabled people is wrong. Shouldn't really come as a surprise considering I say this about everything else 🤷‍♂️ there are some otherwise able-bodied neurodivergent people who are shitheads to both the severely mentally ill and also to physically disabled people. There are some mentally ill people who are shitheads to neurodivergent and physically disabled people. There are physically disabled people who are shitheads to neurodivergent and mentally ill people. But here's the thing.

I just think they're all shitheads.

180 notes · View notes

iliadette · 1 year

Note

What are some reasons to actually like Spirk + Star Trek?

I'm an ORV fan but I used to watch Voyager as a kid and I've seen a one or two of the newer movies a few years back (dark something something?) I stayed away from the Star Trek fandom as an adult because I mainly associated it with racism and misogynistic nerd guys.

Hi, anon. Sorry if this ask will take a long time to appear, English is not my first language an I am bad with words on a good day.

You're probably thinking of Into Darkness. It's the second reboot movie. There's a lot of different opinions about those lmao. Personally, I love them even though they do have bad bad points, but then again, I love everything about Star Trek, even at its worst.

There's no denying that there was a bit of period-typical misogyny in the original Star Trek, and it got worse in the long run after Rick Berman was selected for production. Latent misogyny, hetero and amatonormativity, as any 60-to-90s show does. To deny that would be stupid. But.

Star Trek was one of, if not the first, tv programs to depict people of different races working together, as equal as they could get in a military-like setting, in a time when segregation and Cold War were still a thing. A Black woman, an Asian man, a Russian one, a Scottish one, all holding a major position in a government vessel, all iconic characters to this day. Censorship never let him, but Gene Roddenberry, the original creator, always intended to include queer people in ST, as I will explain better later. ‌The original series had episodes which very clearly condemned nazism, racism, the Vietnam war, genocide. The Ferengi race of the Next Generation were created to be a satire of western capitalists but were wrongly pegged as an antisemitic stereotype. If a major character is disabled, they have accomodations made for them, they don't have their disability erased, though I hear that Strange New World kind of fucked that up. An episode of TNG was in protest of conversion therapy though people didn't like how it ended. A major theme of Deep Space Nine revolves around colonialism. It had the first black protagonist (commander and later captain); the first female first officer in the franchise to have a major role, who formerly fought in a resistance movement against a the occupation of her planet by a fascist imperialist race; the first trans woman in all but designation, who btw very much kissed another woman in an absolutely iconic scene; a canonically very neurodivergent doctor. Voyager had the first female captain to star in a series. Seven of Nine's character is particularly dear to me because while it's obvious that she was added mainly to boost and entice the male audience with her sex appeal (and well, I am sapphic and far from immune), it's also obvious how much the writers and Jeri Ryan cared for her storyline and growth. She's such a complex character, I really love her. Seven-centric episodes are always a treat for me. I can't remember anything else off the top of my head, sorry abt that (I also haven't watched Enterprise and the newest series yet so I can't talk about that).

Does ST have bad moments? Misogynistic, racist, homophobic, ableist, amatonormative moments? Hell yes. Some episodes are really cringy and have very bad writing. But there are more good ones than not, and those are the ones I live for, the ones that can give you a message that stays with you, where there was somebody in the crew/cast who read the script, saw something terrible, and went "this will not pass on my watch" and worked together to fix whatever they could. I'm sorry if your experience with Star Trek was with dudebros who think "the woke of the latest series ruined the franchise".

Now, about K/S. I believe with all my heart that nobody needs a reason to ship any two or more characters together. That said, I think Spirk is one of those ships where you have to wear anti-ship goggles not to see the potential (but no big deal if you don't). They touch each other all the time, they risk their life and career multiple times to save the other. This is not inherently a sign of non platonic feelings, and they sure aren't canon as we usually mean it, but.

Writers sure had a field day sprinkling suggestive bits (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) all throughout the franchise, especially queer writers (Theodore Sturgeon, writer of Amok Time and Shore Leave, may his soul be blessed for all eternity).

Bonus for how they look at each other. (1) (2) (3) (4)

Roddenberry himself described their relationship as one of love. It's not mentioned in the series, but in the books it's revealed that they share a telepathic bond that connects their souls, which in Vulcan culture is called t'hy'la which can mean "friend, brother, lover". This definition was created specifically for the two of them, so this is a very obvious wink/nudge, if not an outright acknowledgement that "yes they're in love, but homophobia exists so this is all we can do."

In The Motion Picture when Kirk looks at Spock like a lovesick puppy after a long separation, and the simple feeling not much later.

And can anyone dare to say that those death scenes from The Wrath of Khan and Into Darkness are supposed to be platonic, or what Kirk says about Spock at the beginning of The Search for Spock, that his death feels like he lost "the noblest part of his soul"? And what about "Not in front of the Klingons"??

The books, too, have some very interesting nuance.

Sooooo yeah I absolutely think that Spirk is and will always be the one ship that best comes to mind when it comes to ST. In my eyes and in those of a lot of people they're canon in every way that matters, and if either of them had been female there would have 100% been a marriage in one of the movies, à la Riker/Troi. They'll forever be my ST otp, though I'll occasionally indulge a little bit of Spones and McSpirk. I could even like and reblog other ships like McKirk or Spuhura but only in fanart and only in moderation. I personally wouldn't be interested in reading fanfiction about those. But every ship is valid and equal in fandom, and none is superior just because it's canon and/or had a major role in the birth of shipping culture. Which is the very point all this behemoth of a post originated from, I guess.

This.... Has turned into way more than I thought. Sorry about thay. I hope my answer was satisfactory, anon. Also that I didn't bore you. Hope you have a great day, and thank you for reaching out. ❤️🖖

#star trek #k/s #spirk #anon ask #long post #personal #meta #ish #i think this was coherent

15 notes · View notes

elderdragonapologist · 8 months

Text

When I explain in a group that erasing the disabled group from a tabletop game and esp the aspect of 'ableism is an issue for them and they do have to deal with it' is shitty to disabled people like me who like being represented and like when the fact our lives are inherently harder because of ableism and someone replies with 'you can just make a disabled character' and talks about how ableism shouldn't exist and everyone would just 'look after them'. Bro thats not the fucking point please read. Also look, sorry but scenarios where disabled people are 'totally accepted and looked after and respected and given accomodations' but they erase all disability within the game is alienating and pushes a narrative that a world that is okay with disability is a world without disability. Also man sorry but I can't relate to disabled characters who magically never experience ableism. I get for some disabled people thats what they want and need cause it's an escape from the world being shit but personally it makes me feel alienated and do you know how rare it is to get that kinda rep without it being ableist itself? Lool

2 notes · View notes

dracox-serdriel · 2 years

Text

Not a Lack of Inspiration

For over two years, I've struggled to do any kind of art, and it hasn't been from a lack of inspiration.

So many people I know - people I love - have bemoaned wearing a piece of cloth in front of their face. They've complained about restrictions and social distancing. They've complained about everything related to the pandemic. They've complained loudly and endlessly about how only sick and old people should be quarantined, so "everybody else" could get on with their lives.

And I've watched their faces when I asked them, "So you'd be okay about blatantly discriminating against me just so you could get your 'normal' life back?"

Only one person actually said yes, but everyone I asked communicated "yes" nonverbally.

On some level, they're totally okay with pandemic safety falling hardest on those with the least agency and the least choices - let those at risk lose as many options as needed in order to preserve the 'normal' of 'most' people. How dare the pandemic intrude on their precious time, space, or luxury. Let it kill and/or erode the freedoms of the elderly and people with disabilities, so long as their 'normal' is unimpeded.

And it seemed to me that they were all asking, "Why should 'most' people sacrifice anything at all for the benefit of anyone else? How is that fair? Shouldn't the majority be the only real consideration?" It's like they don't even understand what community is.

And the thing is... I knew. I know. I have known that these people I care about - some I love, all I value - they valued "the economy" (in the abstract) more than they valued my life and the lives of other human beings like me. They've shown me this in their actions time and time again--in how they spoke about disability, in how they voted/how they campaigned/how they spoke about people who had accomodations or even just an accessible parking plate.

So I knew. I knew that they saw my life as less valuable then theirs because I am neuroatypical, because I am disabled. I know because I've watched them and listened to them. Their words and actions spoke pretty plainly on the subject.

The thing that shook up my world when the pandemic hit was not my knowledge. I knew this all along. What shook it up is now these other people in my life now know that I know how they think of me and people like me because of my disability.

Apparently they used to think they were subtle about their ignorance and much kinder (and much better liars) than they actually were.

But now that that illusion is gone--moreover, they realize that it was never there to begin with.

I live in a society that is hostile to my continued existence. I've always known this, too. But in the last two years, it seems to me that many people in my life have started to realize that their specific contributions to that hostility have not gone unnoticed. If anything, their proximity to me has highlighted their contributions to that animosity.

And what has happened since they've realized that I know how they think of me? They've demanded that I "understand" -- validate -- their views that openly devalue me and people like me. They insist that I "get where they're coming from" -- after all, I know them. I know they're not "bad people", right? I must therefore pat them on their heads and tell them I "understand" their ableist views -- specifically the ones that devalue me. I must tell them that I "get" that they aren't bad people, they're just looking out for their own interests. And I can't blame them for that, right?

But here's the thing... I can. I can blame them for looking out for their own interests to the point of the detriment of other people, especially minority groups who are already marginalized. I can call them out for insisting that their "normal" is more important than the lives of other people, especially when they're being asked to do is wear a piece of cloth in front of their face. I can blame them for paying lipservice to the value of human life while they actually believe a person's value comes from their productivity. They've bought that lie -- and won't let it go, even when the see the damage it does -- because the damage is happening to other people, not them (for now, anyway).

I can hold them accountable for calling me less -- less valid, less valuable, less human -- because I am one of the people they'd rather let twist in the wind and die all so they can have their "normal" back.

And the thing is... I do not -- and would not -- hesitate to fight for their rights. I do not -- and would not -- hesitate to raise my voice in defense of their freedoms. I've never seen any of them as lesser humans for any of their failures, or any of their needs, or any of their choices. I've known they wouldn't so much as raise a finger to defend mine for years now, and that still doesn't - and wouldn't - stop me.

But I will not validate their pathological need to dismiss minority groups as expendable components of society.

I live with a disability. I know they don't actually think me or people like me deserve support or legal protections--that somehow, they think we're getting "too much" help--more than we're due. Living with that is one thing -- but I will not live with this clusterfuck of injustice and be silent so that the people who perpetuate those injustices can feel better about their continuing contributions.

I've been struggling to create art because, like everyone, I've had to make sacrifices during the pandemic. One of the biggest sacrifices I've had to make is the general peace that had previously been associated with most of my social circle. It's difficult to create art when you're fighting a battle on so many fronts--and you live with a disability on top of it.

What I know is that so far, I have survived the pandemic. I know too many others - and yes, they were people with disabilities and/or elderly - who have died because of it. And it is in their memory that I will not fucking shut up about this shit ever the fuck again.

#pandemic #personal #rant

0 notes

kendrixtermina · 3 years

Text

Edelgard and “meritocracy” - an essay

In this essay I wish to adress the common argument that “meritocracy bad, therefore edelgard bad” & the logical leaps therein.

Before we begin, I’d like to stress that she doesn’t even use the word “meritocracy” & they’re not even looking at it’s modern definition but reacting to the way it has been used as a fighting word to denigrate the poor specificically in the post reagan modern USA & then assuming Edelgard means the exact same thing by that without bothering to examine what she actually says & in what context.

Modern capitalism & the way it uses rhetoric of merit as an excuse is bad & with its reduction of human value to their moneymaking ability, definitely inherently ableist, I agree totally.

But 3H does NOT take place in the modern world. Progress is always relative to what came before. It*s progress away from entrenched problems.

It’s a total failure to even imagine a world different from the sucky one we live in - that’s exactly what tolkien meant by that saying that if we’re prisoners we have a duty to escape.

Edelgard doesn’t live in a capitalist society nor is she bringing about capitalism (if anything Claude’s the one talking of free trade & giving the merchants what they want, though he is almost certainly playing them much like the church)

And the main component of capitalism - factory owners, rich elites who owns large swathes of companies or real estate - is nowhere to be found.

In our world that cropped up because industrialization made owning factories, offices, trade etc. more lucrative that just owning the land, so factory owners replaced landed lords, essentially promising the peasants freedom if they helped them overthrow the kings but granting them only in a limited manner - the flawed inequal democracies that resulted were a compromise between peasants and factory owners.

But by and large the nobles are very much in the same niche as the factory owners today - they own the land and get special trade privileges (the means of production), they often abuse the populace with impunity, the peasants are very poor.

Edelgard cracks down on corruption & special trade privileges even during the timeskip.

And like the rich of our world, they have a self-mythology propaganda justification based on merit. Yes, there is the “by the grace of god” argument, too, but crests give you extra fighting power, and if you look at the Ferdinand support for example you do see that Fodlan’s nobles - especially the adrestian ones - see themselves as a honed elite that is trained from birth & therefore better at ruling.

Not quite the same argument a modern billionaire uses - who is very invested in convincing you that they didn’t get their power and wealth by their birth - but a myth nonetheless.

Edelgard’s not bringing “meritocracy” as in brutal competition opposed to caring social safety nets, but as opposed to unearned privilege.

If you wanted to compare that to any kind of sociohistorical context, you might look at Napoleon’s peasant liberation or the implementation of civil service examinations in ancient China.

That wasn’t an all good thing - In the same way that Europe is very impacted by the legacy of rome both good & bad (there are persisting bad attitudes toward war, authority and agriculture for example), east asia still has a lot of education obsession causing pressure & unhealthy work habits to this day.

But if you compared ancient china before the reforms to ancient China after it definitely got better, by ancient china standards.

We couldn’t expect the people back then to come up with all advances up to our exact modern values at once (not can we be sure how much of our values will stand the test of time)

Considering that Fodlan’s ideal of merit is basically what Lorenz, Ingrid and Ferdinand are embodying for their respective countries, and that she stocks her inner circle with very different leaders, it is no stretch to say that she wants to shake up the social ideas of what even counts as merit, to make ppl value other things that crest power or elite upbringing, the same way we might say today that hey, cleaners are valuable actually.

Edelgard is basically doing her world’s equivalent of taxing the billionaires - reducing the power of what the overprivilieged class happens to be, & it’s obvious from her talk of how she despises inequality that she would hardly be for rule of factory owners.

When Edelgard says that she wants to make Fodlan more merit-based, that has to be taken in the context that she lives in a world where your birth determines everything, incompetent nobles can be as lazy as they want, and no one cares how competent you are if you lack a crest, title or both.

If she looked at our world, she would quickly see through the propaganda that it is supposedly “merit based” and object to how wealth and national origin obviously dictate wealth & opportunity while talented people go to waste in sweatshops.

Now of course there have been arguments even against “perfect” meritocracy - one is the devaluation of working class jobs.

To this one could answer that this is more a flaw in how merit is conceived. Historically there have been societies that exahlted blue collar work, artisans or farming.

The second argument, however, is not so easy to get rid of: That is devalues people who can’t just go & produce like machines, especially the unemployed, the sick, the mentally ill, the disabled…

But at this point we’ve got to lean back & get our definitions straight, & make it clear what we even mean by “meritocracy” -

Because if we’re just talking about the basic idea that competency should be rewarded, I don’t think too many people disagree with that. We might see a problem with valueing the competency of a doctor or lawyers dispropottionally over the competency of a cleaner or a bricklayer, but we all, by and large, want the people who prepare our goods and services to be competent. Maybe we wouldn’t exalt it over all over qualities, but most of us admire skill.

Of course the problem with the political rhetoric of “meritocracy” is that it goes beyond just rewarding skill, first with the afore mentioned rewarding of only some skills, but mostly with the reversion or overemphasis of the above: Saying that skill is the only thing that matters (to the exclusion of any inheent human value) & that those who don’t have it are worthless.

First I want to throw out the thought that this is a product of the production/profit orientation of capitalism, but one could of course imagine, as many sci fi authors have done, a non-capitalistic society that is still obsessed with merit at the exclusion of those who are not oriented towards productivity & care more about fun & relationships than producing, or those who can’t produce because they are sick or disabled.

So now we must ask ourselves the question: Which of those views does Edelgard actually hold?

Cause I want you to notice that they’re not the same. “Skill should be rewarded & jobs should be done by competent people” is not the same position as “Skill is the ONLY thing that matters and if you don’t have it you are worthless”

In one position, skill is a good quality, in the other, it's a prerequisite to worth.

Most of us here probably agree that skill is admirable (we like and reblog pretty fanarts), but not that the unskilled are worthless.

Looking at her superficially I could perhaps see how someone might suspect her of the latter - She gravitates to & surrounds herself with skilled intelligent people and she’s obscenely superpowered.

It’s an misunderstanding that Dimitri makes in-universe, he accuses her of “only benefitting the strong”

But note that her answer to that is that she wants to empower the weak to no longer be weak & decide their own lives, instead of accepting charity. (Contrast with how Dimitri romanticizes abyss, for example, even as Claude points out that locking the poor underground is hardly help.)

Of course she can say many things, as rulers often give florid speeches.

But let’s have a look at what she actually thinks. How does edelgard actually act towards people who struggle or aren’t productivity oriented?

This is one of her lecture questions from part I:

“When one professor lectures many students, some will inevitably have trouble keeping up, while others will get too far ahead in their studies. I wonder how this problem might be solved…”

Her favorite answer is “lectures should be optional”.

Which part of that sounds like a bell curve type eugenicist “only skill & intelligence counts” kind of person? She wants the struggling students to be taken proper care of, not just the good ones.

Look at the speeches she gives to Petra & Lysithea about not giving up on themselves & wanting them to move forward from an empowered mindset. Look at how she tells Lysithea to take it easy & not overtax her body. (Not "don't whine & keep working")

Look at Bernadetta - very much an ‘unproductive’ individual with great struggles & limitation. Does Edelgard dismiss her as a weakling? Not at all. Not even in the C support. She makes sure to stress her good qualities when introducing her, makes an effort to be more patient so as not to scare her, & they become good friends.

Look at the Linhardt support - at first she mistakes his behavior for youthful lazyness (He’s 16 after all) & wants to get him to apply himself, but when she realizes that he just has different priorities, she respects that, & works to get him the exact sort of position that he wants. No “suck it up!” or dismissing such a different lifestyle. Nor does she chide him for hating fighting at any point.

Edelgard does everything in her power to accomodate people so they can do their best. She sees the value even in strange unsocial people that society would dismiss. She found a job for someone like Jeritza & helped him, she doesn’t hesitate to make Dorothea a general or Manuela the prime minister no matter what people say or if they don’t act like typical politicians.

Also, when she talks about choosing her sucessor, she wants them to be brilliant/competent yes, but also kind and 'an outsider' (ie, impartial) - hardly a PoV of "if you are skilled you can do whatever you want and if you aren't no other quality matters". She's prizing kindness & objectivity just as highly, something which is absolutely reflected throughout all her actions & behaviors towards others.

She doesn't devalue living quietly & low key without making waves - in fact, that is her dream life, which she deems superior to achievement and ambition, which are to her just tools to archieve good aims.

She couldn’t be further from having a narrow definition of what a “valuable” person is, she is all ABOUT empowering people to take control of their own lives, no pity-driven charity, no paternalism, none of that. This is one of my favorite traits about her, so I can’t help but get mad when people accuse her of being the exact opposite.

But maybe the biggest argument is abyss. This is where the genuine underclass lives, poor, struggling, traumatized, refugees etc.

Edelgard isn’t as vocal during Cindered Shadows as Claude - she can’t blow her cover & just isn’t as expressive personality wise. But she’s the one who makes everybody swear to take care of Abyss no matter who wins.

And her route is the one where, instead of telling you that they lost people, Hapi tells you that they’ve all been pretty much fine over the timeskip.

If you want to help the struggling & the poor and those who don't have "conventional" skills, you should back edelgard.

#edelgard #edelgard von hresvelg #three houses #fire emblem: three houses #fire emblem three houses #fe3h

227 notes · View notes

maggiecheungs · 3 years

Text

atots as a disability narrative

finally posting my mini essay about atots and disability one (1) hour before episode 4 airs. putting this under the cut because it’s long. cw for discussions of casual ableism, suicidal ideation, death, disability, mental health.

(note: throughout i refer to tian’s disability, which we obviously don’t know the details of; i mainly mean it as a catch-all term for the health difficulties he faces, unlike most abled people, which continue on even after his transplant)

after episode 1 i remarked on how i read tian’s story as a disability narrative, but i wanted to wait to get a bit more info before i expanded on that. after episode 3, i think i can take a bash at outlining the main things that struck me--but there’s so much more i could say about this topic, so feel free to ask for clarification. also i obviously haven’t watched episode 4 yet, so that might change things! and of course, tian is filthy rich so his experiences with the practicalities of disability are somewhat mitigated/different from most experiences of disability... but in an ableist society, there are obviously some basic similarities in the way disability is perceived and experienced. so far, here are some of the main themes that i’ve noticed in atots:

the space between wellness and unwellness

in our society, wellness is constructed as part of a binary. one is either well (perfectly fucntional, capable of working) or unwell (ill enough to be incapable of functioning in a ‘normal’ manner). the default state is, of course, wellness; people get ill sometimes, of course, but they return to that default. however, people with disabilities and long-term health conditions can’t do that--and in the society in which we live, there aren’t accomodations for this sort of existence.

tian has spent the past few years living in the space between wellness and unwellness. it’s the space of hospital waiting rooms and people treating you like you’re fragile. it’s the space of always waiting for something to happen; waiting for the other shoe to drop, waiting for the people around you to get tired of you. in tian’s case, waiting for death.

tian has spent the past years stuck in this liminal space: ostensibly well enough to live a fairly normal life, but not enough to do so properly. he--and everyone else around him--is just waiting, and it prevents him from forming any close emotional connections or long-term plans. even if he could forget about it for a while, others remind him through their behaviour and treatment of him. before his surgery, he isn’t allowed just exist on a day-to-day basis. his very existence is overshadowed by the threat of its end.

being stifled by others

in episode one, we get a glimpse of the near-complete erosion of personal boundaries tian has undergone over the past few years. after his operation, his mother panics when he leaves the house; she and his father stifle his freedom. at the same time, their fixation on ‘keeping him safe and healthy’ prevents them from seeing what he actually needs on an emotional level, which can be just as dangerous.

tian doesn’t just have to deal with his own feelings; he has to deal with his mother’s anxieties about him. he has to act well to assuage her fears. (tbh, neither of them handled the situation in the best possible way but... there isn’t really ‘a best way’ for this sort of situation? it’s more just limiting collateral damage.) similarly, his father blames him (or appears to blame him) for the suffering his mother is going through.

it turns into a thing where he feels as if he owes them wellness (or the appearance of it). he doesn’t feel like he can be vulnerable around them. he puts on a similarly blasé act with his friends, because he doesn’t want them to treat him the same way his parents do--like he’s made of glass. which leads to....

pushing himself beyond his limits

tian feels like he has something to prove. he wants to prove that he’s not a burden... which becomes the characterising theme of his stay in the village.

in going to stay at the village, tian’s managed to mostly escape the spectre of ‘unwellness’ that has haunted him for so long, as well as all the people who stifle him. now that he’s free, he wants to learn to stand on his own two feet; to prove it to himself and to everyone who doubted he could (his parents, phupha, etc.).

however, while this is great for him on one level, it’s not great on another. because in tian’s mind, his disability is equated with being a burden. (this is not unsurprising, given that we live in a hugely ableist society and given his own experiences with his parents.) now that he’s out of the stifling environment of his past, tian feels like asking for help or taking care of himself would be a concession of weakness/burdensome to those around him.

that means, when other people unthinkingly hold him to ableist standards which his body literally cannot accomodate, tian will push himself to the limit rather than admit that he ‘falls short’. this is something that could have grave--potentially fatal--consequences.

HOWEVER! this seems to be changing! he seems to be growing past his feeling that ‘disability = burden’. in episode 3, he voluntarily told kalae about his having to take medication, and actively equated taking care of oneself with maturity/strength (”kalae, i also take pills. grown-up men have no problem taking pills. do you want to be a child or a grown-up?”)

i’ll be interested to see how this progresses. hopefully when/if he discloses his condition to phupha, it will go some way towards helping him move past all the self-directed ableism he’s internalised. also it should stop phupha from inadvertently pushing him to exceed his limits. (i predict that one area of tension between them will be phupha’s worry about tian--if their relationship is to succeed, phupha needs to be aware and accomodating of tian’s needs without stifling him/treating him like he’s made of glass as his parents did)

survivor’s guilt

a lot of this might be unconscious, but... tian has, in his mind, done nothing with his life--unlike torfun. while tian was alive and being a burden on everyone around him, gambling his few remaining years away, torfun was being one of the best, kindest, most generous people in the world. inevitably, living in her house and interacting with her people, he compares himself to her at every turn. she could help the villagers where he cannot. she should be here, not him. her heart is wasted on him.

but this is changing! in the most recent episode (3) we can see him building bonds with the villagers on his own merits. in the first few episodes i was worried that tian’s journey would be represented as but a shadow of torfun’s, but he’s forging his own indivdiual journey. similarly, his relationship with phupha seems to be individual to him, rather than a copy of the relationhship with torfun (but i guess we’ll find out more in the next few episodes).

suicidal ideation

as mentioned above, tian has spent his entire life waiting for death. now, that looming spectre has disappeared, but it’s still a part of his identity. for years, he’s shaped his sense of self around that fact: he is going to die, so it does not matter what he does or does not do (this post sums it up really well!) he’s reckless because why the fuck shouldn’t he be? even if he’s not necessarily actively suicidal, for a while he seems to be passively suicidal.

this is also starting to show signs of change--as he overcomes his survivor’s guilt, builds genuine connections with the people around him, and feels like he’s contributing to something bigger than himself.

which leads me to the overriding theme of the series: tian’s going to have to learn to love himself, disabilities and all. he’s starting to build himself back up in the village, but he can’t treat it only as an escape. at some point, he’s going to need to face all the things i’ve mentioned in this essay and work through them. hopefully phupha will be there to help him, but this isn’t a ‘love cures all ills’ situation. loving phupha won’t ‘fix’ him; tian needs to love himself.

but... honestly, i have faith. i was really cautious after watching the first episode, because i’ve seen so many shows handle disability badly. but atots has exceeded my expectations in every other way so far, and i am truly excited to see where it goes next <3

#atots #1000 starts #a tale of thousand stars #tian #disability #ellis watches atots #atots disability rep

70 notes · View notes

thedreadvampy · 4 years

Text

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about disability and neurodivergence over the past couple of years (I’ve actually just now accepted a contract to freelance write a section of policy on disability and ableism for my old workplace. I have done this because I hate myself and starting a new job with 1.5x the hours as my old one JUST WASN’T ENOUGH STRESS)

and I have decided I REALLY take issue with the concept of "disabled”. like. at all. I think the construction of “disabled people” is at the root of SWATHES of what’s wrong with our society and how we treat people with specific access or wellbeing needs.

like I think it’s basically fact at this point to take a postmodern approach and accept the common framing of “people are as disabled as society makes them” ie disability is a social construct and who is disabled is purely a matter of who society isn’t willing to work around as default (the usual example is short-sightedness, which historically was a substantial disability but is barely noticeable in a society where using adaptive tech for it is normalised)

but I wanna push it further because either EVERYONE is disabled or NOBODY is disabled imo. “disabled” is a broad enough category to be fundamentally meaningless. it’s a useful umbrella term for like...people whose physical and psychological needs and personhood are often diminished, overlooked or ignored, but it’s also very arbitrary and contextual what qualifies as a disability.

which is kind of what I’m saying about person-centred parenting (which. pinch of salt I am not a parent). EVERYBODY has special needs because everybody’s needs are different. And my experience has been that positing Capital-D Disabled as a specific, blue-badge-holding, Very Serious category, and limiting your concerns about access and wellbeing needs to disabled people is:

a) unhelpful to people who aren’t disabled per se but who benefit from specific accomodations (for a very trivial example, “having shit internet” isn’t a disability, but it’s still an access need that things like video transcripts, image descriptions and alternate communication routes will help meet) b) unhelpful to people who are “disabled-ish,” who don’t feel able to clearly identify as disabled, or who don’t know they’re disabled (which to be honest is so many of us because invisible disabilities, partial sensory or motor loss, and mental health problems make up the bulk of disabilities and those are often invisibilised or downplayed) c) unhelpful to “properly disabled” people, because it creates a huge othering effect. drawing a hard line between “normal” and “disabled,” or even imagining that that’s a line that exists, allows disabled people to be dehumanised or treated as the sum of their Tragic Suffering, as opposed to the Normal Abled People.

“Disabled” is, as I say, a useful generalisation/abstraction sometimes, but when we’re talking about actual material things (whether that’s material need or material change) it’s not a useful category. I honestly don’t think we can create a society which consistently confronts ableism while we’re trying to operate in a binary framework centred on “disabled” vs “not disabled” or “neurotypical” vs “neurodiverse”. We need to be willing to throw out the whole construction of “abled” and instead commit to handling needs without interrogating cause.

This DOES NOT MEAN that doctors, therapists, individuals, communities etc shouldn’t try to diagnose, treat or understand conditions, or that we should throw out the idea of labelling condition groups. It just means that we need to flip how we look at it, and take a descriptive not prescriptive approach. We need to understand that these labels (whether something as broad as “disabled” or as specific as “Ehlers-Danlos type 2″) are useful as groupings, but that the function of them is to give a general idea of what issues might arise and what might help.

Every person with, say, EDS type 2 is using that to refer to the same symptom grouping, but a) they’ll all manifest, experience and describe symptoms their own way and b) they’re all individual people with other shit going on in their minds and bodies, and so what helps one of them may absolutely fuck another up. And somebody who doesn’t have EDS type 2, but who finds using a wheelchair helpful, potentially has more in common with EDS patient A (who uses a wheelchair) than Patient A has with EDS patient B (who has no mobility impairment but huge digestive problems).

And like. ok. I’m not hearing impaired but I do have audio processing issues, so subtitles are really, really useful to me. I’m not, technically, disabled in that way. it would be dodgy for me to claim I was. but it’s still super useful for me to feel able to request that. and then we have to ask - where’s the line? I’m disabled because my knees are fucked at 27. but if my knees were in this state at 80 I’d be in rude health. but if I was 80, it would still be an absolute pain in the ass to climb 5 flights of stairs, even though contextually I am healthier than expected.

Or like...I was chatting to a pal about disability disclosure and all the little things you don’t notice affecting your life and therefore don’t report or ask for help with. I said “I have agoraphobia and there’s this like. physical resistance I have to push through to leave the house so I stand around going ‘oh no I have forgotten something’ because I’m procrastinating on having to go outside.” She said “oh I also do that but in my case it’s because I usually have forgotten something so I’m always paranoid.”

forgetfulness isn’t a disability (except when it is). and ultimately although the root is different the material impact is broadly the same. and the world is full of things we find hard that others find easy, but that may not be socially understood as disabilities. I just think we’d get a lot further if we took a solution-centred view on this. it does matter to me why I can’t leave the house, because how I handle it is affected by what the problem is. but it shouldn’t matter to eg my work why I need to give myself an extra 20 minutes to get out of the house (whether it’s agoraphobia, forgetfulness or something else) as long as we can, between us, figure out a workaround.

anyway that’s why I keep textdumping on that parenting post. because we shouldn’t have to ask “does my child have ADHD” or “is my child autistic” or “is my child trans” in order to justify finding ways for them to manage being restless, depressed, overwhelmed, manic, afraid, angry etc, or to let them wear what they feel right in and self-describe how they want to. It might be helpful to know if they’re ADHD/autistic/trans/whatever, because it can help you get ideas and resources for strategies, but it shouldn’t be necessary, and “because this thing is harmless and makes them safer/happier/calmer” is fundamentally a more important justification than “because they are autistic”

idk. treat people as people. try to do right by them. don’t build a hierarchy of Normal and Abnormal problems. just meet common needs and create space for people to express their needs without needing to disclose their whole medical history or litigate their disability status.

(TO BE CLEAR: in the current world legislation specifically related to defining disability as a protected characteristic and disabled people as at-risk/special interest groups are VERY NECESSARY. but in a world governed by an expectation of tailored accessibility and wellbeing approaches I think that necessity would at the very least be heavily reduced. and in communities trying to do more than the bare minimum to create an anti-ableist space I think the best single thing we can do is almost always to remove gatekeeping and disclosure barriers to asking for adaptations)

#none of this is stuff that hasn't been said 10000 times by people more experienced than me #but I'm just having a ramble

38 notes · View notes