Trigger warning: Ableism. Uh. If being told that if you want access you need to do it yourself is triggering, that.
So,
the editors at The Feminist Wire invited me to share my
interpretation of their call. I don't think this is quite what they
meant, but what they meant is a thing that's not possible: If I could
understand their call well enough to really interpret it, we
wouldn't be having this problem.
Or, in terms of access needs, if it were written so that I
could understand it, we wouldn't
be having this problem.
But.
They inspired my
abstract for a text chapter, so I at least get something out of this
mess. [Social media crisis still on because they still haven't
actually done anything that makes their call
understandable/accessible. Also they said in this Twitter conversation that they weren't being exclusive of disability because one of the writers is deaf.]
At the feminist
wire, they want to make feminist stuff. And also they want to ??????
relating to feminism in how they edit. They say this means talking to
the writers and helping people revise. Which is cool, but I'm not
sure how it relates to feminism? Also they say they take reader ideas
and criticisms seriously [I do know that critique is a fancy word for
criticism.] Since I already had a ?????? moment in this paragraph,
I'm not sure I believe it, but maybe it gets better.
The call went
online yesterday. [Well, not yesterday anymore, but yesterday when
they wrote this thing.] A bunch of people said stuff about how
they're doing the exact stuff they wanted to stop from happening.
#irony. That sentence is written in academicese, and it took me a
while to parse, so I'm going to go with not accessible. Sad.
Some people said
that focusing on the body instead of the mental or the cognitive was
excluding certain disabled people. [I didn't understand enough of the
original call to tell you if they did that, which excludes cognitive
disability anyways. So...] We didn't mean to do the thing? I think
the thing is specifying kinds of disability to talk about? They say
that people telling them this reveals a problem. Therefore they word
salad broadly. What they word salad about is unclear, but it has the
word broadly so I assume it's broadly.
We also got emails
on how the call was inaccessible. WORD SALAD about people with
disabilities, therefore the language is excluding. Pity the language
is still excluding enough that a disabled academic can't parse it!
Ok, I know what “reduced access to higher education works to
perpetuate a cycle of ableism” means because it's a thing I say in
different words. It means “Disabled people have a hard time getting
to college and then....” ok scratch that no I don't know. Then this
does something that makes discrimination against people with
disabilities worse. I think what it does is interact with classism,
except they don't say classism here, just ableism. So I don't know.
There's a disjuncture... is that like divide? Ok, got a dictionary,
it's like divide. Or close enough. There's a divide between academics
and activists. [Well, not always, I'm both. And quite a few of my
friends who are complaining are kind of both too. I present at
conferences! Disability Studies conferences! And they're accessible
to me!] So... are they maybe trying to say that they just continued a
thing that's already there? /annoyed because this is worse than
anything I've seen in disability studies, so no you're not. They
“get” that lots of... actual marginalized groups? I think that's
what communities on the front lines of oppression means. They “get”
that actual marginalized people often find academia to be the
oppressor/help the oppressor. Yup. Like with this call, actually.
That's exactly what happened, and given how much of this is me going
????? or WORD SALAD or needing a dictionary or not getting what
you're saying? Yeah still being the oppressor. I think the word
gatekeeper applies? The feminist wire wants to stick stuff in the
middle of academia and activism, but academic-ish means... word
salad? Word salad that I've been told is just bad writing. They want
to make the forum accessible, but what I assume to be other thing
they want is written in a way that's totally not accessible so this
clearly didn't happen.
There's a revision
below this! We revised it! We added things! Also, thanks for calling
us out and asking us to do better. But also thanks for a thing that
you didn't actually do but we'd like to think you did while we say we
did a thing we probably still did wrong. Because this apology really
feels like it's about them, not the people who are getting excluded.
Mainly because it's written so that the excluded folk still don't
know what's being said. Also, we need to do hard work and look at how
we make stuff work, and respond fast with thanks and doing stuff.
[Except that this thing is totally not actually fixing it and
shouldn't count.]
Disability is
coming up a lot, name a conference, say it talks about disability,
gender, sexuality, and focuses on animals [why] chronic pain/injury
[makes sense] and trans* ???????? thing. Also folks in insert words
here are criticizing disability stuff?
We like
interdisciplinary stuff. Also we're confused/wanting to know what's
up with suddenly DISABILITY. We want to know what it means for
disabled people when disability is used as ?????? with human-animal
relationships. Do they mean when it's a metaphor? I hope not, that's
a bad metaphor. Don't make comparisons you don't understand and all
that. The ??use?? of disability and ???????? bodies that aren't
typical?????????? in stuff that's not disability is ick? Needs people
explaining why it's ick? Needs to be looked at through ickyness?
So we thought
????????? about rediscovery of disability stuff??????[as opposed to
why it got ignored in the first place]????? and it getting used badly
in other stuff. And we ask bad “why” questions. And we ask stuff
about mixing things I don't know. Something about disability studies,
that's a thing I do. And word salad about exploring? Something about
learning from activists.
We want to
challenge ick, so we want to have people write stuff? And we ask a
bunch of questions?
- What does disability mean? I think. Also maybe intersections. And me wanting to know why disabled is in quotes.
- Intersections list other oppressions want to know a thing?
- Talk about ??????? with race, class, gender. And norms. And other words.
- Feminst disability thing? Words. I dunno.
- Disability and monolith are both in this sentence. I really hope it's about how disability isn't a monolith, but word salad.
- … isn't that the same as feminist disability? I don't think you've got the right to the word "crip" though. I'm not sure I do, though if not than the choice of it to represent disability is part of excluding my kinds of disability.
- What are activisty people doing?
- Who isn't here? Maybe “what stuff would they be saying?” But we can't know that because they aren't being heard. So maybe we should get them in instead of talking about what we think they would want?
- INTERSECTIONS.
- What is disability?
We
want academics, writers, and activists to talk about the things. Pile
of formats OK. Not sure what all the formats really mean, but OK.
Submissions due by October 10, 2013, and can be submitted through a
thing with a link. Email feministwire@gmail.com
if questions. Look at the guidelines first, and give a title. Label
the submission Disability Forum. Not sure if I'm supposed to make my
own title or title it disability forum.
Except activists
might not know what you're asking. And I don't know if anyone outside
your little block of academia will either. So you might have trouble
getting disabled people talking about the things. Is that maybe what
the cycle of ableism is about?
See
why this doesn't actually fix the access problem? Yeah, having me
share my interpretation or attempt at it really just reveals how fail
your “solution” is. Because it being written so that I
can't actually interpret it is the exact problem.
Now for anyone who
wants to help make this issue hard to ignore, good stuff to share
(beyond this post, I mean):
I think sending
submissions about how their call excludes disabled people fits under
the who is missing thing, so you can also do that.
And I made a
standard-ish intro to go with the link to my original post, if you
want to put it wherever else:
"The Feminist
Wire shared a call for submissions about disability, saying it wanted
to include activists. It's not a call that a disabled activist could
reasonably be expected to understand, and the revision is, if
anything, worse. Please, contact them/share however possible. [ More
details+methods in the post.]
http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/2013/08/see-you-and-social-media-crisis.html"
I see a lot of this type of writing come out of governmental departments. Typically, it's written by a bureaucrat who has absolutely no clue about the topic. So to cover, they use lots of buzz words in a word salad. In this case, it seems like a lame attempt to give the illusion they actually care and are doing something worthy of praise.
ReplyDeleteI still can't get over this phrase from the amended CFP, because it's the kind of thing that my advisors would've marked all over with a red pen: "...the location from which we ourselves are located..."
ReplyDelete(Is that location the Department of Redundancy Department, by any chance?)