May 2, 2013

shwetanarayan:

kiriamaya:

youneedacat:

[Photo: On the floor me sitting with an oxygen tube coming out of my nose, and a GJ feeding tube coming out of my stomach/intestines. Behind me are the IV pole with my feeding pump, and behind that the oxygen concentrator is visible mostly as a silhouette. All of this at a very strange camera angle with bad lighting. Two photos, one with the stuff behind me more visible, one with me more visible, otherwise mostly the same.]

It was really, really hard to get any possible way to take a picture of all these things given the iPod touch had to be held in my hand, and the positioning of the objects, and the apartment, and the lighting this time of night. So be glad I could get these three things in the same shot at all. Hence the strange camera angle.

So on to the story:

I’ve had an electronic implant to help me urinate, for years. Just recently, I ended up needing a feeding tube and oxygen. I’m not going into the whole story, as it isn’t relevant.

So my friend, also disabled, came over to visit after I got home from the hospital. Partly to see me. Partly to geek out on my assistive tech.

I commented that I am turning into more and more of a cyborg as time goes on. And that I feel sort of steampunk.

She agreed that all the tubes coming out of me these days (two branches of a feeding tube, one to my stomach to drain stuff out one to my intestines to put stuff in; plus the oxygen tube) seem very steampunk in some way.

Then she discovered that my oxygen concentrator even sounds steampunk. It makes these whirring and hissing noises constantly.

Of course, she doesn’t know the half of it. When you turn on the top half of the oxygen concentrator (used for filling canisters instead of sending air to me through a tube), it makes this intense WHUMP WHUMP WHUMP noise.

Fey, as usual, is taking the technology fine. I’ve found that cats in my life are far less frightened by new technology than dogs are. It may freak them out at first — Fey always hisses at new stuff — but they rarely seem to develop the kind of lasting fear that many dogs do. I don’t know what that says about cats and dogs. Poor Billie Jean, I think if she still lived with me she’d be a permanent nervous wreck. She couldn’t even handle the hospital bed.

Anyway. For some reason I find the cyborg/steampunk aspect of all this hilarious.

And I think many nondisabled people would be horrified by the kind of jokes I and the disabled people I know make about things like this. To them, disability is supposed to be Deadly Serious All The Time. But I have enough serious stuff in my life I need something to laugh at. And I just don’t see disability as out of bounds for humor the way some people do.

Plus I really do see a lot of disabled people as real live cyborgs. I first heard of that when I visited MIT and I love the idea. Because it’s true. Many of us are part flesh part machine. And that’s a really cool thing.

Unfortunately a lot of people who are into science fiction cyborgs would be horrified by this idea. Because they see disabled people as beneath ordinary people. And so the idea that disabled people are enhancing ourselves by becoming cyborgs is totally out of the question to them. The only real enhancements are to people who aren’t already disabled.

And I remember a poem I heard by Connie Panzarino, about how she could kiss, or perform oral sex, without coming up for air, due to her ventilator. And that’s utterly cool. But disabled people aren’t allowed to have utterly cool elements to our assistive tech. That’s reserved for nondisabled people.

People with feeding tubes can eat and talk and move our hands (provided we can talk and move our hands) all at once, and that’s pretty cool too. Without our mouths full at that.

So many sci fi fans can’t stand the idea that disabled cyborgs can have abilities most people don’t have, and not just replace nondisabled people’s abilities. They see our assistive tech as always being an inferior replacement for their own abilities that we lack. And it’s not. Sometimes it gives us abilities they don’t have, whether large or small ones. My feeding tube gives me a kind of freedom I never expected to have. Eating is easier now. Even easier than it is for the average person, aside from some obnoxious side effects. But the actual act of eating is immensely easier. You just plug the tube in, turn on the pump, and forget about it until you run through your bottle of food. It takes longer but it takes no concentration at all. I’m eating at the same time as I am writing this and I am not even thinking about it.

They generally (with a few exceptions) see cyborgs as nondisabled people with mechanical or electrical add-ons that make them have superior abilities to the average nondisabled person.

So they’d argue that we are disabled so it doesn’t count and our add-ons replace standard abilities we lack so it doesn’t count. And a lot of other technical details. None of which are necessarily actually true. What seems to be at the bottom of it is that disabled people are inferior to them and therefore we shouldn’t be going around interfering with their dreams (or nightmares) of a future where ordinary people can have technological superpowers.

Of course you get the bionic woman and Darth Vader and some other exceptions. So we are in there to some extent — usually as disabled people whose assistive tech gives us abilities far beyond the average person. They rarely of course come up with the realities, like being able to eat without thinking or using your mouth or hands. Or being able to kiss or (etc.) indefinitely without coming up for air. Or being able to change our height on a whim. Or other things many disabled people can actually do. Because that would require actually getting to know us.

And when we do end up with a huge advantage, they tend to feel threatened by us rather than the fascination they show for our fictional counterparts. They don’t see it as fair that a disabled person could surpass them through our technology — they’d rather our assistive tech always remain a poor substitute for the abilities they already have. And I don’t know quite why that is but I’m sure again it has to do with us being supposed to be inferior, in the end. Because that’s what most of their uneasiness around real-life cyborgs comes down to.

Wow I didn’t think I’d end up writing something this long. Also — only call someone a cyborg if they’ve given you permission. It can feel dehumanizing to some people and many disabled people would never identify with that word in a million years even if most of their body is kept operating through assistive technology.

But I love to use that word, at least jokingly, on myself. Because it gives a twist to my technology that most people aren’t expecting. They want to see tragedy and ‘cyborg’ suggests enhancement.

It also is more accurate to my feelings about the technology I use. I use, off the top of my head (some full time some part time some rarely at all): An electric wheelchair, a hospital bed, a Hoyer lift, a communication device, a bipap, oxygen concentrator and portable tanks, a feeding tube, a feeding pump, a tube to drain my stomach, a bidet, and an Interstim implant to aid urination.

Some of those make my life easier. Others have literally made the difference between life and death. And all of them I have loved and welcomed. Everyone expects disabled people to see these things as tragic and confining. But many of us see them as tools for freedom and for life itself. And by the time I get them, I’ve long since gotten over any bad feelings about them. By that time, I welcome them as life changing in a near-completely good way.

And that’s why cyborg is a term I like. It suggests something that enhances life and gives you new abilities that you otherwise wouldn’t have. And I especially use it for things that are either inside my body (like the Interstim implant and the tubes) or connected to it for long periods of time (like the oxygen or the bipap). But it’s possible to use it for other things too, depending on how far you stretch the word.

I wish sci fi fans would embrace disabled people as everyday, present-day cyborgs. I also wish they’d embrace our more everyday enhanced abilities — kissing without having to come up for air, and other things you really have to know disabled people well, to figure out. As well as not acting threatened and crying foul when our technology-enhanced abilities greatly surpass theirs in a major area.

None of this is exactly a big thing for disability rights. As in, if all of what I wish, came to pass, it wouldn’t be one of our major achievements. I have no illusions about that. But it would be nice if we were understood and recognized and welcomed into the realm of cyborgs, by the sorts of people normally interested in this stuff. :-)

And I love the idea that all these tubes and noises and stuff seem rather steampunk, even though they’re partially electrical. That’s just cool, however much the era involved would’ve been awful (and deadly) to me in reality.

This is awesome.

<3

(via crossedwires)

September 12, 2012
"A Black Mom in Chief is Revolutionary"

flourish:

Great article about feminism, intersectionality, + “Mom in Chief” Michelle Obama.

July 9, 2012
image

comicsriot:

I want to talk about this moment from Grant Morrison and Frank Quitely’s All-Star Superman- the famous page in which the Man of Steel stops a teenager from committing suicide. Along with the eight word origin, it’s one of the most discussed sequences in the book. It happens when Superman is dealing with huge stuff in his own life, and it demonstrates how much he genuinely cares about the people he protects.

But you know all of that. What I want to talk about is the appearance of Regan, the kid he saves. I suppose it would be easy to look at how this character is dressed and see a perpetuation of the old, old stereotype about goths being suicidal, but that’s never how it struck me.

A big part of what I love about this scene is that Regan is so obviously a freak (and please understand, I use that word from a place of solidarity). Regan doubtless gets mocked and bullied at school, treated as an outcast and perhaps even a monster just for being different from everyone else. I acknowledge that there’s no direct evidence for it, but I personally can’t help but read Regan as queer. And if you’ve noticed me avoiding pronouns, it’s because there’s also no evidence on the page of Regan’s gender identity, although Quitely’s dimorphic art style has understandably led most readers to see a girl.

First of all, I love that someone like Regan exists in the retro-world of All-Star Superman. Far too often, the urge to recapture the storytelling magic of a particular earlier era (like, say, Silver Age Superman comics) is accompanied by a tendency to “clean up” the society depicted to resemble an idealized past, eliminating the freaks, punks, queers, and so forth. In fact, even the mainstream DC universe doesn’t have a lot of non-villainous characters running around who look like Regan. But in Morrison Land (and for those of us who’ve read his work for the last twenty years, this is hardly surprising), fantasmical retro-super-science can coexist comfortably with facially pierced teenagers.

More importantly, none of this matters to Superman. He doesn’t care if you’re goth or queer or trans or emotionally unstable. Superman looks at Regan and he sees a human being, and someone who needs his support. And so he helps, because that’s what he does. What Superman says in the panels above is great, but in that moment, and especially afterwards when they embrace, he’s also saying something else through his actions: “I accept you. Who you are isn’t scary or weird to me- you’re a person, and I care about you.” I think that must matter quite a bit to Regan, and I know it matters to me.

(Source: comicsriot)

June 27, 2012
How You Can Have a Bunch of Great Ideas but Still Fuck Up Real Bad: A Korra Essay

chirart:

Hahahaha ever since Saturday the Korra finale seems to make me angrier and angrier. As a storyteller and as a fan of solid storytelling, it is an atrocious mess! I stand by the creators are amazing directors, amazing concept artists, amazing producers, but wow are they terrible writers. They have absolutely no understanding of dramatic convention, and so the first season of The Legend of Korra suffered greatly from terrible execution, and the core ideas were so good it should’ve been a gamechanger. It should’ve been the most brilliant thing on television and instead we were given a 12-week narrative case of blue balls.

Disclaimer: if you enjoyed/love/fanatic about Korra, by all means continue to do so! I enjoyed a lot about Korra. In fact that is why I am so frustrated. But that aside, this is meant as a critique and a dissection and as such you can take it or you can leave it. Nothing I have to say will change the show, nor will anything I have to say will have any effect on what season 2 will bring. Mostly I have been ranting about it to everyone on a daily basis since Saturday and this is my way to finally just. get. it. all. out. So this is me shouting into the ether for my own cathartic glee.

Cool? Cool.

Read More

June 12, 2012
Changing the defalt alts in tumblr photoposts.

latkje:

Okay, so one of the major ways tumblr screws around with accessibility is that it doesn’t let you use alt tags. This doesn’t mean that on tumblr there are no alt tags— tumblr, by default, uses a value called photoalt to automatically generate alt tags for you!

The problem is that it does a really terrible job. Photoalt usually just puts the caption text into the alt tag, which is redundant in the best of cases. It is downright terrible if you are me and like to write long rambly multi-paragraph image captions. This means someone using a screenreader will have to sit through the same information twice, and since just scrolling past is difficult on screenreaders… yeah.

You can’t make tumblr use good alt tags but you can at least set it to be different from photoalt!! Here’s now:

Go into the “Customize Theme” menu and click “Edit HTML”. This will take you to a bunch of raw code. What you want to do is find the {block:Photo} section, which should have a line something like this:

<img src="{PhotoURL-500}" alt="{PhotoAlt}"/>

Just Ctrl+F ing “{PhotoAlt}” will find it for you! The code itself will vary a little depending on the theme, but PhotoAlt is the thing that matters. Then you can delete {PhotoAlt} and replace it with something else:

<img src="{PhotoURL-500}" alt="photo"/>

“Photo” is hardly ideal as alternate text, but it’s much better than what tumblr would automatically generate for me. Something to be aware of for anyone who uses image descriptions in the captions.

June 8, 2012
Some Thoughts On 3D

thewherefores:

rcjohnso:

The “debate” over 3D has become a polarized polemic, a one-dimensional (sorry) and mind numbingly boring exchange of “3D sucks” “no you suck” back and forths.  It gives “film vs. digital” a good run for the title of “discussion I’d most rather chew my own foot off than get sucked into on twitter.”  So why am I writing about it?  Because even as the debate has (sorry again) flattened, my feelings about stereoscopic photography have grown more complex and nuanced.  I’m sure I’m not alone in this.  I’m hardly an expert on the topic, technically or otherwise, but I’m setting down my current thoughts just to get them in order, and posting them for anyone who’s interested.  If even one foot chewing incident is prevented or delayed, I’ll be happy.

Read More

This is a really interesting essay.

April 27, 2012

jhameia:

What is cultural appropriation « The Long Way Home

ardhra:

O hai! I finally finished writing this! After starting it more than two years ago {facepalm}. There is more to come that I’ve worked on & researched. Hopefully responses to this won’t be so faily that I’m unmotivated to finish the rest.

Excerpt:

There are a number of issues around cultural appropriation which I see continuously bog down discussion. I think they revolve around some crucial issues undergirding the whole concept of cultural appropriation, so I think we need to “get back to basics” somewhat.

Before I go on, I’d like to acknowledge the work of Andrea Smith, particularly her article ‘Spiritual Appropriation as Sexual Violence’, printed in her book Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide as being very influential to my thinking about these issues.

I disagree with a lot of the common definitions of cultural appropriation around. Cultural appropriation isn’t simply the “taking or borrowing of some aspects of another culture from someone outside that culture”. Cultures throughout time have traded, adapted, and borrowed artefacts, symbols, technologies and narratives from one another. The issue isn’t the aesthetic and material mingling of cultures, hybridity, or that human creativity crosses cultural boundaries. Those are aesthetic and perhaps moral issues, separate from the real political issue of cultural appropriation.

A lot of the time cultural appropriation is also called ‘cultural theft’. But cultures aren’t tangible things that can only be possessed by one person. Culture is made up of shared ideas, skills, traditions, styles, images, that circulate through a particular society. Cultures are heterogeneous — people who are part of the same society can be part of different cultures, which influence each other — and they change over time.

The problem isn’t that cultures intermingle, it’s the terms on which they do so and the part that plays in the power relations between cultures. The problem isn’t “taking” or “borrowing”, the problem is racism, imperialism, white supremacy, and colonialism. The problem is how elements of culture get taken up in disempowering, unequal ways that deny oppressed people autonomy and dignity. Cultural appropriation only occurs in the context of the domination of one society over another, otherwise known as imperialism. Cultural appropriation is an act of domination, which is distinct from ‘borrowing’, syncretism, hybrid cultures, the cultures of assimilated/integrated populations, and the reappropriation of dominant cultures by oppressed peoples.

What’s being appropriated in *cultural appropriation* isn’t the things themselves — the images, stories, artefacts, themes, etc. — it’s the capacity of people of oppressed groups to determine the meaning, scope, usage, and future of those things. Cultural appropriation involves taking over peoples’ control over representations of themselves. Cultural appropriation is an attack on cultural autonomy and self-determination, backed up by historically constructed domination.

Look, it’s ardhra being awesome.

(via threshermaw-deactivated20120804)

March 26, 2012
"

And in too many religious people he sees inconsistencies. They speak of life’s preciousness when railing against abortion but fail to acknowledge how they let other values override that concern when they support war, the death penalty or governments that do nothing for people in perilous need. …

As a physician, he said, you’re privy to patients’ secrets — to their truths — and understand that few people live up to their own stated ideals. He has treated a philandering pastor, a drug-abusing financier. “I see life as it really is,” he told me, “not how we wish it were.”

He shared a story about one of the loudest abortion foes he ever encountered, a woman who stood year in and year out on a ladder, so that her head would be above other protesters’ as she shouted “murderer” at him and other doctors and “whore” at every woman who walked into the clinic.

One day she was missing. “I thought, ‘I hope she’s O.K.,’ ” he recalled. He walked into an examining room to find her there. She needed an abortion and had come to him because, she explained, he was a familiar face. After the procedure, she assured him she wasn’t like all those other women: loose, unprincipled.

She told him: “I don’t have the money for a baby right now. And my relationship isn’t where it should be.”

“Nothing like life,” he responded, “to teach you a little more.”

A week later, she was back on her ladder.

"

— From the NY Times Frank Bruni’s “Rethinking his Religion” piece. Read the whole thing.   (via georgethecat)

March 20, 2012
The In/Visibility Dilemma, or, Why I Dress to Fight Robots

scrapscallion:

There’s a post that has been making its way around the feminist-geek webbernets, about some of the reasons female geeks tend to be much more visible and vocal online than in real life; and, as a corollary, why so many of us gravitate to alternative, female-only, or female-oriented geek space. There’s a lot to it, and you should go read it yourself, but I want to talk a little about the bit that hinges around this line:

“…until conventions stop feeling like I’m being forced into a beauty pageant…”

Boy howdy, do I know that feeling. For those of you who know me only as Scrapscallion: I work in the comics industry, in a position that requires a certain degree of public visibility. I’ve seen people on a public forum discuss my face, body, and relative fuckability, and those of my colleagues and friends, in context of professional events—not because we were available; nor because of what we said or even what we wore, but because we had the sheer fucking temerity to show up and some stranger took a photo of a panel we were on.

‘Cause, see, that’s what it means to be female in public, and doubly so in the geek community at large: Regardless your qualifications, your point of view, your interests, and your personality, regardless your consent, you will be—not always, but likely often, and certainly eventually—reduced to the object of a public game of hot-or-not.

And oh, what an elegantly rigged game it is. You can iron and style your hair and put on make-up, but if anyone catches you at it (or even if you’re just naturally thin and pretty), you’re a dimwitted whore fishing for attention or a conniving bitch manipulating her captive audience. And if you decide not to play (or even if you try your hardest but you don’t have The Face or The Body to back it up), you’re a fat, ugly self-hating dyke and maybe people would take you more seriously if you put some effort into not looking like such a fucking troll. Thanks for playing.

No wonder so many of us first come out of our shells and embrace our interests only when we discover female or feminist-oriented and otherwise deliberately alternative geek spaces. No wonder so many of us are reluctant to leave the (very relative) safety and anonymity of the ‘net and be seen. No wonder we shy away from crowds: better to fade into scenery than be relegated to it.

I make noise about dressing and styling like a goof out of punk ideals and making a point of not taking myself or capital-F Fashion seriously and subverting bullshit beauty standards, but—if I’m going to be honest rather than flip for once—it’s also—maybe mostly—a means of deflection and diversion:

If I’m going to be judged for my appearance anyway, I’m fucking well going to make sure it happens on my terms.

If you write me off because of my bleached-out ‘hawk with the ridiculous spitcurl that keeps showing up in the front, or my eyebrow rings, or my six clashing patterns and fingerless gloves, or even the genderfuckery, I still get to retain some agency. If—when—I’m reduced to my appearance, at least I’ll be reduced to aspects of my appearance that I adopted deliberately.

I’d rather be a freak on my own terms than anywhere on your one-to-ten scale.

March 14, 2012
"It’s a well-worn ritual - the expression of outrage and “shock”, as President Obama put it. The “condolences to the families” offered by senior leaders of the occupying power to the latest victims of their supposedly benign occupation. […] We will urge calm and investigate - just like we’re investigating the burning of Qurans, urinating on dead fighters and mutilating dead children, and all the other insults and injuries upon Afghans, Pakistanis, Iraqis and other benighted peoples. Those responsible for the deaths will face justice, or whatever we say is justice, unless of course a military court somehow determines justice to be something else than we told you it would be, in which case that is just another example of how fair our system of jurisprudence is."

Mark Levine’s op-ed for Al Jazeera English on imperial hypocrisy is so true, it actually stings. Recommended.

Of course the action in question - which is always the latest in a whole series of actions, with the previous ones conveniently forgotten by the time the next one happens - can “not represent the exceptional character of our military and the respect that [we have] for the people of Afghanistan”. “We” don’t do that. That’s what “they” - the people whom we have occupied/sent soldiers into Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan/Yemen/ to destroy - do. They are the barbarians who hate us because of “our values”, as President Bush so eloquently put it.

(via mehreenkasana)

(via heliotropo)

Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »