http://blog.cripchick.com another shapeshifter living among the digital masses Thu, 02 Sep 2010 22:57:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181 http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181#comments Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:17:15 +0000 cripchick http://misscripchick.wordpress.com/?p=335 Tropic Thunder. I wanted to wait until the initial media coverage passed so this conversation could be held more internally and not distract from the message we were putting out there. The amazing Jess Hoffman from Makeshift magazine was recently a guest blogger at Feministe (h/t to Sudy) and has been writing a lot about capitalism and feminism. In part of Jess' last post, she built on the words of Sister Lorde, Moraga, Anzaldua, and others to talk about why intersectionality was needed in feminist communities. Jess pointed out that this intersectional analysis created by radical women of color has often been misinterpreted and stolen by feminists to say something along the lines of "because *some* women have multiple identities, we need to address their experience" instead of "all systems of power are linked and a multiple-issue analysis is the only way to defeat oppression". Excerpt: So it’s not just that some individual people experience multiple forms of oppression, or even that all people have some kind of personal relationship with all systems of oppression... but also that the systems of power themselves—racism, economic hierarchy, sexism, heteronormativity, ableism, etc.—are working together. Included in our activism against ableism and the use of the r-word in Tropic Thunder have been statements from disability organizations and disability activists along the lines of "People can't say this word or that word (insert racist remark) but they can still say the r word!", "Disability is the last frontier!", "When making Tropic Thunder, Dreamworks brought in African American consultants to make sure the movie wasn't offensive---where were the disability consultants?" Though I think I know what this feeling is based on---the frusteration of ableism not being addressed as oppression in activist communities and mainstream society---I believe this short-term strategy or sentiment absolutely cannot be a part of our activism. Not only does this strategy alienate disabled people who have multiple identities but it does nothing to address oppression. When we say these kinds of things, it says that we believe racism, heterosexism, sexism, etc are personal conflicts that happens between people (and that we've overcome!), not institutions in which our soicety is based upon. It ignores families being ripped apart by ICE raids, trans women of color being killed everyday, and the ever-growing prison industrial complex. One leader in the disability community rightfully pointed out the need to stick with the issue of the r-word and not swamping it with 17 other disability issues. I agreed with him, afterall, our society and movement have a history of silencing people with intellectual disabilities. But still, why weren't the other connections made? How come we chose not to talk about all of the other horrible imagery (particularly against Asian-Pacific Islander folks)? Some responses I've seen to this question have been that it is more strategic. Is it really strategic in the long run and if we decide that it is--- strategic for who? I believe our activism has to be bigger than our own oppression but if you want, let's talk about strategies for our movement. I believe it IS strategic to talk about other systems of oppressions---how else can we expect to have the system of oppression we face as disabled people recognized? How can we even go into social justice work uwilling to talk about the privileges we have? This can't be done in a superficial, let's-high-five-Dr.-King way. What good is our activism, anyways, if it's based on the backs of others?]]> http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181/feed 10 http://blog.cripchick.com another shapeshifter living among the digital masses Thu, 02 Sep 2010 22:57:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://blog.cripchick.com another shapeshifter living among the digital masses Thu, 02 Sep 2010 22:57:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181 http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181#comments Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:17:15 +0000 cripchick http://misscripchick.wordpress.com/?p=335 Tropic Thunder. I wanted to wait until the initial media coverage passed so this conversation could be held more internally and not distract from the message we were putting out there. The amazing Jess Hoffman from Makeshift magazine was recently a guest blogger at Feministe (h/t to Sudy) and has been writing a lot about capitalism and feminism. In part of Jess' last post, she built on the words of Sister Lorde, Moraga, Anzaldua, and others to talk about why intersectionality was needed in feminist communities. Jess pointed out that this intersectional analysis created by radical women of color has often been misinterpreted and stolen by feminists to say something along the lines of "because *some* women have multiple identities, we need to address their experience" instead of "all systems of power are linked and a multiple-issue analysis is the only way to defeat oppression". Excerpt: So it’s not just that some individual people experience multiple forms of oppression, or even that all people have some kind of personal relationship with all systems of oppression... but also that the systems of power themselves—racism, economic hierarchy, sexism, heteronormativity, ableism, etc.—are working together. Included in our activism against ableism and the use of the r-word in Tropic Thunder have been statements from disability organizations and disability activists along the lines of "People can't say this word or that word (insert racist remark) but they can still say the r word!", "Disability is the last frontier!", "When making Tropic Thunder, Dreamworks brought in African American consultants to make sure the movie wasn't offensive---where were the disability consultants?" Though I think I know what this feeling is based on---the frusteration of ableism not being addressed as oppression in activist communities and mainstream society---I believe this short-term strategy or sentiment absolutely cannot be a part of our activism. Not only does this strategy alienate disabled people who have multiple identities but it does nothing to address oppression. When we say these kinds of things, it says that we believe racism, heterosexism, sexism, etc are personal conflicts that happens between people (and that we've overcome!), not institutions in which our soicety is based upon. It ignores families being ripped apart by ICE raids, trans women of color being killed everyday, and the ever-growing prison industrial complex. One leader in the disability community rightfully pointed out the need to stick with the issue of the r-word and not swamping it with 17 other disability issues. I agreed with him, afterall, our society and movement have a history of silencing people with intellectual disabilities. But still, why weren't the other connections made? How come we chose not to talk about all of the other horrible imagery (particularly against Asian-Pacific Islander folks)? Some responses I've seen to this question have been that it is more strategic. Is it really strategic in the long run and if we decide that it is--- strategic for who? I believe our activism has to be bigger than our own oppression but if you want, let's talk about strategies for our movement. I believe it IS strategic to talk about other systems of oppressions---how else can we expect to have the system of oppression we face as disabled people recognized? How can we even go into social justice work uwilling to talk about the privileges we have? This can't be done in a superficial, let's-high-five-Dr.-King way. What good is our activism, anyways, if it's based on the backs of others?]]> http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181/feed 10 http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181 http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181#comments Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:17:15 +0000 cripchick http://misscripchick.wordpress.com/?p=335 Tropic Thunder. I wanted to wait until the initial media coverage passed so this conversation could be held more internally and not distract from the message we were putting out there. The amazing Jess Hoffman from Makeshift magazine was recently a guest blogger at Feministe (h/t to Sudy) and has been writing a lot about capitalism and feminism. In part of Jess' last post, she built on the words of Sister Lorde, Moraga, Anzaldua, and others to talk about why intersectionality was needed in feminist communities. Jess pointed out that this intersectional analysis created by radical women of color has often been misinterpreted and stolen by feminists to say something along the lines of "because *some* women have multiple identities, we need to address their experience" instead of "all systems of power are linked and a multiple-issue analysis is the only way to defeat oppression". Excerpt: So it’s not just that some individual people experience multiple forms of oppression, or even that all people have some kind of personal relationship with all systems of oppression... but also that the systems of power themselves—racism, economic hierarchy, sexism, heteronormativity, ableism, etc.—are working together. Included in our activism against ableism and the use of the r-word in Tropic Thunder have been statements from disability organizations and disability activists along the lines of "People can't say this word or that word (insert racist remark) but they can still say the r word!", "Disability is the last frontier!", "When making Tropic Thunder, Dreamworks brought in African American consultants to make sure the movie wasn't offensive---where were the disability consultants?" Though I think I know what this feeling is based on---the frusteration of ableism not being addressed as oppression in activist communities and mainstream society---I believe this short-term strategy or sentiment absolutely cannot be a part of our activism. Not only does this strategy alienate disabled people who have multiple identities but it does nothing to address oppression. When we say these kinds of things, it says that we believe racism, heterosexism, sexism, etc are personal conflicts that happens between people (and that we've overcome!), not institutions in which our soicety is based upon. It ignores families being ripped apart by ICE raids, trans women of color being killed everyday, and the ever-growing prison industrial complex. One leader in the disability community rightfully pointed out the need to stick with the issue of the r-word and not swamping it with 17 other disability issues. I agreed with him, afterall, our society and movement have a history of silencing people with intellectual disabilities. But still, why weren't the other connections made? How come we chose not to talk about all of the other horrible imagery (particularly against Asian-Pacific Islander folks)? Some responses I've seen to this question have been that it is more strategic. Is it really strategic in the long run and if we decide that it is--- strategic for who? I believe our activism has to be bigger than our own oppression but if you want, let's talk about strategies for our movement. I believe it IS strategic to talk about other systems of oppressions---how else can we expect to have the system of oppression we face as disabled people recognized? How can we even go into social justice work uwilling to talk about the privileges we have? This can't be done in a superficial, let's-high-five-Dr.-King way. What good is our activism, anyways, if it's based on the backs of others?]]> http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181/feed 10 http://blog.cripchick.com another shapeshifter living among the digital masses Thu, 02 Sep 2010 22:57:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 en hourly 1 http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181 http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181#comments Mon, 25 Aug 2008 01:17:15 +0000 cripchick http://misscripchick.wordpress.com/?p=335 Tropic Thunder. I wanted to wait until the initial media coverage passed so this conversation could be held more internally and not distract from the message we were putting out there. The amazing Jess Hoffman from Makeshift magazine was recently a guest blogger at Feministe (h/t to Sudy) and has been writing a lot about capitalism and feminism. In part of Jess' last post, she built on the words of Sister Lorde, Moraga, Anzaldua, and others to talk about why intersectionality was needed in feminist communities. Jess pointed out that this intersectional analysis created by radical women of color has often been misinterpreted and stolen by feminists to say something along the lines of "because *some* women have multiple identities, we need to address their experience" instead of "all systems of power are linked and a multiple-issue analysis is the only way to defeat oppression". Excerpt: So it’s not just that some individual people experience multiple forms of oppression, or even that all people have some kind of personal relationship with all systems of oppression... but also that the systems of power themselves—racism, economic hierarchy, sexism, heteronormativity, ableism, etc.—are working together. Included in our activism against ableism and the use of the r-word in Tropic Thunder have been statements from disability organizations and disability activists along the lines of "People can't say this word or that word (insert racist remark) but they can still say the r word!", "Disability is the last frontier!", "When making Tropic Thunder, Dreamworks brought in African American consultants to make sure the movie wasn't offensive---where were the disability consultants?" Though I think I know what this feeling is based on---the frusteration of ableism not being addressed as oppression in activist communities and mainstream society---I believe this short-term strategy or sentiment absolutely cannot be a part of our activism. Not only does this strategy alienate disabled people who have multiple identities but it does nothing to address oppression. When we say these kinds of things, it says that we believe racism, heterosexism, sexism, etc are personal conflicts that happens between people (and that we've overcome!), not institutions in which our soicety is based upon. It ignores families being ripped apart by ICE raids, trans women of color being killed everyday, and the ever-growing prison industrial complex. One leader in the disability community rightfully pointed out the need to stick with the issue of the r-word and not swamping it with 17 other disability issues. I agreed with him, afterall, our society and movement have a history of silencing people with intellectual disabilities. But still, why weren't the other connections made? How come we chose not to talk about all of the other horrible imagery (particularly against Asian-Pacific Islander folks)? Some responses I've seen to this question have been that it is more strategic. Is it really strategic in the long run and if we decide that it is--- strategic for who? I believe our activism has to be bigger than our own oppression but if you want, let's talk about strategies for our movement. I believe it IS strategic to talk about other systems of oppressions---how else can we expect to have the system of oppression we face as disabled people recognized? How can we even go into social justice work uwilling to talk about the privileges we have? This can't be done in a superficial, let's-high-five-Dr.-King way. What good is our activism, anyways, if it's based on the backs of others?]]> http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/181/feed 10 http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/100 http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/100#comments Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:38:17 +0000 cripchick http://crip-power.com/2007/11/17/another-word-on-privilege/ article on privilege today, written by Peggy McIntosh, an anti-racist feminist. (Maybe I'm late to the table and you folks have already seen it?) Anyways, here were some of my favorite points that describe aspects of privilege:

• If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.
• I can go shopping alone most of the time, fairly well assured that I will not be followed or harassed by store detectives.
• I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely and positively represented.
• When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.
• I can swear, or dress in secondhand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty, or the illiteracy of my race.
• I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.
• I can remain oblivious to the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.
• I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out of place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance, or feared.
• I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co­workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.
• I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

While the list she created was specifically on white male privilege, what I found most interesting is how they could have easily been describing abled-bodied (nondisabled) privilege, heterosexual/cissexual privilege, and class privilege. She pointed out while society sometimes does talk about how racism and sexism disadvantages women and people of color, it doesn't talk about how it gives others advantages (her words: "As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage.") Although sometimes I think people who identify with an oppressed group of people think they have an automatic free pass from recognizing privilege (i.e. disabled men who are racist, feminists who are ableist, etc....) and it's wrong to casually say all forms of privilege are the same, it still amazes/bothers/frusterates/surprises me how, as individuals or communities, it is still difficult to recognize that the struggle is one that is shared.  But I guess that's part of the oppression we face in the first place...]]> http://blog.cripchick.com/archives/100/feed 7