slashmarks

slashmarks:

soilrockslove:

portmanteaurian:

I’m skeptical about the idea that people can appropriate disabled experiences in the same way they can culture

Like…if you experience something that is similar to my experiences, and that is similarly debilitating

I don’t care if you have the same Disability Label I do, we still have a bond there.

Especially for psychiatric stuff, where diagnosis is mostly just based on identifying a collection of symptoms? If you have one less symptom than you need to earn the label, it doesn’t make the symptoms you DO have any less real

Clatterbane:

#seriously  #also they’re generally shit at recognizing patterns  #and applying appropriate labels  
And besides all that - if you have certain experiences, you have those experiences.  There’s no way you can be “appropriating” them.  They are happening to you and you can talk about them.
And if certain ways disabled people make their lives better also help you - it’s ok to do them!
(Of course there are ways of being a dick when talking about disability, and it’s better if people avoid being a dick.  But that’s a separate issue)

I’ve seen some things that I would call appropriating disability. Like, just for example, there’s this thing where symptoms of psychosis are considered edgy in a certain demographic — often people into, say, goth stuff and horror — and people who don’t experience them will do things like wear buttons that say “The voices in my head don’t like you.”

I don’t want to say they’re just misrepresenting themselves as disabled, because they’re not — the reason the buttons are funny and cool is that there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that they aren’t really psychotic. They don’t experience any stigma for it. And I think the repackaging of psychotic traits as edgy and cool, while psychotic people are considered horrific and violent and dangerous, is at least similar to appropriation.

But I’ve also never seen anyone talking about stuff like that on tumblr — it’s stuff like “Is it appropriation to wear eye glasses if you don’t need them?” and various arguments about whether it’s okay to use assistive technology without having a specific diagnosis. Which, yeah, not appropriation in any way.

ozymandias271

ozymandias271:

portmanteaurian:

I’m skeptical about the idea that people can appropriate disabled experiences in the same way they can culture

Like…if you experience something that is similar to my experiences, and that is similarly debilitating

I don’t care if you have the same Disability Label I do, we still have a bond there.

Especially for psychiatric stuff, where diagnosis is mostly just based on identifying a collection of symptoms? If you have one less symptom than you need to earn the label, it doesn’t make the symptoms you DO have any less real

also a lot of those conversations are about, like, stimming, which…

the ideal situation IMO is that people can make weird movements and as long as they aren’t legitimately disturbing to others it’s fine, regardless of what their diagnosis is or whether they have one at all

I think normalizing things that disabled people do that are harmless but uncommon (from wheelchair use to stimming) is really important, and the concept of appropriating those things goes against the whole idea

ozymandias271

Anonymous asked:

I think you're totally wrong about female privilege not existing and would love to debate with you on that ... or just hear out why you think 'benevolent sexism' is a thing or w/e. No pressure.

ozymandias271 answered:

I think that benevolent sexism is a thing because it doesn’t actually help women. This article is a pretty good introduction to the research on benevolent sexism. Highlights:

  • benevolent sexism is highly correlated with hostile sexism
  • controlling for hostile sexism, a country’s level of benevolent sexism is highly correlated with nationwide gender inequality
  • that is, in countries where people are more likely to endorse benevolent sexism, “men also lived longer, were more educated, had higher literacy rates, made significantly more money, and actively participated in the political and economic spheres more than their female counterparts.”

In addition, benevolent sexism is negative for women on the individual level. For instance, exposure to benevolent sexism tends to reduce women’s cognitive performance and help-seeing behavior. Benevolently sexist people are more likely to negatively evaluate the job performance of women who violate gender norms. (I can dig up studies upon request but am lazy.) 

Benevolent sexism implies that women are weak and pure Angels of the Home, and that it is bad for women to violate gender norms. This is not good for women. 

Longer thing that includes lots of helpful information on benevolent sexism and requires scooping up a book. 

andromedalogic

andromedalogic:

When you devalue women’s obsessing or swooning or pining over men, but laud men’s obsessing or swooning or pining over women as Feminist, you are shifting your focus away from women’s experiences and points of view. It’s like you don’t care how a female character feels about her boyfriend, as long as he slavishly adores her. And you think women’s desire and unrequited love and angst is embarrassing, or unfeminist, or something?

(Of course we are sorely lacking in narratives where women pine over other women, or people who are not men, but I’m addressing the things we have, and a lot of fandom approaches these het stories in the most perplexing way possible.)

scienceofeds

psychotherapy:

Are we measuring basic facts about children? Or basic facts about rich kids?

by Jane Hu

Living in the San Francisco Bay Area for the past few years, I’ve gotten used to lots of things that would probably seem strange in other cities. Commuting on a unicycle? Sure. Rampant midday nudity? Everywhere. Vegan dinner fundraiser for your Burning Man art car? Of course. So I hardly bat an eye when a 4-year-old says, “My favorite food is edamame.”

As a developmental psychologist, I test children to learn basic facts about kids, such as how they learn language, navigate social interactions, and gain knowledge. These things seem like they should work about the same way for any young human. But there is growing evidence that the timing and efficiency with which children learn these general skills vary a lot based on experience. A huge amount of a child’s early life experience is determined by the family’s socioeconomic status—how wealthy and educated the child’s parents are. The edamame-loving professors’ kids I’ve been testing are unlikely to be representative of an average child, or even an average American child.

There’s a term to describe the types of people who participate in most social science studies: WEIRD. They are weird in the sense that they are unusual compared with most of the world’s population, but WEIRD is also an acronym describing the white, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic culture they come from. A trio of psychology professors coined this term in a 2010 paper, pointing out that fields studying human behavior often use participants who are “Western, and more specifically American, undergraduates.”

(full story here)