I wasn’t going to offer a Best of 2007 list of my posts this early because I’m an optimist and I like to think genius may strike me in the next three weeks. But for those who may be reading my writing for the very first time, here are five of what I think are my best blog posts of 2007. Plus a couple bonus posts.
Blind Rage and the legacy of Helen Keller — Because I originally began The Gimp Parade to review books about disability, and more importantly, because Blind Rage is a fantastic book by a disabled feminist about the world’s most famous disabled feminist.
I am tired — My expression of how last winter’s Ashley X debate affected me and the disability community online.
Miss Ability lays down on the job — Recently, feminist blogs have written about the beauty contest Miss Landmine Angola. Here’s my take on another beauty pageant for disabled women.
Anniversary — Escaping institutionalization — A personal story of perhaps the biggest drama of my life.
Is Roger Ebert a disability activist? — When I wrote this, I inadvertently prevented comments to the post, so I never learned what others think about Ebert’s “activism.”
Bonus link: Because language use came up in comments to my Alas intro post, here’s a blog entry on that general topic: Linguistically disabled?
And because sometimes I amuse myself, my best blog headline of the year: Yes, the road to hell is paved, but that doesn’t mean it’s accessible
I’d nominate Cilla Sluga’s post at Big Noise about Ruben Navarro as overall Blog Post of the Year.
Who would you nominate? And why?
Cross-posted at The Gimp Parade
I read all these last night, and really enjoyed them. It’s a bit shallow, but I felt the one I could most dig into with my analytic teeth was the beauty contest post — when I saw the posts about the contest on feministe, for instance, I’d wondered about some of the things you brought up. It was saddening (but hardly surprising) to see my suspicions confirmed.
I don’t tend to agree with everything that I see disability rights activists putting out there. I don’t really consider myself an ally of those causes. Which is not to say that I don’t agree with a lot of what you and others say, or that I’m not outraged by things like the death of Ruben Navarro — but I do disagree on a few of what seem to be the basic premises of disability rights activism.
However, I greatly anticipate learning a lot more about disability rights issues, and perhaps having my mind change with education on some of those premises.
I think that’s a very common perspective. Like with feminism though, there is context to the disability rights perspective (or the black perspective or the immigration debate) that show the defensive positions taken are survivalist in a very real sense. When people not familiar with the threats disabled folks are responding to with their politics speak against them, a reactionary dynamic develops as it does anywhere else. I like to think that, as with feminism, a broader, deeper understanding of the issue may not bring full agreement but leads most reasonable people to at least cautious support. For me, I’m still learning a great deal about areas of disability like autism and mental illness.
“but leads most reasonable people to at least cautious support”
I’d say I’m in a cautious support place, for a lot of things.
On others — like the suggestion that a woman who chooses to abort a fetus with Down’s is doing something wrong — I’m not aligned, although I understand the argument.
thanks for posting this kay. it was really hard to relive ashley x all over again but reminds me why disabled feminists putting their voices out there is so important.
“On others — like the suggestion that a woman who chooses to abort a fetus with Down’s is doing something wrong — I’m not aligned, although I understand the argument.”
It’s interesting, because this is probably one of the most divisve issues for disability activisits and feminists. Personally, I support choice regardless of circumstances as can be applied in the Roe V Wade standard, but I also don’t have a problem with pointing out that the language and rhetoric used when women choose to abort disabled fetuses or the push to do so by the medical community is not right. For me, it’s not about the individual woman’s choice – I will support that no matter what – but rather the meaning of that choice as an aggregate and the fact that people are often making uninformed or at least not completely informed choices and they are doing so at great pressures from the medical establishment. Which means, I’m less worried about an individual woman’s choice and more worried about how physicians who tell patients that the fetus has downs (or whatever else) handles that initial discussion and those afterwards.
While in general, I’d like to see fewer abortions due to a “defect” with the fetus, that’s not *really* my main issue. The main issue is the lack of good information from all sides and the disease model discourse that is pushed by the medical community and the general devaluation of disabled people’s lives that is tied to it. And, I’d also like to see fewer abortions due to lack of available birth control – doesn’t mean I’d want to stop a woman from terminating a pregnancy as she chooses, just that I’d like to see birth control more available to more people, KWIM?
And Kay, It’s great to “see” you hear. I look forward to reading more posts!
Kate just described my exact personal view on the topic, which probably isn’t as hardline anti-choice as many imagine — it isn’t actually anti-choice AT ALL — but people take it that way when those lobbying this point of view pipe up to make sure all the tricky nuances of choice get into the conversation. It’s interesting that when women of color lodge their issues with abortion choice rhetoric they are generally seen as unfeminist. Disability activists are seen as anti-choice.
Pingback: Body Impolitic - Blog Archive - » Beauty Contests Reach New Lows - Laurie Toby Edison: Photographer