Hi Lisa and All.
I absolutely agree with you-those who haven't experienced ableism as a
"supremecy" thing either isn't disabled, in denial, and/or in hiding or a
little of all.
Smile,
Phyllis
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Thies, Lisa wrote:
> I'm new to this discussion so forgive my confusion
> but... I don't understand how "ableism" as I have experienced it is "ok."
> Yes, it may provide a way to discuss the binary of able/disabled but I think
> there is some "supremecy" inherent in some ableist mentality I've
> encountered. I don't think it's purely an academic term. It is very active
> and evident when you see the physical and attitudinal barriers that still
> exist toward people with disabilities. I've just started to read "Claiming
> Disability" and am seeing some of what I've surmised on my own put into
> print.
>
> To introduce myself...my name is Lisa Thies and I
> work at Cal State University, Fullerton in the Office of Disabled Student
> Services. I have a master's degree in Student Personnel Work and a
> bachelor's degree in Psychology. I am very intrigued by this field of
> disability studies and am eager to learn more. My husband and I live in
> Fullerton, CA with our dog and three cats. I am disabled myself
> (osteogenesis imperfecta) and use a wheelchair. Due to that and my short
> stature I've run into a lot of "ableists" out there (including my father).
>
> Just my two cents worth. If I'm too far off point,
> please let me know. Lisa
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anita Silvers
> [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 10:20 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: lexic. stuff
>
> Racism by no means implies a white view.
> Blacks can be racist, Asians can
> be racist, etc. The former president of
> SFSU, himself a mainland born
> Chinese, often commented on how racist the
> Chinese can be. That
> understanding was important in our workijg
> to bring groups into
> cooperation and collaboration on a
> multiculture (not just a black/white)
> campus
>
> On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Simi Linton wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Here's why I think ableism is *ok* (not
> good, but serviceable). Racist
> > - doesnt just imply a white view, it
> implies a white supremacist view,
> > similarly sexism - a view of male as
> supreme. SO - ableism to me
> > doesn't reinforce the binary -
> able/disable referring to people, but
> > critiques the power of the idea that there
> is such a binary, and that
> > one side is better than the other. Now of
> course only the people on
> > these lists understand the nuances of any
> of this so we're sending the
> > ship out there with hope it sails on the
> course we want it to
> > (aaghhhhh, my metaphors are nauseating
> even me this morning), so I am
> > tentative in my endorsement, but think its
> the only game in town.
> > simi linton
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---Ron Amundson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Johnson Cheu <[log in to unmask]>
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > <[log in to unmask]>;
> > > [log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Date: Sunday, November 01, 1998 9:46 PM
> > > Subject: lexic. stuff
> > >
> > >
> > > >Anita-- Respectfully, I disagree with
> your notion that "ability"
> > doesn't
> > > >have a biological dimension.
> > >
> > > Lemme take a shot at this one. Not
> because it will contribute to
> > the lexic
> > > choice, but just because it's there.
> ;-)
> > >
> > > Anita said:
> > > >[Ableism] isn't parallel with the other
> notions. Race and sex are
> > > >typically taken to be biological
> dimensions. Racism and sexism are
> > the
> > > >repression of people with certain
> configurations of (supposed)
> > biological
> > > >properties. Howeveer, "ability" is not
> a biological dimension.
> > Impairment
> > > >is parallel to race and sex, but the
> word "impairmentism" doesn't
> > exist.
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think impairment is a parallel
> to race and sex, either.
> > Race and
> > > sex can be seen as dimensions of
> variation. Male vs. female,
> > Caucasian vs.
> > > Mongolian vs. etc., are variants on
> those dimensions. There is no
> > term that
> > > names the dimension on which ability
> (better "able-bodiedness") and
> > > impairment are variants. That's why I
> wrote earlier that 'ableism'
> > is more
> > > like Joan's 'white supremacy' or
> 'misogyny' -- these labels indicate
> > the
> > > privileged variants on each dimension,
> not just the names of the
> > dimensions
> > > themselves (race and sex).
> > >
> > > But I think Anita's point may be that
> 'ability' is not a logical
> > contrary to
> > > 'disability'. One way to oppose
> disablement is to point out that
> > impaired
> > > people do not necessarily lack ability.
> When they do it usually
> > results
> > > from social contexts. This depends, of
> course, on how the 'ability'
> > in
> > > question is defined. Johnson is right
> that 'ability' is frequently
> > defined
> > > biologically, as the biological ability
> to perform certain body
> > movements or
> > > perceptual discriminations. In that
> sense, 'ability' is a biological
> > > dimension. But I don't think we want to
> endorse or encourage the
> > biological
> > > definitions of 'ability'. Such
> non-biological 'abilities' as
> > > self-determination are valued by
> everyone. Under current social
> > > arrangements, the non-biological ability
> of self-determination is
> > linked far
> > > too closely to 'normal' biological
> abilities. No one should be
> > ashamed of
> > > being an 'ableist' if it means that they
> prefer self-determination to
> > > oppression. The term 'ability'
> stretches to fit both biological and
> > > non-biological achievements, and that's
> a problem. At least for
> > compusive
> > > semanticists like me.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, currency of use has a
> lot of pragmatic value.
> > The term
> > > 'ableism' isn't in daily use on my
> island. ("Stop blocking the curb
> > cut,
> > > you ableist pig!") But if it is
> elsewhere, that's in its favor.
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > __
> > > Ron Amundson
> > > University of Hawaii at Hilo
> > > Hilo, HI 96720-4091
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ==
> > |~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|
> > Simi Linton
> > [log in to unmask]
> > 212 580 9280 (phone and fax)
> > |~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|
> >
> >
> _________________________________________________________
> > DO YOU YAHOO!?
> > Get your free @yahoo.com address at
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> >
> >
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|