Inspiration (Without the "Porn")

While reading the essay, "My Disability Story Isn’t For Your Catharsis" I was brought to a question I sometimes ask myself:  How can I be inspiring to other cripples (or helpful in a significant way to humanity in general) without tripping the inspo-porn wire?  I don't have a definitive answer.  Maybe there isn't one.

We can attempt to mitigate it, though.  When we write, we can subvert genre expectations like Katie Rose Guest Pryal suggests.  We can amplify each other's accomplishments so they flood out beyond the echo chamber and become commonplace.  We can rally for more authentic representation in media and defend against inaccurate information.  We can protest.  We can create.

But, it will take more than us, I think.  We didn't start the trend.  We aren't even tending to it.  Ableds just take what they want from us after a while.  If they saw our complete humanity, it wouldn't shock them that we sing, dance, climb, paint, own businesses, become lawyers, or have families.  If they saw our complete humanity, they would argue for an accessible society.

There is one good thing about inspo-porn.  Ableds may spread it for "the feelz", but it sometimes ends up on one of our feeds—not as a way for someone to shove another gimp's accomplishment in our face, but as happenstance arriving just when we need it.  Feel like your dream won't come true?  Well, your colleague shared the story of a paralyzed mountaineer an hour ago!  Ableds, in their attempt to motivate each other, can carry a previously-unknown story about us to us.  They can be unintentional pollinators of hope (as long as we ignore some of the framing).

We can't let how the ableds try to define us stop the progress we make.  We can push back against their ignorance.  We can forge new words and our own definitions.  After all, we're writers.

Able-bodied/Neurotypical Writers and Our Stories

A lot of disabled and/or neurodivergent people don't want able-bodied/neurotypical people writing stories with us in them.  I understand why.  Writers tend to cling onto stereotypes, write about real people without getting permission from the people they're writing about, don't interview people with the actual disability/neurodivergence, and on and on.

The writers who aren't willing to do what it takes shouldn't write our stories.  Some writers will spend weeks researching cars from the 1960's but not interview one person with the disability their protagonist has.  The writer checking off "diversity boxes" is less likely to do what it takes to create authentic neurodivergent characters.

But, there are some writers who are able-bodied/neurotypical who will do the work involved.  They will hire sensitivity readers.  They will interview actually disabled/neurodivergent people.  They will make balanced characters and listen to feedback at all stages of manuscript creation.  They are compassionate.

I know that able-bodied/neurotypical authors who write disabled/neurodivergent characters often make it bigger (obtain higher advances, get more movie options, etc.) than disabled/neurodivergent authors writing our own stories.  It sucks.  But, any author who is doing things "right" will also be a passionate advocate in the publishing industry for brilliant disabled and/or neurodivergent writers; any writer who uses a marginalized group in their work and fails to promote and fight for that group shouldn't touch that group's narratives.  They won't ally themselves with ableist organisations and will struggle with us to widen doors for our success in any way they can (that includes putting clauses in their movie contract that disabled and/or neurodivergent characters will be played by disabled and neurodivergent actors).

While we don't need books with ableist, problematic portrayals and tropes, we do need more books that reflect authentic, whole experiences of our community.  If the next book with a disabled/neurodivergent protagonist that makes it big comes from a diligent, passionate author who does things right?  I'm okay with it.

"Real" Disabled Writers

I saw a conversation on social media about disabled artists needing more resources.  I nodded along as I read, having seen this play out a hundred times in various forms.
About halfway through the conversation, I paused.  Someone said something to the effect of, "Writers with Bipolar and Depression aren't real  disabled writers because the nondisabled populace is accepting and supportive of them and people expect writers to be depressed."

So, some people being (somewhat) more supportive in certain circumstances and in certain ways negates a disabled and/or neurodivergent writer's needs?  Negates their disability and/or neurodivergence entirely?  Makes their creative output not part of the disability community?  What utter bullshit!

The sentiment that Condition X, Diagnosis Y, or Disability Z is not as deserving because it's supposedly not as stigmatized smacks of Oppression Olympics.  People with mental illnesses and/or neurodivergences are often not believed, not taken seriously, and so on.  Wishing for a bigger spotlight on disabled/neurodivergent writers is a good thing, wanting to steal another person's candle because you consider them not as worthy is shitty.

Why the hell are we spending time bitching about the faint light our neighbors may be getting and not banding together to procure larger portions for us all?  Focus your energy and frustration on creating something better, not destroying someone else.  We are all in this together.  This is our community, enrich it!
~*~*~*~
One last note:  There is NO hierarchy of disability/neurodivergence.  People who acquire their disability/neurodivergence are not "better" than those who were born with theirs.  Physical disabilities aren't more chic than cognitive ones.  Quit that.

Ableist Language in Dialogue

The majority of the population still thinks words like "dumb" and "crazy" are fine to lob in everyday conversation.  Even a lot of disabled/neurodivergent folks use them without being in the position to reclaim them.  Then, there are some who don't want to use the words because of ableism.

For the writers in the "hell no" camp of using certain words, telling a story without them can become complex.  A character doing something ridiculous in modern times is rarely told he's being preposterous.  A highly erratic protagonist isn't going to be told by each character her demeanor is strange or odd, though it might work for a few characters' interactions.  

Child characters are even more difficult.  Few children know words like "ludicrous" or "off-putting", and probably wouldn't use them if they did.  Unless one avoids putting kids in a situation where they need to address someone (or something) with extreme behavior and/or properties, the writer will need to address it, somehow.

Do writers who see words like "stupid" as ableism give themselves a pass when writing fiction?  I haven't asked every single writer, but a fair amount do.  Especially when writing realistic, modern stories.  It isn't easy to work around words the majority of people use.  It's not as simple as avoiding vulgar language.

But a small section of writers refuse to use those words, regardless.  Some set stories in strange lands with made-up words.  Some don't put characters in a situation where they need to address another's odd mannerisms... at all.  Or place their books in a past where different words are said.  Or, maybe, they use words like "odd", "strange", "preposterous".

It's up to each writer to decide.  

What words do you use?

Ableist Writers, Inaccuracy, and Double Standards

It's important to write the stories we want to see, the books not being written because the majority of people aren't comfortable with those unlike themselves.  It is just as important to our art, however, to write whatever we feel compelled to write.

Society is more accepting of disabled/neurodivergent writers when we stick to disability issues.  (This, of course, doesn't mean able-bodied/neurotypical people will actually want to read works written by us.)  It's more of a... silent permission.  But things turn a bit more acidic when we write outside our sanctioned area of expertise.

Criticism cranks up to full blast, our disabilities/divergences are dissected, and the discussion of our "ability" to write about certain topics all start coming up when one of us dares to write a novel with "normal" people in it.  We are also faced with extra infantilization ("Aww, you wrote a cute, little story") or dismissiveness.

But able-bodied/neurotypical people can write about whatever they want, even if they are inaccurate or disrespectful (unless other people like themselves call them out).  They're told censoring what one writes injures creativity.  They're told to rush headlong into whatever subject ignites their passion.  They are not often told to do research for minority characters like they would a location or certain time period.  Accuracy doesn't matter for an actual group of people but, dress a character in a gown twenty years out of fashion, and the world explodes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I know just the sort of backlash I (a fat, disabled, non-Christian, woman) would get if I wrote a story messing up all the able-bodied, Christian male characters (maybe making them all sexist villains with orange hair) but made everyone else diverse and alive.  It wouldn't be good.  Hell, it already isn't great, facing some of those people (ableist fatphobes) in my daily life.

I'm just so aggravated with the double standards.  And the crappy representation.  And having to be twice as good as a writer for many people to see me as half as talented as a "normal" one.  I'm tired of being told I shouldn't write about something with no logical reason why not but someone else can offensively pen something and it be defended as touching free speech or unabridged creativity.  It's exhausting.

Have you had to deal with someone downplaying your accomplishments because you're disabled/neurodivergent?  Has a writer ever been so inaccurate or offensive that it enraged you?  Ever been called a great writer, "for a disabled person"?

Me Before You Role Reversal (SPOILERS)

The disabled community is abuzz with talk of Hollywood's next tearjerker, Me Before You.  Many disabled people and our allies are pissed over many aspects of this film/book.  And they're not wrong, it is exceedingly problematic on various levels.

A short synopsis:  A wealthy quadriplegic man wants to commit suicide because he doesn't think his life is worth anything, anymore.  A cute, able-bodied woman in need of some money is hired for six months to be the man's caretaker (and is on secret suicide watch).  When the woman finds out the man wants to kill himself, she endeavors to make his life worth living and tries to change his mind.  They fall in love, but he still kills himself and leaves her money so she never has to be without anything again.

The general public is raving about this story.  They say it's heartfelt, touching.  He, they tout, made her life so much better, and so much more meaningful.
"But there really are disabled people who want to kill themselves and feel useless," fans will say to defend this garbage.  They're right.  But...

What if the roles were reversed?  What if our young, lithe heroine was the one who didn't want to live anymore?  What if our disabled hero had to show her everything life had to offer within six months, or she would kill herself?  What if after courtship, conversations, friendship, she decided to kill herself anyway?  What if she were the one to set him up for life to pursue any dream he possessed?  He, the character the story constantly says (in one way or another) shouldn't enjoy life or want to live a long time.

I bet the majority of the defenders of this book/film would be screaming their heads off.  "Why didn't she get help?  Why didn't her family step in? Why didn't love save her or make her want to live?"
It wouldn't make sense for them, you see.  A young, able-bodied person's life is so full of promise and hope.  It becomes a tragedy for it to end.  A disabled person is a burden, a half life.  A light in the process of already being extinguished.

The vast majority of the audience for this would rather be dead than disabled like the hero, at least that's what they think.  And why wouldn't they think that?  If all Hollywood and the publishing industry is going to show us is burden, loss, sadness in the realm of disability, it is only going to reinforce the negative connotations of disability fermenting in most people's minds.

And don't get me started on the fact that the couple doesn't have sex!