Feminists with Disabilities Talk Back: Amanda Palmer and Avant-Garde Ableism

Hello Everyone,

I thought you may want to check out this:

http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/02/22/a-few-words-on-some-previous-words/

It maps the controversy (and lets say extremely problematic and may I add violent conceptions) of the Evelyn Evelyn show/album by Amanda Palmer. I didn't know who she was before but I sure do now! I encourage everyone to read it. It is written by one of my esteemed cohort members, Anna, whose work encompasses the intersections and necessity of disability/ability within feminist discourse and action. I find that this actually speaks to the larger impulse on the side of art (black face in vogue cause its so avant-garde) to use controversial images and minstrelsy for capitalist gain. Anyway, I really enjoyed reading it and I hope you do as well!

Law and (Dis)Order: B.D. Wong and Psychosis

In the second season of Law and Order SVU we are introduced to the department's psychologist(chiatrist?) Dr. George Huang (B.D. Wong) who comes off as the slightly nerdy, well-informed and dare I say dashing man - duckbill hairstyle and all. As he steps into the multicultural circle of the SVU unit he is met with extreme distaste from those officers, namely Stabler, who can't fathom that this small time doctor knows about the big leagues. Oh, but he does! With a simple look at the case file, Huang can attest to the killer's personality right down to his intimate habits and possible working environment. How does he know? Psychology of course, something that doesn't stand up to Stabler's years of experience and NYC swagger. He finally becomes one of the crew, though, and most certainly post-9/11 becomes an asset to the team. What amazes me about Huang in these episodes is that he is so spot-on. I had no idea that forensics and criminal psychology was so great at identifying the criminal body and mind (insert sarcasm here). Huang finally makes the beginning credits and notorious shot of the SVU unit with arms crossed and gazing into the camera as if to say, "we know who you are." And I am led to believe that yes, Dr. Huang, you know who I am. I could possibly make a point here about the impulse of psychological knowledges that were used to describe, codify and order the terrorist body in times of national dilemma but the show doesn't seem to follow this call. There victims and killers span seem to be relatively white washed with obvious motives (money, sex, control). The slew of psychological disorders are saved for them - antisocial, DID, gender dysphoria. As for their racialized counterparts they seem to lack psychological distress. Why is this? My guess would be that rehabilitation, as it is shown in the show, is reserved for white bodies. They do their crimes because they have mental disorders. They often have family trauma, mommy and daddy issues, pedophilia urges and an inability to articulate their feelings. Whereas the criminals of color seem to be just bad. They are caught up in gang activity or just on the wrong side of life. Thus, in the midst of psychological narratives for terrorist bodies of color abroad there actually seems to be a lack of necessity for bodies of color within the nation state. While psychology may appease those going to war by ensuring them, that indeed they know the terrorist mind it doesn't seem to work the same in the context of SVU and the space of NYC. This contradiction is well worth noting in times of prison popularity. While the liberal eye is asked, for a moment, to reflect on what is going on with the white criminal mind they are also asked to kindly dispose of bodies of color without the same kind of respect. Now, psychological narratives are fucked up, I am not asking that they should be reserved for profiling (EVER) but I will say that they work in insidious ways to dissagregate those who may be curable and those who just need to be locked away.

Dating Tips...

Wanna know how to date right?

http://pbh3.tumblr.com/post/390543309/1938-dating-guide-for-single-women

This link was sent to my girlfriend by her sister. I feel like I encounter something like this every six months where people look at old dating advice for women or old advertisements and go "oh that's scary; things used to be so different back then." Bullshit! This kind of stuff is everywhere still. Every magazine advertised to straight women HAS to have some sort of list dating tips or ways to "please your man." You can easily google search "dating tips" and find contemporary lists that are more conservative than this one. (I found one that encourages women not to act so "butch" and never to be the first person to say "I love you." I'd like to give men a little more credit than these stereotypes that so many self-help articles do.)

We should do our best to avoid these false narratives of progressive gender politics. In cases such as "dating tips," the tips are often removed from their specific contexts: was this from the Glamour of the time, or from some gender-conforming propaganda? We also cannot assume that tips directly correlate to customs of the time, although it is true that cultural artifacts such as this do influence the norms of the time. By painting these progressive narratives we often effaces our connection with the past, how the past still haunts and stays with us. We can shrug our shoulders and say "that was then, we're much more advanced now." Not only is it dishonest, but these narratives of progressivism underlie excuses for colonization (speaking of histories we often try to distance ourselves from).

I do think the photos are pretty hilarious though. Especially the one where she rubs the head of the person in the next booth. If a girl did that on a date she'd be a total keeper in my book. But that's just me.

Citizenship Application

Here are some questions one must answer in order to apply for U.S. citizenship

"Have you ever been a member of or in any way associated with:

The communist Party

Any other totalitarian party

A terrorist organization

Have you ever advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government by force or violence

Have you ever persecuted any person because of race, religion, national origin, membership in a particular social group or political opinion?"

It then goes on to ask if you’ve ever been in direct relation with the Nazi party. Or any association with Germany during the Nazi regime.

I think the irony of asking "have you ever persecuted any person because of...national origin" is particularly rife. I assume the correct answer is "no," and that this application process does not count as persecution. I also can't tell if the advocation of the overthrow of any government by force or violence is something that would make you a bad candidate to be an American. I'd imagine that there are certain governments that would be considered acceptable to overthrow. What if the person was a member of a communist party, but only to start a ring of terrorists within the group with the party in order to overthrow the totalitarian regime? It seems like the application process is missing out on these very specific potential patriots.

Also, who is going to admit that they have been a member of a terrorist organization? That would be stupid.

The whole application is a good indication of the types of people The U.S. government considers "undesirable." Much like the type of people recent liberal legislation is hoping to crack down on with new reforms, while allowing for "better" processes for the desirable one. This is a time when I wish I had a good critique on how discourses on desirable versus undesirable immigration relied on racial and xenophobic histories that suck.

It later asks about things like prostitution and arrest record, an other example of the ways our frameworks for immigration our not created solely on racism and xenophbia, but gendered and sexual phobias are at play as well.

Fuck, it's been a minute since I've made myself think and write critically and complicatedly. I take solace knowing that no one is reading this.

Let's get this started again!

Some might start a new blog. Give up on the past, chalk it up to childhood antics. Get excited about a new project ("we could make a tumblr!"). How many blogs have we seen, become fascinated with, and then noticed that they haven't been updated in two years? How many projects have we started only to let die, drift away in our past conscience. On the Internet or elsewhere.

Sometimes it's necessary. Some projects serve their purpose before they're completed. Sometimes we get caught up in other "more important" stuff, so we can't dedicate the time or the energy that we'd like to our old projects.

But fuck that. I don't have time to start another project. But I do have time to reawaken an old one. And the people who started "gut the house" are too badass to leave behind in past conscience.

Maybe this is a rallying cry? Maybe I'm just bored or feel like I've become complicit. Maybe I want to reconnect to my old friends. (I miss you!!!)

Let's tear it up.