So, in case you didn’t notice, there was a bit of a kerfuffle recently on Skepchick about ableism. Turns out, not everyone on Skepchick has the same opinions, and we all make mistakes. But this experience did teach us one thing: we don’t have enough disabled voices on this network. So, we’re starting a sister site for people with disabilities! And we want YOU to write for us (well, if you’re disabled and like writing). Last year we had two posts for “Blog Against Disablism Day.” One was by Chris Hofstader, and one was by me. If you’d like to contribute to this new blog, please apply!
We’re looking for people with physical or mental (or both!) disabilities who are willing to write at least one article every two weeks. The positions are not paid, but you will get more recognition, the chance to talk about your disability, make the world a better place, and be part of a kick-ass international network.
We will be accepting applications until Friday, March 21st Sunday, March 16th, so please get your applications in as soon as possible! (Edit: We’re moving up the deadline due receiving to more applications than anticipated.)
Questions About Applying!
I have a disability! Can I apply?
Yes, please do!
What if I have more than one disability?
All the more reason you should apply!
I have a mental, not physical, disability. Can I still apply?
Certainly!
My disability isn’t officially diagnosed. What do I do?
Apply, and we’ll move on from there.
My disability is really rare. Do you still want me to apply?
Yes!
I don’t have any real blogging experience. Can I still apply?
Yep! Although if you have some kind of writing examples to share, that would help (we’ll contact you for them after you apply).
I have a serious physical or mental illness, but I don’t personally identify as “disabled.” Can I still apply?
Sure!
I don’t have a disability, but I think I have really valuable opinions anyway.
Please don’t apply.
But that’s discrimination!
No, it’s not.
Hi Sara – what about a parent of one (or more) disabled/autistic children. Can they apply?
Thanks!
Nancy
Hi Nancy! That’s a good question– I’d say apply & we’ll figure it out from there. :)
I know Skepchick has a parenting blog – having more parents of special needs kids might be appreciated there. :)
Hi Sarah… Actually, it isn’t me, but I have friends who have autistic children. I want to share this to help spread the word, and wanted to find out before someone asked me…
:-)
While I’m not disabled, I wanted to put out there that a guide to web design/blogging accessibility would be nice. For instance, don’t tag a post with a potentially seizure-inducing GIF as ‘epilepsy’ or ‘seizures’, but as ‘seizure warning’. (On the plus side, most seizure-inducing GIFs are also bad design for other reasons.) Also, brush scripts, image maps, and image links without alt text (In HTML, this is the ALT in an IMG tag.) are just plain rude.
Applied! This sounds awesome and I’d love to be a part. :)
HI all,
Just wondering why you’re’ creating a “sister site” for people with disabilities? It seems to me that could be seen as exclusionary rather than inclusionary. Wouldn’t it be preferable to have people with disabilities contributing to the main site?
Are you a regular reader of Skepchick? We have posted about disability on Skepchick main for quite a long time (myself included). For example, here are three articles that have been written in the last year about disability:
http://skepchick.org/2013/08/disability/
http://skepchick.org/2013/12/what-no-one-tells-you-when-you-get-diagnosed/
http://skepchick.org/2013/07/disability-disenfranchisement-and-disbelief-an-interview-with-sb-morgaine/
We have a sister site for parents, and LGBT people, and teens, and educators. This is so we can focus on topics that affect these communities more. We have a sidebar on Skepchick main that lets people know what’s been posted on sister sites recently, and we do a weekly “In Case You Missed It” roundup of what happened on the sister sites as well. Further, we cross-post when a topic is relevant to more than just one subset.
As a disabled woman myself, I see this as a way to get more voices heard & to focus on more in-depth topics in regards to disability than as exclusionary.
I’d just like to add that the great benefit of the sister sites is that by creating default in-network (safe) spaces for the discussion of their particular concerns, they build larger communities around those concerns that enrich Skepchick prime not only in terms of contributors and cross-posts, but also in terms of readers, commenters, and behind-the-scenes input (which is substantial if unseen by the general public).
Sister sites are not ghettos; they are more booths at the con.
I think there are some things about the Skepchick websites that can be much improved to be friendlier to people with disabilities. A couple things that have stood out to me are the contrast (or rather, lack thereof when writing in the comment box) and whether ALT text for images is being used by all the writers. I think there is something like that for text itself as well, but I am not as familiar…?
I have to admit, given the timing and the complete dearth of anything even remotely resembling a retraction or apology on the actual site from the people in question, I find this suspicious. It feels a lot like tokenism: My Disabled Friends say I’m okay!
Can you assuage that fear for me?
Another thing: If you’re considering allowing DD parent bloggers on here, consider whether you’d allow that for physical disability or chronic illness. Would you allow a parent to talk for people with Crohn’s or paraplegia? If not, why is it okay for them to talk for developmentally disabled people? As well, you don’t allow parent bloggers on the GBLTQ site if they are not themselves gender or sexual minorities. Why allow non-disabled parents on the disability site? Given how people with disabilities – particularly those with cognitive and developmental disabilities – are often infantilized, parent bloggers on a disability site would be problematic. I’m not opposed to parent bloggers blogging on the parenting blog, but a disability blog should be about disabled voices, not yet another platform for the currently-able.
If you ignore the above, I can only implore you to vet your disability parent bloggers very carefully – a lot of parent bloggers out there in the autism blogosphere peddle some very toxic ableism. There are some good ones – Ariane of Emma’s Hope Book comes to mind – but there also are some very bad ones (including at least one that I know of who blogged at a place called The Status Woe and went on to try to kill her kid, just to give you context for just how toxic some of these people can be).
Finally: Please institute a policy where people defer to those with a thing. During the blow up, there were a lot of people whose arguments basically boiled down to, “I have a mental illness or physical disability and I don’t think it’s ableist.” I’d argue that ableism is at least several different but related axes of oppression (mental illness, chronic illness, physical disability, and developmental and cognitive disability). That a person has a mobility impairment does not necessarily qualify them to talk on mental illness, for example – I can talk on chronic illness and developmental disability, but not cognitive disability, mental illness, or physical disability. Please recognize this when you’re starting it up.
I wish you the best. I might apply later after it’s up and running and I see what tone it takes – given the previous blowup and the victim blaming and gaslighting I was subject to recently here, I’m too wary to apply right now. I hope this is actually an attempt to be better.
Hi, Chemgeek. I’m a disabled woman & I’ve been blogging for Skepchick for 6 months now. This is my project, and while the recent debate was the catalyst for this, it isn’t “tokenism” or anything like that. It’s a way to get more disabled people’s voices heard & have our issues be talked about more. I wasn’t a part of the ableism fight recently, and since this is simply a call for writers, I felt it was inappropriate to go into specifics of that discussion in this post. Since I did not participate in the ableism discussion at all, it would be inappropriate for me to apologize for it.
I am aware of Autism Speaks & their issues, and I don’t want to repeat that. But if there is a 16 year old person with autism & they have great ideas but struggle with writing, I would be fine with a parent (or other close friend/family member) helping them. I would rather turn people who applied down than to miss out on great writers because they felt they shouldn’t apply. I want to be open to people with different needs.
As an actually autistic person (and one who has applied) I have to agree with chemgeek here. I think your scenario of a 16-year-old autistic person (please understand that many of us despise “person first” language) who needs their parent(s)’ help to write their ideas down is highly unlikely, and allowing parents to apply for them would be inviting enormous problems. Parents and other family members have a long history of speaking over and for autistic individuals, and generally being ignorant of how autism functions from the inside while doing so. Myself and a number of other adult and young adult autistics within our own community have gone toe to toe with these people many times. Our voices are ignored and drowned out. We experience these abuses not just from other people’s friends and family members, but from our own as well.
I happen to know some autistic people who are ALSO parents, who would be much better suited to getting a parenting view on the matter if you’re interested in that. However, I don’t know how much I want to be part of a site that would consider allowing someone else to speak FOR us, no matter what scenarios you imagine would come up. We can and do speak for ourselves all the time. I suggest you check out the blog for Autistics Speaking Day (http://autisticsspeakingday.blogspot.se/) and reconsider your position. As I mentioned, the scenario you paint is a highly unlikely one. In this day and age, many of us, of all different ages, are already on the internet and it is fact fairly common to see us writing. Opening the door to parents who are pretending to speak on behalf of their children is, I think, a far bigger disaster than the small chance of missing a person or two who might have had some good ideas.
I did respond to the question you posed. You were not happy with my response, and since I felt repeating myself would be a waste of time, I opted not to do it. However, you and your partner have not stopped harassing me over this in the comments, so I guess I’ll respond again.
So, again: yes, I understand that the scenario I gave as an example is unlikely. However, *I want to be open to that scenario if it does come up.* I am not going to accept parents as bloggers without a compelling reason, as I’ve previously mentioned. The worst case here is that I tell them no, they can’t blog for us. I would rather have more applicants than necessary & turn away some people than miss out on potentially great people because they felt their circumstance was too unique. I used to know a woman who didn’t have control of her hands, so she dictated emails & messages to her mom, who would type them for her (because she had a very soft voice & using a voice-to-text program was difficult for her sometimes, as it had trouble picking up on her affections). If she applied, should I say no because her parent is involved & helps her write? Further, yes, it is the internet age, but that doesn’t mean everyone is a good writer. Several people who’ve already applied have mentioned that a mentor or someone who could help them with their writing would be beneficial to them. Should I say no to them as well? My goal is to be open to different situations, and that’s what I’m doing. If you disagree, that’s fine, but it isn’t your call to make. So, to repeat, once again: I’m not allowing parents to blog without a compelling reason. If a compelling reason presents itself, I & the other bloggers involved will make a judgement call. We can also pass along good applications to Grounded Parents, our parenting sister site. We are losing nothing by allowing people to apply. In fact, literally anyone can apply– anyone can click the link & fill out an application. Whether they’ll be accepted is another story.
To address the other part of your comment, not everyone agrees with you on the “person-first language” issue (it’s a pretty divisive issue, as far as I’ve seen), so I’d ask you not to speak for them. Second, I didn’t want call a 16 year old a child, but calling them a teenager would have been redundant, so I settled for the (admittedly awkward) sentence. For what it’s worth, I’m not a fan of “person-first” language, but I try to respect what people ask for when describing them.
The Autistic community (separate from the autism community, which is primarily parents) tends to prefer identity-first language, like the Deaf and Blind communities, though I admit there are exceptions to that rule.
However: I think you’ve just tipped me off to where the communication breakdown is happening: You think that AAC and a parent writing for their kid is the same thing.
It’s not.
AAC is a thing to help someone who couldn’t communicate in another way communicate.
Parents writing for their kids is parents inserting their interpretation of what they think their kid wants (in the best case scenario, in the worst case, its what they want to hear).
It’s the difference between reading a note I’ve written when I can’t word and telling another person that I don’t mind without bothering to ask.
Addendum to previous, with a note that I did not see this when I posted the post in which I apologized to you for not accounting for your Crohn’s: I’m pretty sure most autistic people (especially part-time AAC users, like me, and full-time AAC users, like some of my friends) wouldn’t have a problem with someone using AAC to post to this blog, through dictation or what have you. Then it’s still the AAC user’s voice being heard, not their caregiver’s. My problem, in particular, is not and has never been with people who need assistance to post writing on this blog, it’s with parents writing in place of people with disabilities on this blog. In the case of a person who needs their parent to assist with parts of the physical act of writing, I wouldn’t have a problem. In the case of parents writing their thoughts/perceptions/opinions of disability, I would have a problem. But I’ve made that abundantly clear with other posts.
Perhaps the vehemence of our reactions to the possibility of the above has taken you aback. I’ll provide some of the necessary context: The disability rights community as a whole is not good to those with cognitive and developmental disabilities. Those with physical disabilities get to speak. Those with chronic illnesses get to speak. Those with mental illnesses get to speak. Those with learning disabilities get to speak. Those with sensory disabilities get to speak. But when it comes time for people with cognitive and developmental disabilities to speak, people tend to shush us and ask our parents to speak instead, to speak for us. This same dynamic takes place across all other parts of our lives – from where we live, where we work, and so on. We are presumed incompetent to speak to our own wants, thoughts, and needs. Get told “hush, now, the grown-ups are talking,” on a several times a day basis for your entire adulthood, and it takes its toll. Have others insist that you don’t mind something you very definitely do mind and act as if you’re in the wrong when you correct them, followed by gaslighting you about your own thoughts and emotions on the subject often enough throughout your life, and it takes its toll. People with cognitive and developmental disabilities are thus used to people silencing us, either intentionally (by explicitly forbidding us to speak) or unintentionally (by inviting parents to speak for us).
On top of that, the autism community has particularly toxic relations between the predominantly-parents-and-researchers eradication camp and the predominantly-autistic identity camp (AKA the Autistic community), above and beyond that seen in most other disability communities. What wouldn’t be an issue at all if you’re dealing with, say, dyslexia or dyspraxia is a huge deal when you’re dealing with autism because of the historical baggage that you and Will are probably ignorant of. The cure camp in the autism community is outright hostile to disabled activists, often attacking with venom anyone who protests, say, ABA on the basis that it gave them PTSD (yes, that is a thing that happens – something I was lucky to escape as I discovered I’m autistic as an adult).
The reason behind that baggage is that autistic people are rarely, if ever, consulted directly on stuff affecting us by the most mainstream autism charities or by the government – and when we are, people still set parent voices above autistic voices in importance, and we’re very often just appointed to token positions for PR purposes. Yes, we’re touchy on the subject. Because we’ve had to be – because that’s the only way we can make sure that the cure activists don’t erase the very existence of autistic people who are happy being autistic. It’s the only way we can make sure that protests against abusive treatments are heard. It’s the only way we can attempt to direct research dollars towards things that will actually make autistic lives better, like effective educational and employment supports and how to do inclusive education right for autistic learners. We are never simply given a seat at the table, we have to take it with a struggle, and once we’ve taken it, we have to cling to it for all we’re worth, lest we get shoved out of it and told to not mind our little heads about it any more.
If you want more context about why it’s such a touchy subject (on par with “rape avoidance tips” in the feminist community, I would say), I’ll second Kaia’s recommendation that people read up on Autistics Speaking Day – the issue of parent voices overwhelming and erasing autistic voices is so big that the autistic community has set up a yearly flashblog to rail against it. It’s necessary context for why we’re so edgy about the parent blogger issue. Also consider reading up on the This is Autism flashblog, which was set up to combat the tragedy model and also is intertwined with the erasure of autistic voices (because the person who triggered it erased even the possibility of Autistic happiness).
Parent bloggers in the autism community talking over/for autistic people, telling us what’s in our best interests and insisting we don’t have a right to comment on things we went through because we’re “too high-functioning” is a major issue involved in how autistic people, in particular, experience ableism. I believe you didn’t realize exactly how much of a hot-button issue it is for us, and exactly how much history there is to unpack there. If you had known, you probably would have been much more explicit from the get-go, I think.
But from my read, it seems that you are saying that people posting with assistance is okay, which I agree with. And I think you’re saying that you wouldn’t allow a non-disabled parent to blog on their own. You would allow them to take dictation or to otherwise facilitate a disabled person’s blogging, but not write their own blog. Is my interpretation correct? I apologize for the hyperanalytical last paragraph of this post – my asthma flareup & resulting pain is making it harder to read for comprehension, and subtext isn’t a thing I do well with on the best of days.
Yeah, I think the debate is…When I first read it, I thought of someone once telling me “Isn’t ‘stupid’ offensive to stupid people?” once as part of his defense of the Washington Redskins. (This after a thread of over 100 pages, 15 posts per page, wrt: the Washington Redskins, where he kept saying such gems as ‘redskin means potatoes’.)
I suspect Skepchick won’t repeat it, mostly because Autism Speaks is everything an advocacy group shouldn’t be, and skeptic groups are aware of it because of AS’s fence-sitting on vaccines. (Vaccines don’t cause autism, and even if they did, they prevent death.)
Evidently I’ve been unclear, sorry. I’m fine with Augmentive and Alternative Communication (AAC). What I’m not fine with is parent bloggers blogging for their kids on a disability blog. The two are rather different things. Ariane of Emma’s Hope Book often transcribes what her daughter writes in AAC sessions. Her daughter is thus able to express thoughts she otherwise would be unable to at this point in her life. That’s fine to me. It’s more than fine – it’s very good.
Parents helping their kids use their own voices is good. Parents presuming to speak for their kids is not.
As well, no, I’m not saying that you folks are being Autism Speaks. Autism Speaks is in its own realm of awful. In D&D terms, if a Plane of Awful existed, it would for me be populated entirely with those who are part of or think like Autism Speaks. While wearing perfume and smoking cigarettes and making feedback squeals with too-bright lighting. Anyway. You’re not as bad as they are, not even close.
I’m writing because I see you doing what a lot of well-meaning but generally CD/DD ignorant people do, which is subconsciously presume incompetence on the part of people with cognitive and developmental disabilities and infantilize us. We don’t need our parents to speak for us. We can speak for ourselves. Don’t ask our parents to speak for us. Ask us. Don’t let our parents speak for us. Let us.
I state again for clarity: I have no problem with parent bloggers writing on the parenting blog. I have a big problem with CD/DD parent bloggers writing on the disability blog, because it plays into an overarching societal pattern of ableism against the cognitive and developmentally disabled.
As the admin for Queereka, the LGBTQ Skepchick sister site, I can absolutely say that this is not true. We do not have a blanket policy about this, and, like Sarah, I would consider it on a case-by-case basis. That writer would probably be better suited for GP than Queereka, but I would not have any problem with them posting relevant material on Queereka.
My point isn’t about policy, it’s about attitude: Cis het people who have even a 101 level knowledge of GBLTQ issues would not presume to write for a queer person, as if the queer person isn’t able to write for hirself. They might lend their voices in support or signal-amplify, but they wouldn’t presume to think they were better-equipped to write or speak about such issues. And nobody would consider an average cis and het parent superior to a queer person in their ability to speak on queer issues.
People think the above about developmentally and cognitively disabled people all the time. And it’s problematic.
I don’t mind parents blogging for the parenting blog. I mind the heck out of them blogging for people with these disabilities if they are not disabled themselves.
An addendum to the previous: There is a reason that “nothing about us without us” has to be a thing in developmental and cognitive disability discussions – that is that people who are developmentally and cognitively disabled are often excluded from discussions on disability and ableism. Case in point: recent autism hearings in the US were held with the only autism representatives being autism parents.
Well, as long as we’re on this topic of correcting attitudes, you should recognize there are cis het people who are queer. We use a broad definition on Queereka that could include cis het people (e.g., if they’re into kink or are polyamorous).
I don’t see how this responds to chemgeek’s point. It wouldn’t be appropriate for those kinky cis het people’s parents to write on their behalf, either. And, as chemgeek points out, the disabled community has a history of being silenced in this particular way (having other people speak “for” them). Doesn’t it make sense that, when trying to appeal to a particular community, one takes their history and concerns into consideration?
I apologize for using an inacurrate term, but your response is a non-sequitur to my actual point. My point was that somebody who is not queer would not presume to speak for queer people. Why is it okay for someone who is not cognitively or developmentally disabled to presume to write for the cognitively and/or developmentally disabled?
A more apt comparison might be whether it would be acceptable to have a man speaking over women. I’m pretty sure nobody here wants that. (Not that I’ve seen bisexual folks being too happy about gays and lesbians discussing them in their absence, either, for that matter. Or anyone else having their situation, life and issues discussed by outsides without their own input.)
Additionally: Especially, why is this okay when, as I and others have stated before, it plays into an overarching pattern of societal ableism? Why is it okay to further the infantilization of the cognitively and developmentally disabled and our forced dependence on neurotypicals? You would not think it’s okay for non-marginalized parents to speak for (not in support of, in place of) any other marginalized population. Why are you still considering letting our parents speak for us (something different entirely from AAC, which I support unreservedly), when people have told you this is an oppressive act?
Have you reached out to anyone in the the cognitive and developmental disability communities for advice? Consider contacting Ollibean. They have a very good track record of helping cognitively and developmentally disabled people speak for ourselves. If you want to do it right, ask them how. Or the Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Or Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered. Or… any of a number of other disability rights organizations that make cognitive and developmentally disabled voices a priority. None of which I’m involved with in any way, by the way, since apparently my not sitting down and shutting up while you consider letting parents speak for me, like damn near everyone else in the universe, has ruffled some feathers.
I support a lot of the work you do here at Skepchick. But unfortunately you as an organization have a bad track record on cognitive and developmental disability ableism. At your highest levels, you have a problem. A big problem. A problem that includes a pattern of gaslighting and abuse to those who call you on your problem, which I and several of my friends were victim to. I am still willing to reach out. Most of them are not. If you want to correct this problem, you need to start listening to people with cognitive and developmental disabilities, and accepting that what we have to say might not include, “You’re doing a wonderful job, don’t change a thing.”
Because the fact is that less than a month ago, your organization published something that included the line “I’m suprised you even remember to breathe.” And when you were called on it, people posted long diatribes defending it and accused critics of being part of a 4chan conspiracy. I have yet to see anyone here even acknowledge that cognitive and disability rights movements are actually a thing, let alone show any sign whatsoever of being willing to reach out and take advice from those who know the most about this particular form of ableism.
Skepchick has a cognitive and developmental disability ableism problem. This is beyond dispute at this point. I’m not trying to attack you – I’m trying to help you fix it. And I’m getting quite aggravated by what I perceive to be stone-walling, a lack of real engagement, and picking off of low-hanging fruit completely irrelevant to my points rather than thoughtful consideration of what I’m trying to say. If you don’t want to listen to me because I’ve pissed you off and haven’t been nice enough, that’s fine. Talk to Ollibean or SABE or ASAN or others who’ve been doing it longer than me and get advice from those who know what they’re doing. Please.
I hate to have to tell you this, but, dear Skepchick network staff: Please check your privilege. You’re engaging in behavior that very much looks like stonewalling and silencing people, specifically people whom you are supposedly trying to give a voice. That’s not cool. Solidarity is not only for neurotypical women.
Which reminds me, Will, I’ve been meaning to say, the word berdache is generally considered offensive, due to its association with Persian boy-slaves used for sexual purposes.
I don’t see what that has to do with this discussion at all.
I saw some of the comments about ableism and some of the responses to your call for disabled writers. I’m just curious as to why the “sister site” approach instead of just searching more people with disabilities to write for the main site and expand your diversity a little that way? There is certainly a place for separate sites, not saying there isn’t. Just wondering how you came to this approach. Thanks!
Someone else asked this question & I responded to it above. :)
The ridiculous notion of letting parents of autistic children speak for them is somewhat cast in a strange light by the fact that today is the Autistic Day of Mourning. Just in January alone, another two autistic people were murdered by their parents.
Perhaps parents of cognitively disabled children/adults would be better served by posting in the general or parenting forum, because no matter how much we think we know what our children want or need, you can never really know for sure. Sometimes it feels like your stumbling from one wrong assumption to the next. Without feedback (or confusing feedback) it can sometimes be a case of elimination until something works.
What I would like to read about from the sidelines however would be a topics like, “stuff my parents/carers/teachers got wrong” (from the perspective of a person who has not been able to communicate while young, but was able to in later life).
The trouble with disabilities is that they are so varied and what works for one won’t for another even if they have the same diagnosis. People are people and the ‘disability label’ detrimentaly tends to ‘oversimplify’ this human condition.
My wife wrote a thoughtful post on the parent blogger subject – certainly more thoughtful than mine above. That post has been sitting in moderation for 3 days.
Is there a technical problem, a lack of moderators, or is there some other issue preventing it from going through?
I have a chronic illness that isn’t at all obvious. I’d love to do what I can to help people understand invisible illnesses and mental illness since I feel a personal connection to those, but I feel like I have a thousand things to learn for each thing I could teach. And I’ve got a whole load of things that help me make my situation incredibly manageable that I know I have a bad habit of taking for granted. So I really hope to read the new content and participate in the comments learning and doing what I can to help.
Hi. I’ve never commented before but I have been a long time reader of Skepchick. I have always enjoyed reading Skepchick but I have recently found it harder to support. I should have acknowledged it at the time (I have social anxiety and find it difficult to speak up sometimes) but in Rebecca’s article on making mistakes last year (http://skepchick.org/2013/06/its-okay-to-make-mistakes-even-about-galileo/ she displayed a screen cap from youtube where she corrected something she had said. What bothered me was that correction included the phrase “herp derp”. I fully expected someone in the comments to correct her usage of the term, but no one did. I cannot tell you how terrible that makes me feel.
Now I come on the site again today (busy life – I sometimes miss stuff) and was so disheartened again to see Amy and Rebecca’s response to the criticism of their Valentine’s Day card. Whether or not you think the phrase “stupid” is an ableist phrase or not (I generally think it is – but I understand that it does not generally evoke the same reaction as “retard” or other words) it was extremely insulting to suggest that anyone who did think it was insulting was part of some 4chan “false flag” operation. In a weird way it cemented why I needed to speak out about my experiences here. My fear of being ostracized for speaking out against ableist language seems to be completely justified. That doesn’t mean that there is a fault with me (something someone with social anxiety have a very difficult time coming to terms with) – that means that their is a fault with this space.
So please learn and change Skepchick. I very much enjoyed being a (mostly silent) part of this community. But hiring a new writer with a disability without apologizing or admitting wrong seems so wrong on so many levels.
At this point, having seen the stonewalling and unwillingness to engage about this subject shown in this commentary alone, I’d advise you to run, not walk, away.
I’ve seen no evidence that my comment would be rejected as you’ve said earlier on this thread. I’m a new member and commenter but my comment was quickly approved although it is clearly not the most flattering for Skepchick. I also understand why those at the site would have mostly wanted to take a step back from the issue for now. This site feels like a family where sometimes when you fight you can say harsher things to each other than any stranger can because you know them well enough to hit them where it hurts.
That being said, a lot has been written about this so far and I’m still very new to all of it. I just reached the end of the comment section where Rebecca defends the use of the word on the site (somewhat tenuously) and it clearly wasn’t her best moment (not really going to bring up specifics again). I just brought up my complaint about her use of the term “herp derp” (I’m assuming I’m the first to do so) so I’m still hopeful that she may recognize the harm from that phrase (if her or others defend that phrase I’m afraid there is little chance of me ever feeling welcomed at this site again) and also may consider that there may be a possible problem of ableism on this site. And honestly, that is not an uncommon thing. I’ve never been anywhere without some form of ableism being present. It is probably always going to be around in some form or another. I think the difference is just in how people respond to it that makes me feel either welcome or not.
Thank you for your advice. I really do appreciate it considering I’m new to commenting. I’m in no way rejecting the response you’ve gotten – just relating my own experience so far. Always subject to change. Always willing to listen.
At this point, it’s been days since we’ve had word of any kind from Sarah, or from any Skepchick staff member. The word we got then was equivalent to a blank stare when complaints were aired. I am not hopeful at this point.
That you can remain free of cynicism speaks well of you.
They may be avoiding the conversation for the same reason I have – they disagree very strongly but don’t want to hurt people who have already been grossly marginalized.
I could just be projecting, though.
What “word” are you waiting on from Sarah or any of the rest of us, exactly? This is a post putting out a call for writers for a new site, not a rehash of any issues raised in previous posts.
I find it so odd that you’re here telling other people to run away and yet you keep coming back to post. If you hate it here so much, why do you stick around?
If we wanted to silence people, do you think your comments in this thread would be visible? Do you think any of the comments on other threads that anyone disagreed with would be visible? I mean, come on. I’ve just checked and there are no comments in moderation, so if your wife saved a copy of her post, she could try to post it again. But the commenting policy on Skepchick is to let through comments even if we disagree with them as long as they are generally respectful and not obviously trolling.
And I will only speak for myself when I say that I agree with punchdrunk’s assessment below, though other Skepchick writers may not.
Could it possibly be that since I have a very serious disability, I haven’t been feeling up to posting at all for the past few days? I mean, you care so much about people with disabilities, so surely you considered that, right?
Punchdrunk: What part is it you disagree so strongly with, then? The part where people don’t want their parents speaking for and over them? The part where people with non-physical disabilities want their own voice? Or what is it?
Will: Some word on whether parents will be allowed to speak over the people with the actual disabilities will be good. So far the expression I’ve seen is that they will. That means this wont be a disability blog, it will be a some disabilities blog. It will not be any kind of safe space for most neurodivergent people, especially not autistic people. Wrt. the moderation query I made, it took 3 days. It was approved a couple days before your post was made.
Sarah: You are not the only person involved with moderation, I hope. That said, fair enough – but your comments as yet show a good deal of ignorance of other disabilities than your own, and if you’re going to be running this sort of blog, that needs fixing something fierce.
To all of you: Why are you responding to me, and not for example, chemgeek or Kaia up above? They’re making much better points than I ever could, and yet… tumbleweeds.
But Sarah, the fact of the matter is that you’ve taken on a responsibility, and then gone days without responding to *actually disabled people* who have real concerns about how this blog is going to be. You in fact have *still* not responded to me, an actually autistic woman, over a matter I consider of extreme importance. It is in fact a life and death matter, literally; because of people and organizations that speak over and for us, 40 autistic people have been killed by their caretakers or parents in just 5 years. Many of them were just small children.
If you think I’m the only one who feels the way I do, you’re very wrong, and you shouldn’t be running this blog, because you just don’t have enough understanding of disabilities other than your own. I know all about not feeling up to responding. I have fibromyalgia. There are days where I’m in so much pain that I’d probably put a bullet through my brain if it wouldn’t hurt too much to pull the trigger. But if anyone ever felt concern on my own blog that I was allowing allistic voices to speak over autistic ones, I would not let it pass for days on end, regardless of my pain. I am trying to tell you something very important, something to keep Skepchick’s disability blog from making the same ableism mistakes the main blog has made, and all I’ve gotten so far is the impression that no one cares to listen. As a blogger, don’t you want to feel that the site you’re blogging for has your back? Or maybe you’ve been lucky enough not to receive abuse for blogging about your disability, but those of us who blog about cognitive or developmental disabilities often receive heaps of it. You ask for disabled bloggers, but then you give no indication that they’ll be safe or supported if they work for you, and that’s not a good way to start.
And Will, it was my post that sat in the moderation queue for three days. It might say March 1st, but it most certainly was not posted then. As to why my husband is still here, I expect the reason is twofold: 1. He’s here on my behalf, because this has pissed him off for my sake. He’s seen the abuse and gaslighting I’ve suffered, he knows what I’ve been through, how much I’ve struggled with self-hatred because of all the ignorance and misconceptions about autism. I’ve shown him the numbers, the stories, shared with him all the things my fellow autistics have gone through, and he does not care for the impression of disinterest he’s gotten here because 2. he loves Skepchick. He was in fact that one that thought I should apply. It’s upsetting to him to see *no one* on the staff of the blog actually care about a very real ableism issue, especially on a blog that is meant to be about disability. It’s eroding his faith in the site in general, and I don’t blame him.
Because, Will, if you think for a second you have any right to disagree about a disability with the ones who *actually have it* you are so dead wrong. That seems to be the entire problem here, privilege and a sense of entitlement that you get to speak over disabled people, that you get to disagree with them on what is harmful to them, and you don’t. And if that is what this site is going to be, I’d rather know sooner than later. Because I want nothing to do with such a site and I want to make sure that the people I care about, the nearly thousand people who have come to follow my blog, know that this will absolutely *not* be a safe place for them and that they shouldn’t remotely consider it an example of good representation for disabled people in the skeptic community.
This is the problem. You and your husband keep making this accusation on a post calling for writers to start a new section of Skepchick dedicated to PWDs. To sit here and repeatedly make the accusation that no one on this site cares about ableism is beyond the pale.
The fact that people see things differently than you and your husband and that people disagree or are not answering you on demand does not mean no one here cares. Further, why would any of us want to engage with people who have already dismissed us as uncaring and people they encourage others to “run away from”? Do you not think Sarah’s time is better spent engaging with people who want to work with her to make a positive difference rather than keep rehashing stuff over and over because they’re not getting exactly the response they want?
First, how do you know I don’t have a disability? I did not engage at all in the previous threads on this topic. You are making assumptions about me because I have disagreed with people in this thread. How about you stop making assumptions about others?
Able-bodied people can certainly disagree with PWDs. Being a PWD does not give one a magical pass to make any sort of claim about anything and be unchallenged. Of course people’s experiences of marginalization shouldn’t be questioned or challenged. If there is language that is harmful to people, I generally try to avoid using them. Obviously you know your own experiences better than anyone else, but that does not mean everyone has to agree with the broader conclusions you draw from those experiences–especially when other PWDs disagree as well. PWDs disagree all the time about the very topics being discussed/argued about on Skepchick recently, and that’s part of the issue. Many PWDs are trying to speak up on behalf of all PWDs rather than from their own perspectives. You yourself have done it in this thread, speaking for your “fellow autistics.” Why don’t you let them speak for themselves, and you speak for yourself? While you lecture (presumed) able-bodied people that they do not have the right to speak for PWDs, why don’t you take your own advice and speak for yourself and stop trying to be THE voice for PWDs?
Especially in a thread that is a call for writers for a blog that will be run by a woman with a disability. You and your husband have repeatedly erased her disability in this thread, and you have the nerve to complain that the site she will be running may not be a safe space?? Perhaps you should recognize how your actions in this thread have made it not so safe for others.
Will, you are the one who is beyond the pale. First of all, *I* have done nothing repeatedly. I wrote *one* post (that, again, sat in the queue for three days) stating my concerns and even linking to a blog that would provide more information. No one responded to that at all, and still no one has. I have in fact done nothing except try to inform you of the fact that inviting parents to blog here on behalf of autistic children would be a huge mistake, and *even now* you have yet to address that concern. Not agreeing with me is not an excuse, it’s a deflecting tactic.
You act privileged, Will. You act like someone who has no experience with being a developmentally disabled person who is constantly talked over by all and sundry. If you don’t want people thinking you’re not disabled, stop talking like you have the privilege to go through your every day without people all around you telling you that you’re not normal, not right, not useful, not *human*.
Again, I have done *nothing* repeatedly. I have asked, *twice*, for my very real concerns to be addressed and instead I have only been ignored. Why are we not allowed to ask questions about how this blog will go? We’re not allowed to know what will be happening here until it smacks us in the face? If any of you care about ableism, why are we not allowed to express concerns about the very ableist thing that happened right at the beginning of this post? Is that all this blog is going to be? You people sitting here with your fingers in your ears, going “la-la-la” when real people ask you real questions? And speaking of erasing disabilities, you have done *nothing* but act like *mine* doesn’t matter, so I don’t think you get to talk.
I have NEVER acted like THE voice for disabled people here. Not even for autistic people. In fact, I linked to a site very specifically called Autistics Speaking Day. Autistics fucking Speaking Day, Will, and no one has even acknowledged that I’ve done so. NO ONE. But fine, you want to know what other autistics think about this? I’ll see what I can do. Though I hate to expose them to this bullshit.
Sarah, since you can’t be bothered to even acknowledge the fact that I have a real concern here, consider my application withdrawn. I have absolutely no desire to work with someone who cares so little.
Will, for a skeptic you are engaging in some seriously lazy and irrational thinking here. You erect an army of straw men and add in ad hominem attacks on both of us, when the evidence of this very discussion board is clear. The facts on the ground are, unless you are autistic, or have approached learning about autism from a standpoint of humility and knowledge seeking, you probably think you know all about it, and know in fact nothing at all. The same is true of a number of other neurodivergences, disorders, mental illnesses and other disabilities concerning the brain. A skeptic and critical thinker should not accept anything less than the best information as evidence – and yet here you are dismissing the words of someone actually autistic on the subject of autism.
That evidence shows that the parent blogging issue, a major, major issue for neuroatypical people generally and for autistics in specific (don’t take my word for it either – try and see what you find when looking for autistic people blogging on the subject for instance), has not in the slightest been engaged with since the first few posts, where the impression was given that this new blog would allow parents to speak over their children, and over people with actual disabilities. That is indicative of a massive problem, and, as I mentioned, one that has not been engaged with at all (apart from where Sarah erected this horrible straw man example which has no relationship with reality whatever, but I wouldn’t say that counts).
As for Sarahs disability, are you saying we should coddle her? That she can’t deal with things herself, answer questions, administrate the blog? That seems to be to do her a disservice. I may not be impressed with her understanding of the problem space, but I expect she can learn, and doesn’t need to be swaddled in cotton wool.
To both Sarah and Will: would it have been so difficult for Will or someone not dealing with disability issues to say, “We need a few days before we can respond to that concern.”? That way it didn’t seem like stone-walling, and your privacy would be protected?
The fact is, radio silence is something the oppressors do a lot to autistic people. We won’t acknowledge that until you ask nicely enough or are humble enough or ask via telephone orally and articulately enough (something that many autistic people, myself included, have great difficulty with due to auditory processing issues). Or, my worst enemy, ask “appropriately,” where what exactly is “appropriate” is never defined and the goalposts of it seem to constantly be in flux.
I’m willing to presume good faith, given the new information. Please understand that, to understand that to bystanders in the autism community, several days of complete radio silence looks just like medical professionals stonewalling us on referrals, like government officials stonewalling on benefit appeals, or like teachers stonewalling on whether or not they’ll grant accommodations. etc. If they never respond to us, they can just pretend we fell through the cracks when we are unable to succeed and blame us for not asking in the “right” way when they never told us the rules in the first place. As a result, stonewalling is something many autistic people (me included) are very sensitive to.
I apologize for jumping to the worst conclusion. It was a jump that is not at all unreasonable given my life experience and the context of this conversation both here at Skepchick and in mainstream autism advocacy movement (where parent voices are seen as superior to autistic voices, both in terms of understanding “what autism is like” and in terms of knowing what’s best for autistic people), and given how people with cognitive and developmental disabilities end up at the bottom of the heirarchy of disability, I had little reason to assume that Sarah being disabled herself would improve matters on the cognitive and developmental disability ableism front. If I’d had the luxury of extending the benefit of the doubt, I would have, but for analogous reasons to what Ian Cromwell has written on racism and the benefit of the doubt, I didn’t feel safe to at the time.
To Sarah in particular: I have moderate asthma and am currently dealing with a flare-up that caused pulled muscles and a sternum bruise yesterday and am debating whether I can afford to stay home sick today. I understand of how disruptive chronic illness can be to one’s life and energy levels, even if I have no idea what it’s like to have Crohn’s. I apologize that I didn’t allow for a flare-up as a possibility in my posts, and I hope it resolves as quickly and smoothly as possible.
Please answer our concerns about parent bloggers on the developmental and cognitive disability front when you’re feeling up to it.
Will:
This is an unfair and hurtful accusation. These people are engaging with you exactly because they want to make a positive difference. They are TRYING to work with you (the plural you).
First, this is incredibly weaselly. You’re trying to sow doubt instead of actually addressing the issue.
Second, people who have a certain kind of disability (cognitive and/or developmental) are telling you that they are concerned about how issues relating to that kind of disability will be handled. Since not all disabilities are treated identically, this is a valid concern.
Third, the lack of response to these issues communicates a message. I know the people who frequent this site are not completely ignorant about that sort of messaging, so it seems pointedly curious that there are issues raised in this comment thread that have been ignored. If these issues are being discussed behind the scenes somewhere, which would be perfectly understandable, it would be helpful to say so. Of course, it would be even more helpful to have that conversation in the open where the people who will be affected by those choices can participate in it.
And if the idea is only to discuss these issues with participants in this new site, it might be worth keeping in mind that people who are trying to decide whether or not to apply will be reading this conversation.
Wow. Did you really just use this many words to tell her to shut up? If a bunch of cishet people were discussing GSM issues and a queer person chimed in to point out some concerns that the relevant community expressed with some regularity, how would you imagine this same quote would be received?
This is disgusting. I’ve seen enough of what you’ve written to expect you to be better than this.
Atochton and Kaia: you are awful. Just seriously awful. Saying things like, “where the impression was given that this new blog would allow parents to speak over their children, and over people with actual disabilities” when what happened was that someone asked “what about a parent of one (or more) disabled/autistic children. Can they apply?” and Sarah responded “Hi Nancy! That’s a good question– I’d say apply & we’ll figure it out from there. :)” is the very height of hyperbole and assuming the worst. I’m glad that Kaia at least had the sense to withdraw the application, but you really needn’t have bothered since there’s no way in hell I’d allow someone so disrespectful, reactionary, and ignorant to write for this network.
I’ve tried to ignore this thread because I want this project to be Sarah’s, but from now on I’ll try to keep a better eye on it so that I can ban you the next time you post something ridiculous, and thereby turn your absurd whining that you’re not being allowed to raise criticism into a self-fulfilling prophecy.