Disability & my Life

While reading Thomson and thinking about the life writing project, I started thinking about the disabilities I have encountered in my own life. I do not have a physical disability but, as Thomson says, “Many parallels exist between the social meanings attributed to female bodies and those assigned to disabled bodies.” (Thomson 19).  Seeing as though I am female, (which comes with its own set of disabilities, as Thomson says) I have still experienced disability. In this blog, I want to explore my own intersection of gender and education and try to understand how this has lead to my own disabilities.

            I grew up in a typical, conservative, Ohio small town and went to school with many camouflage wearing, tobacco chewing, God fearing students. Needless to say, I did not really fit in with the majority crowd at my high school.  And I was not the only one who did not fit in. One homosexual classmate (who was a senior when I was a freshman) killed himself during his senior year. Another homosexual student a grade below me (who was a foster child and from a bad family) was bullied so badly because of his sexuality that he had to change schools when we were in 8^th grade.

            Thomson says, “Because disability is defined not as a set of observable, predictable traits—like radicalized or gendered features—but rather as any departure from an unstated physical and functional norm, disability highlights individual differences.” (24). If Thomson would have seen my life in my high school, she would have argued that I was disabled because of my departure from the functional norm. For instance, I caught a lot of flak from my classmates in 2008 when I canvassed and volunteered for the Obama campaign. It was also very unusual to apply to colleges other than the local branch of Ohio University.

            All in all, I have just been pondering my high school days while brainstorming for our life writing. It was interesting (Coincidence? Fate?) that we began talking about disability while I was thinking about my old memories. Of all the theories that we have talked about 

New Definition of Feminism

Previously, my definition of feminism was, “Believing that men and women have the same economic, political, and social rights and also acknowledging that women are and have been oppressed throughout history. However, not every woman is oppressed in the same way and society should understand how each woman is oppressed at her own intersection.”

I do not think I would change much of my previous definition. However, I would add that legal steps should be taken to make economic, political, and social equality the norm. As Thomson says, “Both the female and the disabled body are cast as deviant and inferior; both are excluded from full participation in public as well as economic life; both are defined in opposition to norm that is assumed to possess natural physical superiority.” (19). Since there are no legal barriers for employers to pay a woman less for the same job as a man, women will still be cast as deviant and inferior. Therefore, I believe steps are taken to make women the equals, legally, and then the social acceptance of women in the public sphere will follow. For instance, if a law were put into place today that granted women equal pay for equal jobs, then most of the children who are born today will grow up thinking it is normal because that is how it has always been.

Thankfully, some legal steps have been taken to ensure rights for marginalized groups; Washington State recently legalized gay marriage. Maryland and Illinois are on track to legalize it as well. These small victories give me hope for all marginalized groups in America. Since homophobia is deeply rooted in our Christian culture, “Much of the discrimination against homosexual persons is justified by a common misreading of the Bible.” (Pharr 24) I have hope for other women’s rights that are not (that I know of) shot down by Biblical passages.

My new definition of feminism is, “Believing that men and women have the same economic, political, and social rights and also acknowledging that women are and have been oppressed throughout history. However, not every woman is oppressed in the same way and society should understand how each woman is oppressed at her own intersection. To remedy this problem, legal action should be fought for and granted to the marginalized groups of America.”   

Bechdel & the Intersection of Coming Out

Since reading Fun Home by Alison Bechdel, I have started thinking more the intersection of sexuality, gender, and privilege. For instance, Bechdel’s father used decorations and landscapes as a way to show the world how “normal” they were. Bechdel did not like for people do see her as rich, because that would imply that her family was unusual or different. She says, however, “In fact, we were unusual, though I wouldn’t appreciate exactly how unusual until much later. But we were not rich.” (5)

Bechdel’s father was trying to show the world he was privileged, although he was not. Bechdel’s father also had relationships with men, including the babysitter. Did his theory of covering up lies with the norm also apply to his love life? Did he only marry Bechdel’s mother because he could not be openly homosexual? Or did he want to show the world he was “normal” outwardly but still be “unusual” on the inside?

Pharr says, “In my life I have experienced the effects of homophobia, through rejections by friends, threats upon loss of employment, and threats upon my life.” (24). Bechdel’s father attempted to cover his world with the accepted norm. That way, no one could see how different he was. Do you think Bechdel was more comfortable coming out because she was a woman with white privilege and some monetary privilege? Perhaps the timing of her coming out were more convenient, too (she wasn’t serving in a war with macho men.) All in all, I have just been pondering the intersections of gender, privilege, and sexuality. Do some people have an easier time coming out to the world because of their intersection?

Blog #2

After these academic readings in class, I have changed my view on autobiography. At first, like most people, I thought the autobiography was a tool used by famous or powerful people to show the world the great things that had accomplished. For instance, it would make sense for Winston Churchill, Oprah, or John Lennon to have an autobiography but I always wondered why Susanna Keysen, Sandra Cisneros, or Harriet Jacobs would write one.

With these new, lesser known, authors writing autobiographies, readers who normally would not read autobiographies, may now consider it. For example, if a person normally reads historical fiction about slaves, they may be interested in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. On the other hand, people who normally read autobiographies may be put off by the vignettes of House on Mango Street by Cisneros. All in all, the new notion of autobiography could encourage or hinder readers.

Considering these autobiographies, I believe feminists have more opportunities than challenges. For instance, if all feminist autobiographies could become “politically engaged, they tend to frame consciousness less as contemplative than as involved with social conditions, community affiliations, and historical circumstances.” (Goldman 288) Therefore, all feminist autobiographies would have a distinguishing factor that would set them apart from the autobiographies of others.

However, there is a challenge for this new style of autobiography. Since the recounting of memory could discredit an autobiography, feminists could have problems with people not believing their story. As Segal says, “There is, obviously, a difference between memory and history, even though this distinction has been increasingly probed and problematised of late. Despite the current fascination, even obsession, with memory over the last two decades, it is seen, correctly, as a fragile thing, vulnerable to all the illusions and self-deceptions, conscious and unconscious, that constitutes our mental life, as well as our inherently unstable, selective, always imperfect, conscious cognitive processes of recall: no memory without forgetfulness, no forgetfulness without memory, could be today’s mantra.” (Segal 121). The greatest challenge these autobiographies will face is proving their creditability. However, could feminists show that memory isn’t the most important aspect of an autobiography? Only time will tell.

Blog #1

As Penny Weiss realized in “I’m Not a Feminist, But…” many people agree with the economic and social principals of feminism, but say they do not consider themselves a feminist. For instance, in a Penn State poll with 364 women students, 38.2% said they were feminist. However, 96.8% supported gender equality on social, political, and economic levels (Weiss 46). Seeing as though there is some confusion as to what feminism actually is, I will take a stab at trying to define it.

My definition of feminism is: Believing that men and women have the same economic, political, and social rights and also acknowledging that women are and have been oppressed throughout history. However, not every woman is oppressed in the same way and society should understand how each woman is oppressed at her own intersection.

I agree with Weiss in the sense that to be feminist, you have to believe a woman has the same economic, political, and social rights as a man. However, to be a feminist, I also believe you have to acknowledge the fact that women have been oppressed throughout history. As Marilyn Frye said, “The statement that women are oppressed is frequently met with the claim that men are oppressed too… Some men cite as evidence of their oppression their much-advertised inability to cry.” (Frye 8) In my opinion, the difference between inability to cry and, say, the right to vote, is the law. There is no legal barrier that says men cannot cry. But, until 1920 women could not vote. They were not allowed, legally. To me, that is how you separate the two, you have to realize if there is a legal barrier or a personal barrier.

To round out my definition of feminism, I will quote Crenshaw, “The problem with identity politics is not that it fails to transcend difference, as some critics charge, but rather the opposite—that it frequently conflates or ignores intergroup differences.” (74) As a feminist, I realize that feminists as a whole cannot agree on one definition of themselves. However, I do not think this is a bad thing. If we feminists pigeonhole ourselves into one definition then I am sure we would be leaving someone, with some unique circumstance, out of our definition. That is exactly what Crenshaw is saying, if we give ourselves a definition that will cause us to ignore some feminists. So, my last idea for feminists is to recognize everyone’s unique intersection of oppression. I believe if we feminists start trying to understand where others are coming from and their form of oppression, then we will better understand ourselves.  

Works Cited:

Frye, Marilyn. "Oppression." (1983): n. page. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.

Weiss, Penny. ""I'm Not a Feminist, But...": Popular Myths About Feminism." (1998): n. page. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.

Williams Crenshaw, Kimberle. "Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color." (1995): 73-83. Web. 15 Jan. 2012.