close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20100329113149/http://zeroatthebone.wordpress.com:80/

People, I am so excited for the new series of Doctor Who, I can hardly tell you. I am even more excited because I’ve just learned that we in Australia are getting it on 18 April, soon after original airdate, where we usually have to wait several months! I shall have to whip up some chocolate caramel tartlets and have a little party. And as I’m writing this post I’ve just just learned that it’s going to be available on the ABC’s iView service a little beforehand. Though, knowing me, I will probably wait until 7.30 Sunday night.

But wait, there’s more! I had forgotten about spin-off series K9, starring the classic era robot dog, but it turns out that it went into production after all. In fact, it was filmed in Brisbane! In fact!!! In fact!!! IN FACT!!! it is premiering this Saturday on Channel Ten, at 9.30 in the morning. What excellent news!

Here are the latest in clips and trailers (here are some previous ones) for the next series of Doctor Who. I am hugely unspoony so the transcript disclaimer applies.

The first 40 seconds of the first episode, “The Eleventh Hour”!

A clip from “Vampires in Venice”.

The latest BBC trailer:

And one from BBC America:

How utterly jarring is it, after Tennant’s Doctor, to see Smith’s Doctor holding a gun? Is there a trailer I missed? Any thoughts leading up to these exciting developments? Are you simply feeling the urge to squee, squee like the fannish creature you are? Or possibly cheer like David Tennant cheering over cake?

A thought prompt.

Which cultures are you a part of? What are your associations with the word?

Is culture based in race/ethnicity for you? In nationality? In class? In community with fellow hobbyists? In your neighbourhood? Or what? Where do you find culture, and where do you find community in your life? How is culture tied to family? How is culture tied to location? How is culture tied to oppression? How much is culture something you claim and how much are you plonked in it? Why and how does it come about?

What does culture mean to you?

Well, it’s Disability Awareness Month in Indiana, USA. Sound Bend, IN, network WSBT are raising awareness with a story about Sarah Schelstraete, who has Down Syndrome. It’s called Sarah’s Story: Hard at work despite disabilities. One thousand points if you can anticipate from the title what my major problem with the article was.

Now, impairments can make particular kinds of work, or work at all, difficult for people with disabilities, particularly when accommodations – be they ramps or particular lighting or a chair or whatever – are not provided. Leaving aside any accommodations Ms Schelstraete might utilise (it’s irrelevant and really none of our business) there’s no indication as to what impact her impairment might have that would make it hard for her to work at her job as the article title suggests. In fact, the article doesn’t tell us what her job actually is, but moving right along. Now, I’m not saying she definitely doesn’t have challenges related to her impairment, but rather that I have a problem with a particular narrative that this article taps into. This is a narrative that erases Ms Schelstraete’s individual situation, whatever that might be, in favour of conveying disability as something the poor dears must overcome! in their tear-inducing (to abled people) efforts! to live a normal life! which includes paid work!

Perhaps it is that push to gloss everything over that skews the narrative here, but let’s take a gander at the actual information the article provides. Ms Schelstraete is clearly a ‘dependable employee,’ as her supervisor Donna Martis says. She does her job well; interviewees are enthused about her being good at her job. There is not really a need, it would seem, to say that she is doing a good job in spite of her being disabled. She is good at her job. And she is disabled. Just like she is good at her job and a woman, good at her job and a daughter, good at her job and a resident of Indiana, good at her job and, I don’t know, maybe she likes detective shows or cupcakes or whatever. But time and again when disabled people are featured in the media, there’s a kind of shock that “those people” could achieve anything of worth – worth defined according to ableist standards around paid work, of course.

As such, I have a problem with wording like this in the article:

‘Martis said Sarah is a valuable employee who knows how to do her work, and requires little supervision.’

Or how about this?

‘Like any hard-working employee, Sarah knows one big benefit of having a job is making money. She often uses her paycheck to buy DVDs and CDs.’

Yep, just like everybody else – yet her competence must be uniquely examined and confirmed by all these people, despite her having been employed by the same laboratories for seventeen years. This is yet another example of the media trope in which PWD are achieving! through! the hardship! Would you like to know what a hardship is? For many PWD, sometimes more than our impairments themselves? Putting up with that condescending bullshit and fighting to be approached as actual people who should be approached with respect. Because handing out “well done!” stickers has nowhere near of the same value as does being treated like a person with things to offer.

These kinds of awareness-raising stories do little more than give abled readers/viewers/listeners a lift, a feel good story they can tuck away out of mind when they’re done. It’s easier for PWD to be a one-dimensional story, those people put there to light up abled people’s worlds with inspiration, prompting a whispered gratefulness that they’re not one of them. How about we raise some awareness of the social oppression attached to being disabled? Awareness ought to be raised about how many disabled people are out of work because, as Ms Schelstraete’s employment consultant Stacey Simcox says, many ‘don’t give someone the chance because they already have the mindset that they’re not going to be able to do the job even with the support’. About how disabled people so often are treated as though they’re being done a favour by being employed at all. About how work can be a struggle or impossible because of workplace bullying. Because of refusal to provide decent wages. Because employers won’t grant equitable working conditions or accommodations.

And let’s raise awareness about the valuation of work. There’s a nasty thread that runs through these kind of stories that holds disabled people to be societal leeches, a drain on resources. This kind of thinking defines human worth in terms of money, as though people are only good for how much money they contribute and how little they take from welfare or healthcare programs and such. It’s the kind of argument used against poor people who need that assistance, it’s the kind of argument that has led to women’s unpaid work in the home being so devalued. It’s thinking that tries to shame those who utilise thoroughly deserved government assistance, as though it doesn’t exist for a reason.

I am continually astounded by negative reinforcement of difference, but barely ever really surprised. You’d think efforts to raise awareness would require being aware.

Cross-posted at FWD/Forward and Feministe.

So, buried somewhere back in the archive is a mention that I am speaking at a feminism conference in April. Perhaps this is something for which you would like details!

This conference is called F and it’s aimed at envisioning/building feminist futures. It’s taking place on 10 and 11 April, at the NSW Teachers Federation Building in Sydney (39-41 Reservoir St, Surry Hills). I am speaking on a panel at 2 on the 11th, chaired by Gabe Kavanagh. Larissa Behrendt, Cate Faehrmann, Candy Bowers and I (yay strong non-white woman presence!) will be discussing where to from here for feminism? I don’t think there’s going to be a transcript or recording, but if there is I’ll let you know.

Here is the F Conference website. You can register here.

I hope to see some of you there. Do come up and say hello, I’ll be the one with the enormous hair and a bewildered expression.

I mentioned the other day that I was reading Small World by David Lodge:

It’s a rather delicious book, apparently in the vein of something called critifiction, which is a combining of literary theory and practice. That is, it’s quite as much about drawing attention to and examining literary criticism and such even as it plays with it and practices it. Which might sound quite dry, but it’s really very funny and clever, and I’m enjoying it thoroughly.

The novel follows a number of academics as they attend conferences around the world. It’s a rather intriguing exploration of romance and it’s a lot of fun to see how everyone’s stories tie in together. Having now finished it, I have some thoughts on how gender plays into the representations of sexuality and sexual assault in the novel. I have more thoughts than those below, but I am going to be brief here!

The novel opens at a conference at fictional English university Rummidge, where Persse McGarrigle of University College, Limerick, falls hard for the mysterious Angelica Pabst. Persse places a great deal of importance on Angelica’s being, if not a virgin as he is, at least sexually conservative: he goes through huge emotional highs and lows as he gains new information on this (particularly during a sequence when he suspects she’s working as a sex worker in Amsterdam, which, as it turns out, she isn’t, leading to another big emotional moment). And that’s only the start of it; many of the men at this conference are vying for her attentions. A romantic scholar, she seems to realise she’s operating as the agencyless object in a kind of romance and, suffice it to say, has a little fun with her role as quest object, playing a trick on Persse and another conference attendee. Of course, that’s just conjecture as we never get to understand the story from her perspective. We’re trapped in receiving the facts through Persse’s viewpoint, and we never get to understand Angelica’s thoughts, or gain any picture of her as a person of sexual agency rather than as an object of these men’s desires.

Probably the most nauseating centring of men’s sexuality at the expense of women’s can be seen in the relationship between academic Arthur Kingfisher and his, er, companion, Song-Mi Lee. For most of the book, she exists solely as a glaring example of the submissive Asian woman sterotype. She’s his ’secretary, companion, amanuensis, masseuse and bedfellow, her life wholly dedicated to protecting the great man’ (94). She’s pretty much silent when she’s not answering his phone; my “favourite” bit is probably on page 143 where ‘Song-Mi Lee silently recommences the removal of wax from his ear’ after Kingfisher (possibly) loses an erection. It goes on like this until page 297 (this is a 339 page book) when Persse has a conversation with a woman on a plane to South Korea, on one of his many trips around the world trying to find Angelica again. The woman tells him about going back from America to visit her family, about operating across two cultures, and about her family’s attempt to marry her off to a nice boy. And it’s quite a jolt when we learn that she’s Song-Mi. Here’s a full person where we’ve had a silent woman who functions pretty much entirely as a sexual servant up until now. It’s a good reminder that even the people who we read in the most one-dimensional terms are full people. I’ll not spoil the end of her story, but suffice it to say while it’s a bit questionable in my eyes, it seems to be a merging of her desires and worlds that satisfies her, and that’s what matters, really.

This paragraph is spoilerific, so do avoid it if you’re planning on reading the book! Also be warned as there’s non-graphic discussion of sexual assault. The primary example of a woman with sexual agency in the book is Angelica’s twin sister, Lily, who is working as a sex worker at the time of the novel and has a history of seeking sex on her own terms that no other woman in the novel does. At the end, Persse initiates sex with Lily because he thinks that she’s Angelica. There’s a little ambiguity in the book, that is, it’s unclear when precisely she realises that Persse wants to have sex with her because he thinks she’s Angelica, rather than just being some random bloke who wants to sleep with her, but there’s pretty clearly a stage at which she realises that this is the case. Persse pretty clearly considers this a violation when he finds out, and right enough. But Lily is far from apologetic, in fact she uses the confusion to convince Persse that he’s not really in love with Angelica, or he would have recognised that Lily wasn’t her if so. This releases Persee to move on with his life, so it serves the narrative; and that’s what it is, serving the narrative. Persse’s horror is left behind disturbingly quickly, and Lily isn’t held accountable at all. It’s really disturbing.

There’s so much more I didn’t discuss, suffice it to say there’s an almost overwhelming focus on men’s sexualities at the expense of women’s. That said, it’s a really good book and I do recommend you give it a read if I haven’t put you off too much!

Full disclosure: I know the film’s producer, Anne Kenyon, and she lent me a copy of the DVD after we got chatting about her film work one day.

The Music in Me (2007) is a documentary following a Sydney, Australia-based dance group called the Merry Makers, which is made up of about 50 intellectually and physically disabled dancers as well as 15 helpers. They’re pretty well known around these parts. The group meets every Saturday and has been running for about 30 years as I’m writing this. The documentary, a winner of multiple international awards including Best Documentary at the 2007 Avignon Film Festival, follows the group leading up to a performance at the Sydney Entertainment Centre (and as anyone from Sydney reading will know, that’s a really, really big deal).

We’re first introduced to Lucinda Bryant, the group’s present artistic director and choreographer. ‘They are probably the most amazing group of people I have ever come across. They break down all boundaries placed in front of them,’ she tells us. There’s a great deal of focus on Bryant’s role, as you might have predicted, and what she thinks and says, but she consistently redirects attention to what the Merry Makers themselves do rather than her role, which is refreshing considering that these sorts of documentaries – and sometimes abled people who work with disabled people! – tend in quite the opposite direction.

The structure of the film is such that, within the framework of leading up to the Sydney Entertainment Centre concert and dance rehearsals, there are also a number of interviews incorporated. These are with members of the Merry Makers as well as their families (and Bryant, of course). There were many interviews that must have been recorded that didn’t make it into the film; there are some included in the DVD’s extras. It was saddening that they evidently didn’t have enough time to fit them all in, because I would have so liked to have learned more about everyone.

That both dancers and their families are interviewed produces some interesting dynamics. We get to delve into people’s home and family lives more, and so there’s a more holistic picture of how Merry Makers fits into each person’s life than we might otherwise have had. We learn about the lives of Sam and his mother Maria; about how Sabina came to care for her granddaughter Samantha; about the relationships between Jenny, Alana and Aida. That’s because Merry Makers draws in a community wider than the dancers themselves. As Lea says of her daughter Rebecca’s participation in Merry Makers, ‘I didn’t realise when I joined Merry Makers that it was gonna be about me, too.’ There’s a very uncomfortable moment when Lea recalls her thinking about Rebecca’s being disabled as a tragedy, but then we come to her changed thinking, that the tragedy framework needn’t apply: Rebecca ‘can be what she wants to be, do what she wants to do’. It becomes more about everyone’s relationships than the dancing, and the interviews are really humanising. All too often disabled people are portrayed as a disability with a person attached, but these interviews really serve to show that the people concerned are in fact people.

The thing that bothered me the most about The Music in Me was that there were times when interviewing people’s relatives (most of the featured dancers were minors) took the place of the dancers speaking for themselves, when it moved from being about the community to parents speaking for their children. And at times, it didn’t fit in very well either, for instance, there wasn’t really a call for adult dancer Beaver’s parent to speak for him. Perhaps some dancers preferred their parents/carers to speak for them, perhaps communication styles were such as this was preferable, but nevertheless that overall dynamic remains, and I would like to have had more on the dancers’ perspectives. Something that did a little bit to mitigate my discomfort was that Lucinda’s mother Janet was interviewed, too, and there are some amusing tiffs between them over the administration of Merry Makers. I guess in this respect the documentary reflects the structure of the organization, it seems to be run by abled people. Overall, there’s a really high ratio of abled voices to disabled voices featured. As I’ve mentioned, this leads to some very distressing moments; it’s particularly stark when there’s talk about life expectancy and some of the talk from parents/carers about the dancers’ futures was upsetting to me.

And of course there are large chunks of the documentary that are devoted to showing what they do, just dancing, without commentary, which is great. It’s about the love of dance! It was pretty lovely to see how close everyone was, and the lack of the sort of contempt you often encounter from abled people who work with disabled people. There’s a great deal of emphasis on catering to every single person as individuals rather then expecting them all to fit into a particular frameworks of what people with their disabilities are like as is all too common.

The film runs at about an hour. And guess what, everyone? It’s subtitled all the way through and properly at that! This is something I oughtn’t to be surprised at, but proper subtitling is all too rare, even sometimes in disability-focussed media.

Jet Silver requested book reviews, and I’m going to oblige with a week of book reviews/analyses, with a bonus film! Note the use of the ‘how exciting!’ tag.

Let’s start with a classic, shall we? I’ve been reading the Aenid – in fact, I was liveblogging my reading over on tumblr the other day with some of my favourite quotes, if you want to have a look. It’s an epic poem by the Roman poet Virgil, making up six books. It’s a uniquely foundational text in Western literary tradition.

I want to talk about a passage from Book Two, which is concerned with the very end of Troy. (I’m assuming most of you know how this goes, a fight over a woman called Helen, a ten year war between the Trojans and the Greeks, the Greeks sneak inside the city walls in a giant wooden horse, they win.) I’ve taken it from Robert Fagles’ 2006 translation, which is rather beautiful. The following passage comes shortly after the death of the Trojan King Priam and it’s from the perspective of Aeneas. Lines 703-728 are as follows:

“So,
at just that moment I was the one man left
and then I saw her, clinging to Vesta’s threshold,
hiding in silence, tucked away – Helen of Argos.
Glare of the fires lit my view as I looked down,
scanning the city left and right, and there she was…
terrified of the Trojans’ hate, now that Troy was overpowered,
terrified of the Greeks’ revenge, her deserted husband’s rage-
that universal Fury, a curse to Troy and her native land
and here she lurked, skulking, a thing of loathing
cowering at the altar: Helen. Out it flared,
the fire inside my soul, my rage ablaze to avenge
our fallen country-pay Helen back, crime for crime.

“‘So, this woman,’ it struck me now, ’safe and sound
she’ll look once more on Sparta, ner native Greece?
She’ll ride like a queen in triumph with her trophies?
Feast her eyes on her husband. parents, children too?
Her retinue fawning round her, Phrygian ladies, slaves?
That – with Priam put to the sword? And Troy up in flames?
And time and again out Dardan shores have sweated blood?
Not for all the world. No fame, no memory to be won
for punishing a woman: such victory reaps no praise
but to stamp this abomination out as she deserves,
to punish her now, they’ll sing my praise for that.
What joy, to glut my heart with the fires of such vengeance,
bring some peace to the ashes of my people!’

“Whirling words – I was swept away by fury now”

And then his mother, the goddess Venus, appears to him, and tells Aeneas to not blame Helen but the gods.

Now, this is a curious passage, because it doesn’t appear in the earliest manuscripts. There are a number of theories as to why this is. Virgil hadn’t finished the Aenid by the time of his death [1] and there are lots of lines that have been left unfinished. The status of this particular passage is uncertain: did Virgil strike it out? Was he going to work on it more? Did someone else remove it? Is it his writing at all?

So, with that in mind, I want to raise a few questions about the passage. I can’t relate to a lot of the ways of thinking in the Aenid, set in a world so long ago and far away. But the attitude towards Helen here is very familiar. I’ve no problem with Aeneas’ anger in itself; he’s lost his king, his country and in the next few pages he loses his wife. Keeping in mind that the structure of the Aenid isn’t in chronological order and this is the only passage including Helen I’ve encountered thus far, that the anger is so exclusively directed at Helen seems unfair. After all, she’s terrified, and I’m not certain whether the Aenid specifies this, but in many versions of the myth she’s a victim of kidnapping. It seems to place the blame on Helen for existing, for being a beautiful woman who men fight over. She may be held as the catalyst for the war, but she’s essentially powerless and after all didn’t fight this great long war herself.

Aeneas, though, thinks himself quite within his rights to take vengeance on her. It wouldn’t be right to punish a regular sort of woman though, but he’d be praised for stamping out ‘this abomination’. He has to reduce her from a woman to an abomination, take her humanity out of it, in order to feel justified. And that reduction is something I cannot stomach. It recalls countless instances in which men have ignored or explained away women’s humanity in order to feel that committing acts of violence against them is permissable, and often proper, too.

What do you think? Have you read the Aenid? What do you think about this passage in the context of its uncertain publication history? What do you think of representations of Helen in general?

[1] There’s a story that may or may not be true that says that Virgil asked that the unfinished work be destroyed. I thought you should know in case that would factor in to your decision whether to read the Aenid or not. I myself won’t read anything by Kafka out of respect for his unfulfilled wish that his work be destroyed.

Once upon a time – in August, in fact – I proposed putting together a list of teenagers blogging progressively.

I didn’t find many, but I was impressed by the variety. These are blogs by teenagers from a number of different countries, of different genders, identifying as trans and cis, with various sexual orientations, claiming different ability statuses, of different backgrounds, blogging their lives and books and activism and analysis. Not only do these bloggers write some great stuff, but when you’re next asked where all those politically apathetic teenagers are, you can point here.

Speaking of which, before I give you the list I want to have a brief discussion about where all those teenagers are. The lack of teenagers around progressive political spaces doesn’t speak to apathy. I know that’s not the case because I’ve been fortunate enough to keep company with some amazing politically-conscious teens. I might not always agree with the politics involved – have I ever known some conservative teenagers – but I admire the spirit behind it all, the passion about the world, regardless. Teenagers have, in fact, been some of the most driven, informed, effective activists I’ve known.

Here’s what I think the lack of teens in progressive spaces points to. Teens are, well, few in number. Our voices are discounted because we’re not taken very seriously by older people – and those younger than us are termed cute and then put out of mind. We’re in spaces of our own, doing work quite without the influence (interference, oftentimes!) of older people; not being in older people-centred spaces doesn’t mean we’re not around. We’re invisible; the meme of the selfish teen is so strong that our presence is regularly ignored. That is, we might actually be around, but we go unacknowledged or unrecognised as teens by those who don’t think anyone under twenty would be (as “anonymous” media like the Internet can illustrate perfectly). We’re also in positions of social vulnerability, often lacking the resources and knowledge to connect with fellow activists or to realise our potential as activists.

And I think it is just amazing that people who are so belittled, who lack much social clout and who are regularly invisibilised go on and do such good work in the world anyway.

I don’t doubt that the blogs listed below are only a fraction of those floating around the Internet. I’m pretty sure that there are those who, as I did for a time, decided that not making their teenagerhood explicit would afford them more respect. And one of the reasons it took me so long to collect these is that I don’t see many blogs by teens get linked around the progressive ’sphere very much (or in the blogosphere in general, for that matter).

So, here you go. Please support these bloggers by clicking through and commenting if you’re so inclined.

Adventures of the TV Addict, the Wannabe Writer, and the Should-Be Famous by T.R Xands
All Girl Army, a group blog
Barbara’s Angels by Fiona Lowenstein
Charlotte’s Blog
Dorianisms by Dorian
fbomb, a group blog
genderkid
HellOnHairyLegs
Leaper’s Journal by Shiyiya
Outside the Dawn is Breaking
Reading in Color by Ari
Reconcile by Quixotess
Room 36 by almandite
stars wheel in purple by Avendya
The Ranting Teenager
The Trouble Is…
Warning: Caustic Contents by Labyrinth
Women’s Glib, a group blog

A collection of posts on being an ally and working with allies, dating from 2007 through to now. Major focusses include gender and race, but much of this is applicable to anything along those lines. There’s a bunch on messing up and questioning the term “ally” and all sorts. They’re in this order for a reason, so I’d recommend reading them as I organised them!

Crank It Up to 11 by Melissa McEwan at Shakesville.

Often the most important thing an ally can do is just be willing to stand in front of a friend and take a few arrows in the armor made thicker by degrees of distance, to give the priceless gift of: “I got this one.”

Sixteen Maneuvers to Avoid Really Dealing with Racism by Holly at Feministe.

I found this list in an old e-mail, and thought it might come in handy for recognizing some common tactics of resistance against discussions of racism, against acknowledging that racism exists as a systemic injustice that we’re all complicit in to some degree, against owning up to anything.

When allies fail by Tami at What Tami Said: Part One and Pt. 2.

And what do we do when this happens–when allies fail? How can we address mistakes, while preserving relationships and maintaining the power that comes through alliances with people outside of our group?

The Do’s and Don’ts of Being a Good Ally by karnythia at The Angry Black Woman.

Race Relations 101 – What if I screw up? by Magniloquence at Feline Formal Shorts.

One of the biggest reasons people give for not wanting to engage in conversations about race is that they’re worried about doing or saying something offensive. [...] But it’s also a cop out; just because something is difficult doesn’t mean that there’s no reason to engage in it. Let’s take a look at the issue and see what we can make of it.

How to Fuck Up – ‘Because you probably will, at some point in your life’ – and How To Accept An Apology – ‘I like knowing how we might find our way back to grace’ – at Teh Portly Dyke.

Why the term “ally” is not mine to apply by RMJ at Deeply Problematic.

I can’t say that I am a good ally because I don’t feel the effects of my own actions. If I fuck up and don’t realize it and keep on calling myself a good ally, it’s another assertion of privilege.

One Of My Best Friends Is… by meloukhia at this ain’t livin’.

It’s supposed to be the triumphal moment in the argument. Backed into a bit of a corner, the person in the wrong finally musters the argument-killing blow: “Well, one of my best friends is [a member of a minority group], and ou says…” After this statement is pronounced, the person who is wrong sits back, puffed up with self pleasure, and dares you to top that. Even if you are also a member of said minority group, you must be wrong, because the best friend has been dragged out.

In Thanks for Those Who Get It by Ali_K guest posting at Shakesville. Be sure to check out the comments.

Act 41 by sajbrfem at 52 Acts.

And yet, some people still do want credit for these basic things “but I am not a rapist!”, “I don’t hit women!”, “I read books by female authors!”. So to that end I made a batch of extra special tasty feminist cookies.

Welcome to ZatB!

My name is Chally. This blog is mostly about life and social justice. You can contact me at chally dot zeroatthebone at gmail dot com. I can also be found at Feministe, FWD/Forward and Radical Readers.

Get ZatB updates by email!