Pedagogy and Pedaling

Do I really need to use this thing- YES!

I’ve been to a few public events in the past few days, and I’ve noticed a really interesting situation at each event. Each room has been fully rigged for a sound system- microphones, speakers, and usually a person controlling the microphone and speakers. The first person to go up and speak, usually a moderator, approaches the microphone, adjusts it awkwardly, steps back, and says, “Do I really need to use this thing? How about I just talk loud.” He or she then proceeds to talk in a slightly louder than usual voice.

Here is the thing that is unintentionally problematic about this- you really do need to use that thing. And this is why.

When we construct public environments, we come across a number of choices for how to construct them. Will there be a wheelchair ramp? Will there be an automatic door? Will we have an ASL interpreter? Will there be text handed out of the speech or displayed on a wall? Will there be a sound system? Where is the nearest bathroom, and will people of all abilities and genders be able to access it? With each of these choices, we decide which bodies will gain access to this space, and at what cost. Many of these choices do not even get taken into conscious consideration while an event is being planned, and we end up with a room full of bodies who are able to access the space, and a lack of bodies who cannot. We may not even notice the missing bodies, and we definitely miss out on their contributions to the event.

Sound systems are very simple accessibility tools that allow people with hearing impairments to participate in public events. Some systems come with FM receivers that people with hearing impairments can listen to- in this case, those people are only able to hear what is being said through the microphone. This can also be a great system for people with auditory processing disorders who may not be able to filter out the sounds of people being in the room (scraping chairs, rustling papers, whispering) from the person speaking. And when microphones and speakers are available, it means that those among us who may have more difficultly controlling the volume of their voice or speaking loudly are able to be heard. Sound systems are a simple way to address what for years has been a serious problem- as people begin to lose their hearing, whether due to age, illness, or disability, they also lose out on participation in the life of their community, whether that be religious, political, or some other community.

Asking the question, “Do I really need to use this thing?” forces people with hearing impairments and auditory processing disorders to either out themselves as being that one annoying disabled person who needs to be accommodated, or sit there in silence- literally. It also suggests that you do not understand the reason why the sound system was there in the first place. The sound system is not there so that people with normative hearing can understand people with normative voices- it is there to redefine what normative hearing and speaking are in this space.

So yes, you really do need to use this thing, and by doing so you’re ensuring that more people are able to participate in our communities; and that’s something we all know that we need.

I am pre-empting some seriously racist discourse

So apparently Trayvon Martin’s autopsy suggests that there were traces of THC in his blood when he was shot by George Zimmerman (link goes to a Reuter’s article). THC, for those of you who somehow missed it, is the chemical in marijuana that makes you feel awesome (or paranoid and sleepy, depending on who you are). Blood tests for THC are a little tricky. The chemical can remain in blood tests without making you high for days after you have smoked, and there are other THC tests that involve hair follicles which can detect THC use over the entire course of time that the length of your hair encompasses. So first of all, THC in Martin’s blood does not necessarily suggest that he was high at the time that he was killed.

HOWEVER- that doesn’t even matter at all. Where this is going to go is that the Zimmerman apologetics are going to get back on their high horses condemning this dead child as a thug. So I am going to come out and say it right now.

Had someone shot me dead when I was 17, I can assure you that my blood would have tested positive for THC. Name a random date and time, and I can promise that I had either smoked weed on that day, or around that day. Either way, I would have tested positive. This is because I was an American teenager, and this is what many of us do.

But I can also assure you that this fact, were it even noted in my autopsy, would not have made news, because I am a not a young black man. And regardless of any other oppressive cultural narrative about my white female self and how I came to be shot by a stranger in the dark, my parents would not have to endure cable news shows denouncing me as one of those terrible, unforgivable, ought-to-be-dead American teenagers who at some point in my final few days had experienced marijuana.

And this is what privilege is. 

I’m so clever, I fool myself.

Yesterday I took my medication relatively early. I take amitriptaline for migraines, and it tends to put me to sleep, but for some reason I felt like I needed to take it early. I hid the medication after taking it so that I wouldn’t accidentally take it again later when I forgot that I had taken it early.

Tonight after getting back from hanging out at the pub with some folks from school, I went on a frantic search for my medication. I couldn’t find it anywhere. I searched for an hour, all the while wanting to go sleep, knowing, however, that if I didn’t find this medication I was going to be really sick tomorrow and it was only going to be harder to find it then. So I searched and searched. Keep in mind, my room is literally 9 by 10 feet. There is not much to search through in here. But somehow I managed it.

Forty five minutes later, I found it in a shoe. I wish I understood how my own mind worked.

Funny enough, that was an hour ago, and now I definitely can’t sleep… 

Oh conferences.

Ok progressive, aware, heterosexual, cisgendered, white men:

It is not anti-racist to refer to everyone’s race in casual conversation. Today I was talking to this guy who moderated a panel at a conference I was at. He began the remarks at the panel with the sarcastic statement, “Due to University policy, fifty percent of our panel is white.” Dude. This is not funny, as evinced by all the people who weren’t laughing. It was twice as not funny when you said it again five minutes later. This is called “hitting close to home.” It is not funny to see a white guy on a mostly white panel addressing a mostly white room and poking fun at the casual racial segregation of this particular University. This is not funny. This is an issue that is dear to people, and an issue that many have experienced real, intense hurt as a result of.

And he didn’t stop there. He went on, constantly making remarks about people’s race, in particular people of color, or casually remarking that everything he said was oppressive because of his privilege in society. In our conversation, he also alluded to how he used to participate in gay bashing in high school, though he’s better about that now.

Dear well meaning (I hope) white, cisgendered, heterosexual male: what could you have said that would have showed that you were a progressive, anti-racist, white male? What could you have said that would appropriately frame the panel that you were introducing? How could you have been an actual moderator rather than a very loud and attention seeking person? You could have said, “It’s my pleasure to introduce to you the following panelists.” It’s not that hard, is it?

*facepalm*

I can’t believe it’s come to this.

So apparently the world needs a list like this, judging by my dining companions from last night. When I’m done writing it I think I’ll print it out and hand it to people.

HOW TO EAT DINNER OUT WITH A VEGETARIAN:

1. When the group decides to order several dinners together to share, ask if anybody is a vegetarian. When someone says they are, offer at least two vegetarian dishes. Newsflash- meat eaters can eat vegetables, vegetarins don’t eat meat. This doesn’t need to be a big deal.

2. Refrain from talking about how tofu is disgusting, or how the estrogen in it will make you too femme (it isn’t, and it won’t). I don’t sit there and tell you about the gestation crates almost certainly used on your pile of pork, so don’t sit there and tell me how gross my food is.

3. Also refrain from commenting on how much the vegetarian is eating. Things like, “You’ve barely touched that! Does it have chicken or something?” “You know, you don’t have enough, I’m going to order something else for you,” and “Are you sure you don’t want any more of this bok choy? Here, you have the rest of it.” is really paternalistic and unwelcome. Particularly unwelcome are further comments after you turn down the extra food, such as, “No, you can’t have had enough, I’m getting you something else,” or “No, you have to eat it!” Personally, I have some lower bowel issues that means I need to eat a little more slowly these days, and not as much. I don’t appreciate being stuffed against my will (read into this as much as you wish).

4.  One thing that you can do if you’re curious is ask why someone is vegetarian- it can spark a really interesting conversation. But approach this from the point of view of someone looking to share information, not someone trying to win an argument. I know that me telling you the reasons why I don’t eat meat will not bring the spare ribs on the table back to life, and it’s pretty funny that you think this is the first time someone has made the, “I just think it’s really unhealthy not to eat any protein” comment.

5. Just try to not be an asshole. I think that’s really the only social rule that makes universal sense. Don’t say something if it is going to make you look like an asshole.

Kissing Cousins

Folks, I need to get something out here: the fact that North Carolina has legalized cousin marriage does not point to a general backwardsness associated with the South (and also poverty), and I’m really disturbed by how many friends of mine have suggested on facebook and other places that it does.

My understanding is that children of first cousins have only a slightly elevated risk of genetic defects or disabilities- and the parents of those children receive the same prenatal tests as everyone else does, and may also, because of their closer relation, seek out genetic counseling to make decisions in advance about children. There is nothing intrinsically amoral about having sex with, falling in love with, and marrying your cousin. And if you have a reaction to it like, “But it’s just gross!” I think you need to reconsider where that emotion comes from. There are lots of people who think that way about gay men, trans people, lesbians, bisexuals, and I think most of my friends would dismiss them as bigots.

Also, the “think of the children” reasoning is the same reasoning used to endorse eugenics programs and oppose interracial, and yes, same-sex marriage. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva illustrates this awesomely in his book Racism Without Racists. Many of the white people he interviewed (in the late nineties) claimed that they were in support of interracial marriage in theory, but they felt that people shouldn’t do it because it would be unfair to the mixed race children. This is an old line, folks, and you’re not making it up out of your own head and reason- it is a line with a past haunted by racism, sexism, oppression, and fear of difference. Stop using it.

Also- arguing that it’s somehow immoral to have children that might be disabled is also really wrong. Why is having a disabled child wrong? Why is having a disability wrong? Implying that people should not be allowed to get married and procreate because they might have a disabled child suggests that only those who can produce normative bodies are deserving of the state’s blessing and legal recognition- and again, this is a eugenic argument. This is the same argument used against poor people, many of them indigenous or of color, in the 1930’s-1970’s who were found “feebleminded” and sterilized against their will without their knowledge. The discourse of disability at that point focused on feeblemindedness as coming from poverty- in this way, disability was directly linked with poverty, and those in poverty were seen as so pathetic that they ought to be put out of their misery. Do you think there might have been some other causes for poverty, and some other solutions? Arguing that people should not have disabled children is using this same line of reasoning but applying more politically correct language to it. It’s the same argument, different clothes.

Anyway, here’s a write up of a study about first cousins and genetics. It contains some of the numbers I was looking for, although I’m not completely in agreement with all of the conclusions. Please think before you repost condemnations of cousin marriage. Think about the history of your argument and it’s real world consequences. I don’t think we need to marginalize someone else’s relationship to legally recognize our own.

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

Edited on May 10 to reduce glaring grammatical errors.