(no subject)

Sick or stressed, one or the other, because I had to come home due to upchucking activities.

Big big big big big changes but my job is allegedly safe. Allegedly.

(Possibly.)

Language can be such a fucker, sometimes

Really linguistically interesting post: The Deal with Disability and Sexuality by Eva Sweeney. Although obviously compressing a world of issues into a certain subset of physical differences is problematic, and equating 'disabled' with 'person who uses a wheelchair' is reductionist and simplistic and deliberately obtuse, the way that the article chooses (or doesn't choose, which is part of the problem of course) to verbalise the fight for equality illustrates the way that language can be so insidiously harmful.

Within the first paragraph we have 'stand up for themselves'; 'This stance' - referring to taking up the fight; 'stood up'; 'great strides were made'. The first paragraph refers to the women's liberation movement. However, the language is echoed later: What would happen if people with disabilities stood up and took direct action to improve our lives?

This equation of 'standing up' with power and agency is a problematic metaphor, but it's difficult to think of an equivalent alternative. It obviously demonstrates the privileged position that the able-bodied hold, but the question of whether language illustrates or perpetuates the hegemony is an interesting question that I've really not found a satisfying answer to.

( More musings, traipsing through language and power ineptly and with muddy boots on. )

I think, in summation, my point is that we can think outside the box, and I am lucky enough to be part of a community that often makes a point of doing so, but without care and clarity we can be assumed to be a part of a speech community whose thoughts do reflect their casually used words, because they haven't thought their way into anything different.


...I think that made sense?

Edited for ablist language, my apologies.

Why that is not 'so gay'. Unless it actually *is*.

So here's the other post I've been thinking about for a while. Reasons I will smite you for the kind of thing that the cut-tag illustrates.

( OMG linguistic analysis is so gay. (The academicish bit.) )

( More than just a word. )

It's not just a word. It carries weight. And my inability to explain that to 11-18 yr olds is one of the reasons I've been in such a fantastically awful mood, of late.

(no subject)

I've kind of come out the other side of something recently, and I feel like a much more... coherent person, I think. So I've decided to start crossposting to DW and LJ - as a reminder to read my circle, as much as anything.

The first couple of posts'll be a little ranty; coming out the other side of something means going through it first, obviously, and that results in a lot of pent-up aggression, apparently, that needs exorcising.

Language can be such a fucker, sometimes

Really linguistically interesting post: The Deal with Disability and Sexuality by Eva Sweeney. Although obviously compressing a world of issues into a certain subset of physical differences is problematic, and equating 'disabled' with 'person who uses a wheelchair' is reductionist and simplistic and deliberately obtuse, the way that the article chooses (or doesn't choose, which is part of the problem of course) to verbalise the fight for equality illustrates the way that language can be so insidiously harmful.

Within the first paragraph we have 'stand up for themselves'; 'This stance' - referring to taking up the fight; 'stood up'; 'great strides were made'. The first paragraph refers to the women's liberation movement. However, the language is echoed later: What would happen if people with disabilities stood up and took direct action to improve our lives?

This equation of 'standing up' with power and agency is a problematic metaphor, but it's difficult to think of an equivalent alternative. It obviously demonstrates the privileged position that the able-bodied hold, but the question of whether language illustrates or perpetuates the hegemony is an interesting question that I've really not found a satisfying answer to.

( More musings, traipsing through language and power ineptly and with muddy boots on. )

I think, in summation, my point is that we can think outside the box, and I am lucky enough to be part of a community that often makes a point of doing so, but without care and clarity we can be assumed to be a part of a speech community whose thoughts do reflect their casually used words, because they haven't thought their way into anything different.


...I think that made sense?

Edited for ablist language, my apologies.

Why that is not 'so gay'. Unless it actually *is*.

So here's the other post I've been thinking about for a while. Reasons I will smite you for the kind of thing that the cut-tag illustrates.

( OMG linguistic analysis is so gay. (The academicish bit.) )

( More than just a word. )

It's not just a word. It carries weight. And my inability to explain that to 11-18 yr olds is one of the reasons I've been in such a fantastically awful mood, of late.