January 31, 2017 - 18:53
I was interested in Eli Clare's discussion of Ellen Stohl's appearence in playboy, and how it was simultaneouly seen within the disability community as a victory and within the feminist community as a symbol of ongoing objectification. It was interesting that in order to fight against desexualization on the basis of her disability, Stohl had to play into other potentially damaging expectations placed on her gender. I think there are a lot of instances in which people with disabilities gain traction in the nondisabled world by conforming to other societal norms to a degree that nondisabled people might not have to in the same way.
I was wondering while reading Berube about the ways in which people with intellectual disabilities are included or excluded from the discussion on disability. In a similar vein, I wonder in what contexts it is productive for others to speak on behalf of those with intellectual disability (as Berube does for Jamie), and in what contexts it perpetuates the conception that those with intellectual disability cannot exercise self-determination (I think that Berube does a good job protecting Jamie's agency - and also what nondisabled 3-year-old can speak for themself anyways?). Is it only intention of the writer that matters for these issues? Or is it specific to content, style, and or audience of the writer that changes how much agancy the subject of the writing is given?