#that is ableist and counter productive

[hussyknee]

In one of the 647968 posts going "What You Like Says Nothing About You" (broadly agree) the first comment in the reply section was, "well I'm never going to apologize for being a Swiftie and a Reylo and Destiel shipper and Snape fan and loving ACOTAR and LOTR and Hamilton and B99" and I'm like, actually being this much of a pathological white liberal makes you the exception to this rule 😭😭

[fatehbaz]

"Industry" as a frame of meaning is [...] relevant from the beginning of [modern-era labor advocacy and the general practice of intentionally "taking it easy" or "slowing down" while at work in order to advocate for and take care of oneself] [...], a form of "working badly" [...]. This close link is understandable given the absolute focus on efficiency that marks management thinking - Taylorism [Frederick Taylor's time studies and his support for using stopwatches to micro-manage in the workplace], the Gilbreths' time and motion studies [...]. [W]e can feel that trace of disgust, a certain sneering affect [...]. The sneer gathers around the word "motionless," [...]. The promise of the “upstanding citizen” is posed against the figure of the cripple, etymologically bound to the one who creeps, who stays low, to the one who is not proud and erect and in public view. In this way, that figure - along with the hobbled, the mute, the blind, the mad, the deaf, the chronic, and, of course, the paralyzed - becomes the exemplary negative definition. [...] [T]he only culturally sanctioned options are to be hidden from public life or recuperated [...]. That [...] fantasy of [a] return to previous levels of mobility that aligns easily with ableist conceptions of normal function and health [...] is also grounded in the specific idea of a return to ["productivity"] [...].

We can find this dynamic in especially dramatic form in the influential work of early twentieth-century “scientific management” theorists Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, known both for their time and motion studies of labor processes [...]. [T]he Gilbreths are relentlessly devoted to the reduction of inefficiency in labor to save energy, reduce unnecessary fatigue, and, above all, neutralize the fundamental “waste” of effort and time hidden within every human movement, particularly when at work. According to Frank and Lillian, “there is no waste of any kind in the world that equals the waste from needless, ill-directed, and ineffective motions, and their resulting unnecessary fatigue.” The battle against this “waste” gets posed as a civilizational battle stretching back across human history, only now conquerable with modern means, yet theirs is also a project with explicitly nationalist overtones that can be strategically couched to suit a war economy and a desire for American imperial hegemony.

---

The solution they propose is a total analytical dissection of labor processes, breaking single tasks into discrete parts to detect the little gaps in time that could be closed. Such minute lags and “micromotions” will necessarily get missed without the tools the Gilbreths turn to, like moving picture cameras - turned to face workers with chronometers in front of the lens and reticular grids on the wall behind for scale - and a “chronocyclegraph,” which allowed them to zoom in on a single gesture to see its tiny deviations and wasted movements frame by frame. In their methodology, delays and breakdowns take a form almost directly counter to simple malingering or the kind of willful self-stasis that Spargo denounced. Rather, what causes the inefficiency that the Gilbreths target is too much movement, an excess of animacy and motions that need not be done to complete a task, resulting in unnecessary fatigue and wasted opportunities for profit.

Yet at the heart of this, there is one figure seen to most embody this “wasted” energy and time in full - not in a specific action, badly choreographed task, or laziness, but in their entire being. This is what they designated as the “cripple,” [...].

---

“What,” the Gilbreths ask, “is to be done with these millions of cripples, when their injuries have been remedied as far as possible, and when they are obliged to become again a part of the working community?” [...] The “cripple” therefore emblematizes the waste of America’s “human resources” for the Gilbreths. It manifests a physical limit - the body that is conventionally seen to be unable to do productive work - but also a political one that they cannot even fathom, or at least allow publicly: the idea that anyone might challenge either the supposed utility of this frenzy of streamlined work or the very category of what constitutes “waste” itself. For the Gilbreths, the “elimination of waste” is not merely a project of capital. It is a civilization-scale undertaking that benefits all involved in the process: “All workers are sharing in the savings made possible by the elimination of waste.” [...]

It is not mere surveillance, increased policing, or something that openly oppresses and invites a revolt. Instead, it is a mode of management and control that seeks to saturate every step of the process, all the while insisting that what’s good for profit is good for those whose stolen time generates that profit.

---

All text above by: Evan Calder Williams. "On Paralysis, Part 3". e-flux Journal Issue #147. September 2024. Published online at: e-flux dot com slash journal/147/624989/on-paralysis-part-3/. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Text within brackets added by me for clarity/context. Presented here for commentary, teaching, criticism.]

[jitterbugjive]

i've been thinking about this all day since I witnessed it

dude: "I think people are smart because they are smart, not because they are autistic. No mental disability should be claimed to be responsible for making a person smarter because that is stereotyping the condition and it's simply not true. The stereotype of the savant autistic person is counter-productive because it's rare in autism and people need to stop assuming intelligence means autism." other dude: "That is rude and ableist of you to say autistic people can't be smart"

dude: that's not what I was saying at all you fucking dingbat

other dude: WOW I'M AUTISTIC AND NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT PEOPLE SAY IS AN AUTISM THING AND YOU ARE ABLEIST FOR NOT REALIZING THAT ABOUT ME AND NOT HOLDING MY HAND THROUGH WHAT YOU SAID

Look, I've learned as a rule of thumb NOT to interoperate everything people say in bad faith unless it's absolutely blatantly obvious they're being a shitheel, because believe it or not most people aren't trying to open themselves up to attack for saying something shitty. Most of the time, they just said something stupid without thinking and it's not meant to be harmful.

[attackfish]

I saw a deeply stupid post in the Ursa tag the other day, which is unfortunately not an uncommon occurrence, but in this case, this particular post took aim not only at Ursa, the fictional character, but at the human beings who defend her parenting of Azula. The poster said that it really bothers them when people try to justify Ursa's reactions to Azula' behavior by saying that Ursa was just worried about her daughter's behavior, because after all, that's what the abusive parents of neurodiverse children say too, they say it's about the behavior not the child.

This line of logic is deeply flawed and dare I say problematic. Azula wasn't stimming. She wasn't talking too much in class. She wasn't misreading social cues and upsetting someone. She wasn't doing any number of things that neurodivergent children do that are ultimately harmless, for which they are punished. She wasn't even doing something that was potentially dangerous to herself, for which she had minimal understanding or control over. The behavior that concerned her mother was the skillful manipulation, control and bullying, of her brother and companions, animal cruelty, and speculating openly and gleefully about her grandfather's possible death or usurpation, something that would be echoed not long after by her equally gleeful taunting of her brother with the prospect that their father is about to murder him.

This behavior is all very much the product of Ozai's abusive parenting, and a sign of deep psychological damage that has been done to her. It's also dangerous to herself and to her peers, including her brother, and if it isn't somehow stopped, it indicates that she will grow into a dangerous adult. I want to repeat that, her behavior, leaving aside the concerns for what it might mean for her future development, is already dangerous to herself and other children.

This is a thing that happens in the real world. Children, including traumatized children, often exhibit behavior that is dangerous to themselves and others, and that behavior should absolutely concern the caring adults in their lives. Likewise, behavior that is the sign of trauma and abuse should also concern the caring adults in a child's life.

Ursa is not aghast that her child is acting in socially frowned upon ways. She is coping with a child who is engaging in deliberate and profound cruelty aimed at other children, including her brother. There would be something very wrong with Ursa as a parent if that didn't scare her, as indeed there is something extremely wrong with Ozai, who encourages it.

The use of neurodiversity here is especially aggrivating to me for two reasons, the first, because it feels manipulative as hell, and is used to claim that any parent who is concerned about their child's very worrying behavior is in fact ableist, and a bad parent. More, this logic is overtly aimed not at Ursa the fictional character, but at the real people who don't agree that her treatment of Azula was mistreatment. It's the manipulative use of accusations of ableism and supporting the abuse of neurodiverse children to win a fannish arguement, and as a disabled and neurodiverse person, seeing ableism against neurodiverse children used as effectively a manipulation tactic in this way is offensive, and also dangerous, because it is exactly the kind of argument that ableist parents bring up to counter people advocating on behalf of neurodiverse children, who want them to not be punished for behaviors that are part of their neurodiversity.

The other reason I find this particular argument nauseating is because of the exact type of behavior that Azula was engaging in, which is to say the bullying of her brother and companions, in which she exhibits a high level of social awareness, and certain types of strong social skills. I was regularly bullied by children with strong social skills and high levels of social awareness, for my lack of those things, and for my weirdness, almost all of which was born from either my neurodiversity, or my lack of social experience thanks to my disabilities. This bullying was often either ignored, or encouraged by the parents and teachers of the bullying children. They did not view this deliberate cruelty as concerning. And they should have.

Azula has one parent who sees that behavior as concerning, as extremely troubling, and one parent who doesn't. The fact that so many people in this fandom seem to think that realizing this kind of behavior is troubling, inherently makes someone a bad parent, is frustrating in the extreme, because it is in fact an example of good parenting, and Ozai's lack of concern about that behavior is part of what makes him one of the most abusive fathers in children's media.

[imaginesangie]

According to modern-day puritans, your intrusive thoughts are only valid if you DON'T get aroused by them. Like, arousal is a body's response to stimuli, and just because some people are aroused by their thoughts it doesn't mean it's any less distressing for them. If anything, the fact that it arouses them may make it MORE distressing.

Seriously, what is with this push to make mentally ill people the most sanitized versions of themselves? Do you NOT see how counter-productive it is to push down all the things you and others around you deem "impure" or "immoral"?

You're not going to heal or improve yourself if you're bottling things up and shaming yourself for the ways in which your brain functions (none of which anyone has literally any control over). You're not actually helping anyone but deeming them "degenerates" or "freaks" or any other derogatory words your ableist mind can come up with.

Accepting mental illness is spreading proper information on the ways in which it can impact the way people act, think, and are as opposed to spreading the misinformation that least impacts your personal discomfort.

Your ableism hasn't ended just because you yourself are disabled or because you accept certain palatable symptoms of mental illness.

[start-where-i-end]

(Re: your answer to me saying "touch grass is a euphemism for getting some perspective, not an ableist insult") people use euphemisms for a lot of different reasons, often with this one it's because directly saying "get some perspective" would be overly confrontational, and would tip the conversation into a more serious tone, which is in direct opposition to the sentiment being expressed, i.e. that the person who is being told to "touch grass" is being obsessive in a negative way and is being asked or told to stop.

It's definitely sometimes used in situations where this is unfair, but not always, and utilising gentle humour that everyone (including the person being told to chill out) can recognise as such is a very valuable tool in managing relationships, especially online.

Trying to ban it from use because bad actors can draw negative connotations from it, or have sometimes used it in harmful ways is counter-productive because it's doomed to fail. The phrase "get some perspective" is itself a euphemism/shorthand that relies on context and inference to be understood, as is everything because that's how language works.

It's perfectly fine for you to state you don't want people to use that phrase in regard to you, and to decide to take steps to prevent people who do so from interacting with you, and if that's what your original post was about then sorry for misunderstanding. But telling other people not to use it based on a reason you've either made up, misunderstood, or been misled about yourself (that it refers to literally going outside and physically touching some grass) is messed up and actually more detrimental to accessible communication for people who struggle with euphemisms. Because it's just straight up not true.

The phrase "touch grass" is neither gentle nor non confrontational, and I'm far from the only person to take issue with it. In general, unless you're very explicitly laughing with your opponent and not at them, humor during arguments is more aggressive and rude than simple neutral statements.

You keep avoiding addressing my actual issue with it - that it's constructed on equating online experience to something bad, biased, an untrue, an offline experience - to healthy, true, and enlightened, and that you need to experience life offline in order to have the right to form opinions.

[rouge-fauna]

I'm a c!Tommy fan and didn't mind your aspd c!Tommy post. I don't think it was ableist. I don't exactly agree with it either though but you have a right to say it and not get talked about behind your back. I'm sorry that happened. I would probably send an ask about my interpretation in the distant future once all this has calmed down and the abundance of c!Tommy asks have stopped 😅 ❤️

I really appreciate you saying that. :) I’m glad I haven’t pissed everyone off lol, whether you agree or don’t, or like c!Tommy or don't. I mean I personally don't think it's really right to talk badly about people behind their back anyways, but it certainly does feel a little unreasonable to call me dumb, crazy and delusional without even trying to have a conversation with me. What's sad is that there are points to be made and would have been interesting to discuss like an alternative diagnosis or looking more at the diagnosing criteria. Like this is not a hill I would die on, it's not my favorite analysis or take, it's just an opinion and viewpoint I shared with reasons why, the context of which was actually countering the argument of people calling c!Dream a psychopath.

And while I'm at it, I would like to note a few things. In the essay I didn't even call c!Tommy evil or ASPD evil, and I have tried to be very clear that by no means do I believe c!Tommy deserved to be abused in Exile or any other time. And in regards to the alignment chart, I really disliked that analysis anyways. It just doesn't really work. It's a simplified tool for dnd to help people stay to character, but how do you decide what is good, lawful, and evil in a story where, as I have talked about so many times, there is no true system of laws or government, and no widely accepted bounds of morality... So just to be clear, I will reiterate - no one deserves abuse, I do not think c!Tommy is "evil" or the "Bad guy" and I do not think there is a dsmp character who is. And while it may seem like I have a vendetta or am targeting c!Tommy specifically, that's just where discussion has lead recently, mostly because of the finale, anons, and also because of noticing how often c!Tommy calls c!Dream a psychopath I thought it was interesting to look at how it might be the other way around...

Also... I guess... I don't know, aren't y'all bored of having the same old discussions and takes on c!Dream, c!Tommy, c!Wilbur, c!Punz, c!Tubbo... etc over and over? Is it not fun to look at things in a different way and say - what if this is true or - that is true and how does that change things? Is it not interesting to take the same story and lore and see if it can be seen still canonically in a different way? I mean, applying diagnosis is never going to fit perfectly, not just because I'm a 23 year old autistic engineer not a psychologist of any kind, but also mostly because we only have a set chaotic few years of them to look at with no past to base on. But beyond that, isn't it fun and interesting to see if it fits, if it provides an explanation for behavior we didn't have before? Is it so wrong of me to try and see if there are fun new ways of looking at lore instead of having detailed ships and aus?...

Anyways sorry, I may have gotten carried away there, it has been a long Monday. Regardless, it is a shame that it ruined the chance for actual exciting productive conversation and discussion to happen, because I can't say I am not curious on your interpretation. Guess we will just circle back around to it (it seems to be inevitable at his point lol) <3 <3 <3

[smilesstardust]

- He’s my boss, I can’t tell him what to do. For your Dance Company au

Hi! This one is a little sad, but ultimately kind of sweet. It’s set in the run up to the big production that saves the company. (Also, minor cw for someone being an ableist prick)

It had been a long day. Connor walked back to his office, feet heavy, deciding whether he was going to make a dent in the pile of paperwork on his desk or just leave it for the morning. It had been a full day of meetings about funding, about set design and costumes, about how they were going to promote the show to sell as many tickets as possible. And that was on top of taking some of the rehearsals so that by the time it was ready to perform the dancers could do it perfectly in their sleep. So Connor was exhausted.

He’d decided to leave the paperwork, that the bottle of whiskey on his counter that he was slowly working his way through was calling his name, as he rounded the corner up to the corridor where his and Ava’s offices were.

There was a loud voice coming from Ava’s office, one that he recognised as belonging to the mentor she’d invited to visit. They’d discussed it before she had extended the invite, deciding it would be a good idea to get his input on the show they were putting together, as neither her or Connor had ever been behind something of this magnitude and wanted to get the opinion of someone who did it regularly.

Ava’s door had been left ajar, so Connor paused on his way past to check everything was okay.

"I’ve more cause to be disappointed in you than I thought." He heard the miserable old man bark at her. "Honestly Ava, it’s almost like you no longer care about dance."

"I do." Her voice sounded so much smaller than usual. If Connor didn’t know her better, he’d call her tone a whimper. "I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t."

"You’re too young to be a choreographer, you don’t have the right experience or tenure as a dancer. The only reason they hired you is because they want you to dance for them. Ava, child, why else would a third rate company on the brink of closure hire a washed up prima?" He paused. "You need to stop all this nonsense and come home. Get back to dancing. You’ll feel better after a class or two."

"I can’t." She stuttered. "My injury-"

"Is in your head. You’re making a big deal out of nothing, everyone gets dropped at some point. You are not the first and won’t be the last. Now stop blubbering about it and get back to work."

"I, I, I-" She struggled.

"I think you need to leave." Connor pushed the door open and stepped inside, deciding enough was enough. "I don’t know what you think you’re trying to do, but all you’re actually doing is upsetting her. Ava can’t dance anymore, not like she used to, and it’s not for lack of trying on her part. The fall should have killed her and it’s a miracle she recovered as much as she has, so you don’t get to tell her that isn’t enough." He had to ignore Ava’s expression, her tear stained face look at him half grateful and half like he had gone crazy.

"This is none of your business." The old man got defensive.

"Believe me, I would much rather be on my way home. But you just had to be verbally abusive to a member of my staff while I was walking past." Connor sighed. "Ava is damn good at her job even if she doesn’t have much experience, and all of the improvements we’ve made since she joined are down to her. You don’t get to come here and make her feel bad about her work when she’s better for this company than anything we could have asked for."

Jaffrey turned away from Connor, steam blowing out of his ears and towards Ava. "Are you going to let him speak to me like that?" He demanded.

"He’s my boss." Ava swallowed, shaking her head slightly. "I can’t tell him what to do." Connor had to do his best not to laugh at that. He might have been in charge on paper, but Ava was no stranger to ordering him around. However Ava’s response seemed to work, the miserable bastard grabbing his coat and bag and storming out.

Ava choked back a sob and Connor crossed over the room to where she was stood, pulling her into a tight hug. She buried her face into his chest as she cried and he held her upright, pressing a soft kiss to her hair as he rubbed circles on her back.

"Come on, I’ll drive you home." He told her, pulling back just enough to see her face when the wet patch on his T-shirt stopped growing. She nodded and he picked up her bag from its spot underneath her desk, slinging it over his shoulder as he wrapped his other arm around her. A quick stop at his office to grab his stuff, and then he walked her out the back entrance so they could go home.

[protected-and-loved-by-castiel]

Why heal if it hurts? (This is a continuation of a post-series on the ADHD neurotype)

ADHD trauma is largely a product of ableism in our environment. Suppressing our innate/genetic/heritable ADHD traits through trauma-based coping skills is how we have survived in an ableist world. Suppressing our True Self is an amazing coping skill AND it has a huge cost to our physical bodies. Masking (whether through fawning, through running on adrenaline, or through dissociation from parts of ourselves) leads to multisystemic mind-body illnesses.

The list of traits I posted seems negative and not neutral because of ableism. And in some settings they are negative. If our immediate environment (home, work, school, etc) is ableist, then we actually still need our masks and our trauma-based coping skills. If we try to unmask or allow more of our True Self to take up space when our immediate environment does not support that, the result is going to be re-traumatization and eventual burnout.

Here's an example. I had a big episode of burnout in 2020 because of trauma work. A part of myself that longs for connection came awake from being numb for years. But because it was the pandemic-lockdown environment, there was no way for me to meet that need. And the pain of that part of myself waking up only to have the same experience of unmet need again was devastating. I was in burnout for months. I had to stop doing trauma work until my environment could support more connection.

Choosing our own pace for trauma healing is something we’re all entitled to. We’re not obligated to heal trauma, despite what social media says, and we can pause the process at any time. Sometimes it’s safer to avoid trauma work for a while and just focus on using our coping strategies.

For individual trauma healing to be possible, we really need collective healing. We need environments that are aware of systemic ableism and seeking to counter it. We need homes, workplaces, schools, and communities where its okay to have all of the traits I listed before, where support and affirmation is offered. I am lucky to be in community with neurodivergent humans who have no problems with me being my unmasked “more” ADHD self. I know it’s a far off dream for some, but I wish that for everyone.

Everyone deserves the safety to be able to drop their trauma defenses and be supported as their True Self. If you don’t have that yet, I pray you do someday.

[ionlylikemycat]

i bought a bag of six potato rolls for lunches for a week

i matched the amount of meats and cheeses to the amount of rolls

i cannot leave my bread products in the special lemon-only bag by my mini fridge bc the cat attacks them there, so i have to leave them on the counter with the other breads

the first day i wake up and someone has eaten one of my rolls- that’s on me, i forgot to tell people or write my name on them

i write my name on the bag six times. i debate telling my sister not to eat the rolls, but we’ve been having food problems where i say don’t eat my food and she says you’re the sole cause of my eating disorder and that might just ignite another fight so i only write my name

i wake up today and someone has eaten another roll. of the six i have had two, someone has eaten two. i now have two. rolls. for an entire week, and way too much meats and cheeses. the ratios are fucked, and i’m gonna be out money i don’t really have for groceries

now i Do have to say something bc i really want my last two rolls actually but it Will cause a fight bc now i’m mad

borb says i need to have put tape on the bag that said lemons food for lemon only but i feel like writing my name on it with purple sharpie six times kinda got that message across

so now i have to talk to my sister and do the whole, i am doing my half of marking my food and making things clear you have to now do your half where you do a little check in with things before you eat them and see if there is writing all over it

which is gonna cause a fight cos she’s gonna go, well i’m autistic and you’re making me have an eating disorder and i’m so stressed at work and i cannot possibly be expected to do any of the work to solve these situations and i need every one else to bend to my whims or else you’re all ableist against me

which like

bud we’re disabled in like basically the same ways just you have adhd and i have nvld like. get your shit together?

i hate living with people so much

[loiswasadevil]

arent you ablist af? that seems a little counter-productive considering the previous asks about the LGBTQ+

What the fuck are you talking about, When the hell am i Ableist, And what the hell are you talking about at all.

[miafreemandesignresearch]

Universal Design and the Problem of “Post-Disability” Ideology - Part 2

Hamraie, A. (2016). Universal Design and the Problem of “Post-Disability” Ideology. In Design and Culture (pp. 285-309). https://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2016.1218714

Universal Design in the Post-ADA Era

A turning point came in 1990 when, through the ADA, disabled people gained civil rights to employment, government services such as public transportation, and access to restaurants and other public spaces. Although the ADA intended to address pervasive discrimination against over 50 million US citizens with disabilities, the law faced resistance from architects and designers who insisted that accessible design would hamper their creative processes and increase costs (Reno 2000). Universal Design advocates across the fields of architecture, product design, web design, and interior design countered that more accessible built environments would benefit all people. Universal Design became a convenient marketing discourse for persuading architects and designers of the desirability of accessible design.

The Return of Post-disability Ideology

Paradoxically, disability began to disappear from the discourse of Universal Design in the post-ADA era. The term “Universal Design” entered the mainstream vocabulary, appearing in design newspapers, magazines, and handbooks as a signifier for a shifting array of meanings, from design that complies with the ADA to design that eschews the category of disability (Pell 1990; Remich 1992). Universal Design’s departure from disability rights discourses in the post-ADA era rested upon the assumption that civil rights legislation had adequately addressed ableism by creating an equal playing field between disabled and non-disabled people, such that it was no longer necessary to discuss oppression based on disability.

Because the ADA marked the beginning of meaningful, enforceable civil rights, rather than an end point, this assumption had significant consequences. Within Universal Design discourse and practice, it led to the reemergence of “post-disability” ideologies, which imagined a world without disability and denied the existence of disability discrimination. My framing of post-disability ideologies in the 1990s and 2000s builds upon critical race theory’s challenges to “post-racial” ideologies, which insist that racism is no longer a significant system of oppression because civil rights laws have ended material manifestations such as segregation. In the aftermath of the civil rights era, as Michelle Alexander (2012) has shown, race-neutral policies merely hide racial inequality within new institutions of mass incarceration. Likewise, legal scholars and philosophers argue that formal requirements for equality do not guarantee substantive changes and meaningful access – a critique that parallels Mace and Lusher’s challenges to minimal guidelines and accessibility codes in the pre-ADA era (Silvers 1998, 13–53). Disability media scholar Elizabeth Ellcessor (2015) writes that treating oppression as inconsequential does not “reduce prejudice, discrimination, or stigma. Instead, such assertions may protect and extend racist or ableist structures, by failing to interrogate, alter, or demolish them.” In its material practices, Universal Design has aspired to produce the kinds of accessible built environments that the ADA was meant to provide, replete with curb cuts, built-in ramps, and multi-sensory displays. However, in the post-ADA era, the discourse of Universal Design often disavows a relationship to disability (as a user group or a civil rights category), eschews a notion of disabled people’s expertise, and infrequently challenges ableist assumptions about disability (Hamraie 2013; Williamson 2012a, 232–233).

Disability-neutral Discourse

Recall that disability activists of the 1970s (as well as Mace and Lusher) reframed accessibility for disabled users as “good design,” specifically in response to designers’ claims that disability would reduce the aesthetic value and creativity of design. Following the ADA, Universal Design advocates began using the phrase “good design” to describe a very specific, value-laden approach to accessibility, which called for greater functionality and usability but adopted disability-neutral language and thus failed to distinguish between marginalized users and the broader non-disabled consumer majority. Disability-neutral terms such as “all users,” “everyone,” or “the entire population” appeared as a point of contrast with barrier-free design and its focus on disabled users. For instance, a group of proponents released Principles of Universal Design 2.0 in 1997 (Figure 2), redefining the approach as “the design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design” (Center for Universal Design 1997). The Principles offered guidelines for Universal Design in “all design disciplines, including those that focused on built environments, products, and communications” (Story 2011, 4.3). Despite Mace and Lusher’s involvement, the Principles were an artefact of the post-ADA era, distancing Universal Design from the perceived stigma attached to accessibility. As Molly Story (2001, 10.6) documented it, “Equitable Use” was the last addition to the Principles, with guidelines for “Flexibility in Use” and “Simple and Intuitive Use” being among the first to be developed.

By the late 1990s, Mace himself shifted his focus to emphasizing Universal Design as a “marketing concept” (Mace 1994, 6). At a symposium on teaching Universal Design, he claimed, “Its what designers think they’re doing anyway, but sometimes they’re not, because they don’t include the full spectrum of human needs and abilities in what is being built” (6). This framing made clear that Universal Design discourse revolved as much around the politics of defining meaning as it did upon changing the material practices of design. When framed through “post-disability” ideologies, however, Universal Design’s marketing often defaulted to disability-neutral discourses. In the 2000s, the language of Universal Design advocacy turned toward distinguishing Universal Design from accessibility and disability rights in handbooks and design media. Architect Denise Levine wrote in 2003:

Accessibility is a civil rights issue focused on eliminating discrimination against one minority group. In contrast, universal design is a market driven concept. Rather than responding to legal mandates, it reflects the realities of contemporary societies with their diverse populations. Instead of a focus on one minority group, universal design is an inclusive approach that benefits the entire population. (Levine 2003, 8)

Notably, Levine frames Universal Design as a marketing concept rather than a civil rights concern – a framing that explicitly divorces Universal Design from the politicized work of disabled designers and activists, as well as from the notion of disability as a marginalized identity. This framing contrasts with Mace and Lusher’s emphasis on disability as a resource for alliance between marginalized users by framing Universal Design as primarily for the benefit of non-disabled users. Similarly, the conflation of accessibility with “legal mandates” represents the social value of disability inclusion as necessarily onerous and bureaucratic.

Levine (2003, 9) acknowledges as a myth the assumption that the ADA has “created equality, so there is no need to do any more,” arguing that Universal Design goes beyond the ADA’s focus on physical and sensory “limitations” by focusing on a broader array of functional limitations “in the way people think and interpret things.” She goes on to argue: “Throughout our lifespan, we all experience variations in our abilities. In fact, more than 50% of the U.S. population could be characterized as having some sort of functional limitation. Therefore, universal design eventually benefits all of us.” Here, it becomes evident that Levine is not arguing against post-disability frameworks or in favor of accessibility as a disability right. Rather, she frames Universal Design as a necessary imperative for moving beyond the ADA because of the purported universality of functional limitation.

From the perspective of critical disability theory, however, conflating any type of imperfect user experience with marginalization and disability treats identities and embodiments as untouched by power and privilege. This conflation risks “erasing the line between disabled and non disabled people” (Linton 1998, 13) by assuming that everyone is or will become somewhat functionally limited at some point and implying an equal playing field in user experiences of design. It suggests that enhancing usability or convenience for normate users is a social goal equivalent to addressing discrimination against misfitting users. Disability scholar and activist Simi Linton (1998, 13) argues that when taken for granted as common sense, such erasures are depoliticizing, particularly “as long as disabled people are devalued and discriminated against, and as long as naming the category serves to call attention to that treatment.”

By framing diversity as a marketing concept but omitting mention of disability politics and culture, disability-neutral discourses reduce functional limitation to an impartial demographic category. It may appear that encouraging non-marginalized consumers to buy Universal Design products fosters empathy and serves as a reminder of their potential future disablement. Critical disability theorists point out, however, that framing Universal Design as having (what I term) “added value” for non-disabled people privileges convenience for normate consumers over accountability toward those who are excluded – in the present – from built environments (Hamraie 2013; see also Williamson 2012b, 233). It equates the commercial imperative to enhance middle-class, non-disabled users’ experiences of products and homes with the social and political imperative to grant disabled people the right to live outside nursing homes and institutions, find employment outside sheltered workshops, and be recognized as citizens and users of public space. Disability-neutral discourses of Universal Design that adopt marketing logics thus presume that disability-based discrimination in built environments is inconsequential or nonexistent.

Furthermore, when advocates focus on disability as functional limitation divorced from minority culture and politics, they preclude critical disability, Deaf, and neurodiversity perspectives on accessibility as a tool for preserving and accepting human diversity. Contemporary Deaf and Autistic scholars assert that broad differences in how people think about and interpret the built environment are irreducible to functional limitations, but can be the basis of shared culture – such as when members of Deaf culture use the spatial practice of sign language to communicate, rather than adopting cochlear implants and other medical interventions, or when Autistic adults form communities on the Internet, rather than undergoing therapy to enable normative verbal communication and eye contact in non-Internet social spaces (Bauman and Murray 2014, xxi–xxii; see also Kapp et al. 2013; Sinclair 2012, 2). Additionally, the notion of universal functional limitation does not capture the sense of affiliation between marginalized users that drove early Universal Design. In Mace and Lusher’s formulation, Universal Design foregrounds disabled users and children, the elderly, and people of different sizes without equating these categories to one another. Because they do not begin from an analysis of oppression, disability-neutral discourses fail to capture the relational ethics of disability culture. Nor do they foster a broad, politicized sense of misfitting as a basis for collective organization for structural change (Garland-Thomson 2011, 547).

Anti-disability Discourse

Although Universal Design advocates’ post-disability ideologies stem from attempts to persuade architects and designers to create a more just world for everyone, the consequences of these positions become obvious when disability-neutrality shifts into positions that more directly stigmatize disability. In a 2011 interview with Metropolis Magazine, architect Josh Safdie captures the discursive slippage between disability-neutral and anti-disability positions:

The biggest ‘barrier’ to a richer understanding and more widespread application of Universal Design here in the US – and in particular among architects and planners – is the conflation of Universal Design with accessibility and, more specifically, the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. … [W]e have developed a broader definition of Universal Design that focuses on its role as a facilitator of human experience and performance. … This definition builds upon the World Health Organization’s formal classification of disability as a contextual phenomenon which occurs at the intersection of the user and his or her environment(s). For me as a designer, this is an incredibly powerful idea: that through the design of thoughtful environments – ones which anticipate and celebrate the diversity of human ability, age, and culture – we have the capacity to effectively eliminate a person’s disability. (Safdie and Szenasy 2011)

This statement clearly indicates support for (rather than resistance toward) the project of Universal Design. Safdie’s interest is in creating environments that “anticipate and celebrate” a wide range of diversities. His oppositional framing, however, reveals the persistence of post-disability and rehabilitation logics within this value-laden discourse. Safdie borrows the term “barrier” from barrier-free design to position accessibility as antithetical to the “design of thoughtful environments,” a concept closely aligned with the notion of “good design.” Compared to the disability rights position that disability access (beyond imperatives for normalization and assimilation) should be considered as part of designers’ standards for “good design,” he conflates the social goal of disability access with the bureaucratic enforcement of the ADA, and thus disqualifies considerations of justice in built environments for disabled people from good design. If Universal Design is “thoughtful design,” disability access becomes characteristic of bad design – thoughtless compliance with checklist-style standards. Design that thoughtfully values or preserves disability becomes unthinkable in this logic, while eliminating functional or apparent disabilities becomes a priority.

While the term “diversity” might indicate acceptance of variability and read as a pro-disability position, it coexists with (and distracts from) the explicit call to “eliminate a person’s disability” (understood as functional limitation) through good design. The call “to eliminate disability,” argues Kafer (2013, 83), “is to eliminate the possibility of discovering alternative ways of being in the world, to foreclose the possibility of recognizing and valuing our interdependence.” When architects and designers claim to eliminate disability through better design, their presumption is that a life with disability is begging for correction. This presumption resonates with the eugenic logic of streamlining and the rehabilitation logic of normalization, both of which frame disabled lives as inherently limited, tragic, and undesirable. As Barbara Gibson (2014, 2) argues in relation to rehabilitation metrics and the goal of eliminating disability in order to reinstate independence: “The idea that independence is good (desirable, preferable), and dependence is bad (undesirable, to be avoided) is not a given, but relies on a particular normative understanding of the subject and what constitutes a good life.” If ableism is the belief that ability is better than disability and that disability must be eliminated, then arguing that disability is a “contextual phenomenon” (or functional limitation) that thoughtful design can “eliminate” has the unintended effect of aligning Universal Design with post-disability logics, rather than with disability acceptance. What is lost is, ironically, precisely what Universal Design discourses appear to promise: a world that is designed with everyone in mind.

Reinforcing the ideology of ability, “disability” appears as an object of elimination, while Safdie offers “human ability” as a condition that designers must anticipate and celebrate. However, elevating design for “the diversity of human ability, age, and culture” to the status of good design reinforces the binary between valued ability and devalued disability. The term “human ability” operates as a euphemism for disability, much like the terms “physically challenged, the able disabled, handicapable, and special people/children” (Linton 1998, 14). While this language appears to “refute common stereotypes of incompetence,” Linton writes that these are “defensive and reactive terms rather than terms that advance a new agenda” such as disability acceptance.

Critical disability theory offers that when advocates proclaim that Universal Design “does not discriminate against users based on their ability” (McAdams and Kostovich 2011), the reference to disability as “human ability,” no matter how diverse, does not challenge discrimination based on disability. Instead, it centers the norm of able-bodiedness and denies the value of disability as a way of being non-normate. Ability is already considered a normal, desirable, and default state of being: people are rarely discriminated against because of their abilities. Rather, it is the perception of disability as a devalued state of being that leads to discrimination. Centering design for ability replicates the disability-neutral position that Universal Design should respond to “diverse populations” without naming these populations or considering the degrees of marginalization that separate them. Like post-racial arguments that race is biologically nonexistent and that all people are thus de facto equal, the notion that more thoughtful design can (and should) eliminate disability ignores the persistence of inequality, devaluation, and disqualification that would remain even if more inclusive consumer products were made available to people of all “abilities.” Consequently, disabled people are not merely functionally limited in a vacuum, separate from issues of economic access, racial belonging, or gender identity. Even for those whose disability is (supposedly) eliminated through a better fit between body and environment, issues of affordability, perceived belonging among the cadre of desired users, and access to jobs and housing will still remain (Mingus 2010).

[underleveledjosh]

I'm pretty sure most communist communities are cults or at least cult like because when I left communism, most people who I thought were friends/to be trusted flamed me and attempted to mass harass me. This was on my old main Twitter that is now suspended, by the way. The majority of commies aren't in it for what they say they're in it for. They're in it for the clout. One of my ex-friends from when I was a commie basically told me that the fact that I want to start my own business someday is immoral. That's the thing: most communists hate successful people because Communism preys on the unsuccessful. They don't care if you are in a marginalized minority group and are running a small local business that donates a portion of profits to charity. They'll still burn your business to the ground because they think all for-profit organizations are evil when they really aren't.

They also assume all business owners and managers are evil/don't do any work themselves when it actually takes a fuck ton of work to start a business and keep it going. It's like they assume that if you aren't in the production line or behind the counter, your job takes no skill. Owning a business actually takes a lot of management and people skills (which most communists also seem to lack).

And if you say this to them, they will accuse you of falling for Capitalist propaganda or some shit. Oh, and not to mention the fact that they think switching to communism will help solve all opression. As a queer Neurodivergent person, I heavily disagree now. A change in economic system will not change people's attitudes. Hell, it's entirely possible that it might make it harder. When I pointed all of these things out, I was harassed and people I thought I could trust stabbed me in the back. Some people even accused me of sucking up to my oppressors just because I decided to no longer be a communist (which I justifiably saw as queerphobic and ableist). Also, Communism heavily and excessively relies on doomerism. This is intentional, too. People who have a lot of anxiety are highly vulnerable to doomerism. This makes these types of people get trapped in, but their mental health also gets worse due to all of the negative information they see on a daily basis. My mental health actually started getting better after I stopped being a communist. It really improved my mood, and I think it's one of the reasons why my depression and anxiety is much more tame now.

In conclusion: communism is a cult. I suggest you stay away from it. If you are a communist, I suggest you get out of it immediately. You never know who is just waiting for you to screw up even slightly so that they think they have an excuse to harass you.

[chinesegal]

Royal inbreeding and ableism

Some people might find what I have to say ridiculous, but I dont give a damn. I believe that what I have to say desperately needs to be said, and people need to hear it out.

The way certain people on this website talk about royal inbreeding and the congenital difficulties thereof, and the way popular fiction depicts it is ableist as hell, and it is a problem. There are plenty of jokes about nazis/white supremacists being "inbred rednecks" and using pictures of Charles II of Habsburg to prove that european monarchs were the "real degenerates", and as a way to counter the idea european civilizations were superior (they weren't, but thats not the point). In Game of Thrones, its heavily implied if not outright stated that the reason Joffrey was evil is because he is the product of brother-sister incest, and sometimes when aristocrats are shown to be evil or "depraved" in fiction royal inbreeding is often used to invoke disgust, as well as an excuse to show various "physical deformities" as a way to repulse the viewer.

You might think this is ridiculous and find what I'm about to say conroversial, but please hear me out.

First off, it has been pointed out numerous times that plenty of ways villains in fiction are designed is racist, antisemitic, fatphobic and transmisogynistic.

For example, using fatness as a signifier for gluttony and greed is fatphobic, evil female villains with "mannish" features run the risk of being transmisogynist etc. On a similar note using physical deformities and illnesses associated with inbreeding as a visual signifier for "degeneracy" and evil can very well be ableist. In my opinion, any attempt to link physical traits to your worth as a person, as well as judging people based on how they were born are unquestionably bad and biological essentialist.

@tenitchyfingers You have said some stuff about this, so I'm tagging you here, also to spread this post around.

[adhdeancas]

Dean Winchester (and the script leaks last night) possessed me to write this.

Dean happens upon Chuck's latest book: Carry On. Except it ends differently than it really went, and the ending? It's really fucking bad.

tw: suicide mention, transphobia (quickly shut the fuck down) 

Dean doesn’t make a habit of going to bookstores. Not because he hates books, contrary to what Sam might think; he just prefers to buy used books. There’s something comforting about a book that has already been worn and read over and over, that already shows how much the previous owner loved it. Plus, y’know, big corporations are evil and all that. And Dean only allows himself to overlook that when his stomach or his wallet wins over his hatred of the shitty mass-produced products. 

This time it was Jack who won; he’s obsessed with this new fantasy series and the new book just came out, so there’s no way he can hunt it down on Ebay. He makes his way to the fantasy and sci-fi section, eyes roaming over the displays of new releases, and his eye catches on something that turns his blood cold. 

“Supernatural: Carry On, The Final Book of the Winchesters’ Epic Journey” takes up a whole table, the generic and overly serious cover jeering out at him. 

He storms over to the display, anger covering up for the way his body feels light as a feather and like lead all at once, and picks up a book. “Why is Sam always fucking shirtless?” he mutters, the only thought that allows itself from the mess inside his head to his mouth. 

“Book sales.” A voice behind him says. He turns to see a teenager with their arms crossed over their work polo, pierced lip fixed into a customer-unfriendly frown.

“People want to see that?”

They snort, a small grin turning up the corner of their lips. It reminds Dean of Cas. “No. But that’s what advertisers think all ‘women’ want,” They use air quotes. 

He raises an eyebrow and asks. “Women?”

They shrug and uncross their arms, leaning back against the display table behind them. Their nametag says Jadyn. “Supernatural’s biggest block of readers is queer. I’d go out on a limb and say a lot of those the marketers think of as ‘women’ aren’t, or if they are, they aren’t itching to see Sam’s six pack.” Jadyn smirks. 

Dean takes a second to digest that, then grins down at the book, thinking past Sam’s apparently badly-received nudity now. “So how’d they like it?” he asks, waving the book a bit and looking up at Jadyn. Apparently they know a lot about the fans of the books, and for once, he’s proud of the way the story ended. 

Jadyn’s face sets into all hard lines. “Most people fucking hated it.” they say bluntly, then, probably remembering that he’s a customer, correct. “Sorry. I mean, it got some good reviews, mostly from people who like Wincest, but beyond that, it had some problematic plot points.”

Dean winces at the reminder of the ship between him and his brother, then scrunches his whole face together in confusion. “Wait, what? Why?” Why would Wincest fans like it? What was problematic about their end?

Jadyn shifts from foot to foot. “I don’t wanna spoil anything for you-”

“I don’t care about spoilers, just give me the short version.” Dean says quickly. A quiet panic is rising in him, and suddenly he has a horrible feeling that he’s not holding the truth in his hands anymore. 

“Uh, okay… Well, the most obvious thing is the bury-your-gays thing, then there’s the fact that it completely contradicted the rest of the lore. And it was ableist, misogynistic, and messed up, like, every character’s arc.” they take a breath, clearly worked up by it. “Even if they changed any of the details too, it was all built on Dean’s death, and that’s just bullshit. Sorry.” they apologize again, apparently mistaking Dean’s stricken expression to be in reaction to their rant and swearing. 

“No, nah, you’re… you’re okay. Uh, thanks.” he waves a hand and wanders away from them, only remembering Jack’s book when he’s almost to the register. He manages to make his way back and find the damn thing, but he’s still in a fog when he gets to the register. 

“Did anyone help you in the store today?”

“Huh?” he looks up and meets the middle-aged cashier’s gaze for the first time. Brent, from the nametag, looks at him impatiently. “Oh, yeah, uh… Jadyn. Jadyn helped me.” Brent scoffs and starts typing with a shake of the head. “Uh, is there a problem?” Dean asks, a little annoyed at this cashier’s unnecessary attitude. He usually doesn’t care if an employee’s rude, because they have to deal with assholes all the time and honestly Dean isn’t much better, but this one gives him a bad feeling. 

“No, no, sorry. It’s just - “Jadyn’s” got this idea that he’s a girl. Makes everybody call him that name now too. Just-” Brent shakes his head. “I mean, you get it. Their generation, everybody wants to be special.”

Dean glares. “No, I don’t get it, Brent.” He says through gritted teeth. “Seems to me like Jadyn probably deals with enough assholes like you that her asking for a little basic decency is the exact opposite of special. Sounds pretty normal, actually.” He can see the fear creep into Brent’s eyes, and he knows the cashier is reacting to the murderous look in his eyes more than his actual words. 

Brent hands Dean his bag of books with a quiet, “Here you go.”

Dean snatches it away. “Oh, Brent?” he checks over his shoulder to make sure they’re alone and then leans across the counter into Brent’s space. “You should find a new job, one where you don’t have to interact with other people. At least until you learn how to stop being a piece of shit.” He starts to ease away but thinks better about it. “And if you think that’s a suggestion, it’s not. My husband likes this book coming out next month that I’ll need to buy, and if I see you here when I come, well… it would be really embarrassing for you to tell all your little friends that you got your ass beat by a ‘special’ guy, huh?” He pats Brent on the cheek condescendingly and leaves with a huff. 

Damn transphobes. 

He only remembers the book once he’s back in Baby, and he takes the time to drive out of town before he pulls over to read it. It’s an old abandoned church, the cross long since fallen from the roof and the doors hanging off their hinges. He sits on the steps just because being in Baby seems claustrophobic for once in his life, and going back to the bunker to look at this is just… not happening.

Dean only skims the beginning to see that it starts the same. The ground erupting with bodies, hell spitting out its most-conveniently placed nasties, Rowena sacrificing herself, Cas leaving. His throat closes up at that, at Chuck’s description of Cas’s heartbroken expression as he climbs the stairs of the bunker. He clears his throat and skips to the end, right past Cas’s death that he doesn’t have the time to think about right now, past them defeating Chuck and then stops. He goes back a few pages, trying to find the disconnect. 

The story’s different.

After Jack takes on God’s power, in the book, he’s totally fine. Not almost vibrating out of his skin or anything, not crying like the three year old he is because he’s scared. Not like it really happened. He just smiles and leaves him and Sam, and they let him go. 

Dean scoffs, skimming over the story as it just gets more ridiculous. 

In the book, he doesn’t even try to save Cas. They barely even mention him. And they never mention Eileen, either. In fact, Dean notes disbelievingly, practically the only characters in the last few chapters are him and Sam. They’re hunting again.

“What, is Chuck trying to keep the series going?” he whispers to himself, anger flaring through him. They let Chuck live, and he decided to write obnoxious fanfiction about them? He’s gonna kill that shameless little fucker. For real, this time. He deserves it.

In the book, Sam and Dean torture some vampire mime, and they enjoy it. Dean cringes; this is really what Chuck thinks of them. Then they tussle with more vamps in a barn and- 

Dean’s brain stops working. He rereads the scene again and again. 

“There’s something in my… something in my back. It feels like it’s right through me.” 

Dean Winchester dies in a dirty barn, on a piece of freaking rebar. 

More than that, Dean realizes on his fourth read-through. This Dean? He tried to drag out his speech, Dean can tell by the way he pauses for fucking drama. He would never do that. He would never talk to Sam for fifteen hellish minutes when he could be trying. Trying to live, so he can actually get his life back on track, get his family back. No, he made that speech stalling. He made that speech so Sam wouldn’t try to save him. 

“You gotta admit, I had one helluva ride.” He was strangely calm.

Chuck made him kill himself.

Dean reads the rest of the book through blurry eyes, reading an ambiguous and nothing-ending, one where he’s somehow happy to be dead and driving around in heaven alone while Sam raises a kid into hunting and cries about Dean decades after he’s died. Eileen isn’t mentioned. Cas is mentioned once, and Bizzarro-Dean doesn’t even think about seeing him, apparently. The whole book ends with a hug between him and Sam, both dead. Both alone. 

Dean rips the ending up. He tears through the stupid paper covering and keeps ripping the pages up until they’re the size of confetti. His lower lip wobbles. He throws the whole thing against the side of the building, and it tumbles through the broken doorway and drops into a pile of dust and dirt. “That isn’t the fucking ending.” he grounds out, knocking his hand against the flimsy handrail. It gives a little under his fist and he kicks at it. “That isn’t the fucking ending!”

He’s having a panic attack. Again. He tries to take deep breaths, but they’re gulping, too big, they’re making him panic more. He scrambles back to Baby and grabs his phone, presses the first number on his favorites list and waits for him to answer on speaker phone.

“Hey Dean, what’s up?” Sam sounds like he’s been laughing. There are voices in the background, and Dean tries to convince himself one of them is Eileen. 

“Hey Sammy.” he chokes out, trying to sound normal. “You busy?”

There’s a pause, and then the sounds in the background. “Nah, Rowena’s just over.” he says casually. 

“So those voices in the background were-”

“Rowena and Eileen, yeah. They’re trying to convince me we need to go to Mexico. For the beaches.” A smile in his voice. Dean lets out a sigh of relief.  What’s up, Dean? You need something?” The smile drops, and Sam’s worried. 

Sam’s okay. Sam’s okay. “No, nah. Hey, you heard from Donna lately?” Dean just needs to triple-check.

“Uh, no, not since Sunday dinner… Dean, you okay?”

“Yeah, she just- she hasn’t been answering my texts. Just wanted to make sure.” Dean lies quickly. His breathing is still uneven, but his body is settling into uneven shakes. 

Sam sounds skeptical. “Yeah, well, she did tell us it’s been pretty busy at work lately. Y’know, everybody going out for the first time with COVID, getting stupid. Plus, y’know, nowhere’s drowning in EMTs right now.”

“Right. Yeah.” Dean takes a deep breath, a distant memory of Donna talking about that coming back to him.

“Pretty sure you were setting up a D&D session with Charlie while she was talking about that,” Sam laughs. Dean knows he means it as a subtle jab, but there’s too much relief flooding through him to care. Still, a string is pulled taut in him, and Sam can’t fix that completely.

“Gotta go, Sam,” Dean hangs up before Sam can say anything else, and goes to his next contact. It rings for far too long, and Dean’s heartbeat picks back up to thundering.

“Hello, Dean.”

“Cas,” Dean breathes out. “Cas, you know I love you, right?” He needs to test all the bounds of this, to make sure, just to make sure. Make sure Chuck isn’t still fucking with him. Because apparently, Chuck won’t let him be queer. Not in his story. Not out loud.

He can hear Cas’s eyebrow raise through the phone, and his chest is overcome with stupid fondness. “I would be a little worried if you didn’t.”

Dean grins widely. “Like, romantically. I’m in love with you. Because you’re the love of my life and I’m bisexual.” He says it all like it’s a checklist, like he expects some cosmic being to slap a hand over his mouth before he gets each next phrase out.

“Yes, Dean. We’ve been married almost two months.” Cas is smiling. It happens everytime he talks about their wedding. Dean adores it. “Is everything okay?”

“Yeah. Yeah, now it is.” His whole body relaxes, still vibrating with leftover panic, but satisfied. “I got Jack’s book.”

“Oh, good. He’ll be so pleased.” Cas pauses. “Dean, are you sure you’re okay?”

“Yeah. Yeah.” Dean eases off the ground and sends a last look at the dilapidated church before climbing into Baby. “Just- read a bad book. I’ll tell you about it later. When I get home.”

[scarlet--wiccan]

Okay if this is a duplicate ask I’m sorry, I just cant remember if I actually submitted it the first time. Anyways, have you read the Death’s Head miniseries from 2019 with Billy and Teddy? I found it’s characterization of Billy really in line with what you seem to like about the character, atleast based on what I’ve read on your blog. I personally really liked it.

to[this is a duplicate ask, but that’s okay!]

I have read Death’s Head! I actually collected it in singles as it was coming out, which.... well, I don’t regret it, exactly, but let’s just say I didn’t bother following Tini Howard over to Strikeforce when it was done.

I have mixed feelings about this book, and mixed feelings about Howard as a writer. I don’t like her pacing or scene transitions. I will never like the way she writes action. I was immensely frustrated by her response to readers’ concerns over the use of Christian imagery, even subversive Christian imagery, in Billy’s character design, and of course I was even more frustrated with the artist and editor on that point. Howard has also made legitimately racist and ableist choices with Wanda, Billy, and Tommy in Marvel Knights and, later, Empyre X-Men, so I have a grudge against her and I do judge all of her work with those factors in mind.

I actually do like the glam-goth look on Billy, and I even liked the nails. I know that’s a controversial take, but I’m gay and I like gay people! I want to see more characters like Billy styled in gender-nonconforming fashion. I think the the character works well and makes sense as a twinky fem dude, and I don’t think that’s bad or problematic representation. Gender non-conforming gay people exist in every community. Fem gay men exist in every community, and so do ~twinks~, which I know is a very dirty word to some of you. That’s just my stance as a real-life gender fluid mlm.

On a semi-related note, I appreciate the Howard’s script refers to Billy as a witch instead of wasting time with whatever weird gender fear compels writers to call him everything and anything but. He describes himself as a witch in Young Avengers. There’s no reason to call him a wizard or mage! That’s a big pet peeve of mine.

I’ve disliked Howard’s treatment of Billy elsewhere-- most recently in KiB: Wiccan and Hulkling-- but I found the character to be sweet and likeable in Death’s Head. The relationship between Billy and Teddy felt very comfortable and lived-in. A lot of this story revolves around certain unspoken challenges in their relationship. Howard succeeds in identifying the insecurities and points of friction between the characters without ever diminishing the love and trust that they have for each other, which I appreciate.

Billy’s motives are confusing to me— he’s having an existential crisis about whether or not he and Tommy are “real,” or magical constructs, which is just counter productive and redundant after the resolutions they reached in both Children’s Crusade and YA (2013). He’s also fixated on the idea of becoming an Avenger, which has never really been his primary goal. It seems like he’s pitting his self esteem on whether or not he can be a competent superhero, which feels like a flat, diluted take on how his anxiety and depression have been characterized in the past. Billy’s not worried about whether or not he can cut it as an Avenger— he’s afraid of his own power and what will happen if he can’t control it. He’s afraid he won’t live up to his own destiny, and he’s hung up on people who’ve been hurt due to his own failures, both real and perceived.

So, that’s all kind of strange. I do like that this Billy is equal parts anxious and impulsive— he gets himself and Teddy into this whole mess with the robots by jumping into action without any forethought. He’s gotten into trouble the same way several times before, but this time he’s smart enough come clean right away, and just do the right thing to help Vee.

I do have to say that I was disappointed by the way Howard writes about magic in this book— and, actually, it’s a problem that she has with Billy in Strikeforce and King in Black, too. Howard treats Billy like his powers can just do anything she needs to advance a scene, which is really lazy, and honestly surprising from a writer who touts herself as an expert on magic and witchcraft. I appreciate that he seems to tire out faster, and Teddy observes that the costs and consequences of magic are becoming more clear as Billy gets older, but these things aren’t implemented consistently. She’s telling us, but she isn’t showing us. I don’t mind the inter-dimensional scrying, but I am hugely frustrated by Billy’s continued reliance on his chanting gimmick. He needs more distinct abilities, and he needs to start showing an earned level of skill and knowledge. The narrative efficacy of magic, especially open-ended powers like Billy’s, is directly proportional to how well the reader understands that magic. Howard makes it very clear that the only thing you need to understand about Billy is that he can wish for pretty much anything. The only limit is his own stamina, and that’s completely arbitrary.