#these conversations are about a different group of disabled individuals than me

[cripplerage]

I'd like to talk about this:

{Image ID: A cropped screenshot of an online form with a purple background. The question is "What is your gender identity (click all that apply)." The options are "Woman," "Man (disqualify)," "Feminine-Identifying," "Non-Binary," "Transgender," "Unsure," "Prefer not to say," and "Other." The other option has a text box, and they all have unchecked check boxes. End ID.}

This is an application form for an advisory/advocacy group for the intersectionality of woman/female experiences for disabled people. If you somehow figure out WHICH group this is, please do not contact them in any way. I would like to have the opportunity to calmly and politely give my feedback to them, and an accidental harassment campaign would not help. And of course, they're not really doing anything wrong, they're trying their best, etc. my intention with this screenshot is to use it as a learning example.

Here's the thing... They are clearly trying to be inclusive and acknowledging the gender spectrum, but they're acting as if it's a bar that they can just take one half and leave the other. But as a non-binary person who is also sort of a trans-man, who appears fully as a woman and is perceived as a woman by the general public and the healthcare system, this just doesn't seem to work.

For the form I only ticked non-binary, and I listed my pronouns as they/them, when I usually use he/they. And I don't think of this as lying because my gender is a bit fluid, but also I sort of think that it would be my right to lie in this situation because I deserve to participate in this discussion?

I think we as a society seem to forget that most trans men were raised as women, and do have women-aligning experiences. And most of us don't have male privilege, and the few that do have it immediately negated in situations like healthcare. Being transmasc never prevented me from experiencing ableism or medical mysoginy. And I don't know for certain but I imagine some intersex men, even if they're cis, deserve to be part of this conversation, too.

I think what I'm saying applies to more intersectionalities than just disability, but I don't think it's really my place to talk on that. And don't get me wrong, I do think that discussions about feminine intersectionality are important. Here's what it comes down to - I think we need to just let individuals decide for themselves if they are eligible for certain discussions. I don't know for certain what the best way to do this, but I suggest something like the following:

"This group is centred around the experience of intersectionality between femininity and disability. You may be eligible for this group if you are a cis woman, transgender, or intersex."

I'm open to suggestions or feedback on that.

Tl;dr: gender identity and gender experience are different. Someone's gender identity does not necessarily mean that they should be excluded from discussions regarding lived experience of another gender.

[cripplecharacters]

Hello! So, I'm afraid I may have fallen into A Trope, and I'm wondering if I need to change anything about this character.

I have three characters who are (nearly) identical homunculi (alchemically created humans). One of them is blind, because a lab accident resulted in him having to be "born" before he was ready, resulting in severely underdeveloped eyes, among a few other issues.

The thing I'm worried about is that I've given these homunculi enhanced senses as a result of them all having some dragon DNA. I wouldn't say it's to an extent that it negates the blind one's blindness, it's certainly not at Daredevil levels, but it does give him some options that your average blind person wouldn't have; in particular, the ability to identify people by smell (like how individuals would smell different from each other to a cat or dog, for example) and generally having better hearing than your average human, though again, it's not at a level I'd call "super-hearing," just slightly enhanced.

He does use a cane, and occasionally his brothers act as sighted guides, so he doesn't completely rely on his enhanced senses to navigate, nor would that be feasible if he tried.

I guess the jist of what I'm asking is, is a blind character with enhanced senses (as a species trait) okay if those senses aren't enhanced enough to actually "make up for" his blindness, or should I do away with that aspect of the species?

Hello!

The main problems with this trope are that it's often only the blind character with these enhanced senses and their enhanced senses end up negating their blindness and being used as a way to avoid actually portraying the character's blindness.

For example, a blind character that has highly enhanced senses and doesn't need to use a cane or a sighted guide or need any sort of accommodations. This trope also usually ends up implying (If not outright stating) that blind people have enhanced senses, which is a pretty common myth.

With how you've described your character, it sounds like the majority of this is avoided. I'd be hesitant to even group your concept in with this trope. It isn't just the blind character that has the enhanced senses and it sounds like you've done good with researching his blindness and showing how he deals with it.

Something worth noting is that even though the whole "blind people have enhanced senses" thing is a myth, a lot of blind people are more in tune with our other senses simply because we rely on them/use them more. With my level of vision loss, I can't usually see people approaching me unless they're coming from directly in front of me but I am able to identify friends and family (And even some of my profs) by the sound of their footsteps. Some of my friends also have pretty unique smells so I can even pick out a few of them by smell on occasion. This is all to say that it's not entirely unrealistic for your character to be able to identify somebody based on their smell, even without their enhanced senses.

I don't see anything wrong with this character but if you are still worried about the trope, there are a few things you can consider to avoid falling into it entirely:

Consider adding another blind character who isn't part of this species. Even just a blind side character that appears every so often or in passing can help show that the enhanced senses are a species-specific trait, not something to do with his blindness. I'm always a big fan of including multiple blind characters (And disabled characters in general) anyways.

Show the limits of his senses and explore the assistive technology he may use. Though his level of blindness isn't specified, his enhanced senses likely wouldn't help him with things such as technology, navigating the physical world around him, group conversations/social cues (Without relying on body language or facial expressions), etc. You mentioned that he uses a cane and his brothers as sighted guides but what other resources does he use?

Another thing to consider is what kinds of tricks and adjustments he's made in his own life, even without actual assistive technology. There are a lot of day-to-day things that are made difficult by blindness and unfortunately, a lot of solutions are either extremely expensive or don't exist yet so a lot of us have had to get creative. Something I do, for example, is put those raised stickers from the dollar store on the day side of my day/night pill organizer to differentiate between the two.

From what you've described so far, this seems like a really cool idea and I don't see any reason to remove their enhanced senses. I think it adds a lot to the characters and I'd love to see how they've been able to use their senses in regards to their blindness.

Cheers,

~ Mod Icarus

[communistkenobi]

conversations about representation have always felt so navel-gazing to me, in part because those conversations tend to remain at the level of individual characters. the focus is on representing individuals as meaningful examples of the groups they belong to - to have “good” representation is to see some component(s) of your social identity reflected back at you by a character without those being the only traits of those characters. To measure representation you first look to see if there are visual or descriptive markers of identity - skin colour, gender, sexual attraction, ability - and then, once that evidence is established, one looks at how characters interact with and contribute to the narrative. does this gay character have a romantic partner? does this black character have interiority not related to their relationship to white characters? is this woman character motivated by something other than a desire to impress men? The goal is to avoid stereotypes, to be an anti-stereotype.

And so you ‘solve’ representation through the adequate presence of these characters. But I think this is an inherently individualistic and anti-liberatory way to approach representation, because it views minorities as individuals who can be cut from the social fabric of real life and transported into different fictional universes while leaving their identities fully intact. The presence of a disabled character does not also require the inclusion of structural ableism in the narrative, their individual presence is enough to represent disability. And so their presence in the narrative seems to emerge from nowhere - you don’t judge representation by looking at how the narrative represents and thinks about historical structures of race, gender, ability, you judge it by the amount of characters who contain those social markers. It means social identity exists primarily within the individual. There is no historical perspective given to characters, no acknowledgement of the fact that identity is dialectic and socially mediated. to paraphrase Gramsci, history impresses upon you an infinity of traces without leaving an inventory, and I think when discussing representation, people judge the quality of representation by those traces - race, gender, ability, sexuality, religion, etc - but ignores the inventory, the origins of those things, the social processes that produce race, produce gender, constantly and everyday. And so you get these characters that feel dislocated, alien to themselves and other people, because they express an identity that appears to have no origin point in the fictional world, no social backing. They are essentialised to what they “are” deep down inside. Characters are not made racial, not made gendered, not made disabled by the universe they exist in, they simply “are” those things.

And if narratives do tackle those histories, they tend to represent them primarily through misery. You know a character is gay because they get called slurs. You see a black character experience racism. You recognise a character is a woman by the fact that she is sexually assaulted. The history of their identities is represented as individual acts of violence or trauma, as if misogyny or racism are narrative objects themselves that occasionally collide with the characters to remind the audience that the authors take history very seriously. If an author is especially serious, they will get individual sensitivity readers to confirm or deny the authenticity of the social identity being expressed on the page; much less often you will hear of authors who rigorously consult, for example, books like Orientalism to ensure the structure of their work is not reproducing Western (and ultimately racist) conclusions about the world they are creating. Representational politics begins (and frequently ends) at the level of the individual. And so you get queer characters who endure homophobia or transphobia, but whose ultimate wish is to enter into a monogamous marriage and reproduce the social unit of the nuclear family, or the black character who finally finds community in a group of all white people that aren’t racist to their face. That’s not tackling history, that’s just allowing these character to be momentarily exempt from it. the historical norms and hegemonies present in the narrative are disconnected from the characters themselves. this is why you can have “good representation” in stories that are fundamentally racist or misogynistic or heteronormative (see: ofmd). If representation is only housed in your characters, if you view representation as a discrete trait that you can add more or less of, you are not thinking about the social identities that you are representing in a systemic way - you are, in effect, producing tokens.

And I think that sense of dislocation is part of what motivates people to cringe away from stories primarily billed as having “a diverse cast” or filled with “queer characters” or whatever, even when they are otherwise desperate for those things (excluding from this discussion the people who dislike the mere appearance of characters who are not strong white men, a perspective that is not worth entertaining). I do not want to watch stories that smash characters and identities together like barbie dolls, that treat race or gender as something to “tackle” in a B plot or a “police brutality episode” like you get in a show like Brooklyn 99. I do not want a character creation screen. Identity should, ideally, be part of the structure of the narrative, not a thing you merely choose to “include.” Which is much more difficult, of course - it requires a robust political imagination, but it’s a problem that is possible to solve.

[littlebosslady7]

how do you feel about the shard scene with ash & fearne? do you think they'll eventually kiss again, or roll around in bed together?

Badass. It was really clutch that Fearne could heal herself. And FCG/Laudna helping too. I audibly "aww'ed" next to my husband when Ashton willingly took damage to help Fearne.

I do kinda wish Ashton stayed shorter than Fearne. I love a good height difference in a kiss. But they still have one. I certainly hope they'll kiss again.

That said, there still needs to be further conversation among the group and with just each other.

To be honest, it's difficult to tell if Bells Hells really learned a lesson, and will implement it. Because they had little bits of resolution sprinkled in, but mainly they played a game of Among Us and focused more on getting branches the first half of the game.

As for a potential hook up, that's just it. Right now, there's potential. Again, I hope it's after genuine conversation and being comfortable with themselves as individual people.

Also, this is me speaking as a married disabled woman with chronic pain, for Ashton, I wonder how intimacy feels amidst their pain. Fearne is experienced. Is Ashton a virgin? And there needs to be talking during romantic moments too. It helps with pain management. There needs to be care, and they have to reach that decision with each other -- not with the group as a whole saying, "Do it. Do it to get another power up."

I can see it. I hope they go that route. Won't be mad if Taliesin and Ashley choose otherwise. I think it'll be a (pun intended) slow burn.

[direct-actions]

Liberate the Internet -- Levels of Control

I've been thinking a lot about the way the internet has shrunk to just a few major platforms that can boost or silence us at a moment's notice.

I wanted to make a post talking about different types of platforms and the ways that they control what we see or say.

(disclaimer: I'm not an expert on this and am trying to start a conversation, so if you have more information or corrections please reblog and add / put in the comments / message me)

I'm not saying everyone needs to become experts on self-hosting (I don't know too much about it myself). There are options for people at all levels. So let's take a look.

Algorithms and Rules

This is your TikToks and your Facebooks. Here, all it takes is the algorithm being tweaked to suppress keywords or accounts and suddenly your content isn't being seen.

The pros here of course is that when you're not actively being suppressed, you have a much higher chance at reaching new people vs other options.

Moderated Spaces

Today, these platforms are generally separated into individual communities (think, MightyNetworks/Circle, Discord, forums, etc.). Reach is limited and niche, and content moderation is generally done by human beings instead of algorithms (with some exceptions).

The pros in these spaces are that you have stronger connections to people who will see your content, but your reach is narrower. As a community you get to decide what happens inside your group, but with the platform itself still in control, they could easily shut down an entire community if they wanted to.

Website Builders / Hosting

This is your Wordpress blogs, Blogger, and even Neocities, etc. Here, the website is mostly yours. You get to decide what's on it. Your content isn't being directly moderated or censored. But you're still part of a larger platform that helps connect / promote your site to others.

Pros here are of course you have MUCH more leeway in what you can post / share. Cons are that there is a lot less chance compared to some others for your website content to reach people. Also, your blog / site can in theory be disabled by the host platform if they decided to.

There's also using something like GoDaddy or IONOS or some other website hosting thing. There's a lot of variety and crossover in this area but basically the website belongs to you more than say a Wordpress Blog would. In theory the web host could decide to drop you but I think that's pretty rare.

Self-Hosting

This is now territory I'm not very familiar with but you could in theory fully host your own stuff making it harder for anyone to shut you down. There's even creating your own internet networks but that's way beyond me. (Really cool tho, I'd love to learn.)

Email Lists

This one is very different but I think really important. Email lists / mailing lists are not just for businesses wanting to promote their latest sale or latest online course. This is one of the most DIRECT ways you can have access to your followers if they're interested in what you have to say. No matter what happens to any platform, if you have their emails you will likely retain the ability to contact them (unless email is somehow destroyed but at that point I think we'll be having very different conversations)

(This could even be physical addresses or an old-school mailing list)

---

I bring this up because I'm really interested in moving toward a more autonomous and networked internet, and I think it's going to be necessary in the years to come.

Look up digital gardens for an example.

And if you're hoping to create / share anything online, consider diversifying the kinds of platforms you use, and pushing followers to places where you have more control over what you can share, and getting their emails.

[hindahoney]

Hey, I go to a combined Liberal and Reform shul and wanted to debunk some of those misconceptions on your post.

Being Reform/Liberal is not at all, even slightly, about level of observance. We have many, many men in kippot and tzitzit with payot who come to our synagogue to pray every single week. We wear kippot out and about in town, we wear Magen David proudly. We sing our prayers with all of the life and vigour of any Jews. Many of the people who pray with us also attend classes with the rabbi twice per week, in their own free time. I personally study Talmud and biblical Hebrew with my Reform rabbi every week. We have people who keep kosher extremely strictly, more than people who don't. Jewish history is hugely important to us and we honour our ancestors every single day.

Reform Judaism is just about having slightly different values to Orthodox. In shul, we are taught that the difference between us and Orthodox Jews is that Reform Judaism adapts expectations of Jewish people to be reasonable for living in the modern world, whereas Orthodox values tradition and keeping things the exact same way they have been for thousands of years. The rules about electricity use on Shabbat are loosened to allow people with hearing aids to be spoken to, to allow powered wheelchair users to leave their homes, to make sure every Jew has the opportunity to get in touch with their emergency contacts. There is no "better" or "worse" denomination, only ones that fit each individual Jew best, if any.

We still abide by kosher and the teachings of Torah, but we do not place pressure on other Jews to do the same. We do not shun or scold others for not abiding by these laws, and are open-minded to the possibility that they have very good reasons for not doing so.

We adapt some traditional ceremonies, such as holding a B'nei Mitzvah for non-binary children, and adapting conversion ceremonies for trans and non-binary adults. Jewish law is much more de-gendered in a Reform setting, with the same expectations and freedoms afforded to both men and women. Many of us choose to keep to traditional gendered roles and expressions, but queer Jews are celebrated even though they are different.

We are absolutely not Jewish "in name alone". A Jew is a Jew is a Jew. Some of us are very very religious and frum, others are not, but every Jew is always welcome at our shul, because this is a community space that does not ask any Jew to 'prove' they are Jewish enough to join in with our customs, and pray with us during service.

I am disabled and queer, and due to my circumstances I must choose how to live my life Jewishly in a way that suits me. I would not be able to do nearly as many mitzvot if I tried to meet Orthodox standards -- because my needs for care and assistance would break the laws of shabbat, and I could not live up to gendered Orthodox standards very easily as a non-binary person. This is why I choose to pray at a Reform/Liberal synagogue instead of an Orthodox one -- I am more able to do mitzvot in a Reform/Liberal context. While I know there are many Orthodox synagogues that would accept me anyway, it's always a case of trying to work out which congregations I can feasibly become part of, whereas with Reform Judaism I know that I will almost never find any difficulty or judgement.

Being Reform is just another way of practicing Judaism. It isn't lesser, and it isn't less serious, or less religious, or less frum. Really, we are just like you. I think the world would be better with less segregation between denominations. Anti-Orthodox sentiment makes me sad, but I very rarely encounter Orthodox Jews who respect Reform Judaism for what it is. A lot of us don't feel safe in Orthodox synagogues because we are shunned there.

I understand feeling more comfortable in a reform shul because of their gender or sexual identity. Though it has changed pretty drastically in the past few decades and there are many more groups to help gender non conforming and queer people feel more comfortable in orthodox spaces, there are still many who hold strongly to gendered traditions.

However, I need to point out that orthodox Jews do still wear hearing aids and use motorized wheelchairs and pacemakers. If it is a medical necessity it is permitted. In any case, I do not forsee anyone judging someone else for using a medical device on Shabbat.

Thank you for sharing. I do feel like this cleared things up for me!

[cotton-candycurls]

The one that gets to me is how I've been told I "don't look like I'm on the spectrum", it erases my struggle and all the things others can do that I can't. Do I need to wear my noise cancellers everytime I go out and tap my legs all the time for me to be valid? Does me being picky with food and clothes' texture have to be omnipresent for it to actually be something you bother understand? Do I need to take my meds in front of you and show you my sh scars for you to grasp it?

1. I'm high masking, why do you think I'm anxious and tired all the time?? I have to dissect, decode, and translate people's tones; i have to make my facial expressions palatable for those who I'm talking to; i have to try to repress my anxiety if I don't grasp a conversation bc the theme is unknown to me or if I feel incapable of finding a way to get inside of it (it happens way too often, specially if I'm with a new group of ppl and it's horrible bc I feel like they're not going to want me in their group and I'll never actually be their friend); it's a horrible thing for all my internal struggles to be dismissed just cuz I'm not verbal about it all the time. I can't help but mask bc I know exactly how I'd be treated and viewed otherwise, it's a defense mechanism. But it's so goddamn exhausting, that more than a certain amount of time around ppl I'm not used to will drain me to the point of having a meltdown.

2. People who say that I don't look autistic don't know me enough to know how I normally am. Most things I do in a normal basis is to fit in the specific role or place I think my friends expect me to be. Bc then they haven't heard me say cringy jokes, only the carefully curated ones made to fit their humour; haven't seen me doing my weird dancing/jumping when I'm hyper excited about something; or cry bc I dissociate so bad and feel like I can't breathe mid anxiety attack; haven't seen me knit pick everything I say in the morning to make sure I don't sound disarticulated or say something wrong; haven't heard me speaking too fast for other's to grasp and told me to say it again slowly; haven't seen me drop my "constantly paying attention™" face bc if I don't have it ppl asume I'm upset at them or something. They haven't heard me say my weird lil thought processes outloud when someone doesn't understand the conclusion I reach; or get horribly disoriented in new places and have a meltdown bc of it.

3. There's no way to "look/seem autistic", there's a reason why it's called Autism Spectrum Disorder. I don't look autistic cuz there's not a specific way to look, the only reason you say that is cuz I'm not letting my autistic traits show and I'm not a white cisgendered boy. AFABs are less diagnosed cuz of our traits being different and not researched nearly as much.

It's frustrating for me to feel so much and to struggle in simple things only for it to be invalidated just because I don't look like how autism is "supposed" to appear and, in turn, it's outside of people's comfortable comprehension. There's a reason why it's called an invisible disability, and why afab people are less diagnosed: bc it's a neurological disorder that you generally won't notice unless you are literally inside my thought process, and even then it's incredibly frustrating to go through lack of accomodations bc it's difficult for me to express to others for them to grasp. It took 18 years for ppl to test me bc I'm smart and have more than one special interest, and even then it was by my own initiative to be tested. If not, i would've probably gone the rest of my life undiagnosed and thinking I'm shitty at being an individual and that I shouldn't feel the things I feel on a daily basis bc "normal ppl don't feel them".

[cesium-sheep]

I saw a [long post] with a lot of different people’s thoughts on use of the word crippled, especially in the context of the able-bodied nd/mentally disordered. I’m having a lot of trouble parsing it so I don’t want to reblog and add my thoughts directly, but I do have thoughts. (btw the post and the other post the ask was ostensibly in response to both have a lot of interesting discussion about ableism towards both physical and mental disability (and a lot of overlapping issues), I just. can’t read very well right now.)

before I got really sick, I started shying away from using the word crippled, because I’d heard other people say it was ableist, just like I started shying away from using the word crazy to describe things like buckwild video game plots, or how we’re not supposed to use “stupid” because it’s just one step down from the r slur dontchaknow, or “dumb” is a slur against the nonverbal (frequently posited by the fully verbal).

but as a cripple myself now (depending on how precise we’re getting with the term; I do not have severe motor dysfunction, paralysis, or loss of limb, but I rely on mobility aids to leave my home for more than a couple minutes and I am severely disabled), I think maybe broad discouragement of use is a bad thing? individuals who are not comfortable with it should be respected, just as individuals who prefer person-first language for themselves should be respected, but as a Broad Community Thing yknow? like, a lot of the instances in which it’s used are just... correct usage. to the best of my knowledge current use of the word “cripple” is basically synonymous with “disable”. crippling illness is generally considered acceptable even by those against other uses. how is that a different use from crippling depression, crippling debt, crippling cold?

it wouldn’t be more or less correct to refer to these things as debilitating instead. but “hey swap in debilitating” never seems to be the talking point. I’ve only ever really seen “don’t use The Bad Word”. which kinda increases stigmatization and stuff.

and like, by the same turn, I’d been nd and mentally ill (different things to me, and it’s very valuable to be able to speak of the cluster of autism adhd and other closely related disorders as a group with a single group term, which again no one is trying to replace as they try to turn nd into a whole-community term they’re only saying “no not for you”) for a very very long time, but one of the first things that happened as a result of me getting very very ill was being hospitalized in a psychiatric unit for several days. (which btw was abysmal and made things much worse mentally so like be careful tossing that kind of recommendation around.) and idk people saying “that’s crazy” doesn’t feel like an attack after that. especially when I’m most often hearing it from other mentally ill people that actually talk about accessibility and call out ableist things in the games they’re playing or their public conversations with friends.

idk it just kinda feels like. people are picking fights over language and in more than ten years it has not helped at all. so while there is absolutely some derogatory language that the outgroup should not say (the n word, the f slur, the r slur, etc), this kinda feels like it falls under the “queer” category for me. a word that absolutely has been used as a weapon (and which targets’ preference to “opt out” should be respected) but also is not inherently a threat.

(plus a lot of it feels like it totally fails to take into account that english is a living language, and use dictates meaning, and these words flat out are not the same as they were 50 or 100 or 1000 years ago, even though understanding how they came to be is valuable and often illustrative.)

[thegreatimpersonator]

hi sarah! idk how to say this but im having some conflicted feelings about how people are reacting to taylor's show length. on the one hand, imo it's shitty of people to be shady about it and say it's objectively too long when like that's very much part of the idea and it's also shitty of people to be demanding certain openers or special treatments etc. but on the other hand, when people argue back by saying things like "well this show is for millions of people so if you don't like it, then don't go!" it kind of makes me feel even worse about the fact that i have some disabilities that mean i literally cannot attend the eras tour (or any show that big or long). i already feel left out, and then i hear people who got to go to the show and enjoy it snapping at people who say anything negative about it... it just feels like the people who went to the tour are in a big in-group that i'll never get to be a part of (and idk if i'll ever get to see taylor tbh, unless she wants to play some special small accessibility shows or i find a miracle cure lol)

i know they aren't talking about me, it's about the people who are being demanding for no reason other than entitlement, but i also know they can't necessarily tell the difference by just looking at me and idk i just feel weird like personally having problems with the show length while simultaneously trying to defend it. she should play as many songs as she wants! but also it's genuinely disappointing that that means a number of fans won't ever be able to make it through the whole show in person, y'know? im happy for everyone who got to go and have fun, and of course there are plenty of other reasons people might not be able to make it to a tour (like, jobs and whatnot) i guess i just feel conflicted because it's hitting close to home and it feels like people are like, almost mad at people who have any issues with the show and that feels alienating

yeah, this whole conversation just feels like it's lacking so much nuance (which often gets tossed out the window when talking about anything solely on the internet, now more than ever). it's all entitlement mixed with ignorance and judgment. "i'd never wanna go to a 3 hr show" "i dont like this opening act i got" "don't go to the show if you're gonna complain" etc etc. mix all that with fandom, particularly the swiftie fandom which takes extreme measures to protect a grown adult like she's a helpless child who breaks at the sight of anything but a rave review, and it just loses all nuance. which can be on purpose, some people take out nuance so the argument the other is making looks stupid and frivolous.

but at the end of the day, people are allowed to have their opinions on the show because the show is a piece of performance and performance is art, art affects every individual and therefore every individual has an opinion on it. it has its pros and cons for everyone. with any kind of criticism, there's gonna be people who hate it for no reason (or a personal vendetta against the artist) and people who have valid critiques. it's fine to say "a 3 hour show is personally too much for me because of x reason(s)" and it's completely different from "a 3 hour show is so stupid, no one cares".

[officialjanetweiss]

But in general one would use the phrase “disability rights”, not “cr*pple rights” or “‘mad people’s rights” or even, ugh, “r word rights”. It’s not socially acceptable to refer to the whole disabled community with those words. And I assume it would be frowned upon for an abled person to use any of those slurs to refer to an individual or group unless maybe they’re specifically talking about the two groups you mentioned. Disabled is not a slur and is the preferred umbrella term for abled and disabled people to use.

Meanwhile, lgbt and gay are the preferred umbrella terms for those in and outside of the community to use. But they are rapidly being replaced in advertising, media, conversations, and lgbt clubs/organizations/charities by qu**r. It is somehow becoming socially acceptable for straight people to use the word qu**r. Off the top of my head I can think of two straight people who referred to me as queer, just in the last couple months, without batting an eye.

Yes, there were groups and clubs throughout time that used that word. But again, it’s individuals and specific groups reclaiming it which I think is fine. Very different than expecting the whole community to reclaim it and allowing the oppressor group to use it freely.

[silewalshcoach]

Navigating the Nuances of Inclusion in the Workplace: A Guide for Leaders and HR Professionals

In today's complex organisational landscape, the conversation around inclusion, leadership, and performance is more critical than ever. However, the dialogue often gets mired in misunderstandings, distractions, and a lack of focus on what truly matters. This article aims to shed light on the nuances of inclusion, the pitfalls of the "what about me?" syndrome, and the importance of data-driven, nuanced conversations in fostering truly inclusive workplaces.

The Trap of High Output Over Quality

Leaders and HR professionals must recognise that high output doesn't necessarily equate to quality or wisdom. When we're driven by metrics alone, we risk overlooking the diversity and unique contributions that each individual brings to the table. This is especially true in organisations where fear, insecurity, and anxiety are prevalent. In such environments, the focus tends to be on survival rather than thriving, leading to missed opportunities for smarter, more sustainable ways of working.

The "What About Me?" Syndrome

One of the most common distractions in conversations about inclusion is the "what about me?" syndrome. This occurs when the discussion about a specific identity group, such as women, is derailed by questions like, "What about men?" or "What about non-binary people?" While these questions may be valid, they often serve to decenter the original topic and dilute the focus of the conversation.

The Importance of Nuanced Conversations

Leaders must be adept at managing the nuances of these conversations. It's crucial to differentiate between expanding a discussion because it's appropriate and hijacking it to focus on a different topic. This skill is particularly vital when facilitating groups around various equality issues, such as gender, race, LGBTQ+ needs, and disabilities.

To create meaningful change, leaders and HR professionals must rely on both qualitative and quantitative data. This data-driven approach allows us to understand the higher frequency of certain experiences within specific identity groups without falling into the trap of stereotypes or generalisations.

The Intersectional Lens

An intersectional approach allows us to see how improvements in one area can benefit multiple groups. For example, making the workplace more flexible for women will likely also benefit other identity groups. This approach prevents the "othering" that often occurs in conversations about inclusion and helps us focus on the needs rather than the identities of people.

The Systemic Nature of Inclusion and Exclusion

It's essential to understand that inclusion and exclusion are systemic issues, not just the actions of specific identity groups. For instance, the patriarchy is not just upheld by men but is a systemic practice of oppression that affects everyone, albeit in different ways. Therefore, everyone has a role to play in dismantling these oppressive systems.

The Cost of Systemic Oppression

While systemic oppression may grant some groups more power and privilege, it also exacts a price, often in the form of mental health issues, emotional well-being, and strained relationships. Leaders must be aware of these costs and work towards creating environments that are psychologically safe and inclusive for all.

Conclusion

True inclusion in the workplace is a complex, nuanced issue that requires thoughtful, data-driven leadership. By avoiding the pitfalls of distraction and "what about me?" thinking, focusing on the needs rather than the identities of people, and adopting an intersectional lens, leaders and HR professionals can foster workplaces where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

By understanding the systemic nature of inclusion and exclusion, we can all contribute to creating more equitable, inclusive environments. It's not just about focusing on one group to the exclusion of others; it's about understanding how focusing on the needs of one can benefit all. This is the essence of true inclusion, and it's a goal well worth striving for.

Sile and Sara Slattery were on the Leadership zone they discussed “Navigating Workplace Dynamics: A Conversation with Sara.”

[theatreed]

A Practitioner’s barrier to being truly inclusive. Find your voice, it matters...

Katy Edmunds

Blog

14/02/2023

2022 short course participant Katy Edmunds discusses her thinking on barriers to inclusion. 

Before joining the IC programme my relevant working practice had been around understanding barriers for participation in Carnival and Outdoor Arts as part of a two-year Action Research Project for National dissemination.  

Sadly, throughout that journey, in the midst of a pandemic, I lost my voice. Not literally, but for a range of reasons which I attributed to a loss of confidence, self-esteem, and ultimately a lack of experience as a leader of Inclusive Practice. I didn’t feel that I was well versed enough, I was lacking experience in the correct terminology and over time was consumed by a feeling, which convinced me, that my contribution was not valid. I also fear and reflect that, in the culmination and evaluation of my work, professionally, I played it safe*. 

Fast forward to the Clore Leadership Inclusive Cultures programme, a leap of faith to revisit some of the anguish I had felt professionally, and the hope and underlying belief that to truly care enough about change, with a plan to take steps forward, was a good place to start… or in my case re-start.  

Coming into the programme, I definitely moved with caution. Throughout the process, especially in the first few sessions, I listened closely to tangible, logical teachings more than ideas that challenged and provoked thoughts and opinions for the fear of getting it wrong, offending, or appearing completely inexperienced. In a provocation, my IC partner and I presented a session about what a Utopian Governance might look like, referring to legislative framework that defines Governance, something that is structured and effective in practice with professionals that care behind the policies.  

Governance can be measured and defined.  

The experience was personally cathartic, we collectively learnt from one another, and with the process of facilitated Action Learning within our peer group, I found my voice through supportive, shared reflection and conversation.  

We are all different, and with our differences come a unique set of views and opinions on how we see the world and others within it.

Katy Edmunds

But am I still playing it safe?  

Prior to both of these experiences, my assumption of Inclusion, broadly speaking, was that it was something that we are either good or not good at. We are all different, and with our differences come a unique set of views and opinions on how we see the world and others within it. Our empathy towards others, the way we listen and more importantly the way that we behave, ultimately determines our individual capacity to fully open our heads and hearts in order to understand the barriers that society needs to remove to make the environment inclusive. 

For organisations it is important that regardless of this natural ‘instinct’ or ‘requirement’ to be open and inclusive there needs to be strong processes, structures, and policy, in place to protect individuals within the space. Without dynamic governance and leadership, the organisations’ plight to take away any barriers, physical or metaphorical, and ensure that ears remain open to hear could become overshadowed and potentially ineffective.  

For example, how can a person challenge an organisation’s governance if they are unable to engage in the first place because the barriers are too restrictive or the system so complex?  

We all have barriers, and those barriers are different by nature. Within the Social Model of Disability, for example, the emphasis is clearly on ‘society’ to work to remove barriers. But, when and where is it most effective to use your voice, to speak up, and show passion for a belief in inclusivity. Whilst we all operate differently, it is my belief that communication is the best course of action in order to better understand and learn. 

As with any journey, I’m left with some questions – how do we communicate effectively, even if we don’t have a shared ‘lived experience’? How far could our experiences and sometimes biased opinions cloud the words we choose and the words we use? How much should we be defined by the confines of ‘boxes’ within legislation in relation to the Equality Act 2010?

And finally – yes, governance is important, but does the nature of its structure limit the conversation? 

* This is not reflective of the team on this project, but my contribution specifically.

[finsterhund]

Screaming and screaming.

My roommate says next paycheck he's gonna make me give him AT LEAST 80% of it AGAIN. I can't fucking take this.

He told me that we won't be able to pay for rent if I don't foot the cost as he's apparently unable to get his share. Which I understand. No paid rent = no house so it has to get paid or else but it still sucks. He said we'll have to do this for at least two more months. I asked if he'd be paying me back after those two months and he ended the conversation real quick 🙄

Also my bank got locked. So I'll have to contact them to unlock it. It's probably done this because it went over my overdraft trying to pay for a PayPal transaction that kept trying to force it's way through. So that's fucking great. My bank account is locked and my PayPal is negative. On top of everything else.

My life fucking sucks. I hate having to live this way. Hate having to live like this. My days are spent in bed, nothing to do but watching grass grow (my beloved plants are cooler than grass but you get the idea I hope) and hoping that the internet is going to show me good shit instead of the overwhelming amount of bad shit instead. 

It’s too hot but my roommate insists on me not being allowed to turn on the AC unless it gets even worse. Even though the hydro bill cost is a lot lower than he said it would be from it. 

All I can think of is my Special Sly. How I love him so. It’s too hot to cuddle Scott.

The air quality from the wildfires is impacting my chronic lung fatigue and my chronic eye infections too which sucks so bad. Our planet is dying, us youth fight tooth and nail to live in a society where the only possibility is eating paycheck to paycheck and surrendering our dignity to predatory slumlords just to have roofs over our heads. I have fruit trees that will probably spend the rest of their lives pruned to live in tiny pots all crowded together in my bedroom while my grandparents farm is left to rot because I’m the only one who cares about it. 

If your body isn’t already too broken enough to be put on disability you work a job that breaks it down. And that in itself is a luxury only afforded to some. Based solely on where you were born. In certain places if your body is too broken to work anymore the option is to starve. For other members of our species we are little more than beasts of burden. Only certain countries is there the option to live in a zoo.

I am a captive animal in a white-walled cage, my species-specific enrichment is virtually simulated by a digital machine, it is a privilege when I’m able to get fresh fruit. Meat is a luxury I can’t afford. To access the minimal support that may be available degrading hoops must be jumped through and you must present yourself for examination to those who think you’re less than human. You try not to hate them for it because how much of that disgust is fear? Denial that they are one, maybe two paychecks; one, maybe two injuries, away from being where you are. What you are. They deny it can happen to them. They insist that for them things would be different. They would use their resourcefulness to find a way. They have to. To think otherwise is to acknowledge there is a problem.

My friends all pass around the same $20, $50, $100 that we are only able to give one week because they get from a different friend the next. Love remains, I just have to remember that love remains. In spite of everything we still love. We still find ways to send support, give gifts, etc.

I should be used to this. I was never sheltered. I was never shielded. I lived among predators since before I knew what predators were. One paycheck away from having no food, no shelter, is as natural as breathing. But it still hurts. It hurts because deep down you know it shouldn’t be this way. 

Humans evolved to survive not on the individual level but as a group. We survived because of love and compassion. But our innate desire to protect and defend and love allowed the twisted and the evil to rise unhindered and build selfish empires that are now infallible by rule of law. We allowed them to exist, and that is not something the inhumanly evil would have ever extended in return. The tolerance of intolerance was our downfall. We love and care so much for each other than when those mutant evils that go against what we are fundamentally supposed to be appeared we didn’t strike them down like we should have. We let them twist things into what they wanted and then demanded that these new aberrations to humanity were how we were always meant to be. Cultural gaslighting We must be civil, we must be tame, when they got what they wanted by being no such thing. They were savage while calling their victims savages. And the definition changed.

Our species gave up fangs for brains. We would build weapons to replace our teeth, but then the winners of these wars made our weapons illegal, knowing without them we can no longer bite.

I’m tired. So very tired. I’m tired of being the ancient roots of a long ago felled tree that sends up a sucker just to live for long enough before taken by the blight so that I have enough energy to live for now just to try it again. Hoping that next time, the blight will be gone. Fearing that next time won’t be enough and the blight will finally take too quickly, take too much, and there won’t be enough for another chance. Paycheck to paycheck. Ad nauseum. And you know the blight never used to be here. You know it was brought here. Because you still see those ancient roots, those remnants of the colossal stumps of what once was great towering trees. The suckers know because the roots remember.

And each time, each cycle, each season, sometimes a sucker flowers. And sometimes those flowers get pollinated. Able to make seeds. Baby trees, actual new life, a new voice, not just your newest sucker. And there’s hope. But each generation, less of us are pollinated, and we know that means that less of us survived to sucker again, or less of our suckers made it long enough to flower. Fewer, fewer, and further between. The amount of us that can hold on slowly drops. A reminder how delicate our balance is. Concrete undeniable evidence that the next time for you it might not be enough. We don’t fail from lack of trying. We fail when we grow too weak, too tired. But those that brought the blight, immune to the blight, they say it’s personal failure that kills us, that makes us weak. When the position that grants them their immunity is the only thing that differentiates them from us.

I’m sick of only surviving. I’m sick of seeing those basking around in their decadence they got at the expense of our ability to thrive all the while blaming us for what they forced us to become. The lie that where they are is some personal triumph. A strength on their part. Blight-immune nepotism. This disease they profit from is not natural to our species, but they profit from the continued insistence that it is.

In the end I can do nothing to change this. People say “vote” as if this isn’t just the act of sending up that little sucker tree, wildly hoping that this next term the blight won’t take, realistically hoping that the blight will not take until we preserve enough energy for the next go around. One bad season from not having enough to try again. Think pieces demanding that we should be flowering regardless. But we’re starting to clue into just how much energy it takes to flower, and of how the voices of those think pieces just want more lumber. We aren’t human to them. We are a product, a resource, a fuel. The insistence comparison I give to a tree is relevant because of that. Our next generations, our youth, their value is cogs to that machine. They need us in that way I guess. So maybe the way to fight back is to make ourselves unusable. Be that striking or what not.

But ultimately there are very few things that separate any other strike from a hunger strike. And we also need energy. We need that energy more than ever.

Idk. Man wtf I need therapy. I guess. But can therapy fix any of this? Not really. You get labeled with “shit life syndrome” and if you’re lucky it will be treated with the captivity of the underfunded social programs.

For now all I can do is love my friends, pet my dog, and hug my Special Sly. And dream. Dream that the next time the little sucker tree won’t have to struggle just to survive for long enough but that it can grow and thrive. Dream about a fantasy world where we will live for a hundred years and pierce the sky.

Or I mean we could also just stockpile weapons and [REDACTED]

[nhandiiman]

Field Work Chapter 5

White Privilege:

In this example for white privilege its displaying a black woman and a white man about to race on a track, although its shows they have “same” distance the white man’s track has no obstacles on it and it's a nice clean track for him to run, on the other hand the black woman has several obstacles in front of her to run and she also has a heavy block on her ankle. This symbolizes all of the adversity people of color have to go through simply because of the skin color, it's showing that as a black person in society you have to work 10 times harder in order to get the same result. A lot of white people go through their lives not having to even think about their skin color which is exactly what white privilege is, which is the polar opposite for a person of color moving throughout this world.

Microaggressions:

In this example of microaggressions this one shows a black woman and a white woman talking and the white woman asks “is that your real hair ?” which is a common microaggression that a lot of women of color get asked. It's a question that is derived from a stereotype that all black women wear weaves of hair that did not naturally grow out their scalp, which is why it's very offensive because not all black women wear weaves and it's upsetting when black women get generalized. In addition to that I would also like to add that a lot of white people especially in the country don't have a barometer of what's offensive or what's appropriate because they have the privilege of not having to. On the other hand there are microaggressions that are done intentionally as well which is another way to demean a person of color and to make them feel less than.

Institutional Racism:

In this example of institutional racism it's showing a photo of a group of young black and latino men being stopped and frisked by the police. Stop and Frisk was a law that was passed that allowed law enforcement to stop anyone who they believe is “suspicious” or that they see as “probable cause” now the obvious problem with is a lot of racial profiling comes with that because some police officers can already have there biases on who they deem is suspicious so they can stop people of color and now with this law they're justified. Just to add on this is why it's institutional because it's written within laws to keep people of color oppressed and incarcerated.

Intersectionality: 

In this example that I gave for intersectionality the picture is compiled with a group of women who are either queer, disabled, black, dark skinned, asian, elderly ect. This to me is a great example of what intersectionality is for instance you take a woman which is already an oppressed group of people then you had the fact that she is queen which is another layer of an oppression and then you add the fact that she's an african american which is again another layer that woman is going to have to face a lot of different challenges in obstacles in a world or country that was never designed for her to excel in. On the other hand if you are a cis straight Black man in America you will still face forms of oppression but at the same time life will be easier for you because you are straight and you are a man. Lastly, I would like to say this is going to affect how these individuals are received, how they get  jobs, and how they are able to move up in the world with that glass ceiling.

Miscegenation (interracial marriage):

In this example it shows a interracial couple between a black man and a white woman which was frowned upon back in the day during jim crown in which they would also call it cross breeding. In addition to that it was also against the law for a black person and white person to have children as well. It was widely known back in the day that it was criminalized. On the other hand today we see interracial couples being more widely accepted and normalized in America although there are still a lot of conversations surrounding interracial marriage and mixed childern. 

Hypodescent (one drop rule): 

In this example I gave , it shows a man who is very fair skinned and could be of mixed race but is still considered black according to the one drop rule. The one drop rule which was a very racist rule stated that if you had just one drop of black blood then you were considered a negro or black and would not be able to get the same privileges as a full blood white caucasion person in America. This one drop rule still plays a part in today’s society for instance a mixed raced person like actress Maya Rudolph who is a mixed raced woman but is still extremely fair skinned she is still considered black and or treated as such because of that. 

[thecircularsystem]

Hey there. I’m over on this blog now, if you’re interested in a conversation.

I’m not going to talk about RAMCOA (better called OEA, that part is at least correct) and the blatantly antisemitic Grey Faction talking points that have become the talk of the town lately. If you want a good debunk, @sysmedsaresexist just posted a labor of love to correct the lies about RAMCOA.

Endogenic systems and DID systems still have similarities, even if they’re different. I might not have ADHD but due to my autism, I enjoy being in spaces that discuss executive dysfunction and has tips for overcoming it. Furthermore, while endogenic systems or headmates do not form from trauma, that doesn’t preclude them from having any trauma at all. They might enjoy being in trauma spaces to discuss the trauma they’ve experienced, even if it didn’t lead to their plurality.

I have DID as well. It is disabling. But I’m not letting that come in the way of my life, as much as possible. The endogenic systems I have been around in plural servers have helped me and hurt me both, same as the DID systems I have been around. I’ve seen endogenic systems who treat their plurality as a fun trick, but I’ve seen DID systems do the same. I’ve also seen endogenic systems with even stricter medical views than my own.

About your point that individuals with DID symptoms aren’t endogenic: why does it matter, if they need the help? Shouldn’t we let people get what they need, regardless of the label they use?

And lastly, no, endogenic systems are not a cult, and saying so is ignoring countless individuals who have actually been hurt by actual cults. It’s insensitive and blatantly false. They are not obsessive of a belief, they are not indoctrinating people into a belief, there is no leader preaching that everyone must become endogenic. There’s just people online posting about their lives. I say this as someone who has been irrevocably hurt by endogenic systems, nearly killed due to the misinformation that specific group of people said to me. I do not hold that against endogenic systems in general because I can recognize that those that hurt me are not the entirety of the group.

I’m going to repeat the last line of that old post: some of you need to focus so much more on your own issues, rather than the issues you made up in your anger about how the world treated you unfairly.

What terms are endogenic systems “stealing,” and why does it matter?

I’m being perfectly genuine here, I used to be one of the ones shouting about endogenic systems stealing resources. That idea came out of fear and frustration, and remarkably, that fear and frustration is still here, even though I can acknowledge that endogenic systems have not stolen terms that matter at all.

“Endogenic systems stole system from DID systems!” No they didn’t. The communities grew together, and system isn’t a term that’s exclusive to DID anyways. While the term system was popularized in DID spaces, the term was quickly picked up for other purposes.

“Endogenic systems stole the RAMCOA terms!” Nope. I’m sorry to say, there’s no evidence of this, despite how many claim there is on all sides. The source people have used to say this has themselves said it doesn’t track, and the only thing we have is word of mouth. You simply do not have proof for this claim.

“Endogenic systems are invading/stealing tumblr tags!” Okay. Report them. There’s a button for that. I hope you’re okay with that turning around on you, however, as many people are tag spamming against tumblrs TOS. And once again: why does it matter?

An endogenic system posts in the systempunk tags. It literally doesn’t impact my recovery.

An endogenic system posts in the OSDD, DID, CDD, etc tag. If literally doesn’t impact my recovery.

Oh no! I get triggered!

It literally doesn’t impact my recovery. Because a tumblr tag does not determine if I am recovering from my disorder; an endogenic system using the term subsystem doesn’t determine if I’m recovering from my disorder; literally anyone using the term system doesn’t impact me.

“But it makes doctors not listen to us! They think we’re faking!”

Sounds like a problem with the system (pun intended) then. And I assure you, nobody thinks you’re faking because someone else uses the term system. I beg of you to research IFS. Preventing endogenic systems from using the terms they’ve had access to for decades won’t stop ableist doctors from being ableist. It won’t help prevent ableism. It’ll just make the ableism look different.

Some of you need to focus so much more on your own issues, rather than the issues you made up in your anger about how the world treated you unfairly.

[shawnjacksonsbs]

There are lots of parts. Not all are consistent. And if I said it once, I’m likely to say a thousand more times.     2-11-23

 “Yes, ‘cause I think that, this is the thing that I said earlier about like, when I’m making anything that I’m making, whether it’s a podcast or writing or “United Shades”, when I’m writing it, I’m like “This is gonna change the world”. [Lol] ‘Cause you have to feel that way. You have to think that way. Otherwise, why you steppin’ out there!?

. . . . But then at the end, you just have to be, “I hope people watch [read] and talk about it.” – Kamau Bell

 I may have learned a new thing(?), or way(?) or. . .

Do we, do I, do any of us have the ability to remove ourselves from a scenario to better empathize with someone else when having a conversation, about their struggles?

Emphasis on “their struggles”.

If they’re different from us by race, religion, sexual identity, etc, why do we feel so strongly that we have to defend, or be defensive if we know, without a doubt, that we aren't part of the group that their venting about, although I have commonalities, such as . . . race, religion, sexual identity.

See where I’m going here?

Is it worth it, to just try, to emphasize with someone else?

I'm going to start trying to implement this “technique”, when the time and issue, or conversation allows.

Why wouldn't we want to relate to our neighbors?

Why are some people just hell bent on focusing on differences over commonalities?

I, for one, will never understand it.

 “It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eyes.” - Antoine de Saint-Exupery (one of Mr. Rogers favorite quotes)

 The whole, "We are all just walking each other home", always pops in my head every time I hear, or think of people that hate on others for less than justice. Make sense? It's like be kind, until it's time to not be kind.

There are times throughout the life of us adults, that we realize we don't love everyone just as they are, and imagine that, as unfortunate as that is, it's either because of complete mental disability, or because they weren't loved just the way they were when they were young. (That's just my opinion by the way. Pretty sound educational guess if you ask me though)

It's also not worth arguing with someone that groups me in with haters. People like that are obviously in some feelings and haven't learned how to navigate them yet. That comes with time, understanding, wisdom, and of course - empathy. Right?

We’re all still progressing toward this, yes? Or trying to??

After listening to this specific episode, I caught myself wondering if I could do it. If I could try and have full blown conversations in hopes of finding some understandings, with people who obviously don't care for people “like me”, without actually knowing me as individual. My answer . . . I just don't know. It occurred to me right then that I should try.

It’s always nice to learn new ways and new goals to aspire to, and higher levels of caring and love to reach. Even if only in small degrees up, the direction is still up.

Note to self; I need to do research outside of Finding Fred on Kamau Bell and his works. He definitely sounds like an interesting guy.

The whole Finding Fred podcast, to me, is thought provoking, but this episode definitely had me in a deep thinking pattern the whole time.

You can find Finding Fred episode Kamau on IHeart radio. I’m sure there are other spots. That’s just where I listen. Lol no lol

I don’t know if this one is enough for you, but it was for me. Understanding can be . . .hard, but never impossible.

I wonder why different things affect different people . . . differently. Listening to this show, and reading or writing the things that I do, etc, etc, even though they appeal to me because of how they make me feel good or make me think about things that are. . . better, don’t appeal to some people. Why do you taste cilantro as soap?

It’s all just weird.

What a world we live in, and what a wonderful life we can have if we change the way we think about things. It all has to start right there.

Now, go out into the world now and share your love and your laughter with everyone you can, and you already know that I will be trying to do the same from my side!

 Until next time;

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.