this is something BFP told me a month ago that i’ve been thinking a lot about lately, especially about issues that cross more than one “-ism” (because most times they do; i.e. a lot of the disability issues are also feminism issues and race issues). in the end, we reach the same point— that X needs to change— even though it’s from a different point of analysis because our analysis is going to come from our experience and beliefs. Below stems from a rant I was having about disability being included in woc (women of color) activism:
I think most of the women that I know about came to their understanding of disability through a woc analysis more than a disability rights analysis–so, what I’m thinking of is that in the case of that group C.R.A.C.K.–a lot of woc will look at a disability angle by saying that:
1. there is a historical need by white power structures to control woc’s bodies,
2. this group is continuing that control over woc bodies,
3. they are doing it by using ableist rhetoric (language) that makes a disabled body the worst thing a body could be.
Whereas I think that a disablist perspective would probably go the opposite way, right? It would start on the ableist rhetoric and work from there. —BFP