Friday, 22 February 2013
The flaw in the the social model idea of disability.
I'm addressing two things here, the problem with the social model, and the persistent notion that GF is a fad diet which feministe loves to add to.
The problem with the social model is that people often take it as "No disability, just society disabling us". Which results in mindblowing events like the time a non-hard of hearing person tried to tell me, (A hard of hearing person) that I wasn't disabled by my hearing loss and persisted in treating disability as a bad thing solely because some people with hearing loss don't consider themselves disabled. They also tried to argue that because light is faster than sound, Deaf/Hard of Hearing people would see something before hearing people would hear it, quite apart from the relatively limits of vision, that's just bad science.
The social model shouldn't mean that if it wasn't for icky society being a problem, we'd be perfectly able. But it's often treated that way by many people who don't listen past "social model".
I am autistic, even if society was more informed about my autism and more accommodating, it wouldn't magically turn my life into a NT type comparative stroll in the park in terms of communications. It's the same for my use of a wheelchair. Sure, it would be nice if every building had a ramp, all pavements were straight, curb cuts were more common, excetera, but it wouldn't change that a wheelchair is still quite bulky to maneuver, or that people often grab mine without realising it is part of me. They don't mean to lay hands on me but they do. Even if they knew better? It still wouldn't change that having to use a wheelchair is quite frustrating, my feet get me places faster when I can use them so it takes an awful lot longer to get around in my chair.
Not to mention sitting down all day? Makes your leg muscles ache in different ways than over taxing them does. Most wheelchairs barely cope with urban terrain, try going camping or hiking in one? Unless it's a specially built one? You ain't doing any such thing. We can hardly pave nature.
Then there's the fatigue, the shoulder dislocations (I really need an electric wheelchair) and all the other wonderful side effects of having my disability. Ramps everywhere, and straight pavements won't fix them.
I have long thought we need an answer that is somewhere between the medical model and the social model, a functioning model if you will that addresses that disability or difference is a social and bodily issue, and that we can do much to help with the social side but the person will still have a disability or difference at the end of the day.
Now onto smashing the notion of gluten free diets as a "fad weight loss" diet.
Let's break this down.
Jill says: "But “I’m allergic to gluten” seems to be the new cover for women who are basically just seeking to limit their food intake, and is almost never mentioned in any articles covering the trend of gluten-free eating. For example, the Times says:"
Seems to be? There's no evidence given whatsoever for this claim, and to be frank, I think it's fucking bullshit.
To be blunt, as someone on the gluten free diet? There is nothing in the GF diet that limits your food intake, I can still eat as much as anyone else, in fact I often need to eat more because GF diets make it slightly harder to get all your trace minerals.
Also GF food tends to sold in smaller weights but those weights are much more calorie dense. For example, A giant regular muffin has 450 calories, a GF mini muffin half the size has the same amount. In having a good old munch, I can easily down more than twice the calories I would if I was eating food that contained gluten.
This is because things like oil are used to bind in the place of gluten often sending the calorie content rocketing. I also find that many replacement foods such as GF bread do not keep me as full as the regular gluten version. So if you go on a GF diet to lose weight? You're a frigging nitwit.
It would be easier to simply order the salad.
Jill says: "But we should maybe be casting a bit of a jaundiced eye on the gluten-free fad. It can be great, for folks who can’t consume gluten products without getting very sick; it’s also great insofar as it makes us more creative with the food we eat, and less reliant on the same old ingredients and recipes."
Hey Jill thanks for telling everyone to stick their noses into our business, because we disabled folks don't get enough of that shit, and even if a woman does have an eating disorder? What fucking business is it of yours or anyone elses?
Jill says: "Yeah I totally agree — people shouldn’t have to explain (unless there’s a real health issue — there are some people who are so gluten-intolerant that if gluten touches a pan they can get sick, and someone preparing food for them needs to know that)"
Because being sick obliges us to explain our food choices of course. How could I not enjoy that?
Jill says: "As I’ve clarified several times now, the point of the post was not to say that people should bug other people about their reasons for avoiding certain foods. It was to say that media coverage of food trends is woefully inadequate."
Because describing a diet as a fad diet and encouraging people to think of it as one will magically never ever translate into bigotry and inappropriate nosiness into our lives or legitimise the existing shit we get for our diets.
Intention, it's fucking magic like that. This shit is why I often don't like mainsteam feminist groups.