|Willow (the_willow) wrote,|
@ 2010-02-17 18:17:00
|Current mood:||loathing you arrogant sons of bitches|
|Entry tags:||#s is for survivor|
There are a lot of people angry and upset about Amanda Palmer's new act and her and her partner's treatment of disability. There are a lot of people angry at how casually she's dismissed concerns by not just People With Disabilities but Feminists With Disabilities.
But in all the hub-bub about her 'All press is good press, woo me!' personal masturbation PR campaign, I only learned about the supposed child sexual abuse of her made up conjoined twins now.
Someone doing performance art about child sexual abuse they have not endured, which includes performance art on being disabled which they also have not experienced, hits me harder. Survivorship of child abuse is not something someone who hasn't experienced it should be doing performance art about. When you're going to discuss this topic, you do your damn homework. You consider who it'll hurt and who it'll harm and what misconceptions you might be putting out there that can end up convincing a child that all they have to do is be strong enough to survive it.
I'm gravely disappointed that Neil Gaiman doesn't get that in the midst of his support for his fiancée. But I've no problem dropping yet another white male writer off my shelves. Less books to dust.
I just want to make the note that there are two communities being affected by Palmer and Webley's act. And I'm part of the community that's not as noisy in getting heard.
ETA: Link to a FWD entry on the topic.