social identities

things tumblr needs to stop thinking are good, cool or constructive

- looking for things to be offended by
- glorifying certain demographics
- vilifying other demographics
- throwing around words such as ableist, sexist, transphobic, etc like confetti to the point where they are becoming meaningless (much to the harm of victims of actual hatred)
- self victimization
- censorship
- policing people’s language
- throwing tantrums over fictional characters not representing demographics you like
- pretty much reducing people to small aspects of their identity
- doxxing and bullying people who disagree with you
- conflating gender with personality traits or clothing style
- pretending that obesity is not a bad thing
- prioritizing hurt feelings over everything else
- pretending that you strive for equality when really you strive for special treatment



French photographer duo Bruno Metra and Laurence Jeanson, collectively known as Metra-Jeanson, created a striking collection of photos that confront concepts of identity, beauty and otherness.

Experimenting with our visual perception, they apply cut outs of facial features from glossy magazines onto their model’s faces to create a new form of facial expression.

Grow with us @

Exoteric Description: Pioneer, discovering an identity, socially undeveloped, impulsive, spontaneous, childlike
Esoteric Description: Lower concrete mind becomes illuminated by soul, bridge from unconscious to conscious, a point of light in the mind of God

Exoteric Description: Romantic, material, creative, inflexible, traditional, grounded, desiring  
Esoteric Description: The eye of illumination, victorious, nurturer of light, aspiration, lover, visionary, intelligent desire 

Exoteric Description: Talkative, messenger, teacher, multiple, unstable, changeable, clever, dynamic, childish
Esoteric Description: Revered energy that lies behind every sign, resolution of opposites, dissolver of boundaries between consciousness 

Exoteric Description: Moody, unstable, hysterical, maternal, withdrawing, homely, comforting, fearful, dependent
Esoteric Description: Master of the emotional realm, magnetising soul into form, Mother of All Forms, sensitized to spirit 

Exoteric Description: Expressive, dramatic, theatrical, self indulgent, egoistical, childish, demanding, invalidated 
Esoteric Description: Soul quality, self realization, heart radiated leadership, God’s will, Festival of Heart and Soul

Exoteric Description:
Assisting, logical, nervous, mentally active, problem solver, critical, virtuous 
Esoteric Description: Womb of Time, nurturing mother of hidden reality, Guardian of the Christ Principle, Founder of Matriarch, synthesis of feminine aspects 

Exoteric Description: Lover, idealistic, dependent, social, charming, projecting, harmonizer, self conscious 
Esoteric Description: Pristine balance of matter and spirit, spiritual energy on lower levels, Sign of Intuitive Perception, ‘Super Mind’ the mind responsive to the voice of God

Exoteric Description:
Intense, confronting, compulsive, private, possessive, confrontational, moody, transformative, sign of death, desiring 
Esoteric Description: Magnetic energy, Divine Sacrifice, illumination of intellect through soul light, Dweller on the Threshold, transmutation of material desire into spiritual desire

Exoteric Description:
Adventurous, searching, spontaneous, reactive, active, intelligent, comedic, unpredictable, blunt, optimistic 
Esoteric Description: The Coming One, controls the negative dweller, early stages of soul consciousness, flies on the wings of the soul 

Exoteric Description:
Reticent, disciplined, workaholic, obsessive, unrelenting, committed, reliable, mature, old soul
Esoteric Description: Sign of mystery, "doorway into life of those who know not death.“, birth of individual Christ, an intuitive sign, soul consciousness in later stages

Exoteric Description:
Outlandish, shocking, intelligent, unstable, detached, humanitarian, isolated, misunderstood, charismatic 
Esoteric Description: Intuitive consciousness, sign of world service, lost in light supernal, Spiritual Soul

Exoteric Description:
Idealistic, imaginative, spiritual, frail, martyred, moody, vague, responsive, empathetic, artistic 
Esoteric Description: World Saviour, blending of soul and form, releaser of imprisoned life into the spirit, instrument of divine love

"Have fun" should not be a rule

A lot of summer camps, youth groups, and other activities have a “have fun” rule.

The implied message is usually: This is a fun place. If you’re not having fun, you’re doing something wrong. Fix your attitude and have fun doing the fun activities.

Sometimes “have fun” rules are explicit. Sometimes they’re more implicit, and come in forms like: making people sing a song every day about how much they love camp, announcements about “we’re all having so much fun!”, or whatever else.

The problem with this is: nothing is fun for everyone. People have the right to feel how they feel about things. It’s really degrading to tell an unhappy person that they should just feel some other way.

“Have fun” rules are especially problematic for many disabled people.

Because — most programs are not fully accessible, even when they think they are. Most of us expect to encounter activities that are inaccessible in ways that make participation impossible — or that make them no fun.

And often, initially fun activities are ruined when someone treats you in a degrading way or says something awful about disability.

Being left out when everyone else is having fun is bad enough. When there’s a “have fun” rule, it’s even worse. Not only are you hurt by the exclusion, you’re told that you’re violating the rules by being hurt and unhappy.

“Have fun” rules make it really hard to solve these problems, because they make it risky to admit that you’re not having a good time.

“Have fun” rules make problems harder to solve, even when the problem has a straightforward solution. All the more so when the problem is complicated. (Or only has a partial solution.)

“Have fun” rules actually make things a lot less fun.

Why do white people get the blame for slavery when virtually every race in human history engaged in the slave trade?

Why do white people get the blame for slavery when white people were enslaved by Arabs?

Why do white people get the blame for slavery when they were the first in the world to legally end slavery?

Why do white people get the blame for slavery when white people risked their lives to help free black slaves from their Arab captors?

Why do white people get the blame for slavery when hundreds of thousands of white Americans died in a civil war partly to end slavery?

Why do white people get the blame for slavery when there are still 46 million people enslaved today – none of them in white countries?

pandabort  asked:

Hi Sam. In a recent post about disability you made reference to "the medical model, social model, or biopsychosocial model of disability". Please could you share some more information about these different models? You can just tell me to go google it, but I thought it might be okay to ask since you're clearly very knowledgable in this subject area and I find you are good at explaining things! Thanks.

The Medical Model (or Biological Model) of disability is the one most people are familiar with it. It views disability in the same light as illness. It is something that is wrong and it must be fixed or cured. This is the model that is shaped by doctors and healthcare providers as a whole, and represents the primary view of the medical industry, psychology industry, education industry, and society in general.

The primary problem with the Medical Model of disability is that it makes no room for a disabled person. The person does not matter - what matters is the disability, which needs be cured - whereupon you will be left with a person. This is the driving social force behind inspiration porn, microaggressions, and segregation. An example of this model would be that we must find a cure for autism, regardless of what that cure may be.

The Social Model of disability is the dominant model subscribed to by activists and self-advocates with some notable exceptions that are borrowed from the Biopsychosocial Model. This model of disability removes the medical from the person, and argues that disability is not inherent, it is a social construct. Universal accessibility is attainable (and it is), so the only reason why disability exists is because socially we choose not to attain it. Achieving universal accessibility removes disability by inherently putting everyone on the same footing without requiring special accommodations. Basically, you normalize “medical” disability being ok, and no one is disabled because their life is accessible.

This is a laudable view, but not without its problems. First, it entirely removes the Medical Model from the person. It makes no account for the reality that some of us have unpredictable disabilities that inherently cannot be accommodated. It is also unrealistic. Disability is an infinitely varried spectrum. We will never be able to accommodate everyone, and someone will always be left out. That doesn’t mean we can’t do better - and we must - but it is unrealistic to expect that we can effective account for all scenarios. This is also the view that spawned person first language - which is a deliberate attempt to remind society that we are people that have a disability not a disability with a person somewhere underneath like the Medical Model. Many activists that subscribe to this model borrow identity first language from the Biopsychosocial Model. Using autism as example, this model states that autism is a neurotype and should not be cured because different is not bad.

The Biopsychosocial Model of disability does two major things. First, it combines the Medical Model (bio) with the Social Model (social). Second, it adds a third element, Psychology (psycho). This is an explicit acknowledgement that there are medical aspects of disability that are very real to the people who experience them, but also an explicit acknowledgement that there are social aspects to disability that are caused explicitly and entirely by society. It also introduces the idea that psychology, and in particular identity, play a large role in how any given individual experiences their disability. This is the model by which it is possible to understand that researching a cure is okay as long as you put that cure in the hands of the people who want it and not in the hands of those who don’t. This is the model that supports identity first language.

This model is also not without its problems. The biggest of these problems is that there is a very delicate balancing act that has to be done between acknowledging the medical realities and the social realities of disability. For example, this model recognizes that autistics that want a cure deserve a cure, and therefore we should research a cure. The social reality of this is that the only cure for autism is in utero testing and abortion - eugenics. We’ve seen this with Down Syndrome if you would like a reference. Clearly, this is not good for autistics that want a cure any more than it is for those that don’t. But what about a medication that limits meltdowns, or evens out hypersensitivity? Sounds good, but directing society in that direction is horrible difficult fight that isn’t even on the radar. In a lot of ways, it can be as unrealistic as the Social Model. It is also exceptionally easy to swing to far into the Medical Model or Social Model, in an attempt to be as inclusive as possible to people with various identities.

So that’s the general breakdown, in broad strokes. I didn’t have the word for it until recently, but my own beliefs align with the biopsychosocial model of disability. I believe that my disabilities are, at least in some ways, medical in nature, and I can and do take steps to alleviate specific aspects. This includes specific aspects of my autism (in particular meltdowns and shutdowns).

I also believe that a large portion of my disabilities are entirely social. A huge amount of my issues with ADHD and autism would simply vanish if true universal accessibility were a thing. Poof. Gone. This would do nothing, however, for the fact that my hands hurt, that the air is touching me, and that these things distress me even when the environment around me is accommodating and accessible. It doesn’t matter that I can hip check a button to open the door instead of pulling it, my hands still hurt - which is why the medical model is pertinent to my life.

And I hope it is obvious that I am an activist and self-advocate. I believe that there is a line between these to walk, and I believe that there is a lot of nuance between those two that is exceptionally important and ignored by those two models. I believe that the most fundamental personal right is autonomy, which includes the right to identity and self determination. Put this all together and I am squarely in the biopsychosocial model of disability.

Right oh. So this is longer than I thought it would be, and my wrists are screaming, so I’m going to end this hear. I hope this is a good beginning, and if you have more questions please feel free to send them.

In the mean time, give a lot of thought to the ideals versus the reality of disability, and be brutal with yourself. Figure out where you really stand on a day to day basis (I frequently struggle with falling squarely into the social model and taking radical stances on topics that, frankly, have a lot more nuance than I understand), and where you really want to be. Then fight for it. Hopefully, we don’t end up on opposite sides!