LINK WITH Feminism

2AC
<Link specific metaphor>
Ableist language in feminist scholarship positions
disability as oppositional to feminism, hurts political
potential, and limits intersectional participation
Schalk 13 [Sami Schalk, assistant professor at Albany Arts, PhD in Gender Studies at
Indiana University, research focuses on the representation of disability in contemporary
African American literature; Metaphorically Speaking: Ableist Metaphors in Feminist Writing;
Disability Studies Quarterly Vol 33 No 4; 2013; accessed 07/28/2015; <http://dsqsds.org/article/view/3874/3410>.]

the relationship between

language and ableism. In fact, these interactions motivated me to seriously reflect upon the
ways that our ability to recognize diverse embodiment is limited by figurative
language that conceptually distances us from the reality of impairment . In
particular, I began to question the function and impact of disability metaphors and the role that
such figures of speech play in feminist scholarship. In this article, I consider how disability is used
The two interactions that I describe above offer important lessons about

as metaphor in two feminist texts: bell hooks's The Will to Change: Men, Masculinity and Love (2004) and
Tania Modleski's Feminism without Women: Culture and Criticism in a "Postfeminist" Age (1991). Beginning
with a broad understanding of feminism as a movement

to end sex and gender oppression in

the lives of all people, a movement aligned with anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-classist, and
(most importantly for this piece) anti-ableist movements, I make connections between sexist and
ableist rhetoric in order to expose the political and intellectual repercussions of
the use of disability as metaphor in these feminist texts in particular and in feminist theory
more generally. I argue, for instance, that when feminists use metaphors of disability to
represent the negative effects of patriarchy, they conceptually and
theoretically position feminism and disability in opposition to each other and
thereby imply that the goals of feminism are two-fold: to end patriarchy and to
erase disability. I insist, furthermore, that this theoretical and conceptual strategy
runs counter to the goals of contemporary, intersectional feminist politics ,
activism, and scholarship. Insofar as I make these connections, I may seem to enter into a broader

discussion about what is often derisively referred to as "political correctness." Such

discussions 1 tend to devolve into accusations of censorship and battles over what is, or is
not, offensive, and who does, or does not, have the "right" to be offended in the
first place. 2 In some mainstream and feminist philosophical contexts, these discussions have tended
to revolve around the use of ocular metaphors to represent a lack of knowledge and information (as in
"blind review") or to refer to forms of moral negligence (for example, "blindly followed"). Although this
article will address negative metaphoric uses of disability, my aim is not to argue that certain words and
phrases are inherently offensive, nor do I assert that politically-engaged feminist scholars should act as
arbiters or censors of each other's linguistic practices; rather, I aim to show the impact that such languageuse has on feminist scholarship and for feminist politics at the structural, as opposed to the individual,

feminist scholars should recognize that these negative

metaphorical uses of disability variously impact, limit, and contradict the
aims of their arguments, in addition to compromising their professed political
goals, regardless of whether or not everyone in a targeted disabled group is offended
by any given disability metaphor. To advance my argument, I draw on the insights about
level. In short, I contend that

metaphor that disability scholars such as Vivian M. May and Beth A. Ferri have made.

Must reject ableism in the context of the SQUO creates

trauma, normalizes and perpetuates systemic violence
and abuse, and is rooted in the same linguistic and
representational connotations as misogyny,
heteronormativity, racism, and binarist
Brown 14 [Lydia Brown, activist, public speaker, and writer focused on violence against
multiply-marginalized disabled people, such as LGBTQ+ (queer and trans), poor,
undocumented, and people of color groups within the disability community, Board of Directors
for TASH New England, Project Assistant at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, and previously
involved in writing disability policy; Violence in Language: Circling Back to Linguistic
Ableism; Autistic Hoya; 02/11/2014; accessed 07/27/2015; <
http://www.autistichoya.com/2014/02/violence-linguistic-ableism.html>.] this card is on fire!!!!!!
please, pull a fire alarm like asap

One of the most common (inaccurate and mischaracterizing) criticisms , however,

both from inside and outside the disability community, is the accusation that the list is a tool for
policing language or censoring words. So what's the purpose of the list? Why compile it at
all? Because linguistic ableism is part of the total system of ableism, and it is
critical to understand how it works, how it is deployed, and how we can
unlearn our social conditioning that linguistic ableism is normal and just how
things are or should be. As important as it is to recognize and uncover the violence
of linguistic ableism (how ableism is specifically embedded into our language), it is
also critical to understand why this is important . (And this is where those who jump
the gun and leap to accusations of pedantic, holier-than-thou, smug language-policing or
censorship have not yet come to understand why this page, and those like it,
need to exist.) Linguistic ableism: a) is part of an entire system of ableism , and
doesn't exist simply by itself, b) signifies how deeply ableist our societies and cultures
by how common and accepted ableism is in language, c) reinforces and perpetuates ableist
social norms that normalize violence and abuse against disabled
people, d) actively creates less safe spaces by re-traumatizing disabled
people, and e) uses ableism to perpetuate other forms of oppression.
Language is not the be all end all. This isn't about policing language or censoring
words, but about critically examining how language is part of total ableist
hegemony. This is about being accountable when we learn about linguistic ableism, but it is also about
being compassionate to ourselves and recognizing that to varying extents, we have all
participated in ablesupremacy and ablenormativity. This is about
understanding the connections between linguistic ableism and other forms
of ableism, such as medical ableism, scientific ableism, legal ableism, and cultural ableism.
Language reflects and influences society and culture . That's why students of any
foreign language often study the cultures where that language is dominant. (And that's not to dimiss the
many valid criticisms of the ethnocentrism and colonialism in much area and language studies programs.)

Language isn't important for silly semantic reasons, but because it cannot be separated from
the culture in which it is deployed. Feminist theory, queer theory, and race
theory have all analyzed how sexism, heterosexism, cissexism,
binarism, and racism are embedded in language. This is the same
process. Using the language of disability (either directly or through metaphor) as a
way to insult other people, dismiss other people, express your vehement loathing for them/their
viewpoints, or invalidate their viewpoints is actually extremely ableist (and often sanist,
neurotypicalist, audist, or vidist). For example, I am talking about using the language of mental illness
("crazy," "insane," "psycho," or "wacko," for example), cognitive disability ("retarded," "slow," or "moron,"

for example), or physical disability ("crippled" or "completely blind/deaf," for example). In another

Using the language of disability

to denigrate or insult in our conversations and organizing presumes that a.) people who
hold undesirable or harmful viewpoints must hold them because they are
mentally ill/have psych disabilities/are mentally disabled/are disabled in some
way, b.) having mental illness/psych disability/mental disability/any disability is
actually so undesirable and horrible that you can insult someone that way
(the same underlying reason why socially embedded linguistic heterosexism lets
people use "gay" as an insult), c.) it's acceptable to use ableism against one disability group
example, I am also talking about using disability as metaphor.

while decrying ableism against another disability group (creating horizontal or intra-disability oppression)
or another form of oppression against another marginalized group (creating horizontal oppression), and d.)
and that

no one who is disabled in any way might actually share your opinion or
be on your side, thus actually actively excluding and marginalizing this part
of our community, and making our spaces less safe and less inclusive.

2AC
The academic sphere is the best place to interrogate
ableism and deconstruct it, specifically in the context of
feminism. Our methodology of tolerance of what is often
considered too sensitive solves rolelessness and the
intersection of sexism and ableism
Garland-Thomson 1 [Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Professor of English at Emory
University, where her fields of study are disability studies, American literature and culture,
feminist theory, and bioethics; Re-shaping, Re-thinking, Re-defining: Feminist Disability
Studies pg 18-20; Center for Women Policy Studies; Barbara Waxman Fiduccia Papers on
Women and Girls with Disabilities; 2001; accessed 07/28/2015;
<http://www.centerwomenpolicy.org/pdfs/DIS2.pdf>.]

activism for change, which augments and

remedies the accompanying focus on negative representations of women and
disabled people, the pathologizing of their bodies, and the politics of appearance. Important
activist strands have developed in both feminism and Disability Studies that shift them from
the constant task of exposing just how relentless and pervasive oppression has been
and is. This is a different kind of activism from demonstrations and marches .
While less theatrical, the activism focused on integrating education, in the very
broadest sense of that term, is no less ardent . And higher education is the grass
roots of the educational enterprise. College and university teachers shape the communal
knowledge base that is disseminated from kindergarten through the university. A ctivist academic
practices include exposing the workings of oppression, constructing a
tradition of disability culture, historical and textual retrieval , canon reformation,
Activism: Feminist Disability Studies also focuses on

finding and being role models, mentoring, curriculum reform, course and program development, and

activism inherent in Feminist Disability

Studies emerges in its commitment to study the lives and artistic products of women with
integrating disability into existing syllabi. Part of the

disabilities. To analyze who disabled women are and what they create expands our understanding of
human variation and enriches our collective knowledge of humankind, especially the ways that gender

For example, the judgment that the disabled womans body is asexual
and unfeminine creates what Michelle Fine and Adrienne Asch term rolelessness, a
social invisibility and cancellation of femininity that can prompt disabled
women to claim the female identity that the culture denies them . Cheryl Marie
operates.

Wade insists upon a harmony between her disability and her womanly sexuality in a poem characterizing

selfnaming and Wades assertion

of sexuality suggest, a feminist disability politics would uphold the right of
women to define their physical differences and their femininity for
themselves rather than conforming to received interpretations of their bodies. Wades poem of selfherself as The Woman With Juice.37 As Mairs exploration of

definition echoes Mairs by maintaining firmly that she is not one of the physically challenged. Rather, she
claims, Im the Gimp/Im the Cripple/Im the Crazy Lady. Affirming her body as at once sexual and
different, she asserts, Im a French kiss with cleft tongue. Resisting the cultural tendency not only to
erase her sexuality but to deprecate and objectify her body, she characterizes herself as a sock in the eye

This image of the disabled body as a visual assault, a shocking

spectacle to the nondisabled eye, captures a defining aspect of disabled
experience. Whereas feminists claim that women are objects of the evaluative
male gaze, Wades image of her body as a sock in the eye subtly reminds us that the disabled
body is the object of the stare. If the male gaze makes the normative female
a sexual spectacle, then the stare sculpts the disabled subject into a
with gnarled fist.

grotesque spectacle. The stare is the gaze intensified, framing her body as an icon of
deviance. Indeed, as Wades poem suggests, the stare is the gesture that creates disability as an
oppressive social relationship. And as every person with a visible disability knows intimately, managing,
deflecting, resisting, or renouncing that stare is part of the daily business of life. One example of

academic activism that is exemplary in Feminist Disability Studies is what might be called a
methodology of intellectual tolerance. This is not tolerance in the more usual
sense of tolerating each other although that would be useful as well. Rather, it is
the intellectual position of tolerating what has previously been thought of as
incoherence.

Disability rhetoric promotes exclusion from feminism and

ultimate ineffectiveness of the feminist movement they
need to take responsibility for what they said and seek a
new dialogue
Schalk 13 [Sami Schalk, assistant professor at Albany Arts, PhD in Gender Studies at
Indiana University, research focuses on the representation of disability in contemporary
African American literature; Metaphorically Speaking: Ableist Metaphors in Feminist Writing;
Disability Studies Quarterly Vol 33 No 4; 2013; accessed 07/28/2015; <http://dsqsds.org/article/view/3874/3410>.] Explains why they cant kick their reps/language

Reacting to characterizations of being weak or inferior as slander, feminists

deflected such portrayals by distancing themselves from these categories, and
denying association of feminine gender with disability . Using an ableist line of thinking
still in place today, nineteenth-century women agreed that there was a category of
hopelessly, inherently dependent defectives that should be subjected to
social control, but they argued against women being included in this
defective class simply by virtue of their sex. The move by feminists to separate themselves from
the devalued group of defectives without challenging the hierarchical value-system
that produced it served to make disability central to feminism as a negative
marker. (emphasis in Lamp) Notable historical examples of this feminist "distancing" from disability
include Charlotte Perkins-Gilman and Margaret Sanger, both of whom used disability rhetoric and
metaphor in the context of the widely-popular late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century eugenics
movement as a way to promote women's rights (Lamp 2006, 14; Lamp and Cleigh 2011, 176-182; Seitler
2003). Both women, that is, used "positive" eugenic rhetoric and rhetoric about women's roles as breeders
in order to encourage better education and treatment of white, middle-class, able-bodied women who
would give birth to the next generation of eugenically-sound, rather than "weak" or "feeble-minded,"

ableist rhetoric within feminist political organizations and

movements has historically distanced (nondisabled) feminists from disability,
making alliances between disabled feminists and nondisabled feminists hard
to establish. Though this history does not explain away or excuse the use of ableist
disability metaphors today, it provides a context within which to situate the
habitual positioning of feminist women against disability and the
conceptualization of patriarchal power as disabling . The issue at hand now is how to
children. This sort of

resist this historical usage without losing the important purpose of previous feminist work. What does the
lesson of this discussion mean for feminists in the present (and future) who want to align themselves with
disability rights scholars and activists and resist the use of negative and monolithic representations of
disability? Does my argument in this article entail that one should never use disability metaphorically? Not

the problem is the use of disability as a negative source domain

to represent inability, loss, and lack in a simplistic and uncritical way. As I have shown,
this use of disability as metaphor creates problems for understanding lived
embodiment and ultimately limits or contradicts the feminist arguments that
exactly. Rather,

are proffered. Despite the problems in most past and current uses of disability metaphors, I
nonetheless encourage creativity, nuance, and experimentation in feminist writing because innovative,
politically-accountable uses of metaphor could make people think more deeply and alternatively about

we
alter the sensory experiences that have traditionally been used in a metaphor
by (for instance) asking "students to find the 'scents' of previous course"
concepts rather than asking if they can "see" connections (49). She writes that this
embodiment than conventional metaphors currently allow. For example, Vidali (2010) suggests that

sort of "creative engagement with disability metaphors can further complicate, or 'denaturalize,' ideas of
how bodies and metaphors interact" (ibid.). Furthermore, Moya Bailey (2011, 142), in "'The Illest': Disability
as Metaphor in Hip Hop Music," writes that in "the liminal spaces of hip hop, the reappropriation of ableist
language can mark a new way of using words that departs from generally accepted disparaging
connotations." It is indeed possible and even desirable to use disability metaphorically in ways that are
empowering and that acknowledge the complexity of disabled minds and bodies. To do so, feminist
scholars could take cues from disabled creative writers such as Eli Clare (2007) who describes tremors as a
bodily experience that prevents playing the piano, provokes stares and taunts, and also causes a lover to
rise up in pleasure and beg for more (34, 79, 82). How, we might ask, would a creative metaphor of

Attempts to use metaphor creatively

do not release anyone from responsibility. The growing corpus of work on disability and
tremors attend to the multiplicity of that experience?

rhetoric will clearly be useful to feminists (nondisabled and disabled alike) who aim to use metaphor more
responsibly in their work. As Titchkosky points out, however, "Texts never just get it right or get it wrong
insofar as they are also a 'doing'right or wrong,

texts are always oriented social action,

producing meaning" that involves both the writer and the reader (Titchkosky 2007, 21; emphasis in
Titchkosky). We can never fully predict the way in which our metaphors will be read or used once our words
are out in the world. Although I never contacted hooks to ask about her use of "emotional cripples" (as so
many folks at the conference wanted me to do), nor did I point out to the pilot that he had misunderstood
the woman's use of "Deaf," my experience of these two events and my further research into the topic of

better incorporation of disability issues

into feminist work is not simply a matter of using more inclusive, politicallycorrect language; rather, we must be willing to engage in difficult
dialogues, to acknowledge the open-endedness of our inherently metaphoric language and
disability as metaphor have made clear to me that

communicate with one another across differencesin whatever ways and with whatever modes we use to
do so. I contend, therefore, that a feminist philosophy of languagethat is, language conveyed in any
format or mode of communication, not just scholarly writing aloneought to incorporate insights from
disability studies and be premised on the following general concepts. Note that this feminist philosophy of
language is a process, not a product, "an art, not a science" (Hall 2012, 31). First, do no harm. Do not use
language that aligns negative concepts or connotations with another marginalized group, even if that
language is what seems most powerful, evocative, and effective. Many of us have taught our students and
our peers to consider the meanings that are embedded in phrases such as "throwing like a girl" and "acting

We have likely shunned the use of the term gay to refer to

something as silly and discouraged use of the term retard in order to insult;
yet, some of us cling to the terms blind, deaf, dumb in order to insult, invalidate, and
demean. Therefore, second: be responsible. Language is never neutral. We
make choices about the words we use and we have a responsibility
to understand both the denotation and connotation of the words we
choose. We must interrogate metaphors and other forms of speech in the same rigorous way
and to the same extent that we would investigate and understand any theory or
concept before we use it in our work. Metaphors have political content and effect; they are
like a pussy."

not merely the creative, stylistic delivery of the "real" meaning of a given phrase or argument. On the
contrary, the content and style of delivery of these rhetorical practices are inseparable: they inform and
inflect one another. Third, and finally: be accountable and open to criticism. Despite our best feminist

we must be willing to let go of words

or concepts that do damage to others and develop new words, new
metaphors, and new ideas that better serve and further our feminist goals. This feminist
intentions, we cannot always get it right. Nevertheless,

philosophy of language allows for us to enact an affective politics that embraces the linguistic utility of

metaphor, yet remains intellectually rigorous and committed to the social justice mission of the feminist
movement.