Inspiration Porn: links on the subject

This is a constant work in progress with newer articles and finds posted to the top of the page.
 One PWOD activist chastised me for using the term “inspiration porn” because it detracted from and minimized the damage and injury of “real porn” , but inspiration porn IS real porn. It is the depiction of a dehumanized and objectified person as other, for the gratification of the gaze of the viewer. It is everything porn is– exploitation, dehumanization, objectification, commercialization, abuse. We deserve to use that term an name our experience without the additional gaze of those who think liberation, revolution and justice doesn’t include us or can be carried out without us.

Dangerous Neighborhoods: Cyber abuse, harassment and threats: Women online.

BY Emma Rosenthal

A work in progress, new material to be added.

Most people when abused, cyber stalked, harassed and bullied, quietly go away. This makes it easier to start over. There is no trail of them making a fuss. Fewer people will know about the abuse. Because abuse attracts more abuse. Once you are marked as a target there is a popular notion that you brought it on yourself, that there must be some truth to the accusations, that you are an easy mark.
I am not a good victim. I go down screaming. I leave nail marks in the wall. I spin the wheel of the car to escape. I write about it. I will tell the story. I want my victimization to be known. I want those who read this language to be warned. I leave a map so others will know where it is safe to tread. I do not give my abuser the luxury of moving on, not that easy.
I am disappointed in many people who run away. Who do not talk down the abuse, who pretend it is not their comrade or their community. Who participate in the illusion that it is ever about the victim or their reaction, or that this is at all personal.
There are models of community accountability. Public ostracism, threats and character assassination is never acceptable. We must start to understand too, that when one person is targeted, none of us is safe. Bullies will choose the most vulnerable, but that doesn’t make the online abuse any less a community issue. Supporting the victim is a collective responsibility. Failure to do so is a collective failure.
Abusers that go unchallenged will continue to abuse, will gain power each time they are allowed to get away with the abuse.
 Those committing character assassination must hurl accusations they know are not true. If they were true, one could rebut, respond, make amends, demonstrate accountability. This would not serve the assassin. For the assassin it is important to destroy the opponent, not change them. A series of false accusations, to which the accused can’t honestly confess is much more powerful in providing the illusion that the person under attack is not willing to dialogue, not willing to take responsibility. But one cannot be responsible for the false accusations hurled at them, like stones at a stoning. It is the fault of the one who throws.
In our on line lives, proof is so much easier than in our analog world. Before believing an abusive tirade or an underhanded compliment demand proof. Don’t go along for the ride. Accountability requires evidence. Make them show receipts.


The Amazing Disappearing Emma

Or “Emma, Emma where have you been?”

Well I’ve not been here or my other blogs as much. Mostly I’ve been on facebook, where interaction is more immediate. I post my informal rants, which initially would have shown up here, on facebook, where I can have more interaction. People respond there. The comments here are not as interactive and not as frequent. There’s a hierarchy between blogger and reader that isn’t a factor on facebook. So facebook changed the way I use blogging.

And I got tired of writing up every, single. time. I. endured. humiliation. or. abuse.

With DISability, it’s everywhere, every time we leave the house, and often in our homes too.

I’ve changed the way I write DISability. I used to write it “dis-ability”, but write it “DISability”, now. Both writings emphasize the social construct of DISablement– that it is what is done TO us, that it is not what ever condition or nonconformity we have, but rather, the social construct of isolation, segregation, institutionalization, discrimination, clientization, infantilization, etc. But “dis-ability” won’t show up in an internet search for “disability”, and “DISability” does. So I think that’s an improvement.

I’ve also (going back to the indignities) added the lexicon that distinguishes caretaker from caregiver. How significant and curious that these two words are considered synonyms. Since when is “taker” and “giver” the same? So I use “caretaker” to mean an abusive person who is assigned or assumed the care of a DISabled person, as opposed to “caregiver” who is someone who gives empathic, attentive and loving care. Clever, huh? Thanks! I think so.

I’ve also been really, really busy, and focused on survival, the house, getting through the day, managing my health, dealing with the imposition of aging, staying closer to home.

Recently I’ve limited my social interaction, including on facebook, which is perhaps why I’m blogging again. The abuse of DISfolx is just so rampant, and socially tolerated, especially in social justice, human rights and educational communities and environments.  It’s just unbearable. As I’ve said before, I can expect a humiliating, dangerous or violent experience almost every time I leave the house. So I’ve withdrawn a bit. I go out when I have to, shop on line when I need things, work out of my home, create community closest to where I live, and budget the amount of abuse I have to sustain. Or so I thought. I was happy working here, at DragonflyHill Urban Farm, working with people I love, creating a supportive community, where each person’s needs isn’t seen as a burden, but an opportunity for greater sustainability. (For example, my inability to stand for long periods of time, means I need meals prepared for me, resulting in our huge community breakfasts, and everyone starting the day together, with a healthy meal.) And then the city proposed a home sharing ordinance that would wipe us OUT. I’ve been writing about that a lot on the DragonflyHill blog, and will be writing more, in the coming days. I’m especially interested in how the rhetoric against home sharing pretends it’s a violation of housing, human, DISability, workers, rights, when it is ESSENTIALLY about all of those. Home sharing provides jobs and housing for people, many of whom are outside of the labor force, including people with DISabilities, undocumented workers, formerly incarcerated and otherwise marginalized folx.

There’s also the illusion that it’s passive income, when it is not. We work so hard here–all of us– essentially domestic work, which is why those pretending home sharing is taking away jobs and housing, can get away with that assertion. Shame on them for perpetuating and exploiting devalued and essential domestic labor as easy and valueless.

Getting this business off the ground has been a daunting task, and what little strength I have has gone into this. I think we’ve finally got to a point where I can clear my head enough to even consider blogging again, more regularly. Social media is mostly my job on the farm, and I think I’ve finally found my groove.

Andy, Xeres, Glenda and I have also launched, are launching The WE Empowerment Center, to make the benefits of nonprofit status and the nonprofit industrial complex, more accessible to ordinary folx. We’ve streamlined the application process and made it easier for people who may not have the organizational social capital to get in the game.

We have facebook pages, blogs, web pages, and EVERYTHING!

And, I’ve updated my photography page, complete with images of the house and everything we did to get it ready for where we are today.

And yes, I COULD get my own URLs for each of these, but I like giving credit to the interface I’m using. It’s more of a commons, a gathering place. So smugmug, or wordpress, brings it all together.

So see you on my other sites, and here, between the sheets, In Bed With Frida Kahlo.


A whole new album of several fake Frida photos is out and about on facebook. All of these photos put Frida (as photographed by Imogene Cunningham) on the bodies of white actresses and models: Donnette Thayer, Madonna and Patti Smith. In the case of Smith, the photo is from the cover of the album Horses, as photographed by Maplethorpe. This gross appropriation of the bodies, faces and labor of women, women of color, dis-abled women and gay men is hugely problematic. So just stop doing it.

The original photo of Frida Kahlo, as taken by Immogene Cunningham. Frida is standing, draped in a reboso, a beaded necklace, earrings, her hair pulled back. She wis wearing a pleated skirt. Only her wrists, hands face and neck are showing.
Frida Kahlo photo manipulations…
Her Body Is Not Your Playground by Mia McKenzie…

Patti Smith, late 70s, she is standing, expressionless, with a white shirt, suspenders, with a black jacket draped over her shoulder. Her mid length black hair, is cut with bangs. Photo by Maplethorpe

Against the expectation of patient obedience and conformity

What happened yesterday at the Dr’s office. (The draft of a letter)

The medical establishment has become more and more demanding that patients behave obediently and passively. This is no way to involve people in their own healing and health, but it does give the health care workers and providers a distorted and dangerous sense of power and entitlement.

Yesterday I went to see a my doctor. I was just reassigned to her as I had seen her once before but had tried two other doctors since and decided to come back to her (but that’s another story). I showed up with my partner, Andy, who is also her patient. He has been seen at that office by that staff for years now.

We showed up for what I had been told (at the time the appointment was set and in two telephone confirmations) was a 3 PM appointment. When we got there (I always go with a witness and support) the receptionist told me i had a 3:45 appointment, and had a series of excuses and explanations for why I had been misinformed. I complained about this totally inexcusable lack of respect for my time, energy and health. (With fibromyalgia, sitting in chairs is very painful and unhealthy.) They told me the DR would be with me soon, but actually didn’t see me until 3:50. I suggested they compensate me at doctors’ wages. No one saw the humor in that. HM.

They took me (and Andy) back to a room and told me I wouldn’t be waiting long. We had the distinct impression they were just trying to get my complaining butt OUT of the waiting area.

It didn’t help that when the medical assistant/nurse (not sure), CONNIE asked me to step on the scale, I politely refused. She was visibly and verbally annoyed at my refusal and kept arguing with me about why I had to get on the scale, and I was politely and repeatedly assertive that I indeed did not.

She was what I call “California polite.” It’s actually not polite at all. It comes from a place of deep disgust and a total refusal to meet the needs of someone one is supposed to be taking care of. Key phrases include “I can’t help you when you’re upset” “You need to calm down.” “I’m just doing my job.” It is full of false concern and visible contempt.

We met with the doctor who finally saw us an hour after we arrived, and 50 minutes after the stated but only 5 minutes after the apparently secret real time time of my appointment. The appointment went well and the basic intentions of my appointment were met. YAY! because often that’s not an easy process. The doctor was helpful, concerned and supportive.

While waiting for the doctor, we noticed a sign on the wall admonishing patients against using any equipment and that if we did, the clinic was not liable for injuries. This surprised me, that the concern was not for patient safety, but rather clinic liability.

When CONNIE came in to draw blood for tests, she brought someone with her, who we found out was her supervisor KIM. I had never had a supervisor brought in so my blood could be drawn. I’m an easy stick and it went by uneventfully, but it was evident that CONNIE had felt she needed some back up to take blood from me.

Then I was told to meet with CONNIE out by the desk and set up another appointment. When we got to the desk I asked for a chair, that standing sent shooting pains down my legs and I can’t stand long. There were several office chairs around that no one was sitting in. CONNIE refused. I suggested she just let me sit in one of the office chairs, and with the most smug and condescending tone, told me she could get me a wheelchair. It was rhetorical. Most people who “don’t need” a wheelchair, won’t sit in one. There’s a lot of power in putting someone in a wheelchair as opposed to both of us sitting in a “real chair”. I said that was fine, that she needed to get me a wheelchair. Not that one was immediately available. I remained standing and waiting, at which point I decided to sit down in one of the empty chairs, which meant going behind the nurse’s station. The other nurse/medical assistant explained to me that the office chairs were on wheels and I could fall and this was why I couldn’t sit in those chairs, and called security. There didn’t seem to be any concern that I could fall if I was standing up, having just told them that I can’t stand up for long. the other nurse/medical assistant called the supervisor. At that point the wheelchair and CONNIE showed up and I moved to my assigned seat. CONNIE was visibly smug and clearly entitled to my obedience, even at the point of my discomfort, and danger.

If the concern is of liability, certainly denying a person a chair as a reasonable accommodation would put the agency at risk. The experience I had as a disabled person requesting a simple accommodation is sufficient grounds for damages and litigation.

As it was, I did mention to the other staff as CONNIE went to fetch a wheelchair, that I had read the waiver of liability for use of equipment and was willing to take my chances. Given years of experience sitting in chairs, in retrospect, I think I was more than qualified in the use of such specialized and dangerous equipment.

Supervisor Kim showed up again, just as CONNIE was ratcheting up the conflict with very aggressive demands to silence me, and get me to point of passive obedience. This is the pathologizing of anger. I had already been given orders about where to put my body (on a scale), made to wait 50 minutes, not because the DR was behind schedule, but because I had been told to arrive 45 minutes in advance of the secret time of my appointment. At one point I was asked if I didn’t want to go into the waiting room and wait while my husband got my appointment. I said I did not, and that I wanted to participate in my own treatment and setting of my own appointment. At this point CONNIE was now speaking very loudly about me, in the open hallway, with a play by play of my disobedience. It came out that she had considered me a security threat initially when she brought in Supervisor Kim to observe the blood draw. I was angry but clear and countered CONNIE’s demands by pointing out that if I were the security risk she seemed to think I was, CONNIE’s behavior was only going to escalate the situation. If I was really a threat, CONNIE’S behavior certainly wasn’t going to diffuse the situation. In my anger, I pointed out that I was upset, but that I was clear and focused and able to articulate my concerns. Asking for A CHAIR is the most simplest form of accommodation, and if the office chairs are so dangerous, the staff shouldn’t be required to use them, either. (RIGHT?). I stated that anger itself does not make someone a security risk that it is a normal and healthy emotion when one is being mistreated and that my passivity is not assured in the face of mistreatment. Supervisor Kim listened and presented as someone who was supportive and concerned. Meanwhile CONNIE called someone and asked to speak with them and left, returning a little later with the broadest, smuggest smile on her face. She seemed very confident that her mistreatment of me was an entitlement and one that would not cause her any discomfort or reprimand from her employer, that the obedience of patients, not our own ability to advocate for ourselves at the point of medical service, was an expectation and sewn deep into her job description.

Still angry, and now having trouble walking, because that’s what happens when you mix (iatrogenic) stress and fibromyalgia, I was still talking to Supervisor Kim. I suggested, proactively, that to avoid this problem in the future, I remain seated in the exam room while the nursing staff makes my appointment. (This way I don’t interfere with their seating assignments). I also said that I did not consent to have CONNIE read my medical records and I refused to have CONNIE work with me in the future.

If patients are going to be participants in our own health care, we have to be treated with respect, which includes respect for all our health issues (including mental health diagnosis), not using those diagnosis or our status as patients as evidence against us. Our agency and bodily autonomy has to be respected and requests for simple accommodations needs to be understood as a basic human right. The medical establishment is not exempt from the requisites of reasonable accommodations (like an available chair during the intake and release stages of the appointment.)

If we have to sit in the wheelchair, which is a very powerful way of reinforcing the power dynamic, when a stationary or office chair would suffice, one should be immediately available.

Staff should be empowered to provide chairs and other accommodations to patients, should be trained in patient agency and autonomy and especially in crisis management and how to deescalate a conflict, not provoke one.

If my very simple assertions of body autonomy are rare in a medical office, then along with your diabetes, nutrition, yoga classes and other classes offered to patients, your clientele needs support in how to assert themselves with medical personnel and such assertions need to be respected, not seen as a threat.

When a patient cannot ask for a chair or refuse to stand on a scale, they will certainly not be comfortable with asserting their needs in more pressing matters against even more entitled personnel, like doctors and hospital administrators. This makes patient participation in our own healthcare, including raising issues of concern, voicing a difference of opinion, providing essential medical or personal history (especially if that history will be used as justification for abuse by medical personnel) even more difficult and unlikely. Staff should be encouraging patient and customer input and requests to make our visit healthier and more comfortable, not ratcheting up our marginalization and passivity as a point of entitlement and staff comfort.

I left the office devastated and exhausted. Having lost almost an hour of my time due to the miscommunication of my appointment time, and another hour asserting my right to be a dissatisfied customer against the expectations of patient obedience and conformity, I cancelled the other events I had scheduled that evening. I have only so much energy for these sorts of indignities and have learned to budget my outrage by limiting my exposure to the CONNIEs of the world and the institutions that empower that total lack of empathy and compassion.

Emma’s Birthday Request



Dragonfly Team


My birthday is on February 11. This year I will be 57 years old, and I have a birthday request, in the spirit of building community and the deep understanding that what we do for each other we do for ourselves, I ask you to join and support some aspect of my community, either the business:  DragonflyHill Urban Farm  or the nonprofit: The WE Empowerment Center, (The WE Center) and purchase one of the many services we offer or donate so someone else can benefit.  -Emma
Exterior of DragonflyHill Urban Farm

DragonflyHill Urban Farm.


Reiki and Radical Healing: Buy a Reiki and Radical Healing session with me.

DragonflyHill Studios Photography:  Purchase a portrait or head shot session with Me and Bijan or have us come out to your house and photograph your home or other venue.

DragonflyHill Studios and Design: Have DragonflyHill Studios design a room in your house or take care of a long over due repair or complete that special project: We provide around maintenance and repairs: Cleaning, Sorting, Organizing, Fixing, Repairing, Repairs, Exterior paint, Interior Paint, Improvements, Short Term Rental cleaning and registration, Painting, House painting, Tile, Carpentry, Roofing, Window Washing, Installations, Design, Assembling Furniture, Car Wash and Detailing, Clutter Removal, Allergy Abatement, Organic Farming, Urban Farming, Landscaping, Raised bed, soil prep, composting, building, Drip Irrigation Installation and Maintenance, Cement Work.

DragonflyHill Urban Farm Bed and Breakfast Experience:
Schedule a stay with us in our beautiful suites or donate the money to a vacation or reprieve for someone coming to L.A. or someone who needs housing.

DragonflyHill Event and Space Rental:  Rent out our studio for an event you’ve been meaning to have– rehearsal space, healing space, room for classes, filming, photo studio. For film rental:

DragonflyHill Community Tax Services: Make an appointment to get your taxes done with Andy Griggs

Yoga for All Bodies: Treat yourself to a yoga class, or a series of classes at DragonflyHill Urban Farm $10-15$ a class, (sliding scale).

To make a purchase from DragonflyHill Urban Farm:
Buy Now Button with Credit Cards


The WE Empowerment Center.
The WE Empowerment Center logo

Our non-profit organization providing organizational support and financial receivership to the larger community.

Become a WE Empowerment Center Project:
Design your own non profit project you want to raise funds for, and sign up to be one of our projects. That community effort you’ve wanted to raise funds for, your own art work or writing; anything that falls under the umbrella of non-profit efforts can become a WE Empowerment Center project (as long as you’re aligned with the mission statement). You do the work you love to do and raise the funds. Donations (including your own) are tax deductible. We do the paperwork.

Support Emma Rosenthal Studios:

To make a donation to The WE Center go to the link provided above or simply make payments in the link below:

Buy Now Button with Credit Cards

#euthanizepetersinger the TWEET is on. (and sign the petition)

For links: information and action, scroll down. 

Peter Singer is the Ethics and Philosophy professor at Princeton University. He is also considered the father of “animal rights” while simultaneously proposing that killing dis-abled people is ethical, especially if it makes the majority of people happy. (That is, whatever makes the majority happy, is the moral and ethical choice.) Call it the extreme example of the depravity of the academy, where intellectual acrobatics are rewarded over any ethic that demands the full inclusion of everyone, all people. And don’t get me started on Animal rights, when the animal rights movement has yet to disown this fraud, this mengele the Professor Death. 

The hashtag is on!!! Let the tweeting being. Demand:
  • That Princeton University officials should immediately call for Professor Singer’s resignation;
  • That Princeton University officials should publicly disavow Singer’s statements that both devalue the lives of people with disabilities and advocate public policies that would end those lives through denial of healthcare; and
  • That the New Jersey Legislature and Governor Chris Christie publicly denounce the lethal and discriminatory public health care policy advocated by Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer.

Sign the petition : Denounce Lethal Anti-Disability Healthcare Policy Advocated by Peter Singer

Protest Over Princeton’s New Ethics Professor
New York Times

“Demonstrators opposed to Princeton’s hiring of Peter Singer, who has written in support of euthanasia for some disabled infants and is the university’s first professor of bioethics, protested his inaugural day of teaching yesterday by chaining themselves to the administration building.

The Princeton police said they arrested 14 people who refused to stop blocking the entrances to Nassau Hall, the administration building. Most of the protesters were in motorized wheelchairs and either locked themselves to the building or linked their chairs with handcuffs. They were charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct and released.

”This protest is more against Princeton than it is against Peter Singer,” said Stephen Drake, an organizer of the rally for Not Dead Yet, a disability rights group. ”The university has chosen to hire this man, to give him a platform.””


In his own words:

“In Animal Liberation I propose asking experimenters who use animals if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on human beings at a similar mental level — say, those born with irreversible brain damage. Experimenters who consider their work justified because of the benefits it brings should declare whether they consider such experiments justifiable. If they do not, they should be asked to explain why they think that benefits to a large number of human beings can outweigh harming animals, but cannot outweigh inflicting similar harm on humans. In my view, this belief is evidence of speciesism.

Even if some individual experiments may be justified, this does not mean that the institutional practice of experimenting on animals is justified.”

“Q. You have been quoted as saying: “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” Is that quote accurate?

A. (Singer):  It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person”

Unspeakable Conversations (Should I have been killed at birth? The case for my life.) The New York Times Magazine ^ | 02/16/03 | HARRIET McBRYDE JOHNSON

Harriet McBryde Johnson
Whenever I try to wrap my head around his tight string of syllogisms, my brain gets so fried it’s . . . almost fun. Mercy! It’s like ”Alice in Wonderland.”He insists he doesn’t want to kill me. He simply thinks it would have been better, all things considered, to have given my parents the option of killing the baby I once was, and to let other parents kill similar babies as they come along and thereby avoid the suffering that comes with lives like mine and satisfy the reasonable preferences of parents for a different kind of child. It has nothing to do with me. I should not feel threatened.

It is a chilly Monday in late March, just less than a year ago. I am at Princeton University. My host is Prof. Peter Singer, often called — and not just by his book publicist — the most influential philosopher of our time. He is the man who wants me dead. No, that’s not at all fair. He wants to legalize the killing of certain babies who might come to be like me if allowed to live. He also says he believes that it should be lawful under some circumstances to kill, at any age, individuals with cognitive impairments so severe that he doesn’t consider them ”persons.” What does it take to be a person? Awareness of your own existence in time. The capacity to harbor preferences as to the future, including the preference for continuing to live.

Princeton professor calls for killing disabled infants under Obamacare

“According to an article published Sunday by World Net Daily, a Princeton University professor has suggested that severely disabled infants be killed to cut health care costs and for moral reasons. In a radio interview Sunday with Aaron Klein, broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM, Princeton University ethics professor Peter Singer argued it is “reasonable” for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies.

Several times during the interview Singer argued the health-care system under Obamacare should openly acknowledge health-care rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.” Singer also repeatedly referred to a disabled infant as “it” during the interview.”