When a feel-good story focuses on the heroism of an abled 'savior', it's considered "inspiporn". Same kind of concept as when a story focuses on a white person doing things for POC, and comes from the same psychology as the man who says "we gave women the vote". These things infantilize the marginalized group and normalize/enable the problematic environment. Even the stories of disadvantaged people creating things that make them equal to non-disadvantaged people are cringey for the same reason - the environment is seen as normal and "overcoming" is, although celebrated, still somehow taken for granted.
Do you constantly rely on the kindness of individuals to meet your needs, or spend time with people who constantly insult and bully you? In these kinds of stories, it's made clear that those are expected behaviors for marginalized folks. We are expected to go without if people don't provide; we are expected to willingly be abused for the sake of companionship and "mercy".
That's why these stories make me sick.
To sum up: my "blue flag" is this: why wasn't anyone else helping? The true villain here isn't the child, it's the environment - and any story that doesn't recognize that can easily fall into the inspiporn trap. Words do matter. Why are we calling someone a hero for meeting basic needs? Why are we okay with exploiting the whole story for clickbait?
Comments
Post a Comment