Just A Not So Friendly Reminder That If You

The Mask Trope, and Disfiguremisia in Media

[large text: The Mask Trope, and Disfiguremisia in Media]

If you followed this blog for more than like a week, you're probably familiar with “the mask trope” or at least with me complaining about it over and over in perpetuity. But why is it bad and why can't this dude shut up about it?

Let's start with who this trope applies to: characters with facial differences. There is some overlap with blind characters as well; think of the blindfold that is forced on a blind character for no reason. Here is a great explanation of it in this context by blindbeta. It's an excellent post in general, even if your character isn't blind or low vision you should read at least the last few paragraphs.

Here's a good ol’ tired link to what a facial difference is, but to put it simply:

If you have a character, who is a burn survivor or has scars, who wears a mask, this is exactly this trope.

The concept applies to other facial differences as well, but scars and burns are 99% of the representation and “representation” we get, so I'll be using these somewhat interchangeably here.

The mask can be exactly what you think, but it refers to any facial covering that doesn't have a medical purpose. So for example, a CPAP mask doesn't count for this trope, but a Magic Porcelain Mask absolutely does. Bandages do as well. If it covers the part of the face that is “different”, it can be a mask in the context used here.

Eye patches are on thin ice because while they do serve a medical purpose in real life, in 99.9% of media they are used for the same purpose as a mask. It's purely aesthetic.

With that out of the way, let's get into why this trope sucks and find its roots. Because every trope is just a symptom of something, really.

Roughly in order of the least to most important reasons...

Why It Sucks 

[large text: Why It Sucks]

It's overdone. As in — boring. You made your character visibly different, and now they're no longer that. What is the point? Just don't give them the damn scar if you're going to hide it. 

Zero connection with reality. No one does this. I don't even know how to elaborate on this. This doesn't represent anyone because no one does this.

Disability erasure. For the majority of characters with facial differences, their scars or burns somehow don't disable them physically, so the only thing left is the visible part… aaand the mask takes care of it too. Again, what's the point? If you want to make your disabled character abled, then just have them be abled. What is the point of "curing" them other than to make it completely pointless?

Making your readers with facial differences feel straight up bad. I'm gonna be honest: this hurts to see when it's all you get, over and over. Imagine there's this thing that everyone bullied you about, everyone still stares at, that is with you 24/7. Imagine you wanted to see something where people like you aren't treated like a freakshow. Somewhat unrealistic, but imagine that. That kind of world would only exist in fiction, right? So let's look into fiction- oh, none of the positive (or at least not "child-murderer evil") characters look like me. I mean they do, but they don't. They're forced to hide the one thing that connects us. I don't want to hide myself. I don't want to be told over and over that this is what people like me should do. That this is what other people expect so much that it's basically the default way a person with a facial difference can exist. I don't want this.

Perpetuating disfiguremisia. 

"Quick" Disfiguremisia Talk

[large text: "Quick" Disfiguremisia Talk]

It's quick when compared to my average facial difference discussion post, bear with me please.

Disfiguremisia; portmanteau of disfigure from “disfigurement” and -misia, Greek for hatred. 

Also known as discrimination of those mythical horrifically deformed people.

It shows up in fiction all the time; in-universe and in-narrative. Mask trope is one of the most common* representations of it, and it's also a trope that is gaining traction more and more, both in visual art and writing. This is a trope I particularly hate, because it's a blatant symptom of disfiguremisia. It's not hidden and it doesn't try to be. It's a painful remainder that I do not want nor need.

*most common is easily “evil disfigured villain”, just look at any horror media. But that's for another post, if ever.

When you put your character in a mask, it sends a clear message: in your story, facial differences aren't welcome. The world is hostile. Other characters are hostile. The author is, quite possibly, hostile. Maybe consciously, but almost always not, they just don't think that disfiguremisia means anything because it's the default setting. No one wants to see you because your face makes you gross and unsightly. If you have a burn; good luck, but we think you're too ugly to have a face. Have a scar? Too bad, now you don't. Get hidden.

Everything here is a decision that was made by the author. You are the one who makes the world. You are the person who decides if being disabled is acceptable or not there. The story doesn't have a mind of its own, you chose to make it disfiguremisic. It doesn't have to be.

Questions to Ask Yourself

[large text: Questions to Ask Yourself]

Since I started talking about facial differences on this blog, I have noticed a very specific trend in how facial differences are treated when compared to other disabilities. A lot of writers and artists are interested in worldbuilding where accessibility is considered, where disabled people are accepted, where neurodivergence is seen as an important part of the human experience, not something “other”. This is amazing, genuinely.

Yet, absolutely no one seems to be interested in a world that is anything but cruel to facial differences. There's no escapist fantasies for us. You see this over and over, at some point it feels like the same story with different names attached.

The only way a character with a facial difference can exist is to hide it. Otherwise, they are shamed by society. Seen as something gross. I noticed that it really doesn't matter who the character is, facial difference is this great equalizer. Both ancient deities and talking forest cats get treated as the same brand of disgusting thing as long as they're scarred, as long as they had something explode in their face, as long as they've been cursed. They can be accomplished, they can be a badass, they can be the leader of the world, they can kill a dragon, but they cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to peacefully exist with a facial difference. They have to hide it in the literal sense, or be made to feel that they should. Constantly ashamed, embarrassed that they dare to have a face.

Question one to ask yourself: why is disfiguremisia a part of your story?

I'm part of a few minority groups. I'm an immigrant, I'm disabled, I'm queer. I get enough shit in real life for this so I like to take a break once in a while. I love stories where transphobia isn't a thing. Where xenophobia doesn't come up. But my whole life, I can't seem to find stories that don't spew out disfiguremisia in one way or the other at the first possible opportunity.

Why is disfiguremisia a default part of your worldbuilding? Why can't it be left out? Why in societies with scarred saviors and warriors is there such intense disgust for them? Why can't anyone even just question why this is the state of the world?

Why is disfiguremisia normal in your story?

Question two: do you know enough about disfiguremisia to write about it?

Ask yourself, really. Do you? Writers sometimes ask if or how to portray ableism when they themselves aren't disabled, but no one bothers to wonder if maybe they aren't knowledgeable enough to make half their story about their POV character experiencing disfiguremisia. How much do you know, and from where? Have you read Mikaela Moody or any other advocates’ work around disfiguremisia? Do you understand the way it intersects; with being a trans woman, with being Black? What is your education on this topic?

And for USAmericans... do you know what "Ugly Laws" are, and when they ended?

Question three: what does your story associate with facial difference — and why?

If I had to guess; “shame”, “embarrassment”, “violence”, "disgust", “intimidation”, “trauma”, “guilt”, “evil”, “curse”, “discomfort”, “fear”, or similar would show up, because it's always the same shit.

Why doesn't it associate it with positive concepts? Why not “hope” or “love” or “pride” or “community”? Why not “soft” or “delicate”? Dare I say, “beauty” or “innocence”? Why not “blessing”? “Acceptance”?

Why not “normal”?

Question four: why did you make the character the way they are? 

Have you considered that there are other things than “horrifically burned for some moral failing” or “most traumatic scenario put to paper”? Why is it always “a tough character with a history of violence” and never “a Disfigured princess”? Why not “a loving parent” or “a fashionable girl”, instead of “the most unkind person you ever met” and “total badass who doesn’t care about anything - other than how scary their facial difference is to these poor ableds”? Don’t endlessly associate us with brutality and suffering. We aren’t violent or manipulative or physically strong or brash or bloodthirsty by default. We can be soft, and frail and gentle and kind - and we can still be proud and unashamed.

Question five: why is your character just… fine with all this?

Can’t they make a community with other people with facial differences and do something about this? Demand the right to exist as disabled and not have to hide their literal face? Why are they cool with being dehumanized and treated with such hatred? Especially if they fall into the "not so soft and kind" category that I just talked about, it seems obvious to me that they would be incredibly and loudly pissed off about being discriminated against over and over... Why can't your character, who is a subject of disfiguremisia, realize that maybe it's disfiguremisia that's the problem, and try to fix it?

Question six: why is your character wearing a mask? 

Usually, there's no reason. Most of the time the author hasn't considered that there even should be one, the character just wears a mask because that's what people with facial differences do in their mind. Most writers aren't interested in this kind of research or even considering it as a thing they should do. The community is unimportant to them, it's not like we are real people who read books. They think they understand, because to them it's not complex, it's not nuanced. It's ugly = bad. Why would you need a reason?

For cases where the reason is stated, I promise, I have heard of every single one. To quote, "to spare others from looking at them". I have read, "content warning: he has burn scars under the mask, he absolutely hates taking it off!", emphasis not mine. Because "he hates the way his skin looks", because "they care for their appearance a lot" (facial differences make you ugly, remember?). My favorite: "only has scars and the mask when he's a villain, not as a hero", just to subtly drive the point home. This isn't the extreme end of the spectrum. Now, imagine being a reader with a facial difference. This is your representation, sitting next to Freddy Krueger and Voldemort.

How do you feel?

F.A.Q. [frequently asked questions]

[large text: F.A.Q. [frequently asked questions]]

As in, answers and “answers” to common arguments or concerns. 

“Actually they want to hide their facial difference” - your character doesn’t have free will. You want them to hide it. Again; why.

“They are hiding it to be more inconspicuous!” - I get that there are elves in their world, but there’s no universe where wearing a mask with eye cutouts on the street is less noticeable than having a scar. Facial differences aren’t open wounds sprinkling with blood, in case that's not clear. Also, despite what you clearly think, unless your setting has like twelve people total, there will be multiple people with facial differences in it.

“It’s for other people's comfort” - why are other characters disfiguremisic to this extent? Are they forcing all minorities to stay hidden and out of sight too? That’s a horrible society to exist in.

“They are wearing it for Actual Practical Reason” - cool! I hope that this means you have other characters with facial differences that don’t wear it for any reason.

"It's the character's artistic expression" - I sure hope that there are abled characters with the same kind of expression then.

“They’re ashamed of their face” - and they never have any character development that would make that go away? That's just bad writing. Why are they ashamed in the first place? Why is shame the default stance to have about your own face in your story? I get that you think we should be ashamed and do these ridiculous things, but in real life we just live with it. 

"Now that you say that it is kinda messed up but I'm too far into the story please help" - here you go.

“[some variation of My Character is evil so it's fine/a killer so it fits/just too disgusting to show their disability” - this is the one of these cases where I’m fine with disability erasure, actually. Please don’t make them have a facial difference. This is the type of harm that real life activists spend years and decades undoing. Disfiguremisia from horror movies released in the 70s is still relevant. It still affects people today.

"But [in-universe explanation why disfiguremisia is cool and fine actually]" - this changes nothing.

Closing Remarks

[large text: Closing Remarks]

I hope that this post explains my thoughts on facial difference representation better. It's a complicated topic, I get it. I'm also aware that this post might come off as harsh but disfiguremisia shouldn't be treated lightly, it shouldn't be a prop for your whump whatever to play around with. It's real world discrimination with a big chunk of its origins coming out of popular media.

With the asks that have been sent regarding facial differences, I realized that I probably haven't explained what the actual problems are well enough. It's not about some technical definition, or about weird in-universe explanations. It's about categorizing us as some apparently fundamentally different entity that can't possibly be kind and happy, about disfiguremisia so ingrained into our culture that it's apparently impossible to make a world without it; discrimination so deep that it can't be excised, only worked around. But you can get rid of it. You can just not have it there in the first place. Disfiguremisia isn't a fundamental part of how the world works; getting rid of it won't cause it to collapse. Don't portray discrimination as an integral, unquestionable part of the world that has to stay no matter what; whether it's ableism, transphobia, or Islamophobia or anything else. A world without discrimination can exist. If you can't imagine a world without disfiguremisia in fiction... that's bad.

Remember, that your readers aren't going to look at Character with a Scar #14673 and think "now I'm going to research how real life people with facial differences live." They won't, there's no inclination for them to do so. If you don't give them a reason, they won't magically start thinking critically about facial differences and disfiguremisia. People like their biases and they like to think that they understand.

And, even if you're explaining it over and over ;-) (winky face) there will still be people who are going to be actively resistant to giving a shit. To try and get the ones who are capable of caring about us, you, as the author, need to first understand disfiguremisia, study Face Equality, think of me as a human being with human emotions who doesn't want to see people like me treated like garbage in every piece of media I look at. There's a place and time for that media, and if you don't actually understand disfiguremisia, you will only perpetuate it; not "subvert" it, not "comment" on it.

I hope this helps,

Mod Sasza

i feel like people should know there are differences between a kleptomaniac and a "mwehehehe I'm stealing because I'm evil and i like money >:)" character

Saying this as someone that absolutely loves silly cartoon thieves and goons, kleptomania is a compulsive disorder it's not the same thing as stealing for the need of money or becuz you're evil and fucked up

So stop calling thief characters kleptomaniacs, it's pretty frickin harmful for people that actually suffer that disorder :/

Not saying you cannot make a thief character a kleptomaniac,,but you need to know at least what the disorder is like and have some respect

So yeah, the raccoon brothers from happy tree friends are not kleptomaniacs even though so many people said that, they steal because they're evil and greedy, and if it's canon then it's a really bad stereotype or representation (flippy also is a really bad representation of a person with ptsd)

had an interaction a few days ago that i’m still thinking about. I was talking to two students about the Day of Silence protest coming up that friday, and both of them seemed interested but needed more information. Both of these students were disabled with relatively high support needs for communication, processing, and learning. At least one was intellectually disabled.

I explained the basic premise of Day of Silence, and one of the students asked me to repeat myself, explain again. I did this several times, and she was engaged with me, even if she wasn’t processing yet she clearly wanted to know more and was interested in what i was saying. Her para-educator then came over and said it wasn’t worth trying to explain anything to her because she wouldn’t understand.

The para-educator’s intentions were good, she wanted to save me time and believed i may not have known this student was disabled. But to say that, in front of the student, as though she couldn’t hear the comment, is rude at best and downright hostile at worst. Furthermore, to be in a position in which you are the one in charge of helping this person navigate the world, and to believe they only deserve information that you think they can digest, is such an awful way to view someone you are supposed to help. This student was asking me questions, she was listening, and honestly - who cares if in the end she didn’t understand? just because we don’t end up understanding something doesn’t mean we can’t engage with it.

Intellectually disabled individuals and disabled individuals in general are not infants, they’re not incapable of learning or connecting with others. Yes, they may need extra help, and yes, some topics may be too complex for them to tackle, but let the individual decide that for themselves.

TLDR: The person who was supposed to be helping an intellectually disabled student navigate the world decided for that student what they could understand. In doing so, she projected her beliefs about the students abilities and overshadowed the student’s ability to define her own boundaries. Intellectually disabled people deserve the autonomy to decide for themselves what they want to engage with at a given time, not told they are too dumb to understand.

years later House is still as relevant as he ever was

Do not support the "NEXT for Autism" fundraiser on April 30th

NEXT for Autism is endorsed by Autism Speaks, and like Autism Speaks, promotes Applied Behavior Analysis, which forces autistics to hide their behaviors and mask, which is very damaging. NEXT for Autism wants a cure for autism instead of working to create an environment and society where autistics can coexist and thrive alongside everyone else. Focusing on teaching autistics how to hide their more "annoying" behaviors and/or curing them shows that their interest is really in making life easier for caretakers of autistics and for other neurotypicals who might be inconvenienced having to deal with an autistic person out in the wild. Makes sense why they would be linked with Autism Speaks.

There is a change .org petition asking for the fundraiser be cancelled. Sign it here: Petition · Autistic People Have the Right to Exist. Stop the Eugenics Fundraiser. · Change.org

Some of the celebrities involved:

Jimmy Kimmel, Mark Rober, Jon Stewart, Conan O’Brien, Chris Rock, Adam Sandler, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Jack Black, Andy Samberg, Paul Rudd, Maya Rudolph, MrBeast, Zach Galifianakis, Mark Hamill, Sarah Silverman, Terry Crews, Marques Brownlee...

Good news! After planned participants Rhett & Link found out about NEXT's connection to Autism Speaks, they have withdrawn from the event.

Please contact the other above celebrities requesting they also withdraw their support. (and thank Rhett & Link for doing the right thing!)

The r slur is a nasty, nasty word and I do not understand how so many otherwise progressive people hurl it around like confetti. A lot of yall have zero solidarity with those who are intellectually disabled. You are not ""reclaiming"" it when you use it to insult someone. Be real, you just wanna use it cuz it gives you a little surge of catharsis whenever you are Big Mad. Fuck you.

sure there’s a ramp, but is it steep? is there a curb at the top? is the ground uneven? do i need a key for the elevator? are the aisles and doorways wide enough? do i have room to turn? is there furniture and clutter in my way? is the carpet difficult to wheel on? can i open the doors myself?

accessibility to wheelchairs is more than just a ramp.

"Brain damage" only sounds like a harsh and offensive way to describe brain injuries because people constantly use it as an insult. It's a totally neutral descriptor of what it is. I have brain damage. My brain is damaged. It's not ableist to call it that, it's ableist to call people you don't like brain damaged because you think it's an inherently bad thing to be.

Needs to be said, probably controversial, but "bad" people deserve support for their mental health issues as well. "Bad" people should not be dehumanized and berated for their mental health issues. I dont care what they've done

Why “It Was Just a Question” and “It Was Just a Joke” Are Not Defenses For Ableism And Why Your Reaction Is the Most Important Thing

When someone is disabled, neurodiverse, etc people can sometimes ask really ignorant, invasive, or invalidating questions that take emotional labor to answer. And sometimes there is a lot of pressure to answer. This is even worse if it is a joke instead, and the options are to ignore it or say something and risk being yelled at because “it was just a joke, gosh.” Confronting people and setting boundaries gets you called over-sensitive, over-reacting, childish, etc.

I’ll make this clear: it isn’t about your questions or jokes - it is about the assumptions you made when you opened your mouth and the reaction you had when you were corrected.

Let’s Talk About Questions.

I first want to say, I started this blog because I wanted to. You are more free to ask me questions than random blind people on the street. The questions I receive here are also good, researched questions where I can tell someone has read my blog or some articles. I’m not posting to give my followers or anyone else anxiety. The whole point is that these people don’t have an interest in learning, doing any of their own work, or challenging their false beliefs. They want me to endure them and confirm them. I haven’t had to do that here and if I did, it would be easier than in real life because I can choose not to answer a question by deleting it. My followers are also already respectful of and educated on blind people, and so if I have a response that is less than perfectly polite, readers will know why. That is not true outside of this blog.

Now let’s talk about questions and why they can be used in a bad way. What makes a question bad? What is the difference between a genuine and ignorant question? What if you don’t have time to research?

A Bad question here is one that is based on a usually false assumption that prompts a desired answer. An example would be, “Are you really sad that you can’t read?” or “Why would a blind person need a phone when they can’t use it?”

I see a lot of these on tumblr. For example, one blog I followed received an ask that basically said blind people couldn’t be in the orchestra because such and such limitation. These questions have, at best, an obvious assumption along with, at times, a confrontational tone. This person does not want education. They want to defend their belief. A better way to truly ask such a question would be something such as, “I read that people in orchestras and choir have to sight read music. How do blind people navigate this?” No assumption is made about a blind person’s ability. The question is asked in an open manner. The asker has done some research.

Now, in real life, people don’t always preface it with how much research they have done. And let’s be real, it usually isn’t much. But someone asking, “Do you prefer Braille or do you use a computer to read?” shows at least some knowledge. They aren’t trying to put me into a box or use me for confirmation bias. It isn’t so much about getting the perfect wording. It’s about not expecting the blind person to confirm something for you, argue with you, or educate you without you putting in any effort. Even “I was wondering how you do assignments,” is open and allows for my response. If you aren’t able to research in the moment, make your question open or be transparent. To be honest, I feel better about people not doing research in person than online, because being online usually shows you have some time and tools to research. If resources are not available to you and you don’t have the internet for long periods of time, preface your question with that and acknowledge that the person does not have to respond if your question is offensive. Again,it isn’t about getting it 100% right, but truly trying and prioritizing the comfort of the person you are asking.

When I confront people for asking a question with an assumption, I often receive an angry response. The fault is placed on me for not educating people, for not being cooperative, for being mean. This happens whether I answer or not. If I try to explain to someone assuming I can’t read that I, in fact, can read or use a phone or whatever, this is seen as rude or not cooperative. Even confrontational. This person comes away from the conversation now believing blind people are rude and angry. Usually they assume the blind person is jealous of them for being able to see. Which, in that instance, would not be true.

Making assumptions that a person cannot possibly do something because of their disability, especially when you are ignoring what that person says, is ableist. Pointing this out is not attacking you or even, necessarily, judging you. They are not calling you any other name, no matter what else you claim it means to you. (I once had someone claim that when I said the word ableism or ableist she heard the word bitch.)

Let’s Talk About Jokes.

This one is much harder to navigate, especially because blind people often make jokes themselves. However, I want to continue to consider the underlying assumption and judgement some jokes can contain. The joke is usually bad when it contains an ignorant assumption and falls apart when that assumption is corrected.

One example is that picture that often goes around with a person holding a white cane is using a phone. The joke asks what’s wrong with the picture. The problem is not that it’s a joke, as most people assume. The problem is the assumption underneath this particular example, which, by the way, can result in blind people being harassed and even hurt. Read my post here.

But it isn’t even the joke that is the problem. The reaction is. Instead of being accused to attacking someone for an innocent question, someone who points out the problem with a joke or even that it was hurtful, gets someone accused of not having a sense of humor or being mean. I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing that in real life, not outside of this blog. It is, honestly, too difficult and too uncomfortable.

The reaction people sometimes have is one of defense. They aren’t ableist, it was just a joke, can’t you take a joke?, why are you so serious?, you are ruining the joke, etc. People also assume disabled people can’t tell when someone has made a mistake and when they are genuinely asking a question or trying to call attention to something by making a joke. Disabled people are not trying to take all jokes away. They just want to point out when something is harmful. Doubling down about how that person can’t take a joke is a big problem.

Again, it isn’t that someone made a joke about disabled people. It’s the assumptions inside the joke itself that are harmful. For example, jokes about blind people going to cinemas don’t land because blind people do watch movies. The joke falls apart when you remove the assumption - and not knowing that it was an assumption is part of the problem in the first place.

What Now?

Again, this post was never about not asking questions or not making jokes. It is about ways they can go wrong and how people can make it worse by getting defensive instead of being open to learning and moving on. Everyone makes assumptions or repeats jokes sometimes, and whether or not it becomes an argument is about being open to learning.

Disabled people aren’t out there looking for people to confront. Most of the time, they just want to go about their day or have a nice time with friends. If someone corrects you, no matter the setting, treat it as an opportunity for your growth and to make others feel more comfortable. Listen, apologize, acknowledge your mistake, and change your behavior.

My aim here is not to complain or to make people feel bad or even worry excessively. My goal was simply to share my thoughts on why these things can be a problem and offer suggestions on how to avoid them.

I hope this helps.

-BlindBeta

Note: I provide sensitivity reading for blind characters. See my Pinned Post for information.