Consider Buying Me a Coffee to Support my Blogging, Advocacy and Studies

Nearly a year ago, I ran a crowdfunding campaign to try and support the costs of my PhD. It was a resounding failure. I am still not in the greatest of financial situations and have significantly more student debt now then I did then and the number is only going to get higher, so I am asking for support again. This time more informally. I have added a “Buy Me a Coffee” button on the right hand toolbar. It looks like this.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

If you have enjoyed my worked and want (and are able) to support the continuation of my blogging and education, please consider clicking that button and making a small donation. The service sets a minimum of $3.00 and only functions in increments of 3 (to work with it’s buy me a coffee theme).

If you decide to support me that money will go towards helping me buy food, pay tuition, pay rent and hopefully upgrade this blog.

Thank You in advance for supporting my blog, whether it is through a donation or just by reading and sharing what I write. This blog wouldn’t exist without my readers and I am grateful for all of you.

Disabled Women & Sexual Objectification (or the Lack Thereof)

Today in The New York Times Opinion pages there was a piece called Longing for the Male Gaze. It is a personal account of a disabled woman’s experiences of not being socially perceived as sexually desirable. I have mixed feelings about the piece. On one hand while it is reasonably well known that disabled people are either viewed as nonsexual by default, there is very little available on the lived experience of not being accepted as an attractive, sexual being. This piece challenges that trend and does so in The New York Times.

On the other hand much of the framing of the piece is problematic. It focuses less on being seen as attractive and sexual within interpersonal relationships and more on not being treated as a sexual object. Jennifer Bartlett (the author) focuses on her lack of experiences with cat calling and other forms of sexual harassment.

This is problematic for a couple of reasons. For one it gives a lot of social power and validation to harmful social interactions. For another, the author actively plays oppression olympics between sexism/misogyny & ableism. In so doing she fundamentally fails to comprehend the very real harm that can come from catcalling and other forms of sexual harassment.

I do understand her frustration with the fact that disabled women are left out of the sexual objectification faced by our nondisabled peers. It is a catch-22 of intersectional oppression that even being denied an oppressive force usually experienced by part of your identity as a result of its intersection with disability is in fact further oppression.

That disabled women are often denied sexual objectification only shows how disability has denied us the ability  to live up to social and cultural understandings of gender presentation and punishes us by denying us not only the consequences of being sexually objectified but also of simply being seen as fully women.

That is a conversation that hasn’t happened enough and needs to.

Unfortunately, Bartlett is not starting that conversation. She instead writes almost longingly of being sexually objectified as though being seen as worthy of catcalling would also mean she was worthy of being seen as a sexual being in healthier interpersonal interactions. Unfortunately, in this she is probably right.

That however does not negate the issue of her downplaying the seriousness & real dangers of sexual harassment and catcalling. She writes,

On one hand, I know that I am “lucky” not to be sexually harassed as I navigate the New York City streets. But, I am harassed in other ways that feel much more damaging. People stare. People insist that I have God’s blessing. People feel most comfortable speaking about me in the third person rather than addressing me directly. It is not uncommon that I will be in a situation where a stranger will talk to the nearest able-bodied person, whether it be a friend or a complete stranger, about me to avoid speaking to me.

I also do understand what it feels like to get attention from the wrong man. It’s gross. It’s uncomfortable. It’s scary and tedious. And in certain cases, traumatic. But I still would much rather have a man make an inappropriate sexual comment than be referred to in the third person or have someone express surprise over the fact that I have a career. The former, unfortunately, feels “normal.” The latter makes me feel invisible and is meant for that purpose.

She does acknowledge that attention from the “wrong” men can be scary but still positions it as preferable to the erasure of the ableist interactions she does experience more frequently.

I would however argue that catcalling and sexual harassment is an erasure of the humanity and personhood of women. It can also be deadly (link to When Women Refuse a blog which collects stories of women who are either harmed or killed when they didn’t respond favourably to male attention).

Like Bartlett I am a woman with cerebral palsy. I however have not lived a life as free of catcalling and sexual harassment as she describes her life to have been. I have also experienced the stares, question, prayers and being ignored in favour of nondisabled companions. I am however not going to say that one is preferable than the other.

In every single incident of street harassment that I have experienced. I have felt either utterly dehumanized or genuinely threatened. I however cannot say that I have left every dehumanizing disability specific negative interaction feeling totally safe either.

Being a disabled woman who has experienced street harassment, I can also attest to the fact that it hasn’t done anything for my being accepted as a sexual being by society. In fact it is sometimes used to reinforce the fact that I’m generally not viewed as sexual.

As I’ve written about before, as a result of my disabilities I am not able to perform femininity to cultural expectations. This has resulted in men yelling questions like “are you a man or woman?” at me out of car windows or men foregoing the question altogether and simply loudly debating the question as I walk by.

When the harassment is actually sexually suggestive it’s threatening. Like the time I was lost in downtown Winnipeg at night and someone came up to me while I was trying to get my bearings told me I was beautiful and requested that I go home with him. Luckily when I visibly recoiled he moved on. This interaction was immediately followed by a second man who had witnessed the interaction using it as an excuse to get way to close to me in order to say “well that was creepy wasn’t it”.

These interactions didn’t affirm my femininity despite my disability. They made me terrified. The fact that I am also disabled and less physically able to run away or fight only exacerbated that fear.

So while I agree that in many ways the ability to be viewed as a sexual object is also tied to the more benign assessments on who gets viewed as a sexual being, I do not agree with Bartlett’s down playing of the harm of sexual harassment.

Sexual harassment when coupled with disability does not actually reinforce a disabled sexual identity in a culture that continues to ignore that disabled people are sexual beings. Downplaying the harm of street harassment not only erases the real harm it causes nondisabled women who experience it regularly but also ignores that some disabled women do experience it and that it only makes them less safe not more fully human.

 

When Churches Discuss Disability Without Disabled People

Yesterday, a pastor friend sent me the link to a podcast from the Canadian Council of Churches (The fourth episode is the relevant one if you care to listen). The most recent episode deals with disability inclusion in Christian churches. They wanted my perspective on the treatment of disability. While I already shared some scaled down thoughts with them directly, I really feel it’s important to look at this more in depth in a public forum because religion plays such a huge part in the lives of billions of people and arguably particularly for disabled people, we are affected whether we want to be or not.

As I told my friend, ideologically most of the ideas are generic. A few might actually be considered progressive. What the ideas espoused in the podcast fail to do is challenge or look for meaningful solutions. There’s a lot of talk about moving beyond inclusion to making disabled people feel like they belong. Which is great but seeing as inclusion is still an issue for many and the men interviewed failed to deal with reasons for why exclusion and alienation happen, it’s all rather hollow.

The two men interviewed were a Catholic and a Coptic Priest. The interdenominational discussion is nice. It’s also nice that the issue of disability inclusion is treated as a Christian issue and not an issue for certain denominations.

The first real issue is that both of the men are nondisabled and that there seems to have been little effort to really include the voices of actual disabled people. This leaves an overly optimistic picture as all of the anecdotes about inclusive initiatives come from nondisabled people. It comes across as extremely rose tinted.

Both men mention that they have heard from disabled people that they feel excluded or alienated but the underlying reasons for this is never looked at.

This is one of the biggest problems with the interview. It talks a big game about inclusion and belonging but actively avoids a meaningful discussion about why disabled people are excluded.

The problems of religious inclusion for disabled people go beyond initiatives to hire more disabled people or make sure they are on boards. Though those are good and necessary steps.

In order for physical inclusion to move toward social inclusion and true belonging, churches need to actively acknowledge, churches discriminatory pasts and presents.

Dr. Thomas Hentrich, the Roman Catholic interviewee illustrates this when he shares a story about his disabled son being refused his first communion on the grounds that the church was concerned the boy couldn’t understand its significance.

Hentrich actively refused to acknowledge this exclusion as discriminatory. Framing it instead as just unfortunate and hurtful. I’m not sure what definition of discrimination he’s working from or if he thinks that a theological justification for the action shields it from being discriminatory. Either way, I have to disagree.

Theological justifications for treating disabled congregants need to at the very least be fully laid out and studied and then preferably actively challenged.

Hentrich’s solution of having his son receive communion at a Coptic church instead is also problematic as an example of a reasonable response for several reasons.

1.) By offering this as a simple solution it ignores the harm of the initial exclusion

2.) It ignores that many people see denominations as separate religions, so many people would not be comfortable simply leaving not just a particular church but a denomination.

  • This then could lead those individuals to feel unwelcome and possibly disconnected from God.

3.) Disabled people who want to be part of a faith community should not have to shop around for one that is going to treat them well.

The only other problematic belief that was actually mentioned and again not dealt with is the idea that many Christians hold that disability is a punishment either on the parents or the disabled person themself.

The idea was underplayed and again there was no discussion of the impact this still reasonably widespread idea has not only on disabled Christians but also on nonChristian disabled people who come into contact with people who hold those beliefs.

Instead of actually dealing with it, the podcast brushes it off with one interviewee basically writing off people who believe it as not understanding scripture, suggesting that Christ actually said the opposite and was progressive in his views on disability.

I assume they were talking about this story from John Chapter 9

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world.”

After saying this, he spit on the ground, made some mud with the saliva, and put it on the man’s eyes. “Go,” he told him, “wash in the Pool of Siloam” (this word means “Sent”). So the man went and washed, and came home seeing.

While it is true that it actively counters concepts of disability & sin, it’s not hugely progressive and leads to two other issues that disabled people face in Christian churches. The idea of disability as symbol (often interpreted as object of charity) and faith healing.

So verse 3 Jesus says “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him“. This can be used to mean the miracles performed by Jesus himself but can also be taken to mean that disabled people are to acted upon charitably (which separates them out from others as unequal) or simply as symbols to other people of what could be and that others should be grateful.

Allow me to share a quote about Tiny Tim (Yes, the Dicken’s character) on his disability and his place in the church “He told me, coming home, that he hoped the people saw him in the church, because he was a cripple, and it might be pleasant to them to remember upon Christmas Day, who made lame beggars walk, and blind men see.””*

For a less historical & literary example about how disabled people theologize their disability as symbolic for others see the ministry of Joni Eareckson Tada.

Now remember that Jesus may have denied that disability was caused by sin but he didn’t follow that up with “go forth and create an accessible society that includes and welcomes disabled people”. The above story is just one of many where he heals disability. This is followed by the Apostles healing people and a long history of healing by saints. Disability is very much framed as bad and that people are better off without it.

Which brings us to historical and contemporary beliefs in faith healing.

I don’t actually know a single disabled person personally, who hasn’t had someone pray that they be healed. These encounters don’t always happen in the church. The first time it happened to me, I was walking home from school.

These encounters often also include judgemental statements about people’s levels of faith along the lines of “if you believed enough you wouldn’t be disabled. God would have healed you”.

For the faithful this is a judgement on both their faith and their value. When it happens to nonChristians it just breeds animosity towards Christianity.

Saying that the bible doesn’t support the idea that disability is sinful but then saying that it is progressive shows the same selective reading that people who do link it to sin or at least a person’s level of faith. It also just ignores the reality of people who do think that way and the impact they have on disabled people not only in their churches but in society at large. For an account from an actual disabled person on this read Carly Findlay Morrow on her experiences.

Creating inclusive churches is going to take more than just inclusion initiatives. While it is nice to hear about things like the tradition in Coptic churches of hiring blind cantors and a general desire to get more disabled people involved in the church. This work cannot be done effectively or in a meaningful way if those churches are unwilling to accept and acknowledge that on both church & cultural levels they have created an alienating environment for disabled people.

In recent years there has been some work done on creating a theology of disability but unfortunately like this podcast it is far to often the work of nondisabled theologians.**

Churches need to be willing to be held accountable for their histories of harmful theologies and practices. They also need to be accountable for how these things are still happening.

They also need to be willing to acknowledge and accept that other churches may have even more harmful practices. People affected by these harmful ideas are not going to be comforted by flippant dismissals of biblical understanding. Those ideas need to be actively challenged even if you don’t share them. The fact that they exist and cause real harm needs to be actively dealt with, not glossed over.

Also in terms of physical inclusion, churches need to practice what they preach and try not to have podcasts about disability inclusion that don’t actually include disabled people.

There also needs to be more discussion of not only including disabled people at the church level but encouraging them to enter the ministry. Without disabled people at all levels of the church, true inclusion and belonging of disabled church members cannot happen.

Failure to include actual disabled voices and deal with the ideological issues of the church and disability, the belonging advocated for in that podcast cannot truly occur.

 

 

 

*Dickens, Charles. A Christmas Carol (Wisehouse Classics – with original illustrations) (p. 37). Wisehouse. Kindle Edition. find it here.

**an example of this is Thomas E Reynolds’ Vulnerable Communion

Disability as Sensationalist Narrative

It’s been a long time since I’ve posted anything. I’ve just finished the first year of my PhD studies and was feeling burned out. Today however, David Perry wrote about a “news” story in which the reporter profiled the mother of a young autistic child.

It is just another drop in the ocean of horrible parent narratives about disability which frame disability as the scourge that ruined the poor parents lives. These narratives are always framed as universal even though the profile sample is restricted to very few and often only one example. The article (if it can really be called that) reads like bad film noire narration. author’s sole source of information is the child’s mother. This is why I find it surprising that the piece is found in the “news” section. There is no actual research involved. He didn’t seek to find out if the woman’s experience is common. He just assumes that it is. He doesn’t talk to doctors or service providers to see if more assistance is available. Most importantly he certainly doesn’t speak to any actually autistic people. The reader is supposed to take his third hand retelling of the reality of autism as universal truth. He describes autism as an “epidemic” and a “genetic devil”.

He also seems to reject the idea that different people with autism might actually display different behaviours. He scoffs at a generic and very medical definition of autism:

Autism is a disease with a broad spectrum of symptoms that can start in the womb and last into adulthood. In one common definition, it is “characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication and repetitive behaviors.”

he follows that up with “That’s putting it more nicely than it deserves.”. He completely rejects any concept of spectrum or individuality in the experience of autism, preferring instead to assume the single experiences of one mother is more widely applicable than an actual medical definition.

The thing is, this isn’t reporting, there was no research involved. Rather it is just another example of a centuries old habit of third person sensationalist narratives about disability that depend more on literary tropes than reality in order to frame real world perspectives of disability.

While I have no doubt that the mother profiled is expressing her genuine feelings. The writer fails to give them any context be it from medical professionals or disabled people. Both groups would likely frame the realities of autism differently but I have no doubt that they would agree on one thing. This one woman’s reality (or interpretation of her reality) is not and should not be taken as indicative of the broader realities of autism.

Even a more tempered description of his encounter with the mother might have been less offensive. He never met the son (whose full name is disclosed in the article thus violating the child’s privacy) but talks about him as though that isn’t necessary to really “know” him.

When I said the piece reads like bad film noire narration, I wasn’t exaggerating. the author used florid language, metaphors and similes. He is absolutely framing autism as a monster.

[the child] is not a criminal; rather, a crime has been committed against him by a genetic devil called autism. It’s an affliction that seems to be growing in society like mushrooms under an autumn moon. (emphasis mine)

He talks about autism as though it’s a Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde scenario as though the child exists without it. As though it took him over and if only autism could be gotten rid of the “real child” would emerge. this is reinforced by the rhetoric of disease and epidemic that he uses.

There are two things wrong with this. First and most importantly that child without autism is a figment of his imagination. He doesn’t exist and never did. the author acknowledges that autism is genetic (so at least we’re not dealing with a vaccine reactionary. Which is something I guess) that means the child has always been autistic. There is no nonautistic child in there.

Which brings us to the second problem a lot of autistic people, myself included don’t actually want to be cured. My reasons for it are primarily selfish. I like myself. Autism impacts everything I do and how I interact with the world. If I didn’t have autism, I would be a fundamentally different person. This is a pretty common sentiment but others will also be slightly less self-absorbed than me and point out that autism is a natural part of human diversity (for more perspectives on this see here, here, and here).

The thing is the author doesn’t really care about nuance or wider realities because he’s to busy creating his own where not only is the child he’s talking about a monster but so are basically all autistic people.

He appears to make random innocuous observations about the woman he’s profiling and her home and they inevitably have a horrible autism anecdote to go along with them. Like when wonders why this nice lady has tattoos–because apparently there is an identifiable “type” of person who gets tattoos and it’s not mothers of four–she has them to cover up the scars from where her son has bitten her.

Even the lack of towels in the bathroom is suspect. The explanation for which was a level of parent oversharing that I won’t recount it (the website Ollibean has guidelines about writing about your disabled children that I with the author and mother had considered). The fact that the lack of towels was worth even mentioning much less questioning is odd. I can’t even remember how many times I’ve been a guest in a house where the bathroom was inconveniently lacking in towels. In houses where there is no autistic resident. I always chalk it up to the host’s forgetfulness or lack of consideration. It’s never been worth questioning.

All of this is shared with the pretense of education but not everything gets a detailed expectation. When discussing the breakdown of the woman’s marriage he says this:

She also has a long-term marriage that is coming to an end. Her husband, Rene Juarez, loves his wife and his children. But after 10 years of living with autism …

He. Just. Can’t. Stay.

I didn’t add the ellipses. He’s actually put them in there to invite the reader to draw their own conclusions. After very conveniently setting up autism as the monster under the bed.

No other contributing factors are considered.

The child is then summarily blamed not only the breakdown of his parents marriage but also his mother’s drinking and experiences of depression. The fact that his grandfather suggested he be exorcised is added in as well. To you know really drive home the fact that he’s a monster.

The mother’s statement that her son deserves understanding and compassion is treated more like the request of an altruistic saint than something that should be taken seriously.

Basically every sentence could be dissected so I’ll skip ahead to the end where in an odd non sequitur the author jumps from discussing the woman’s charity  to her single relationship status.

I tread lightly here. I’m just going to be straight with you, Sonia: You must know the chances of a new marriage are not great. Few men would step into this situation.

“Absolutely true. I know that. To be honest with you, I have accepted that my life revolves around my son and my girls. But I also have another mission to fulfill. I feel this in my heart. I will help other families that live with autistic children.”

It comes out of nowhere but seems tacked on the end to really drive home how much of a martyr she is.

The fact that this piece was published at all is troubling. The fat that a newspaper actually classified it as “news” is even more so.

It’s sensationalist trash with very little basis in reality even if we assume the mother is being honest about her opinions and experiences because of the spin the author gives it. It’s directly in line with the fictionalized biographies of historical disabled people were written to frame them as other and the people who exploited them as benevolent.

Consider Dr. Frederick Treve’s memoir about his relationship with Joseph Merrick (known as The Elephant Man) which frames the adult Merrick who Treves repeatedly misnames John as a child.

Or the promotional pamphlet for Krao Farini (known as the missing link) whose race and physical difference were used to rob her of her very humanity.

This really is just another additional to a long line of sensationalist writing about disability which serves to make those around the disabled person seem like saints while leaving the disabled person as either object of pity or horror.

It is most certainly not news. It doesn’t even have the veneer of objectivity and any concept of research was clearly not even considered.

That child deserved better. Disabled people as a whole deserved better.

 

 

 

On the Medicalization of Donald Trump

There has been quite a bit of discussion around whether it is appropriate to speculate about whether Donald Trump has a mental illness. The rhetoric and armchair diagnosis of Trump is already happening and it’s important to look at the arguments for why people are doing that and perhaps more importantly whether people should.

I am basing this post on an expansion of a comment I posted on David Perry‘s blog post on whether it is appropriate to speculate on Trump’s mental health.

Full disclosure. I am a Canadian and while my life may be impacted by a Trump presidency. I am unlikely to be directly impacted by any of the racist or harmful policies he’s suggested. He is after all only proposing to build a wall along the Mexico border.

Ultimately, though I am looking at the ethics and possible repercussions of pathologizing Donald Trump in terms of what it means for the rights of people with mental health diagnoses.

As I mentioned, people are already doing it but it’s important to question why.

Keith Olbermann made a 20 minute video applying a psychopathy test to Donald Trump. Olbermann did pay lip service to whether doing so was ok but rationalized it thusly “Trump started it” which is true. Trump has applied stigmatizing mental health language to many of his political opponents.

The problem with this justification beyond it’s childishness is that it forgets that pathologizing Trump doesn’t just impact Donald Trump. It also has implications on a broader level  to how discourse around mental health stigmatizes people with mental illness. People who haven’t been armchair diagnosed by a public just seeking to discredit a candidate that they dislike.

People have argued however that silence on mental health can be stigmatizing. Which is true but this actually assumes that Donald Trump has a mental illness. Which we do not and cannot know unless he tells us (and considering his propensity for lies, backs it up with evidence).

There is something to be said for there needing to be a discussion on people living without a diagnosis but I don’t think that a productive conversation on that is going to happen by speculating about the health of a public figure.

Particularly because of why people want to speculate about Trump’s mental health. Because let’s face it, it’s not out of a genuine concern for his well being. It’s because people want to discredit him.

Which brings us to the big issue. People are using mental health speculation as a way to discredit Trump and make him appear incompetent. This is deeply stigmatizing to people with mental health diagnoses.

If the logic is that by framing Trump as having a mental illness makes him unfit for the presidency then the message is that mental illness is equated with incompetence and that is a dangerous thing to not only assert but to advocate which is exactly what anyone saying “Trump is [insert usually bigoted term for mental illness here] are doing.

There is also the fact that much of the “evidence” people are using in their speculation is based on Trump’s bigotry. Finn has a great piece how “Wrong Does Not Mean Crazy” which focuses on how problematic it is to equate ideas we disagree with as evidence of the idea holder’s mental instability.

I cannot say strongly enough that bigotry is not a mental illness. It is also important to remind you that Trump doesn’t exist in a vacuum. He didn’t reach where he is by donning the guise of a supervillain (mo matter how abhorrent many of his ideas are) and threatening his way to the nomination.

No. He was supporters. Lots of them. People who see sense in the lies of his rhetoric.

Are we going to speculate on their mental health as well? Remember these people very likely number in the millions.

I honestly find it disheartening that people are so willing to perceive people who hold different ideals (regardless of how horrific they are) as rock hard evidence of mental illness. It buys into the “Mad=Bad” stereotype so people assume that if all bigots have mental illness then all people with mental illness must be at a bare minimum be frightening.

I refuse to believe that Donald Trump and his supporters are a case of mass hysteria. It is lazy thinking that seeks to erase the fact that humanity in large groups has rationalized the committing of atrocities.

When it comes to pathologizing Donald Trump, particularly in public forums. The goal isn’t really to have a substantive discussion on mental health. It’s a tool use to discredit him.

So no, I don’t think it’s appropriate to speculate on Donald Trump’s (or anyone else’s) mental health in a public forum.

If you want to make a point about Donald Trump being unfit to be president may I suggest pointing out,

He wants to build a wall on the Mexico border

He thinks that Mexico should pay for it

He has suggested banning Muslim immigration to the United States

He has suggested that Muslims be registered

Go after his policies. Go after his words. Go after his actions both past and present.

Speculating about his health with the intent to discredit him only stigmatizes others.

There more than enough material to suggest that Trump is unqualified to be president without supporting the existing stigma around mental illness by capitalizing on it by trying to attach that stigma to Trump.

 

 

Can We Talk About that Paralympics Ad?

British Broadcaster Channel 4 (which has the broadcasting rights for the 2016 Paralympics in Rio) recently released their trailer for the games and it’s getting a lot of positive attention.

Here it is

Here’s a version audio described by Australian comedian Adam Hills

I’ve actually been trying to write this piece for several days and have been having difficulty. Not because I don’t know how I feel about this ad but because I don’t know how to articulate it. I’m still not sure that I do. I have found that when I criticize the media representation of disabled people. I am often accused of criticizing the disabled people in that media.

I want to make it clear that this is not what I’m trying to do. I am trying to talk about the implications of how disabled people and their accomplishments are framed and disseminated for a majority nondisabled audience.

I want to like this ad. It has so much that I love. It has an almost entirely disabled cast and so many of them are doing bad ass things to appropriately themed music. If that was all this was, I would probably be sharing it all over social media to the point of annoying everyone connected to me.

There are two things about this ad that just end up making me cringe. The use of the term Superhumans to refer to Paralympians and the song “Yes, I Can”.

The term Superhumans is not new to the Paralympics. The commercial that Channel 4 used for the 2012 London Paralympics is called “Meet the Superhumans”

You can see it here,

There was no audio described version of this ad. Which I guess speaks to a degree of progress in this year’s advertising and general disability awareness.

So why do I dislike the fact that the Paralympians have been labeled Superhumans? It’s not because I don’t think they are phenomenal athletes. They absolutely are. In a way calling them Superhuman detracts from that fact.

It’s ironic how closely the term Superhuman is to the term Super crip.

Super crip is a term used by disability media critics to describe the phenomenon of celebrating disabled people in either a way that lacks meaningful context or in a way that seeks to effectively erase their disabilities except to add emphasis to the extraordinariness of their accomplishments. It’s not just that they’re amazing athletes. It adds a degree of “Can you believe someone like that could do this?”

The 2012 ad is particularly guilty of this with its juxtaposition of scenes signifying how people became disabled (often violently) with images of them succeeding as athletes.

It does from A to B without looking at any of the context of how people get to B or for that matter who CAN get to B. Because athletic success, particularly for disabled people is not just a matter of having the desire to do it.

Which brings me to the repeated refrain of “Yes, I can” from the 2016 ad, which buys fully into the “to believe is to achieve” stereotype. It is not just a group of musicians, dancers, and athletes showcasing their skills. They really sell the myth.

Consider the scene in the career counselor’s office where the counselor tells a wheelchair user “No, you can’t” which is immediately followed but by that young man playing wheelchair rugby while screaming “YES, I CAN”.

The thing is “No, you can’t” is far more than just the words of an individual who has vastly underestimated your potential. It is a systemic reality. It is far more accurately an expression of “No, you can’t because we won’t let you”. Wheelchair Rugby Clubs do do not appear fully formed just because someone has the desire to play.

Getting to be a Channel 4 “Superhuman” is in many ways as much about luck as it is about skill and hard work. The reality is that access to athletic training for disabled people is limited to those who have physical and financial access to it. If there is no training available in your area or even if there is but you can’t afford it, all the desire and willingness to work in the world is not going to get you to the Paralympics.

In many ways the oversimplification of “yes, I can” actually undermines the extent to an athlete’s success. It ignore the work they put in not only training but also in getting access to that training.

It also erases anyone who doesn’t have access to that training because as I mentioned it’s selling “to believe is to achieve” hard.

The video also delves pretty deeply into inspiration porn territory with it’s images of disabled people doing everyday things. Like looking after children or brushing their teeth. Considering that disabled parents still face the threat of losing their children solely because they are disabled and not from any identified inability to provide care, including Canadian Paralympian Charles Wilton. Wilton did eventually get to keep his son but that doesn’t erase the fact that it was considered acceptable to plan to remove the child before he was even born or before actually assessing it his parents could care for him.

The erasure of systemic barriers in favour of an “overcoming” disability narrative is  misleading. It not only erases the reality of succeeding as a disabled athlete–the need for specialized adapted training and coaches who are willing to work to make those changes–but it also erases the people who don’t have access to those things and completely ignores the reasons why.

It is a disservice to the real work put in by Paralympians whose work and not just successes deserve to be celebrated.

It also promotes social complacency by putting all of the onus for success on disabled people and letting nondisabled people of the hook for the perpetuation of an inaccessible world that actively limits rather than supports our success.

I want to see more bad ass disabled people doing bad ass things but I want those stories to contain context which holds society accountable for why there aren’t more bad ass disabled people being allowed to do bad ass things.

Could You Please Stop Insisting that People Have to Use Person First Language

There are so many of those lists explaining how to speak to disabled people respectfully. They are generally well intentioned and some of them are even really good. There is however an almost universal element that I wish would be retired. They inevitably include a statement that disabled people should ALWAYS be referred to using Person First Language (see an example here).

I have issues with the command to always use Person First Language for two reasons.

1. Person First Language is culturally geographic. It is only consider PC in North America. Interestingly if you were to read the same article in English speaking Europe they would insist that you say “disabled person”.
2. Despite it being widely considered PC in North America, a growing number of disabled people (myself included, see here and here) are intentionally abandoning it.

This isn’t about completely switching the script. I’m not suggesting that we ban Person First Language or that people shouldn’t use it (so don’t attack me in the comments). I’m saying that realistically person first language is not always appropriate (from a purely cultural sensitivity angle) and demanding that it be used anyway is a tad clueless.

The insistence  that people MUST use People First Language is also just disrespectful, not only to how many people are coming to self-identify but also completely ignoring that the reasons that we do so might actually be valid. Ignoring the voices and preferences of actual disabled people just reinforces the idea that we are incapable of determining what is best for us.

Whenever I come across the Person First edict on a “How to Be Respectful about”. Disability” list. I always wish it had been replaced with something along the lines of,

How to Deal with Disability Labels

Language around disability is complicated and there is currently no universally accepted term. Even the terms that are considered most acceptable like people with disabilities (in North America) and disabled people (in the UK) are not universally accepted by people in those locations. In order to be respectful it is usually inoffensive to default to the most acceptable term based on your location. However, if a person expresses an alternate preference, it is extremely rude and disrespectful to insist that they conform to the dominant preference. Best practice would be to utilize the term that the individual prefers.

I repeat. It is extremely rude and disrespectful to impose labels on people who have clearly expressed an alternate preference.

I wish this concept wasn’t so hard to understand.

 

 

But it Wasn’t Designed for You: How Ignoring Accessibility Becomes the Excuse for Perpetuating Inaccessibility

I am sick of seeing people responding to evidence of inaccessibility with “but it wasn’t designed for you”. This argument has been used to both try and shut down calls to make inaccessible things more accessible (which is what I’ll be focusing on) and to limit access to accessible things that have been deemed unnecessary to nondisabled people (see my piece of accessibility to fresh food here for an example of that).

So the much anticipated augmented reality game Pokemon Go was released in several countries last week (though not Canada yet). It is already wildly popular and has had a noticeable impact on Nintendo stock prices.

The game–which is based on one originally released for Gameboy and which also had a television series and card game–allows smartphone users to find and catch pokemon in the real world.

Since it’s release it has been criticized for being inaccessible to many people with disabilities. The game requires that players actually be able to get around public spaces to find the pokemon and visit pokestops (which provide players with necessary items for the game) and train at gyms.

For people with limited mobility or who have difficulty leaving their homes. The game is entirely inaccessible because movement is completely tied to an individual’s GPS location.

I am going to spend less time talking about the accessibility issues of Pokemon Go itself because others are already doing that better than I could. I am instead going to use the game and people’s reactions to having its inaccessibility highlighted as a timely way of addressing how people’s  reactions to inaccessibility being called out end up justifying and perpetuating that inaccessibility.

When a new product is called out for being inaccessible or when disabled people advocate that a company make an inaccessible product more accessible, two related arguments inevitably come up.

  1. This game wasn’t made with you in mind.
  2. You are not the target demographic.

On the face of it these arguments seem identical but there are some key differences. In the first case, the exclusion may just be an oversight but it is one that will be justified as an understandable lapse.

The demographic argument works best when a product is made with a specific demographic market in mind.

The problem is that with the first argument it is far to acceptable to brush off inaccessibility as “oh well, I guess this one thing just isn’t for you” despite the fact that it is very far from being “just one thing” and is in fact representative of a widespread problem. It is far to common and easy to ignore whether a product or service is inaccessible.

In order to head off reactionary comments, I am not arguing or suggesting that everything can or should be made accessible for two reasons.

  1. Accessibility is not and never will be a one size fits all phenomenon.
  2. There are just some things that people with certain disabilities shouldn’t do for reasons of safety. For example, I have a weak arm and should for my own safety and the safety of others never operate a chainsaw. So I’m not going to go after chainsaw manufacturers to their products because I shouldn’t.

So please don’t send me a rant about how [insert random unrelated product or service] is either essential but still inaccessible or which regardless of redesign cannot be made safely accessible.

When disabled people point out accessibility issues it is usually because a.) they think with some tweaking the thing itself could be made accessible or b.) they are expressing a consumer desire to have someone redesign an inaccessible thing to be accessible. It is not a wholesale attack on all things.

So continuing on I am now going to address the “they just didn’t have you in mind” argument. There are way to many things that just happen to be inaccessible because the creators either didn’t consider disabled people or determined that accommodating the would be to time consuming. Far to many of these products (Pokemon Go included) could be made accessible or have accessibility mods added on if the creators cared to put the effort in.

The fact that far to many don’t is where this argument of “oh they just didn’t make it for you” really falls apart. Almost nothing that is available to the general public is made with disabled people in mind. We are far to frequently relegated to the realm of “niche target market” catered to primarily by medical companies or adaptive technology companies.

This leaves us out of far to many mainstream pass times. This is where it stops being an oversight and becomes a problem where out exclusion and reliance on only specialized targeted products and indicative of systemic and socially acceptable exclusion.

As a target demographic we are also treated differently, with products geared towards us specifically only made available in specialty stores.

In terms of a more mainstream understanding of target demographic, we are still separate because generally target demographics are based on goals and an understanding of who will be interested in a product. Not actually mandating who can use it.

People use products not expressly geared toward them all the time without consequences. The problem comes not from who a product is targeted at but at who is expressly excluded from using it.*

But back to Pokemon Go. Where does it fit into all this? The game itself  has a very broad demographic target. It is as much as any single product can be geared to everyone.** This is what makes the complete lack of consideration of disability so frustrating because it is a case of “this is actually for everyone except you”.

The sheer scale of the game’s popularity only emphasizes this fact.

So, I would ask that any person who reacts dismissively to calls for more accessibility (whether it is in Pokemon Go or anything else) to ask themselves

Why is this request making me so uncomfortable?

I would then ask you to express solidarity, to show companies that you actually are comfortable sharing space (and pokemon) with disabled people. Tell companies that disabled people deserve accessible products and don’t deserve to be forgotten or an afterthought.

 

 

*I am aware and do not wish to minimize the fact that there are certain industries which don’t expressly forbid people from outside their target demographics do create cultures within those industries which are very unwelcoming and often abusive to people who are seen as outsiders.

**It is also important to note that disabled people are not the only group criticizing the game’s inclusivity (see here for another example).