I've been trying to write a piece about Assisted Suicide (AS) for years. I've been collating links and quotes here and there. I've written the odd paragraph that's popped into my head. I've compiled statistics, made notes on documentaries and generally tried to write a well researched, fact-based post.
Maybe I'll actually post it some day. Today I'm not using quotes from other people about why they think legalising AS is bad; today I'm writing purely about my own thoughts and experiences. The rest of this post is behind a jump due to talk of suicide and probably other triggery things too.
Showing posts with label disablism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disablism. Show all posts
27 March 2014
25 February 2014
♫...What else should I be? All apologies. What else should I say? Everyone is gay...♫
Both the mainstream media and the gay press have been writing vast amounts of articles over the last couple of days about Uganda's new homophobic law, punishing gays with up to life imprisonment for having the audacity to love. Rightly so; it's an outrageous law that needs to be condemned internationally.
But there's been one remarkable fact omitted from all the write ups I've read in the pink press, and that's the disablism written into the law.
First-time offenders will be sentenced to 14 years. But people found guilty of "aggravated homosexuality" which means 'repeated gay sex between consenting adults and acts involving a minor, a disabled person or where one partner was infected with HIV' will be sentenced to life. The mainstream media will write about it - that link takes you to The Guardian - but not the gay press.
(Note I said "all the write ups I have read". If you've seen an article in the gay press that I've missed, please post a link in the comments.)
As David pointed out in a post on my Facebook wall with regards to the law itself:
I'm sure the press don't think it's worth reporting the extra sentencing for shagging a disabled person because disabled people are seen as so disgusting that the authors of the articles themselves would never dream of doing one of us. You have to remember that 70% of people would never have sex with a disabled person, and I've never seen any evidence to suggest that gay people are less disablist. I'm sure that journalists writing for gay publications can imagine themselves going on assignment to Uganda and winding up spending 14 years in jail, but they just can't envisage hooking up with a hot crip; because they refuse to see disabled people as sexual beings.
So I'm an aggravated homosexual alright.
The weirdest thing is that it's not the gay disabled person that's going to get the increased sentence; it's their partner. The press usually suddenly give a crap about disability issues when they start to affect non-disabled people. Like how the papers didn't give a damn about disability hate crime until the death of Fiona Pilkington. But once a non-disabled person had taken her own life because of the disablist harassment her family faced; the press were all over it. Most people still call it "the Pilkington case", despite the fact that she murdered her disabled daughter Francecca Hardwick who'd been on the receiving end of the hate crime.
This isn't the first time the gay press have ignored issues where gayness and disabledness intersect. When disabled gay teenager Steven Simpson was first killed, the gay press wouldn't touch the story. That particular news story for Huff Post's Gay Voices was written when his killer was sentenced nearly a year later (and several other gay outlets did deign to report it at that point too).
The one place that reported the story at the time of Simpson's death was The Daily Mail. Remarkable considering they usually hate both gay people and disabled people in equal measure.
At the time I did Email a gay website drawing their attention to Simpson's death and the reply I got was:
Because an openly gay kid getting set on fire suddenly can't be connected to anything gay if he also has an impairment. Disability is like the ultimate gay remover. (But no-one tell Museveni that or he'll go around snapping the spines of suspected homos to sanitise the gay away.)
This same website that doesn't think that there's a gay enough connection when a gay kid gets killed is the same website that once devoted an entire article to the fact that the toilet above Ben Bradshaw's Parliamentary office was leaking.
It wasn't gay urine leaking from a gay toilet dripping through a gay ceiling. It wasn't a gay interest news story. Gay kids getting immolated? That's a gay interest news story.
Unsurprisingly I had a bit of a Twitter rant about this yesterday morning. And I got a reply from a gay website. At the risk of sounding like Upworthy: You'll never believe what they said.
You'd think that anyone with a modicum of nous would either ignore my rant or say "you know what: We could do better." Instead the reply was a link to an article. The article was a write-up of a wheelchair user's experience of bad access at a Pride festival.
One article. One. And they expect a fucking commendation cookie for being inclusive?
As a disabled lesbian, the gay press's determined ignorance of topics where gayness meets disability is a personal matter. But I'm not some unique special snowflake. Around 18% of the population have some kind of impairment and that's going to be higher among the gay community due to the increased incidence of mental health problems and rates of HIV. By sticking their heads in the sand where the two issues intersect the gay press are snubbing probably at least a fifth of their audience. The gay press is mostly an online business, and that means they need pageviews to make money from advertisers. By failing to cater to such a sizeable chunk of their prospective readership they're pissing away ad revenue. You'd think the economic benefits of including the whole gay community in their content would be enough to convince them to stop ignoring us.
But there's been one remarkable fact omitted from all the write ups I've read in the pink press, and that's the disablism written into the law.
First-time offenders will be sentenced to 14 years. But people found guilty of "aggravated homosexuality" which means 'repeated gay sex between consenting adults and acts involving a minor, a disabled person or where one partner was infected with HIV' will be sentenced to life. The mainstream media will write about it - that link takes you to The Guardian - but not the gay press.
(Note I said "all the write ups I have read". If you've seen an article in the gay press that I've missed, please post a link in the comments.)
As David pointed out in a post on my Facebook wall with regards to the law itself:
the Ugandan law considers gay sex with a disabled person to be equivalent to sex with a child, so it's simultaneously equating being gay with being a paedophile, and being disabled with being a child. Absolutely massive bigotry fail for the Ugandans.
I'm sure the press don't think it's worth reporting the extra sentencing for shagging a disabled person because disabled people are seen as so disgusting that the authors of the articles themselves would never dream of doing one of us. You have to remember that 70% of people would never have sex with a disabled person, and I've never seen any evidence to suggest that gay people are less disablist. I'm sure that journalists writing for gay publications can imagine themselves going on assignment to Uganda and winding up spending 14 years in jail, but they just can't envisage hooking up with a hot crip; because they refuse to see disabled people as sexual beings.
So I'm an aggravated homosexual alright.
The weirdest thing is that it's not the gay disabled person that's going to get the increased sentence; it's their partner. The press usually suddenly give a crap about disability issues when they start to affect non-disabled people. Like how the papers didn't give a damn about disability hate crime until the death of Fiona Pilkington. But once a non-disabled person had taken her own life because of the disablist harassment her family faced; the press were all over it. Most people still call it "the Pilkington case", despite the fact that she murdered her disabled daughter Francecca Hardwick who'd been on the receiving end of the hate crime.
This isn't the first time the gay press have ignored issues where gayness and disabledness intersect. When disabled gay teenager Steven Simpson was first killed, the gay press wouldn't touch the story. That particular news story for Huff Post's Gay Voices was written when his killer was sentenced nearly a year later (and several other gay outlets did deign to report it at that point too).
The one place that reported the story at the time of Simpson's death was The Daily Mail. Remarkable considering they usually hate both gay people and disabled people in equal measure.
At the time I did Email a gay website drawing their attention to Simpson's death and the reply I got was:
I wasn't quite sure we could draw the connection clearly enough to warrant a story
Because an openly gay kid getting set on fire suddenly can't be connected to anything gay if he also has an impairment. Disability is like the ultimate gay remover. (But no-one tell Museveni that or he'll go around snapping the spines of suspected homos to sanitise the gay away.)
This same website that doesn't think that there's a gay enough connection when a gay kid gets killed is the same website that once devoted an entire article to the fact that the toilet above Ben Bradshaw's Parliamentary office was leaking.
It wasn't gay urine leaking from a gay toilet dripping through a gay ceiling. It wasn't a gay interest news story. Gay kids getting immolated? That's a gay interest news story.
Unsurprisingly I had a bit of a Twitter rant about this yesterday morning. And I got a reply from a gay website. At the risk of sounding like Upworthy: You'll never believe what they said.
You'd think that anyone with a modicum of nous would either ignore my rant or say "you know what: We could do better." Instead the reply was a link to an article. The article was a write-up of a wheelchair user's experience of bad access at a Pride festival.
One article. One. And they expect a fucking commendation cookie for being inclusive?
As a disabled lesbian, the gay press's determined ignorance of topics where gayness meets disability is a personal matter. But I'm not some unique special snowflake. Around 18% of the population have some kind of impairment and that's going to be higher among the gay community due to the increased incidence of mental health problems and rates of HIV. By sticking their heads in the sand where the two issues intersect the gay press are snubbing probably at least a fifth of their audience. The gay press is mostly an online business, and that means they need pageviews to make money from advertisers. By failing to cater to such a sizeable chunk of their prospective readership they're pissing away ad revenue. You'd think the economic benefits of including the whole gay community in their content would be enough to convince them to stop ignoring us.
30 July 2013
"Ableism"? Stop insulting me.
Historically it's been the case that the single word to describe disability-based discrimination in British English has been "disablism". North Americans have always preferred "ableism", but you didn't see it used by Brits that often. Sadly the word "ableism" is creeping further and further into British English usage. I've seen it used repeatedly by journalists and popular bloggers which validates its use; and every time I see it I feel hurt.
For much of the rest of this post to make sense you really need to go and read an article I wrote for xojane.com last November. I'll just finish this drink while you're reading that.
Back with me? OK, excellent. Let's crack on to why I find the word "ableism" insulting.
As you will have read, there are are two ways of considering disability. There's the medical/individual model in which a person with an impairment is seen as lacking in ability, and there's the social model in which a person with an impairment is considered disabled by social barriers.
The problem with the word "ableism" is that it's predicated on the medical model. The "blame it on their brain/body" individualised perspective of disability should be consigned to the history books and instead we need to focus on dealing with disabling barriers - from architectural to financial - that make life difficult/impossible for disabled people.
The word "sexism" refers to discrimination on the grounds of sex. It's discrimination that can happen to anyone of any sex whether they're male, female, intersexed, or have some other identity. Everyone has a sex and anyone can be discriminated against because of it. Though it's far rarer for men to be victims of sexism than anyone else. One might argue if a man can truly be discriminated against in a patriarchal society, but it's hypothetically possible.
The word "racism" refers to discrimination on the grounds of race. Everyone has a race and anyone can be discriminated against because of it. Again, one might argue that it's not truly possible for a white person to be a victim of racism in a society geared to the benefit of white people. But it's hypothetically, and legally, possible. There have been legal precedents set in the UK by white people bringing discrimination claims under Race Relations Act.
The idea behind the word "ableism" is that everybody has an ability level and anyone can be discriminated against because of their level of ability. In other words: If you're a person with an impairment on the receiving end of "ableism" then you have to be lacking in ability.
Imagine you and I are going to see a film together. We try to catch a bus to the cinema and the driver refuses to get the ramp out because he's an arsehole. After he shuts the door in our faces and drives off you yell at him "ableist bastard!" What you're doing there is that you're making the issue about my ability levels, rather than society's disabling barriers.
I am not intrinsically unable to travel by bus. Buses are a product of our society so making them difficult to access is a socially-created barrier. Buses could have been designed from scratch to be fully inclusive; but they weren't. It's only been in the last 15 to 20 years that we've seen any kind of wheelchair access on buses at all in the UK. As they stand now they only have one wheelchair space per bus which is still a hugely disabling design flaw for a couple who are both wheelchair users, or a parent and child who are both wheelchair users.
Then there's the fact that - with the current models of bus design - the onus is on the bus driver to not be a discriminatory dick. He has to pull up close to the kerb for the telescopic ramp to reach. He has to be willing to do his job and press the damn button to extend the telescopic ramp onto the pavement. He also has to be willing to do his job and ask any parents with buggies in the wheelchair space to fold their buggy: It's not called the "wheelchair space" for nothing. A lot of bus drivers just can't be bothered to not disable me and I'm refused entry to about 1 in every 5 buses I try to board. Which, I'll admit, is an improvement on a decade ago where the refusal rate was at least 50%.
Given that all these barriers are socially constructed; surely you can see why I'd be peeved at you shouting "ableist bastard" at the bus driver; which brings my ability levels into the equation rather than it being about his behaviour?
So I, like many other disabled Brits, use the words "disablism" and "disablist" instead. In the bus scenario above; if you shouted "disablist bastard" you would be correctly referring to him disabling me. And, of course, the fact that the design of the bus disables me too: If the bus was fully accessible without the driver having to do a thing my life would be much more simple.
In anticipation of the comments saying "but if 'ableism' puts the blame on your lack of ability, then surely you're saying that the sex and race of victims of sexism and racism is part of the problem too?"
Absolutely not. If the bus driver refuses to let me on because I am a woman then I am a victim of sexism. My sex is a matter of fact. If the bus driver refuses to let me on because I am white; then I am a victim of racism. My race is a matter of fact.
My lack of ability is not a matter of fact. As I have explained (or tried to) I am only perceived as lacking in ability by people who hold a medical/individual perspective of disability. I believe that I am disabled by social barriers (like badly designed buses, and bus drivers being dicks), not that I am intrinsically lacking ability.
Not all disablist discrimination falls under the realm of being a disabling barrier. I'm also sometimes subjected to disablist abuse from people who view my existence as a disabled person abhorrent. I get online commenters telling me that I should've been killed at birth to save taxpayers' money. That doesn't prevent me from getting on a bus or install steps at the entrance to the building I live in. But it's abuse motivated by the fact that I am disabled; therefore it is disablist abuse.
As I said in the xoJane article; it's up to people how they choose to identify. If they choose to consider themselves as a person with a disability rather than a person disabled by society; that's their prerogative. Likewise; if people choose to view themselves as lacking in ability therefore as victims of ableism then that is their choice.
However I'm an avid believer in the social model of disability. I hope I've shown how "ableism" is predicated on the medical model. (I have a thumping migraine. For all I can see to read it back off this white screen I might have just written "blah bla blah blah blah bla" over and over again.) Therefore; if you and I ever try to catch a bus together and the driver slams the door in our faces I would request that you describe me as having been on the receiving end of "disablism" not "ableism". Much like I would always ask you to describe me as a "disabled person" and never a "person with a disability."
Thank you.
For much of the rest of this post to make sense you really need to go and read an article I wrote for xojane.com last November. I'll just finish this drink while you're reading that.
Back with me? OK, excellent. Let's crack on to why I find the word "ableism" insulting.
As you will have read, there are are two ways of considering disability. There's the medical/individual model in which a person with an impairment is seen as lacking in ability, and there's the social model in which a person with an impairment is considered disabled by social barriers.
The problem with the word "ableism" is that it's predicated on the medical model. The "blame it on their brain/body" individualised perspective of disability should be consigned to the history books and instead we need to focus on dealing with disabling barriers - from architectural to financial - that make life difficult/impossible for disabled people.
The word "sexism" refers to discrimination on the grounds of sex. It's discrimination that can happen to anyone of any sex whether they're male, female, intersexed, or have some other identity. Everyone has a sex and anyone can be discriminated against because of it. Though it's far rarer for men to be victims of sexism than anyone else. One might argue if a man can truly be discriminated against in a patriarchal society, but it's hypothetically possible.
The word "racism" refers to discrimination on the grounds of race. Everyone has a race and anyone can be discriminated against because of it. Again, one might argue that it's not truly possible for a white person to be a victim of racism in a society geared to the benefit of white people. But it's hypothetically, and legally, possible. There have been legal precedents set in the UK by white people bringing discrimination claims under Race Relations Act.
The idea behind the word "ableism" is that everybody has an ability level and anyone can be discriminated against because of their level of ability. In other words: If you're a person with an impairment on the receiving end of "ableism" then you have to be lacking in ability.
Imagine you and I are going to see a film together. We try to catch a bus to the cinema and the driver refuses to get the ramp out because he's an arsehole. After he shuts the door in our faces and drives off you yell at him "ableist bastard!" What you're doing there is that you're making the issue about my ability levels, rather than society's disabling barriers.
I am not intrinsically unable to travel by bus. Buses are a product of our society so making them difficult to access is a socially-created barrier. Buses could have been designed from scratch to be fully inclusive; but they weren't. It's only been in the last 15 to 20 years that we've seen any kind of wheelchair access on buses at all in the UK. As they stand now they only have one wheelchair space per bus which is still a hugely disabling design flaw for a couple who are both wheelchair users, or a parent and child who are both wheelchair users.
Then there's the fact that - with the current models of bus design - the onus is on the bus driver to not be a discriminatory dick. He has to pull up close to the kerb for the telescopic ramp to reach. He has to be willing to do his job and press the damn button to extend the telescopic ramp onto the pavement. He also has to be willing to do his job and ask any parents with buggies in the wheelchair space to fold their buggy: It's not called the "wheelchair space" for nothing. A lot of bus drivers just can't be bothered to not disable me and I'm refused entry to about 1 in every 5 buses I try to board. Which, I'll admit, is an improvement on a decade ago where the refusal rate was at least 50%.
Given that all these barriers are socially constructed; surely you can see why I'd be peeved at you shouting "ableist bastard" at the bus driver; which brings my ability levels into the equation rather than it being about his behaviour?
So I, like many other disabled Brits, use the words "disablism" and "disablist" instead. In the bus scenario above; if you shouted "disablist bastard" you would be correctly referring to him disabling me. And, of course, the fact that the design of the bus disables me too: If the bus was fully accessible without the driver having to do a thing my life would be much more simple.
In anticipation of the comments saying "but if 'ableism' puts the blame on your lack of ability, then surely you're saying that the sex and race of victims of sexism and racism is part of the problem too?"
Absolutely not. If the bus driver refuses to let me on because I am a woman then I am a victim of sexism. My sex is a matter of fact. If the bus driver refuses to let me on because I am white; then I am a victim of racism. My race is a matter of fact.
My lack of ability is not a matter of fact. As I have explained (or tried to) I am only perceived as lacking in ability by people who hold a medical/individual perspective of disability. I believe that I am disabled by social barriers (like badly designed buses, and bus drivers being dicks), not that I am intrinsically lacking ability.
Not all disablist discrimination falls under the realm of being a disabling barrier. I'm also sometimes subjected to disablist abuse from people who view my existence as a disabled person abhorrent. I get online commenters telling me that I should've been killed at birth to save taxpayers' money. That doesn't prevent me from getting on a bus or install steps at the entrance to the building I live in. But it's abuse motivated by the fact that I am disabled; therefore it is disablist abuse.
As I said in the xoJane article; it's up to people how they choose to identify. If they choose to consider themselves as a person with a disability rather than a person disabled by society; that's their prerogative. Likewise; if people choose to view themselves as lacking in ability therefore as victims of ableism then that is their choice.
However I'm an avid believer in the social model of disability. I hope I've shown how "ableism" is predicated on the medical model. (I have a thumping migraine. For all I can see to read it back off this white screen I might have just written "blah bla blah blah blah bla" over and over again.) Therefore; if you and I ever try to catch a bus together and the driver slams the door in our faces I would request that you describe me as having been on the receiving end of "disablism" not "ableism". Much like I would always ask you to describe me as a "disabled person" and never a "person with a disability."
Thank you.
20 October 2011
Ricky Gervais and the politics of Mong
I've just realised how long it is since I last blogged. I knew I'd been ill for a while but I didn't realise it'd been nearly 6 months.
You know that feeling when you've eaten a huge, huge, meal (e.g. on Xmas day): You feel exhausted because all your blood has rushed to your stomach leaving no energy for the rest of your body to do anything. But at the same time you can't sleep because your digestive system is working so hard. And of course you can't force any food down because you already feel like you're going to explode. Normally the sensation only lasts a couple of hours until your system has made good progress of dealing with the oversized meal.
I've felt like that since the beginning of June. I've spent much of the summer depending on meal replacement drinks because I couldn't force any food down. I've had no energy to do anything (e.g. blog) because my digestive system has been being so irrational and I've also not been sleeping because of the digestive mania which has been increasing the sensation of exhaustion.
Despite the fact that I'd much rather be lazing, watching telly and eating Cadbury's Deadheads (because they're the only thing I've managed to eat today without ending up bent barfing over the bog within 60 seconds) I felt I had to quickly comment about this week's Ricky Gervais mong twitstorm. Everyone else is blogging about it and I just love a bandwagon.
It seems a lot of people don't know the origin of the word, so in a nutshell: It's an impairment-specific insult and refers to people with Down's Syndrome. In the 1860s Dr John Langdon Down decided to classify people with learning difficulties by "which country they looked like they came from" (really!) and he thought people with an extra 21st chromosome looked like they came from Mongolia so named the condition 'Mongolism'. (Later renamed after Dr Down because the Mongolians took offense.) So 'mong' isn't really associated solely with people with DS, it's also a slightly racist term with regards to citizens of Mongolia.
Gervais apparently thinks he has some kind of "right" to reclaim the word "mong"; despite the fact that - as far as I'm aware - he does not have Mongolian citizenship. He maintains that the definition of mong has moved on and it's no longer anything to do with Down's. Though that argument loses credence when you realise that 4 hours later he posted a tweet using the word "twongols", clearly derived from the term "mongols" further establishing the link between "mong" and the outdated diagnosis of mongolism.
It's been quite big news with most papers and radio shows discussing whether or not "mong" is offensive to people with Down's. I've seen quotes from Nicky Clark, Richard Herring and Christina Martin on the offensiveness debate. Odd thing is: They're all non-disabled. Don't get me wrong, they're all great disability rights activists and I value their contributions to making the world a slightly better place. I'm constantly pointing out how much we need non-disabled people to give a crap about disability issues. So I'm gonna repeat it and italicise it this time to really drive home my point: they're all great disability rights activists and I value their contributions. And I have no issue with them giving their opinions on these issues when asked for them.
But it's odd that when the subject is "is mong offensive to people with Down's Syndrome?" That the only people being asked for their opinion on the subject are non-disabled disability rights activists. Radio presenters would never ask "is using 'gay' as a pejorative offensive to homosexuals or has the meaning of the word changed?" Without including LGBT folk in the debate. So why aren't people with Down's Syndrome invited onto the radio to discuss how they feel about Gervais's words? Why is it only non-disabled people who are being asked for their opinion? That's the bit that bothers me; not that non-disabled people are giving their opinions, but that people with Down's are not being asked.
Not only is the exclusion of people with Down's from a debate about Down's almost as problematic as Gervais's original tweets, it also seems like a circular discussion that we'll never reach the end of. People without Down's can express their opinions but until we ask people with Down's Syndome "does mong offend you?" We'll never have a definitive answer to the question "is mong offensive to people with Down's Syndrome?" AOL can run polls asking the general populace their opinion but until people with an extra 21st chromosome are included in the debate it's all very abstract and inconclusive.
I'd be particularly interested to hear the opinion of actor Russell Ramsay who was in an episode of Extras so having worked with Gervais probably has an insight into both sides of the debate. (Random fact: When I was a child my parents would drag me kicking and screaming to church every week. I went to Sunday School with Russell. Haven't seen him in at least 20 years though.)
Despite the fact that we haven't yet got a conclusive answer as to whether or not people with Down's find "mong" offensive today (because they haven't been asked) the history of the word is clearer: It's historically a term of abuse and a form of hate speech. Disablist hate crime is on the up due in no small part to the bullshit rhetoric being peddled by the government and press in attempt to whip up support for welfare reform. People are getting called a "scrounging cunt" in the street or being followed down the road by someone shouting "fucking DLA stick" at them. That Gervais is using an historically abusive term so liberally and encouraging his fans to use it is pouring fuel on the already raging fires of hate. Ironically Gervais is calling people who disagree with him "haters" and stipulating that they only disagree with him because they're jealous of his success. If being successful means that you feel superior to members of oppressed minorities and have a licence to use abusive language then I'd rather remain unsuccessful but a decent human being.
You know that feeling when you've eaten a huge, huge, meal (e.g. on Xmas day): You feel exhausted because all your blood has rushed to your stomach leaving no energy for the rest of your body to do anything. But at the same time you can't sleep because your digestive system is working so hard. And of course you can't force any food down because you already feel like you're going to explode. Normally the sensation only lasts a couple of hours until your system has made good progress of dealing with the oversized meal.
I've felt like that since the beginning of June. I've spent much of the summer depending on meal replacement drinks because I couldn't force any food down. I've had no energy to do anything (e.g. blog) because my digestive system has been being so irrational and I've also not been sleeping because of the digestive mania which has been increasing the sensation of exhaustion.
Despite the fact that I'd much rather be lazing, watching telly and eating Cadbury's Deadheads (because they're the only thing I've managed to eat today without ending up bent barfing over the bog within 60 seconds) I felt I had to quickly comment about this week's Ricky Gervais mong twitstorm. Everyone else is blogging about it and I just love a bandwagon.
It seems a lot of people don't know the origin of the word, so in a nutshell: It's an impairment-specific insult and refers to people with Down's Syndrome. In the 1860s Dr John Langdon Down decided to classify people with learning difficulties by "which country they looked like they came from" (really!) and he thought people with an extra 21st chromosome looked like they came from Mongolia so named the condition 'Mongolism'. (Later renamed after Dr Down because the Mongolians took offense.) So 'mong' isn't really associated solely with people with DS, it's also a slightly racist term with regards to citizens of Mongolia.
Gervais apparently thinks he has some kind of "right" to reclaim the word "mong"; despite the fact that - as far as I'm aware - he does not have Mongolian citizenship. He maintains that the definition of mong has moved on and it's no longer anything to do with Down's. Though that argument loses credence when you realise that 4 hours later he posted a tweet using the word "twongols", clearly derived from the term "mongols" further establishing the link between "mong" and the outdated diagnosis of mongolism.
It's been quite big news with most papers and radio shows discussing whether or not "mong" is offensive to people with Down's. I've seen quotes from Nicky Clark, Richard Herring and Christina Martin on the offensiveness debate. Odd thing is: They're all non-disabled. Don't get me wrong, they're all great disability rights activists and I value their contributions to making the world a slightly better place. I'm constantly pointing out how much we need non-disabled people to give a crap about disability issues. So I'm gonna repeat it and italicise it this time to really drive home my point: they're all great disability rights activists and I value their contributions. And I have no issue with them giving their opinions on these issues when asked for them.
But it's odd that when the subject is "is mong offensive to people with Down's Syndrome?" That the only people being asked for their opinion on the subject are non-disabled disability rights activists. Radio presenters would never ask "is using 'gay' as a pejorative offensive to homosexuals or has the meaning of the word changed?" Without including LGBT folk in the debate. So why aren't people with Down's Syndrome invited onto the radio to discuss how they feel about Gervais's words? Why is it only non-disabled people who are being asked for their opinion? That's the bit that bothers me; not that non-disabled people are giving their opinions, but that people with Down's are not being asked.
Not only is the exclusion of people with Down's from a debate about Down's almost as problematic as Gervais's original tweets, it also seems like a circular discussion that we'll never reach the end of. People without Down's can express their opinions but until we ask people with Down's Syndome "does mong offend you?" We'll never have a definitive answer to the question "is mong offensive to people with Down's Syndrome?" AOL can run polls asking the general populace their opinion but until people with an extra 21st chromosome are included in the debate it's all very abstract and inconclusive.
I'd be particularly interested to hear the opinion of actor Russell Ramsay who was in an episode of Extras so having worked with Gervais probably has an insight into both sides of the debate. (Random fact: When I was a child my parents would drag me kicking and screaming to church every week. I went to Sunday School with Russell. Haven't seen him in at least 20 years though.)
Despite the fact that we haven't yet got a conclusive answer as to whether or not people with Down's find "mong" offensive today (because they haven't been asked) the history of the word is clearer: It's historically a term of abuse and a form of hate speech. Disablist hate crime is on the up due in no small part to the bullshit rhetoric being peddled by the government and press in attempt to whip up support for welfare reform. People are getting called a "scrounging cunt" in the street or being followed down the road by someone shouting "fucking DLA stick" at them. That Gervais is using an historically abusive term so liberally and encouraging his fans to use it is pouring fuel on the already raging fires of hate. Ironically Gervais is calling people who disagree with him "haters" and stipulating that they only disagree with him because they're jealous of his success. If being successful means that you feel superior to members of oppressed minorities and have a licence to use abusive language then I'd rather remain unsuccessful but a decent human being.
01 May 2011
♫...Somebody tell me why I'm on my own, if there's a soulmate for everyone...♫
Written as part of Blogging Against Disablism Day 2011.
...Is a sentence I hear all the time. And it's such a load of horseshit. Women want me about as much as they want a particularly severe case of haemorrhoids and all the confidence in the world can't change that.
On the couple of occasions in life when someone that I don't find attractive has told me they fancy me (I'm 32 this month and it has really has only happened a couple of times) I've been flattered. My ego has been known to break into a little happy dance. But whenever I tell someone that I think they're hot their standard response is to never speak to me again. I really am that repellent to others. It's not being unconfident when people really do think you're repulsive.
But also I'm not lacking in self-esteem; I would totally go out with me. I think I'm smart, funny, reasonably charismatic, interesting, I always smell nice and I enjoy my own company. If anything I'm over-confident to the point of being delusional because it's clear that other people do not view those characteristics in me.
I spent most of my adult life trying to look at the world through "people are innately not disablist bastards" tinted glasses. I wanted to believe that the only reasons people were so repulsed by me were because I'm fat, ugly and annoying. Then I read the results of the 2008 Observer Sex Survey in which 70% of respondents said they'd never shag someone with a "physical disability". And that's only the people disablist enough to admit it to the man from Mori with a clipboard. You can be sure that, actually, many more people would never do one of us but they're too ashamed to admit it because they know that being prejudiced isn't cool.
Accepting that most people would never go out with me because they're disablist was, in a weird way, an exercise in self-acceptance. It made me take off those tinted glasses and accept that the reason I'm perpetually single and haven't had sex for [mumblemumble] years probably isn't because I'm fat, ugly, and annoying (even though I am) but it's because they're discriminatory arseholes.
Of course there are many, many, disabled people in healthy relationships. They managed to find people from that 30% who aren't so prejudiced. With there being so few decent people around I presume that 30% can pick and choose from whoever they want because they're good people. Which does then kinda come back round to the "I'm fat, ugly and annoying" thing. If they've got the pick of the crop then they've got absolutely no reason to choose me.
With gay/bisexual women being a small sector of the population, and only 30% of them being willing to date me on grounds of my impairment there's only going to be a couple of thousand women in the country who would be willing to go out with me. Then you have to take away those that are in relationships, those that wouldn't go out with me because I talk too much, those that might be willing to see past my impairment but wouldn't date a fatty, those who might be willing to give me a chance but geography would make a relationship impossible, etc and there's basically about 12 women left in the country that might be willing to go out with me. And what are the chances that our paths will ever cross or that they'll actually fancy me?
You might think "but surely lesbians would be less disablist than straight people. After all, they understand and experience prejudice too?" Last year a friend cajoled me into trying online dating. It was not a successful experiment. So many women say in their profile "no crazies" and one even said "no strange limps". Disablism is just as ubiquitous among gay people as it is among the rest of the population. And then of course there's all the other reasons women wouldn't want to be with me; they're only interested in skinny women, they have a minimum height requirement (though in my case that's also disablism, my impairment is a form of dwarfism), etc. The experiment lasted a month. I gave up.
Because I've been single for so long people now see me as asexual. Yes there's the general cultural myth that disabled people don't do it, but the perception of me personally goes over and above that. People who know better than to be mythtaken (for example disabled people or people who are currently/have previously dated a disabled person) see me as asexual too. People no longer introduce me to their single lesbian friends because they just perceive me as someone that's alone in perpetuity.
Another area where I think disability/disablism is an issue is around "who is gonna wanna go out with someone who's ill all the fucking time?" You plan a lovely romantic evening out and at the last minute I'm too ill to go. I promise I'm going to cook you an amazing dinner and you get home from work to find me curled up in bed clutching the morphine and gibbering incoherently because I'm in so much pain. You get a cold and know you're going to pass it on to me and that it'll render me useless for 3 weeks because my immune system is so knackered. The only possible perk to dating me is that you know when I say "not tonight love, I've got a headache" that I'm really telling the truth.
If I'd been in a relationship with someone when I got sick I think it'd be a different story, I don't think they'd have dumped me for being ill. But when someone's out looking for their perfect partner is "chronically ill" really going to woo them?
Of course, being too ill to go out a lot of the time and being too poor to go out all the time (because my weekly income on benefits is £67 a week short of the amount recommended by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for a minimum standard of living.) does mean that my chances of crossing paths with those aforementioned 12 women who might be willing to give me a go is even slimmer.
Another thing that makes me unattractive is that I'm not good at being what I'm supposed to be. There's partly the fact that women are supposed to be quiet and nice and lovely, and I'm loud and sarcastic and rude. But the main issue is the disablist notions of what a disabled person is supposed to be. Disabled people are supposed to be seen and not heard. We're supposed to be all smiles and not tell people who patronise us to "fuck off". We're supposed to be grateful for scraps of access and not complain when we're treated unfairly. We're basically supposed to look and act like we've just rolled out of a Children In Need appeal.
I do make myself heard. All the time. I'm extremely loud and outspoken. I will swear at people who belittle me. I will complain about bad access or poor treatment. I'm rude and sarcastic and misanthropic. Even as a child I was never cute enough for CiN. Instead of getting picked for "make a wish" type trips to Disneyworld, I got banned from school holidays.
Last year I was at an academic conference and one of the speakers was talking about academic theories of cuteness. It was so interesting. One of the things she pointed out was that things that are considered cute are often rendered impaired and she gave the example of Hello Kitty not having a mouth. Hello Kitty is considered cute in part because she can't talk back. I talk back constantly and in a society that says disabled people should only be tolerated if they're adorable I'm a pariah.
As if all this wasn't enough to guarantee me a life of chronic singledom, I'm socio-economically unappealing thanks to the government's benefits bullshit which means that the only women I could ever live with are someone who is also on benefits or someone who's rich enough to "keep" me. And as anyone who's ever met me can confirm; I'm independent almost to the point of self-destructiveness. Me being a "kept" woman would almost certainly result in bloodshed.
At the moment if I were to move in with a partner who had a job I'd lose my Housing Benefit and my Income Support leaving me with my Incapacity Benefit for any contributions to running of the household and anything I wanted for myself (like my addiction to Lush). I'd also still have my DLA to cover the extra costs of being disabled. Losing Income Support would mean I'd lose my free prescriptions, my free NHS dentistry and my subsidised glasses. So I'd be a moderate financial burden on my other half.
But under the plans for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) I'd only get to keep the non-means tested bit (the equivalent bit to Incapacity Benefit) for the first year of us living together. Then my only income would be my DLA, which is already accounted for because disability is expensive. I would be a total financial burden on my partner. "If we move in together you'll have to financially support me completely," isn't going to win hearts.
A couple of months ago I was having dinner with my doppelgänger/clone/mini-me. She's planning to move to London when she graduates from uni. She said that my inability to get a girlfriend worries her. She'd assumed that being a lesbian in London was like being a kid in a sweet shop. I think that's a really good analogy...
Imagine you're staying at your diabetic dad's sugar-free house. You're lagging in energy, you've got stuff you need to get done and you need a sugar fix. You find a slightly dusty Werther's Original in the back of a drawer. It looks a bit gross but you eat it because it's that or nothing.
Imagine you're in a sweet shop. There's thousands of delicious looking sugary things wall-to-wall. In the corner you spot one lowly, dusty, Werther's Original. You wouldn't touch it with a bargepole when there are so many other wonderful things to choose from.
I'm that dusty Werther's Original. When I lived somewhere less well populated, and certainly with a smaller gay population, the odd woman was willing to go on a date with me. In London any lesbian has a plethora of women to choose from; so why on earth would she choose the sickly cripple who also happens to be fat, ugly, annoying, is rubbish at confirming to social rules and is a financial burden?
With 70% of people being too disablist to date me and the remaining 30% being put off by my looks, my behaviour that doesn't conform to the social roles expected of me, my being a financial burden or simply just not fancying me; how can those people who say "You could get a girlfriend, you just need to be more confident," really believe the words coming out of their mouths? Especially when I'm already confident beyond the level I should be given my lack of hotness?
It's quite depressing that with quite a high level of certainty my future involves dying alone and getting devoured by my 37 cats. There are lots of things that could change that, as a culture we could address the attitudes to disabled people that result in 70% of people being unwilling to shag me. We could fix the benefits system so I wouldn't be forced into being a financial drain on a partner. We could fix our social ideals of what a "good" disabled person is. But telling me to be more confident won't make any difference whatsoever.
"You could get a girlfriend, you just need to be more confident..."
...Is a sentence I hear all the time. And it's such a load of horseshit. Women want me about as much as they want a particularly severe case of haemorrhoids and all the confidence in the world can't change that.
On the couple of occasions in life when someone that I don't find attractive has told me they fancy me (I'm 32 this month and it has really has only happened a couple of times) I've been flattered. My ego has been known to break into a little happy dance. But whenever I tell someone that I think they're hot their standard response is to never speak to me again. I really am that repellent to others. It's not being unconfident when people really do think you're repulsive.
But also I'm not lacking in self-esteem; I would totally go out with me. I think I'm smart, funny, reasonably charismatic, interesting, I always smell nice and I enjoy my own company. If anything I'm over-confident to the point of being delusional because it's clear that other people do not view those characteristics in me.
I spent most of my adult life trying to look at the world through "people are innately not disablist bastards" tinted glasses. I wanted to believe that the only reasons people were so repulsed by me were because I'm fat, ugly and annoying. Then I read the results of the 2008 Observer Sex Survey in which 70% of respondents said they'd never shag someone with a "physical disability". And that's only the people disablist enough to admit it to the man from Mori with a clipboard. You can be sure that, actually, many more people would never do one of us but they're too ashamed to admit it because they know that being prejudiced isn't cool.
Accepting that most people would never go out with me because they're disablist was, in a weird way, an exercise in self-acceptance. It made me take off those tinted glasses and accept that the reason I'm perpetually single and haven't had sex for [mumblemumble] years probably isn't because I'm fat, ugly, and annoying (even though I am) but it's because they're discriminatory arseholes.
Of course there are many, many, disabled people in healthy relationships. They managed to find people from that 30% who aren't so prejudiced. With there being so few decent people around I presume that 30% can pick and choose from whoever they want because they're good people. Which does then kinda come back round to the "I'm fat, ugly and annoying" thing. If they've got the pick of the crop then they've got absolutely no reason to choose me.
With gay/bisexual women being a small sector of the population, and only 30% of them being willing to date me on grounds of my impairment there's only going to be a couple of thousand women in the country who would be willing to go out with me. Then you have to take away those that are in relationships, those that wouldn't go out with me because I talk too much, those that might be willing to see past my impairment but wouldn't date a fatty, those who might be willing to give me a chance but geography would make a relationship impossible, etc and there's basically about 12 women left in the country that might be willing to go out with me. And what are the chances that our paths will ever cross or that they'll actually fancy me?
You might think "but surely lesbians would be less disablist than straight people. After all, they understand and experience prejudice too?" Last year a friend cajoled me into trying online dating. It was not a successful experiment. So many women say in their profile "no crazies" and one even said "no strange limps". Disablism is just as ubiquitous among gay people as it is among the rest of the population. And then of course there's all the other reasons women wouldn't want to be with me; they're only interested in skinny women, they have a minimum height requirement (though in my case that's also disablism, my impairment is a form of dwarfism), etc. The experiment lasted a month. I gave up.
Because I've been single for so long people now see me as asexual. Yes there's the general cultural myth that disabled people don't do it, but the perception of me personally goes over and above that. People who know better than to be mythtaken (for example disabled people or people who are currently/have previously dated a disabled person) see me as asexual too. People no longer introduce me to their single lesbian friends because they just perceive me as someone that's alone in perpetuity.
Another area where I think disability/disablism is an issue is around "who is gonna wanna go out with someone who's ill all the fucking time?" You plan a lovely romantic evening out and at the last minute I'm too ill to go. I promise I'm going to cook you an amazing dinner and you get home from work to find me curled up in bed clutching the morphine and gibbering incoherently because I'm in so much pain. You get a cold and know you're going to pass it on to me and that it'll render me useless for 3 weeks because my immune system is so knackered. The only possible perk to dating me is that you know when I say "not tonight love, I've got a headache" that I'm really telling the truth.
If I'd been in a relationship with someone when I got sick I think it'd be a different story, I don't think they'd have dumped me for being ill. But when someone's out looking for their perfect partner is "chronically ill" really going to woo them?
Of course, being too ill to go out a lot of the time and being too poor to go out all the time (because my weekly income on benefits is £67 a week short of the amount recommended by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for a minimum standard of living.) does mean that my chances of crossing paths with those aforementioned 12 women who might be willing to give me a go is even slimmer.
Another thing that makes me unattractive is that I'm not good at being what I'm supposed to be. There's partly the fact that women are supposed to be quiet and nice and lovely, and I'm loud and sarcastic and rude. But the main issue is the disablist notions of what a disabled person is supposed to be. Disabled people are supposed to be seen and not heard. We're supposed to be all smiles and not tell people who patronise us to "fuck off". We're supposed to be grateful for scraps of access and not complain when we're treated unfairly. We're basically supposed to look and act like we've just rolled out of a Children In Need appeal.
I do make myself heard. All the time. I'm extremely loud and outspoken. I will swear at people who belittle me. I will complain about bad access or poor treatment. I'm rude and sarcastic and misanthropic. Even as a child I was never cute enough for CiN. Instead of getting picked for "make a wish" type trips to Disneyworld, I got banned from school holidays.
Last year I was at an academic conference and one of the speakers was talking about academic theories of cuteness. It was so interesting. One of the things she pointed out was that things that are considered cute are often rendered impaired and she gave the example of Hello Kitty not having a mouth. Hello Kitty is considered cute in part because she can't talk back. I talk back constantly and in a society that says disabled people should only be tolerated if they're adorable I'm a pariah.
As if all this wasn't enough to guarantee me a life of chronic singledom, I'm socio-economically unappealing thanks to the government's benefits bullshit which means that the only women I could ever live with are someone who is also on benefits or someone who's rich enough to "keep" me. And as anyone who's ever met me can confirm; I'm independent almost to the point of self-destructiveness. Me being a "kept" woman would almost certainly result in bloodshed.
At the moment if I were to move in with a partner who had a job I'd lose my Housing Benefit and my Income Support leaving me with my Incapacity Benefit for any contributions to running of the household and anything I wanted for myself (like my addiction to Lush). I'd also still have my DLA to cover the extra costs of being disabled. Losing Income Support would mean I'd lose my free prescriptions, my free NHS dentistry and my subsidised glasses. So I'd be a moderate financial burden on my other half.
But under the plans for Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) I'd only get to keep the non-means tested bit (the equivalent bit to Incapacity Benefit) for the first year of us living together. Then my only income would be my DLA, which is already accounted for because disability is expensive. I would be a total financial burden on my partner. "If we move in together you'll have to financially support me completely," isn't going to win hearts.
A couple of months ago I was having dinner with my doppelgänger/clone/mini-me. She's planning to move to London when she graduates from uni. She said that my inability to get a girlfriend worries her. She'd assumed that being a lesbian in London was like being a kid in a sweet shop. I think that's a really good analogy...
Imagine you're staying at your diabetic dad's sugar-free house. You're lagging in energy, you've got stuff you need to get done and you need a sugar fix. You find a slightly dusty Werther's Original in the back of a drawer. It looks a bit gross but you eat it because it's that or nothing.
Imagine you're in a sweet shop. There's thousands of delicious looking sugary things wall-to-wall. In the corner you spot one lowly, dusty, Werther's Original. You wouldn't touch it with a bargepole when there are so many other wonderful things to choose from.
I'm that dusty Werther's Original. When I lived somewhere less well populated, and certainly with a smaller gay population, the odd woman was willing to go on a date with me. In London any lesbian has a plethora of women to choose from; so why on earth would she choose the sickly cripple who also happens to be fat, ugly, annoying, is rubbish at confirming to social rules and is a financial burden?
With 70% of people being too disablist to date me and the remaining 30% being put off by my looks, my behaviour that doesn't conform to the social roles expected of me, my being a financial burden or simply just not fancying me; how can those people who say "You could get a girlfriend, you just need to be more confident," really believe the words coming out of their mouths? Especially when I'm already confident beyond the level I should be given my lack of hotness?
It's quite depressing that with quite a high level of certainty my future involves dying alone and getting devoured by my 37 cats. There are lots of things that could change that, as a culture we could address the attitudes to disabled people that result in 70% of people being unwilling to shag me. We could fix the benefits system so I wouldn't be forced into being a financial drain on a partner. We could fix our social ideals of what a "good" disabled person is. But telling me to be more confident won't make any difference whatsoever.
25 April 2011
Pride and St George
If you've been hiding under a rock and not seen the flags everywhere, it might have escaped your attention that Saturday was St George's day; a day that's typically associated with racists and bigots, the EDL and the BNP.
This year I've seen several attempts from decent people to reclaim the day from the fascists, to take pride in England being the diverse place it is. After all, St George was Palestinian so he seems a bit of an odd role model for the EDL to revere.
The trouble is that I couldn't be less proud of being English.
And that list barely scratches the surface.
You could argue that the decisions made by the government don't necessarily reflect those of the populace as a whole, that the lies printed in the press aren't emblematic of the opinions of the nation. Except they are. We're a democracy, we voted for this government. Look at the sea of blue across England. It's the English that voted Tory rather than other parts of the UK. As for the press? If people stopped buying the lies, the papers would stop printing them.
So could someone, please, tell me why I should be proud of England when England so clearly isn't proud of me?
This year I've seen several attempts from decent people to reclaim the day from the fascists, to take pride in England being the diverse place it is. After all, St George was Palestinian so he seems a bit of an odd role model for the EDL to revere.
The trouble is that I couldn't be less proud of being English.
- Universities in England are charging ever increasing fees, this is not true for all other parts of the UK. The exorbitant amounts are a major disincentive for people from a background like mine to get an education.
- English older and disabled people are having to pay more for less home care. This isn't true of all of the UK, Scottish older people get free care.
- People living in care homes are facing bigger bills for less safe care homes and DLA recipients living in care homes will be losing their mobility component from 2013.
- The government are completely dismantling the welfare state. Disabled people are killing themselves because they can't afford to live.
- The government is planning to completely dismantle the NHS in England. I had one experience of NHS outsourcing to private healthcare providers; I waited a year to have my bust ankle MRIed.
- Stories of police violence seem almost daily while hate crimes against disabled people are frequent and rarely appropriately handled by the authorities.
- It's the 21st century and gay people can't get married.
- The government is considering scrapping our anti-discrimination legislation.
- We have misogynists, homophobes and disablists in parliament.
- Our newspapers tell daily lies about benefits claimants, which results in an increase in the aforementioned disablist hate crime.
And that list barely scratches the surface.
You could argue that the decisions made by the government don't necessarily reflect those of the populace as a whole, that the lies printed in the press aren't emblematic of the opinions of the nation. Except they are. We're a democracy, we voted for this government. Look at the sea of blue across England. It's the English that voted Tory rather than other parts of the UK. As for the press? If people stopped buying the lies, the papers would stop printing them.
So could someone, please, tell me why I should be proud of England when England so clearly isn't proud of me?
24 July 2010
The lowest of the low
Being female, gay and disabled1 you'd think I'd experience 3 times as much discrimination as a disabled but otherwise socially privileged bloke, right?
Wrong. All the discrimination I ever experience is disablism.
Not only is experiencing daily disablist acts (like not being able to get into a brand new café) frustrating, there's also the constant reminders that discrimination against disabled people provokes the least outrage among society at large out of all the isms.
Easter weekend 2009 there was the amazonfail brouhaha. It doesn't matter if someone from amazon.fr pressed the wrong button which "accidentally" meant rankings were stripped from any books to do with homosexuality or sex and disability. Where the conscious and deliberate disablism occurred was in the web/media frenzy. Everyone on the planet cried "homophobia" in their tweets, blog posts and news articles. Only a tiny, tiny smattering of people gave a crap that books on disability and sexuality had been affected too.
A couple of months ago the LGBT Labour party conference were refused drinks in a London pub. The story of homophobic discrimination spread across the internet like wildfire and was global news within a couple of hours. My gut reaction upon reading the story was to tweet Greencoat Boy: The gay in me is horrified. The disabled in me says "so what? Disabled people get refused service DAILY and it's not news.".
Two hours later my point got illustrated perfectly. I read this story of a wheelchair-using woman being refused service in a restaurant on the very same day. Naturally I tweeted the link. The story of a homophobic bar manager was tweeted and retweeted thousands and thousands of times. How many people retweeted the tale of a disablist restaurant manager? Two. Not two thousand; just two.
Yesterday it was news that a niqab-wearing young Muslim woman and her friend were refused entry onto a bus for "being a threat". I'm refused entry to roughly one in 5 of the buses I try to board because I'm a wheelchair user. Very often the driver doesn't even have the balls to tell me he's going to refuse me access, he just pulls up at the stop, doesn't get the ramp out, allows able-bodied2 passengers to board and then drives off.
Where's my news story in the top 10 on the BBC News website? Where's my "urgent investigation" into the discrimination I faced?
Superaleja once referred to "multiple layers of discrimination, like a crip-fail onion," which I think perfectly describes the 3 situations I've written about here. First disabled people get discriminated against, then there's the second layer of discrimination where we're denied the public outcry of horror that would be extended to the same discrimination being committed against any other minority group.
1 I have been told on many an occasion that it's a shame I'm not black too. During my stand up days (before I became too ill to carry on) I had an 'anti-fan' in Brighton who came to see me every time I gigged in the city to accuse me of being racist for telling the story of how daft people sometimes say "it's a shame you're not black." Being so hated really made me feel like I was doing the job properly.
2 I'm deliberately using the phrase "able-bodied" as the opposite of "physically impaired". There's a chance that some of the people boarding the bus are both disabled and able-bodied.
Wrong. All the discrimination I ever experience is disablism.
Not only is experiencing daily disablist acts (like not being able to get into a brand new café) frustrating, there's also the constant reminders that discrimination against disabled people provokes the least outrage among society at large out of all the isms.
Easter weekend 2009 there was the amazonfail brouhaha. It doesn't matter if someone from amazon.fr pressed the wrong button which "accidentally" meant rankings were stripped from any books to do with homosexuality or sex and disability. Where the conscious and deliberate disablism occurred was in the web/media frenzy. Everyone on the planet cried "homophobia" in their tweets, blog posts and news articles. Only a tiny, tiny smattering of people gave a crap that books on disability and sexuality had been affected too.
A couple of months ago the LGBT Labour party conference were refused drinks in a London pub. The story of homophobic discrimination spread across the internet like wildfire and was global news within a couple of hours. My gut reaction upon reading the story was to tweet Greencoat Boy: The gay in me is horrified. The disabled in me says "so what? Disabled people get refused service DAILY and it's not news.".
Two hours later my point got illustrated perfectly. I read this story of a wheelchair-using woman being refused service in a restaurant on the very same day. Naturally I tweeted the link. The story of a homophobic bar manager was tweeted and retweeted thousands and thousands of times. How many people retweeted the tale of a disablist restaurant manager? Two. Not two thousand; just two.
Yesterday it was news that a niqab-wearing young Muslim woman and her friend were refused entry onto a bus for "being a threat". I'm refused entry to roughly one in 5 of the buses I try to board because I'm a wheelchair user. Very often the driver doesn't even have the balls to tell me he's going to refuse me access, he just pulls up at the stop, doesn't get the ramp out, allows able-bodied2 passengers to board and then drives off.
Where's my news story in the top 10 on the BBC News website? Where's my "urgent investigation" into the discrimination I faced?
Superaleja once referred to "multiple layers of discrimination, like a crip-fail onion," which I think perfectly describes the 3 situations I've written about here. First disabled people get discriminated against, then there's the second layer of discrimination where we're denied the public outcry of horror that would be extended to the same discrimination being committed against any other minority group.
1 I have been told on many an occasion that it's a shame I'm not black too. During my stand up days (before I became too ill to carry on) I had an 'anti-fan' in Brighton who came to see me every time I gigged in the city to accuse me of being racist for telling the story of how daft people sometimes say "it's a shame you're not black." Being so hated really made me feel like I was doing the job properly.
2 I'm deliberately using the phrase "able-bodied" as the opposite of "physically impaired". There's a chance that some of the people boarding the bus are both disabled and able-bodied.
02 May 2010
BADD 10: Discrimination by ignorance and the myth of the DDA
"But I thought everywhere was accessible now."
How I loathe that sentence. It usually follows my asking "so why did you hire somewhere inaccessible for your event? Because now I can't come."
For example, I've just spent the last 3 days at a film festival/conference tied to my course (and is why my BADD post is a day late). I arrived on Thursday, picked up my ticket and was told by cinema staff "it's in screen 2, which is not accessible."
Joy.
And, of course, the "but I thought..." line swiftly followed from the director of the event who'd hired the venue.
At the end of last year I joined a masters swimming team in my vague attempt to be slightly fitter/healthier. Recently the pool has had some lane closures due to building work and a member of the committee wanted to move the session I usually go to to a different pool until the building work had ended.
"Can you please not, cos, you know, I don't wanna be excluded and I hear the other pool is not accessible."
"But I thought..."
Lots of people started boo-hooing when The Astoria got demolished. Me? I was thrilled because never again will I miss seeing a band because they had their one London date in that inaccessible venue. When I told people why I was so pleased it had been demolished (and demolished to make way for an accessible train/tube station no less!) I frequently heard "But I thought..." I'm sure even most bands playing there didn't realise all the fans that were being excluded because of "but I thought..."
(I'm sure Jim Davidson would've loved playing there though.)
I'm a big fan of the DDA. Yeah, sure, it's got so many holes it's kinda like a sieve. But it wasn't around for the first half of my life and in the last 15 years since it was written I've noticed that the world has become much more accessible and less cruel.
But it does have its sieve-like qualities which means that the world isn't as accessible as it should be. There's not really any excuse for a major west end cinema that's part of a huge national chain to not have full access. But the holey law means they get away with it.
Then the myth that DDA works makes the problem worse. People book venues in good faith assuming they're accessible. The venues then think "we don't need to improve access because the money's still rolling in." And I'm the one that loses out.
I don't know how we go about pointing out to the world en masse that they're mythtaken (thanks Buffy!): The world is not accessible so when booking a venue you need to check access. But that's one I'll have to tackle another day. Now I'm going to put heat pads on my painy ankle and shoulder from hauling myself up a flight of stairs repeatedly for the last 3 days.
How I loathe that sentence. It usually follows my asking "so why did you hire somewhere inaccessible for your event? Because now I can't come."
For example, I've just spent the last 3 days at a film festival/conference tied to my course (and is why my BADD post is a day late). I arrived on Thursday, picked up my ticket and was told by cinema staff "it's in screen 2, which is not accessible."
Joy.
And, of course, the "but I thought..." line swiftly followed from the director of the event who'd hired the venue.
At the end of last year I joined a masters swimming team in my vague attempt to be slightly fitter/healthier. Recently the pool has had some lane closures due to building work and a member of the committee wanted to move the session I usually go to to a different pool until the building work had ended.
"Can you please not, cos, you know, I don't wanna be excluded and I hear the other pool is not accessible."
"But I thought..."
Lots of people started boo-hooing when The Astoria got demolished. Me? I was thrilled because never again will I miss seeing a band because they had their one London date in that inaccessible venue. When I told people why I was so pleased it had been demolished (and demolished to make way for an accessible train/tube station no less!) I frequently heard "But I thought..." I'm sure even most bands playing there didn't realise all the fans that were being excluded because of "but I thought..."
(I'm sure Jim Davidson would've loved playing there though.)
I'm a big fan of the DDA. Yeah, sure, it's got so many holes it's kinda like a sieve. But it wasn't around for the first half of my life and in the last 15 years since it was written I've noticed that the world has become much more accessible and less cruel.
But it does have its sieve-like qualities which means that the world isn't as accessible as it should be. There's not really any excuse for a major west end cinema that's part of a huge national chain to not have full access. But the holey law means they get away with it.
Then the myth that DDA works makes the problem worse. People book venues in good faith assuming they're accessible. The venues then think "we don't need to improve access because the money's still rolling in." And I'm the one that loses out.
I don't know how we go about pointing out to the world en masse that they're mythtaken (thanks Buffy!): The world is not accessible so when booking a venue you need to check access. But that's one I'll have to tackle another day. Now I'm going to put heat pads on my painy ankle and shoulder from hauling myself up a flight of stairs repeatedly for the last 3 days.
12 March 2010
Hate
On the International Day of Disabled People I mentioned that the EHRC had used the day to launch an inquiry into disablist harassment in the wake of the Pilkington murder/suicide.
Something occurred to me a couple of days after posting: Plenty of disabled people have been killed in hate crimes - people like Brent Martin who was killed over a bet - but they hadn't really entered the consciousness of non-disabled people. What made the "Pilkington case a Lawrence moment for disability hate crime"? Eventually it hit me: Fiona Pilkington was not disabled. She committed murder/suicide out of frustration at the disablist harassment of her two disabled children. For the first time disablist hate crime was responsible for the death of a non-disabled person. And I think that's why the public suddenly gave a shit. If disablist hate crime was still only killing us mere disableds, no-one would care.
Fortunately disablist hate is now getting the attention of both non-disabled people and at least one disabled person who had previously thought that disablist hate crimes were fiction.
This week we've had the sad news of the death of Mancunian David Askew. Unusually for this kind of story it has been news. For a while yesterday (Thursday) the BBC story about his death topped the list of "most read" stories on the site. Many publications note that he was 'tormented to death' yet I've not seen one article remark that the harassment was probably fuelled by disablist hate.
Also this week we've had the rather ridiculous Ofcom decision that TV stations should broadcast the word "retard" because to not do so would be a breach of viewers' human rights. In other words, encouraging disablist hate crimes is good. Mencap have launched an Email campaign against Ofcom's ruling
Today the Independent ran a column filled with offensive language, praising Ofcom's decision, and slamming 'political correctness'. Yes, the same paper that also today declared David Askew's death a "tragedy" and asked "Could nothing have been done to protect him?" The Independent's right hand wants the right to call disabled people offensive names while the left hand wants to protect people like David Askew. Apparently the editor is completely oblivious to the fact that Askew was no doubt repeatedly called a "retard" during his decade of harassment.
The Pilkington case might have brought the public's awareness of disablist hate some way forward but with Ofcom and the Independent declaring that disablist hate speech is not only acceptable but a good thing we've still got a long way to go.
Edit: For those of you who think that not wanting to be subjected to hate speech is "political correctness gone mad;" Here's Johnny Knoxville (really not known for his PCness) and his friend and colleague Eddie Barbanell on why the word "retard" is not acceptable:
Edit 22nd March: Today there are finally a couple of news stories containing both "David Askew" and "disability hate crime" on bbc.co.uk and in The Independent.
Something occurred to me a couple of days after posting: Plenty of disabled people have been killed in hate crimes - people like Brent Martin who was killed over a bet - but they hadn't really entered the consciousness of non-disabled people. What made the "Pilkington case a Lawrence moment for disability hate crime"? Eventually it hit me: Fiona Pilkington was not disabled. She committed murder/suicide out of frustration at the disablist harassment of her two disabled children. For the first time disablist hate crime was responsible for the death of a non-disabled person. And I think that's why the public suddenly gave a shit. If disablist hate crime was still only killing us mere disableds, no-one would care.
Fortunately disablist hate is now getting the attention of both non-disabled people and at least one disabled person who had previously thought that disablist hate crimes were fiction.
This week we've had the sad news of the death of Mancunian David Askew. Unusually for this kind of story it has been news. For a while yesterday (Thursday) the BBC story about his death topped the list of "most read" stories on the site. Many publications note that he was 'tormented to death' yet I've not seen one article remark that the harassment was probably fuelled by disablist hate.
Also this week we've had the rather ridiculous Ofcom decision that TV stations should broadcast the word "retard" because to not do so would be a breach of viewers' human rights. In other words, encouraging disablist hate crimes is good. Mencap have launched an Email campaign against Ofcom's ruling
Today the Independent ran a column filled with offensive language, praising Ofcom's decision, and slamming 'political correctness'. Yes, the same paper that also today declared David Askew's death a "tragedy" and asked "Could nothing have been done to protect him?" The Independent's right hand wants the right to call disabled people offensive names while the left hand wants to protect people like David Askew. Apparently the editor is completely oblivious to the fact that Askew was no doubt repeatedly called a "retard" during his decade of harassment.
The Pilkington case might have brought the public's awareness of disablist hate some way forward but with Ofcom and the Independent declaring that disablist hate speech is not only acceptable but a good thing we've still got a long way to go.
Edit: For those of you who think that not wanting to be subjected to hate speech is "political correctness gone mad;" Here's Johnny Knoxville (really not known for his PCness) and his friend and colleague Eddie Barbanell on why the word "retard" is not acceptable:
Edit 22nd March: Today there are finally a couple of news stories containing both "David Askew" and "disability hate crime" on bbc.co.uk and in The Independent.
03 May 2009
BADD 09
I still haven't written a post for Blogging Against Disablism Day 2009 for 2 reasons:
Hopefully I should get my computer back around Wednesday. So in the meantime here are my 2 favourite posts, both exploring disablism in film and TV:
ETA: I won't be getting my computer back until Monday, so by then I think the BADD sailboat for 09 will be well and truly passed. I was going to write something about disability in the media, but I think Sweet Perdition and Trouble is Everywhere did better than I could (at least while I'm on painkillers for my foot that make me forget what I was saying whilst in the middle of saying it). So instead I'll just direct you back to my post about how I think Susan Boyle was a victim of disablism when she appeared on Britain's Got Talent and my post on #amazonfail; specifically "edited to add"s 3 and 4 in which I talk about how the press completely failed to acknowledge that disability titles were affected too.
- My disablist cat. Last week I was staying at my dad's. I had to come home on Thursday in order to go to Cine-Excess III on Friday. So when I decided it was time to put the cat in her carry box she disappeared. For 5 hours. I spent a good 90% of that time walking around looking for her. As everyone who knows me knows I can barely stand for 5 minutes without pain, so after standing for 5 hours 3 days ago my legs are still killing me. (I eventually found the cat inside the sofa.)
- My disablist computer. The bones in my arms are funny shapes because of my osteogenesis imperfecta, so the muscles in my arms are in funny positions. This has made my arms incredibly vulnerable to RSI. So for typing anything substantial I need to use speech-to-text software. My computer decided it wasn't powerful enough to run Dragon's NaturallySpeaking so had to go to computer hospital for a RAM upgrade. It's still there.
Hopefully I should get my computer back around Wednesday. So in the meantime here are my 2 favourite posts, both exploring disablism in film and TV:
- Sweet Perdition: Monkey Shines: An Experiment in Fear (of disability)
- Trouble is Everywhere: BADD: Bloody Torchwood
ETA: I won't be getting my computer back until Monday, so by then I think the BADD sailboat for 09 will be well and truly passed. I was going to write something about disability in the media, but I think Sweet Perdition and Trouble is Everywhere did better than I could (at least while I'm on painkillers for my foot that make me forget what I was saying whilst in the middle of saying it). So instead I'll just direct you back to my post about how I think Susan Boyle was a victim of disablism when she appeared on Britain's Got Talent and my post on #amazonfail; specifically "edited to add"s 3 and 4 in which I talk about how the press completely failed to acknowledge that disability titles were affected too.
18 April 2009
Susan Boyle
She became instantly famous last Saturday because of her audition for Britain's Got Talent. As soon as the program aired I started reading mentions of her online, but it wasn't until Tuesday that I actually watched the YouTube vid to see what all the fuss was about.
As soon as she started talking I thought "she seems to be slightly learning disabled." I suspect that the majority of the audience, not being as disability aware as me, thought that she was just stupid:
Stupid for appearing on national television in an unflattering dress.
Stupid for appearing on national television without running a bit of Frizz Ease through her fuzzy hair.
Stupid for appearing on national television with unplucked eyebrows. Surely everyone's heard of tweezers and noticed that everyone on telly has skinny eyebrows? She must be stupid to have not noticed that.
Stupid to think that she's sexy enough to flirt with the judges.
Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian about how Susan was a victim of 'uglyism' until she burst into song. I think she was a victim of a different ism - disablism.
It wouldn't matter if Susan's IQ was less than 70 (the typical criteria for a "learning disabled" label) or over 170... she appeared to be learning disabled, and the audience both those present and watching at home, judged her on that appearance and started discriminating accordingly.
In Yesterday's Hate Mail she "came out" as learning disabled (I don't read it, I promise. Someone pointed the link out on a disability messageboard):
Rather entertainingly that article also says "Her rather wild hairdo and bushy eyebrows have led her to be dubbed the 'hairy angel' in some quarters." - It was their paper that gave her that name!
There's a global assumption that disabled people can't have any talent for anything; and so the audience having given her the label of stupid assumed that there was no possible way she could actually be a good singer. Surely if she's too stupid to know how one should appear on TV she must be so stupid that she thinks she's got a talent even though she can't have?
And so they laughed.
Then she sang. The laughter stopped.
Suddenly everything turned round, instead of laughing at her, the audience applauded along with her.
But this applause was of course also the result of a disablist belief system. The world has such low expectations of us that when we turn out to be capable of doing something that warrants far more praise than if a non-disabled person had the same skill.
I thought Susan's performance was great, I think it's great that a disabled person has shot to fame for being talented. I think it's great that a disabled person is now admired by the disablists that were bullying her only 2 weeks ago.
I have to wonder though, would she be the global phenomenon she is if her learning impairment hadn't been so apparent during the pre-audition interview?
As soon as she started talking I thought "she seems to be slightly learning disabled." I suspect that the majority of the audience, not being as disability aware as me, thought that she was just stupid:
Stupid for appearing on national television in an unflattering dress.
Stupid for appearing on national television without running a bit of Frizz Ease through her fuzzy hair.
Stupid for appearing on national television with unplucked eyebrows. Surely everyone's heard of tweezers and noticed that everyone on telly has skinny eyebrows? She must be stupid to have not noticed that.
Stupid to think that she's sexy enough to flirt with the judges.
Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian about how Susan was a victim of 'uglyism' until she burst into song. I think she was a victim of a different ism - disablism.
It wouldn't matter if Susan's IQ was less than 70 (the typical criteria for a "learning disabled" label) or over 170... she appeared to be learning disabled, and the audience both those present and watching at home, judged her on that appearance and started discriminating accordingly.
In Yesterday's Hate Mail she "came out" as learning disabled (I don't read it, I promise. Someone pointed the link out on a disability messageboard):
She had suffered mild brain damage after being starved of oxygen at birth.
Recalling her childhood, she said earlier this week: 'I was born with a disability and that made me a target for bullies.'
Rather entertainingly that article also says "Her rather wild hairdo and bushy eyebrows have led her to be dubbed the 'hairy angel' in some quarters." - It was their paper that gave her that name!
There's a global assumption that disabled people can't have any talent for anything; and so the audience having given her the label of stupid assumed that there was no possible way she could actually be a good singer. Surely if she's too stupid to know how one should appear on TV she must be so stupid that she thinks she's got a talent even though she can't have?
And so they laughed.
Then she sang. The laughter stopped.
Suddenly everything turned round, instead of laughing at her, the audience applauded along with her.
But this applause was of course also the result of a disablist belief system. The world has such low expectations of us that when we turn out to be capable of doing something that warrants far more praise than if a non-disabled person had the same skill.
I thought Susan's performance was great, I think it's great that a disabled person has shot to fame for being talented. I think it's great that a disabled person is now admired by the disablists that were bullying her only 2 weeks ago.
I have to wonder though, would she be the global phenomenon she is if her learning impairment hadn't been so apparent during the pre-audition interview?
01 May 2008
Disablism Vs. Ableism
We grow, we evolve, our thought processes change. Since writing this post in 2008 (this emboldened intro was written in 2014) I've thought more about quite why the term "ableism" bothers me so. In fact, one of the comments on this post was important in developing my own chain of thought. If you're looking for an exploration of some of the faults with the term "ableism" then you'll find this post written in 2013 to be far better thought out.
It's BADD again. I don't mean that things are bad again. Although today kinda has been -- I should have been at a cult film conference, instead I spent the day sitting at home waiting for an engineer from Virgin to come and fix my TV and phone.
Blogging Against Disablism Day has come round again. I didn't participate last year, so my last BADD entry was in 2006.
There are a lot of things I hate; doing dishes, mornings, people with gross fungal toenails who wear sandals (they make me feel sick -- seriously -- treat them or hide them), the cat peeing in my bed, disablism (obviously), and there is a word I really hate: Ableism.
Those of you who don't know, "ableism" is the American/Australian word for "disablism". And I think it's ludicrous.
For one thing it reminds me of those ridiculously over-PC words like "handicapable" or "differently abled", which are only used by people who are trying to pretend that disability doesn't exist.
Secondly, it's unclear what it actually means. If "disablism" is discriminating against people for being disabled, surely "ableism" is discriminating against people for being able? In season three, episode 18 of My Name Is Earl, Earl and Randy go into a "wheelchair bar". In this bar there are no chairs, so it's obviously discriminating against people who are able to walk thus haven't brought their own seat with them. That's what I would call "ableism". In reality, in the UK it is illegal to discriminate against someone for being disabled, but it is legal to discriminate against someone for not being disabled. So for example, it is legal to advertise a job as being for disabled applicants only. This I would also call "ableism" (though I don't think this is wrong).
Someone on an Internet message board I use started a discussion on ableism. She was Australian, and angered that she had tried to introduce a non-disabled person to the concept of ableism. The non-disabled person laughed at such a ludicrous term.
Obviously I did too, because it's a silly word. But this person laughed, because she didn't believe that such a thing existed. I wonder if she would have still laughed if Australians used the more accurately descriptive word "disablism". On that thread several people mentioned that they struggle to get non-disabled people to understand concepts of ableism. I never have any trouble getting people to understand disablism; could this be because of the language I use?
I believe that calling disablism "ableism" is akin to calling racism "whiteism". I've heard some people disagree, and argue that grammatically "ableism" is more correct. I fail to see their point. If "racism" is discrimination on the grounds of race, surely it is logical that the word for discrimination on the grounds of disability would be "disablism"? I shall await the barrage of comments from people who have studied the English language in greater depth than me pointing out why I'm an idiot.
So my appeal for this Blogging Against Disablism Day is for us all to call disablism what it really is. If we are using a word like "ableism" which tries to pretend that disability doesn't exist, how can we fight against discrimination on the basis of disability? If we're trying to pretend that disability doesn't exist, then how can discrimination on the basis of it exist? "Sexism", "racism" and "homophobia" are used by English speakers the whole world over. How are we supposed to expect non-disableds to fully understand concepts of disablism if we can't even come up with a unified word for it?
Say it with me people: Diss-A-Buh-Lism. Then go and read what my cat had to say for BADD.
Edit May 8th: Thanks for all the comments on this post. I was especially interested by the thoughtful comment by maudite entendante in which she said:
Looking at the term "ableism" in that context makes it clear that "ableism" is derived from the medical model of disability - the idea that a disability is something we have, that we are disabled by a lack of ability.
I'm a believer in the social model of disability, the idea that we are disabled by barriers which prevent us from living as full and equal citizens.
The term "disablism" doesn't have such obvious medical model roots. Another reason why I think this term is superior.
It's BADD again. I don't mean that things are bad again. Although today kinda has been -- I should have been at a cult film conference, instead I spent the day sitting at home waiting for an engineer from Virgin to come and fix my TV and phone.
Blogging Against Disablism Day has come round again. I didn't participate last year, so my last BADD entry was in 2006.
There are a lot of things I hate; doing dishes, mornings, people with gross fungal toenails who wear sandals (they make me feel sick -- seriously -- treat them or hide them), the cat peeing in my bed, disablism (obviously), and there is a word I really hate: Ableism.
Those of you who don't know, "ableism" is the American/Australian word for "disablism". And I think it's ludicrous.
For one thing it reminds me of those ridiculously over-PC words like "handicapable" or "differently abled", which are only used by people who are trying to pretend that disability doesn't exist.
Secondly, it's unclear what it actually means. If "disablism" is discriminating against people for being disabled, surely "ableism" is discriminating against people for being able? In season three, episode 18 of My Name Is Earl, Earl and Randy go into a "wheelchair bar". In this bar there are no chairs, so it's obviously discriminating against people who are able to walk thus haven't brought their own seat with them. That's what I would call "ableism". In reality, in the UK it is illegal to discriminate against someone for being disabled, but it is legal to discriminate against someone for not being disabled. So for example, it is legal to advertise a job as being for disabled applicants only. This I would also call "ableism" (though I don't think this is wrong).
Someone on an Internet message board I use started a discussion on ableism. She was Australian, and angered that she had tried to introduce a non-disabled person to the concept of ableism. The non-disabled person laughed at such a ludicrous term.
Obviously I did too, because it's a silly word. But this person laughed, because she didn't believe that such a thing existed. I wonder if she would have still laughed if Australians used the more accurately descriptive word "disablism". On that thread several people mentioned that they struggle to get non-disabled people to understand concepts of ableism. I never have any trouble getting people to understand disablism; could this be because of the language I use?
I believe that calling disablism "ableism" is akin to calling racism "whiteism". I've heard some people disagree, and argue that grammatically "ableism" is more correct. I fail to see their point. If "racism" is discrimination on the grounds of race, surely it is logical that the word for discrimination on the grounds of disability would be "disablism"? I shall await the barrage of comments from people who have studied the English language in greater depth than me pointing out why I'm an idiot.
So my appeal for this Blogging Against Disablism Day is for us all to call disablism what it really is. If we are using a word like "ableism" which tries to pretend that disability doesn't exist, how can we fight against discrimination on the basis of disability? If we're trying to pretend that disability doesn't exist, then how can discrimination on the basis of it exist? "Sexism", "racism" and "homophobia" are used by English speakers the whole world over. How are we supposed to expect non-disableds to fully understand concepts of disablism if we can't even come up with a unified word for it?
Say it with me people: Diss-A-Buh-Lism. Then go and read what my cat had to say for BADD.
Edit May 8th: Thanks for all the comments on this post. I was especially interested by the thoughtful comment by maudite entendante in which she said:
Highly Obvious to me that the "abl-" in "ableism" is just the prefix form of "ability" (because, really, "abilityism" just isn't a possible English word), and it means "discrimination based on [amount or type or category of] ability"
Looking at the term "ableism" in that context makes it clear that "ableism" is derived from the medical model of disability - the idea that a disability is something we have, that we are disabled by a lack of ability.
I'm a believer in the social model of disability, the idea that we are disabled by barriers which prevent us from living as full and equal citizens.
The term "disablism" doesn't have such obvious medical model roots. Another reason why I think this term is superior.
01 May 2006
BADD
Today is BADD.
No, I haven't woken up with amnesia thinking I'm stuck in the 80's
And, no, today hasn't been really shit, necessitating the extra "D" for emphasis.
Today is Blogging Against Disablism Day (The brainchild of The Goldfish, inspired by Blogging Against Sexism Day, Blogging Against Racism Day, Blogging Against Heteronormativity
Day and others).
You may be thinking "Why does Lisy need to participate in a designated day? All she seems to do is winge about the discrimination she faces." And you'd be right. I asked myself the same question many times. But, in the end, faced with a shiny, exciting bandwagon - I just had to jump on (the bandwagon had working ramps, how could I resist?).
It comes at an apt time for me, as I'm suddenly in a state of heightened awareness about being disabled. Why? Because, for the last fortnight, I haven't been disabled.
Did my Osteogenesis Imperfecta vanish for the duration of my holiday? No. Of course not. But, for the two weeks I spent in America, I was not disabled. There was nothing I was stopped from doing because America (or at least the state of California) has almost entirely ridded itself of disabling barriers.
During my holiday I found myself able to go wherever I wanted to, whenever I wanted to. All buses, trains, underground trains, trams, etc... are accessible. Whereas here in London of course, I'm disabled. Not by my Osteogenesis Imperfecta, but by the stairs/escalators on the underground and at train stations, by buses with ramps that don't work, etc.
And it wasn't just in the arena of getting around that my disability was removed. I could go into any bar, I could eat in any restaurant (well, not *any* because Americans just don't seem to "get" vegetarianism, but my impairment proved no disability), I could visit any tourist attraction, safe in the knowledge that there would be access, and I wouldn't be disabled.
Now I'm back in the UK and, whilst my impairment is at exactly the same level as it was on the other side of the Atlantic. But now, I'm so severely disabled I can't even get into my local organic food store - because it's their steps disabling me, not my impairment.
I even did two gigs in San Francisco. Both clubs were fully accessible from the point of view of audience members (and so, *gasp*, on both nights there were actually crips in the audience) and one, with it's level performance area, was even accessible to wheelie comics. That's a 50% rate of full access. I must've played in over 50 comedy clubs in the UK. And how many of those were fully accessible to a performer? 3 (incase you're wondering, my criteria is: access to the entrance, an accessible toilet and either level access to the performance area or a ramp up to the stage). And only a handful more have access for audience members too. It seems that only time you're going to hear the word "access" in conjunction with the words "comedy club" here in the UK is if you happen to overhear a conversation between me and Liz.
Attitudes in America are completely different too. During my trip, two whole weeks, only one small child pointed and stared at me like I was a freak of nature. That was at Universal Studios, so I'm assuming that she too was a British tourist.
As I said in a previous post - in California, wheelchair users can get everywhere - so we are everywhere. Here I know far too many people (my parents included) who, due to disabling barriers, leave their own homes far less often than is healthy. I'm guessing British tourists going to America for the first time probably think there's been some kind of plague because there are so many crips about - shopping, socialising, taking the bus to work. (I guess technically there has been a kind of plague - war veterans who've become disabled due to the Bush family's tendency to pick fights with countries they don't like).
Of course, disablism isn't only about the barriers preventing us from getting to public places. Many of us face discrimination the second we get out of bed in the morning, before we've left the house. Laurence, in this article points out that there is an estimated shortfall of 300,000 wheelchair accessible homes in the UK. I live in an inaccessible flat. There's 3 steps to get in (fortunately each far enough apart from the others for me to bump my chair up and then regain my balance before tackling the next one) and my flat is far too small to move my chair around in.
You may be wondering why a feisty character like me would accept such sub-standard accommodation. Simply, when I was offered the flat it was more accessible than where I was living, and I knew it was going to be the best I was going to find for a long time.
But, why is there such a shortfall of accessible accommodation? You guessed it - disablism. If architects, builders, local councils, etc could just bear in mind that building accessible houses would not only eliminate the discrimination disabled people face, but, more importantly from their point of view, would bring in a profit - cos, guess what, crips pay rent and even buy houses! Shock, horror!
That is of course the other side of disablism. Not only do disabled people face inequality, but also, landlords, shop owners, restauranteurs, etc, etc lose profits by excluding crips. Sadly, maintaining inequality and an unjust society seems more important to these people than raking in the profits. Which seems like bizarre business sense to me. You'd never see a pub with a sign outside saying "No blacks!", so why are steps at the door acceptable? It's tantamount to the same thing.
And, at the end of the day, while all prejudices are wrong, disablism is the least rational, yet the most rampant (though white, I am a woman, and I am gay. I never experience sexism or homophobia, yet, as I pointed out, I encounter disablism before I've even left my flat of a morning). Tomorrow you could get hit by a bus. You wouldn't wake up suddenly gay, you wouldn't wake up suddenly black, you wouldn't wake up suddenly female, but, it's highly likely that you might wake up disabled. And if you're a pub landlord I bet you'd really find yourself wishing you could still kick yourself for not making the place accessible when you spent all that money on refurbishing last year.
A friend recently suggested meeting up in this pub. Notice the access comment: "Disabled access (access only, no accessible toilets)". So, an accessible drinking establishment, as long as you don't want to drink anything. That'll bring in the £80 billion crips collectively have to spend every year.
Though many crips do have money, disablism is also an economic construct. Using my holiday as an example: A non-disabled person carrying a suitcase would have no difficulty at all walking from my flat, down to Euston station to get the 205 bus to Paddington, so they could get the Heathrow Express, no difficulty in getting the case onto the bus, and off the bus. I can't. With a case, I have to get a taxi. That 205 bus in London costs £1.50. Taxi's cost considerably more. Mobility impaired London residents can get a Taxicard, and that reasonably short journey to Paddington, with a Taxicard cost me £1.50. The same as the bus would cost a non-crip. See how the Taxicard eliminates the financial penalty for having a mobility impairment? I recently heard someone argue that Taxicard should be abolished because "Why should disabled people be able to travel however they want, whenever they want? If disabled people can have a Taxicard, I should be able to take a limousene to work on my monthly travelcard!"
Yes. Let's bring back the financial penalties for being disabled just cos you're jealous that you have to take the tube. At least you can take the tube.
That's a very small scale example of economic discrimination. This woman claims that her £110,000 compensation doesn't cover the extra living costs of being disabled for life. Quite rightly so.
Someone I used to know received over £1 million in compensation from the hospital trust responsible for causing her Cerebral Palsy to cover her extra living costs for being disabled.
Both these people are eligible for Disability Living Allowance. A benefit which is supposed to cover the extra costs of being disabled.
From these amounts of compensation, we can ascertain that, during the course of the average disabled person's life, they are underpaid between £110,000 and £1 million in DLA. I fully agree that where there is blame for an impairment, the "victim" should be compensated for the trauma. But, to include living costs in the compensation calculation? That shouldn't be neccessary. Surely we should *all* have our extra living costs met. But, no. We're financially penalised and economically discriminated against.
And someone can begrudge me paying a taxi fare equal to the bus fare they would pay.
All over London there are these Chinese Herbal Clinics, with displays in their window offering treatments and pain relief for impairments such as arthritis. Obviously, I'm not one of these people that believes that alternative medicine can provide cures, but I do firmly believe that many can offer some degree of pain relief. So, these clinics are offering to help crips ease their pain - but have I ever seen just *one* that didn't have steps at the door? No. Not even one. You'd think that if they're targeting their services at people with chronic pain, that they wouldn't exclude most of their potential clients by renting inaccessible premises. "Oh, hi. Yes, we can treat you. As long as there's nothing "wrong" with you to begin with of course."
Duh.
Other places you'd think you wouldn't find disablism would be in services specifically for disabled people, right?
As I've mentioned before, my father went to a "special" college for disabled young men, when he was a disabled young man. The entry criteria? You had to be able to walk. I love all his old college photo's, full of people who should be wheelchair users, but were forced to prop themselves up with every walking aid going, just to get some semblance of an education (no-one taught my father to read until he was 21). When you look at the pictures you get to play "Guess who fell over just after the picture was taken!" I think it was Dad several times.
Sounds like something that wouldn't happen "in this day and age"? This evening I had a telephone conversation with an old school friend. He now lives in a segregated community specifically for disabled people (in a first floor flat with no lift up the stairs). He was saying that they're currently evicting all the residents who are *too* disabled and actually need any assistance with, anything.
It is now just before midnight, BADD is nearly over, and much like realising you've got three minutes left of your exam - I feel I should write a conclusion.
So, much like drugs, disablism is wrong. Just say no, kids.
There.
This public information post was brought to you by vast quantities of tea and the letter "Ouch my arse hurts from sitting still at the computer for too long."
No, I haven't woken up with amnesia thinking I'm stuck in the 80's
And, no, today hasn't been really shit, necessitating the extra "D" for emphasis.
Today is Blogging Against Disablism Day (The brainchild of The Goldfish, inspired by Blogging Against Sexism Day, Blogging Against Racism Day, Blogging Against Heteronormativity
Day and others).
You may be thinking "Why does Lisy need to participate in a designated day? All she seems to do is winge about the discrimination she faces." And you'd be right. I asked myself the same question many times. But, in the end, faced with a shiny, exciting bandwagon - I just had to jump on (the bandwagon had working ramps, how could I resist?).
It comes at an apt time for me, as I'm suddenly in a state of heightened awareness about being disabled. Why? Because, for the last fortnight, I haven't been disabled.
Did my Osteogenesis Imperfecta vanish for the duration of my holiday? No. Of course not. But, for the two weeks I spent in America, I was not disabled. There was nothing I was stopped from doing because America (or at least the state of California) has almost entirely ridded itself of disabling barriers.
During my holiday I found myself able to go wherever I wanted to, whenever I wanted to. All buses, trains, underground trains, trams, etc... are accessible. Whereas here in London of course, I'm disabled. Not by my Osteogenesis Imperfecta, but by the stairs/escalators on the underground and at train stations, by buses with ramps that don't work, etc.
And it wasn't just in the arena of getting around that my disability was removed. I could go into any bar, I could eat in any restaurant (well, not *any* because Americans just don't seem to "get" vegetarianism, but my impairment proved no disability), I could visit any tourist attraction, safe in the knowledge that there would be access, and I wouldn't be disabled.
Now I'm back in the UK and, whilst my impairment is at exactly the same level as it was on the other side of the Atlantic. But now, I'm so severely disabled I can't even get into my local organic food store - because it's their steps disabling me, not my impairment.
I even did two gigs in San Francisco. Both clubs were fully accessible from the point of view of audience members (and so, *gasp*, on both nights there were actually crips in the audience) and one, with it's level performance area, was even accessible to wheelie comics. That's a 50% rate of full access. I must've played in over 50 comedy clubs in the UK. And how many of those were fully accessible to a performer? 3 (incase you're wondering, my criteria is: access to the entrance, an accessible toilet and either level access to the performance area or a ramp up to the stage). And only a handful more have access for audience members too. It seems that only time you're going to hear the word "access" in conjunction with the words "comedy club" here in the UK is if you happen to overhear a conversation between me and Liz.
Attitudes in America are completely different too. During my trip, two whole weeks, only one small child pointed and stared at me like I was a freak of nature. That was at Universal Studios, so I'm assuming that she too was a British tourist.
As I said in a previous post - in California, wheelchair users can get everywhere - so we are everywhere. Here I know far too many people (my parents included) who, due to disabling barriers, leave their own homes far less often than is healthy. I'm guessing British tourists going to America for the first time probably think there's been some kind of plague because there are so many crips about - shopping, socialising, taking the bus to work. (I guess technically there has been a kind of plague - war veterans who've become disabled due to the Bush family's tendency to pick fights with countries they don't like).
Of course, disablism isn't only about the barriers preventing us from getting to public places. Many of us face discrimination the second we get out of bed in the morning, before we've left the house. Laurence, in this article points out that there is an estimated shortfall of 300,000 wheelchair accessible homes in the UK. I live in an inaccessible flat. There's 3 steps to get in (fortunately each far enough apart from the others for me to bump my chair up and then regain my balance before tackling the next one) and my flat is far too small to move my chair around in.
You may be wondering why a feisty character like me would accept such sub-standard accommodation. Simply, when I was offered the flat it was more accessible than where I was living, and I knew it was going to be the best I was going to find for a long time.
But, why is there such a shortfall of accessible accommodation? You guessed it - disablism. If architects, builders, local councils, etc could just bear in mind that building accessible houses would not only eliminate the discrimination disabled people face, but, more importantly from their point of view, would bring in a profit - cos, guess what, crips pay rent and even buy houses! Shock, horror!
That is of course the other side of disablism. Not only do disabled people face inequality, but also, landlords, shop owners, restauranteurs, etc, etc lose profits by excluding crips. Sadly, maintaining inequality and an unjust society seems more important to these people than raking in the profits. Which seems like bizarre business sense to me. You'd never see a pub with a sign outside saying "No blacks!", so why are steps at the door acceptable? It's tantamount to the same thing.
And, at the end of the day, while all prejudices are wrong, disablism is the least rational, yet the most rampant (though white, I am a woman, and I am gay. I never experience sexism or homophobia, yet, as I pointed out, I encounter disablism before I've even left my flat of a morning). Tomorrow you could get hit by a bus. You wouldn't wake up suddenly gay, you wouldn't wake up suddenly black, you wouldn't wake up suddenly female, but, it's highly likely that you might wake up disabled. And if you're a pub landlord I bet you'd really find yourself wishing you could still kick yourself for not making the place accessible when you spent all that money on refurbishing last year.
A friend recently suggested meeting up in this pub. Notice the access comment: "Disabled access (access only, no accessible toilets)". So, an accessible drinking establishment, as long as you don't want to drink anything. That'll bring in the £80 billion crips collectively have to spend every year.
Though many crips do have money, disablism is also an economic construct. Using my holiday as an example: A non-disabled person carrying a suitcase would have no difficulty at all walking from my flat, down to Euston station to get the 205 bus to Paddington, so they could get the Heathrow Express, no difficulty in getting the case onto the bus, and off the bus. I can't. With a case, I have to get a taxi. That 205 bus in London costs £1.50. Taxi's cost considerably more. Mobility impaired London residents can get a Taxicard, and that reasonably short journey to Paddington, with a Taxicard cost me £1.50. The same as the bus would cost a non-crip. See how the Taxicard eliminates the financial penalty for having a mobility impairment? I recently heard someone argue that Taxicard should be abolished because "Why should disabled people be able to travel however they want, whenever they want? If disabled people can have a Taxicard, I should be able to take a limousene to work on my monthly travelcard!"
Yes. Let's bring back the financial penalties for being disabled just cos you're jealous that you have to take the tube. At least you can take the tube.
That's a very small scale example of economic discrimination. This woman claims that her £110,000 compensation doesn't cover the extra living costs of being disabled for life. Quite rightly so.
Someone I used to know received over £1 million in compensation from the hospital trust responsible for causing her Cerebral Palsy to cover her extra living costs for being disabled.
Both these people are eligible for Disability Living Allowance. A benefit which is supposed to cover the extra costs of being disabled.
From these amounts of compensation, we can ascertain that, during the course of the average disabled person's life, they are underpaid between £110,000 and £1 million in DLA. I fully agree that where there is blame for an impairment, the "victim" should be compensated for the trauma. But, to include living costs in the compensation calculation? That shouldn't be neccessary. Surely we should *all* have our extra living costs met. But, no. We're financially penalised and economically discriminated against.
And someone can begrudge me paying a taxi fare equal to the bus fare they would pay.
All over London there are these Chinese Herbal Clinics, with displays in their window offering treatments and pain relief for impairments such as arthritis. Obviously, I'm not one of these people that believes that alternative medicine can provide cures, but I do firmly believe that many can offer some degree of pain relief. So, these clinics are offering to help crips ease their pain - but have I ever seen just *one* that didn't have steps at the door? No. Not even one. You'd think that if they're targeting their services at people with chronic pain, that they wouldn't exclude most of their potential clients by renting inaccessible premises. "Oh, hi. Yes, we can treat you. As long as there's nothing "wrong" with you to begin with of course."
Duh.
Other places you'd think you wouldn't find disablism would be in services specifically for disabled people, right?
As I've mentioned before, my father went to a "special" college for disabled young men, when he was a disabled young man. The entry criteria? You had to be able to walk. I love all his old college photo's, full of people who should be wheelchair users, but were forced to prop themselves up with every walking aid going, just to get some semblance of an education (no-one taught my father to read until he was 21). When you look at the pictures you get to play "Guess who fell over just after the picture was taken!" I think it was Dad several times.
Sounds like something that wouldn't happen "in this day and age"? This evening I had a telephone conversation with an old school friend. He now lives in a segregated community specifically for disabled people (in a first floor flat with no lift up the stairs). He was saying that they're currently evicting all the residents who are *too* disabled and actually need any assistance with, anything.
It is now just before midnight, BADD is nearly over, and much like realising you've got three minutes left of your exam - I feel I should write a conclusion.
So, much like drugs, disablism is wrong. Just say no, kids.
There.
This public information post was brought to you by vast quantities of tea and the letter "Ouch my arse hurts from sitting still at the computer for too long."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)