Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2013 0:15:08 GMT -5
I don't pity but I am more curious than anything...and I hate when people for example play the pity cards for things like the sick parent, the sick child, the grandma that passed and other such things on FB for example....I barely ever make any comments but feel more like, why do you have to tell the whole world, just deal with your situation....
|
|
|
Post by janewheeler on Apr 15, 2013 0:31:28 GMT -5
I don't feel pity at all for PWD. And I certainly can see how life could be richer and more fulfilling, just as certain differences in my own life have been fulfilling for me. There's nothing tragic about that.
But without going so far as to label life with a disability as a tragedy, I would say that yes, it IS more difficult. Objectively so. The world isn't built for people in chairs. Now, if you've found ways to make your world work for you, that's awesome. But it probably took a little time for you each time you went somewhere new. And the experience of only knowing how to live life as a disabled person is very different from the experience of living life like everyone around you and then suddenly having your life upended because of an illness or accident.
Everyone has difficulties in their lives based on how far each life deviates from the norm. The world is built to cater to the widest segment of the population, which might not include me or you in variout categories. Whatever.
|
|
|
Post by alf on Apr 17, 2013 5:24:38 GMT -5
So there seems to be some kind of consensus that you devs don’t pity disabled people and that brings a smile to my face. On the other hand you are perpetuating some of the same narratives that are behind this pity, i.e. the ones that see disability as ‘other’ and the ‘disability as tragedy’ as I pointed out in my previous posts here. So please let me explain: The quotes I am using are actually from some of the devs I have great respect for and to me that only shows how difficult these things are. What stories specifically are you talking about when you refer to the oh-so-tragic ones we swallow with glee? I have to admit that it’s been a few years since I read any but the nausea factor was pretty high then. So I went to the fiction page and the first thing that struck me was a story titled “Tales of a Sick & Twisted Devotee” and I admit it, I picked it b/c the title rubbed me the wrong way a sick and twisted devotee why is she twisted, I honestly don’t know?? It was well written, I like the language. But the first chapter was entirely based on the main character’s objectification of wheelchairs – not necessarily the guy in it, but the chair itself! Not wanting to spend too much time I scroll towards the end where there’s a sort of break-up scene based on the guy finding out that she’s a dev and his inherent lack of self-esteem b/c of his disability. I am sorry, but I have a hard time seeing how these themes don’t play into the ‘disability as tragedy’ discourse that is so ubiquitous – even on this board. I hope that answers your question, Emma, if not let’s talk. I would say that sometimes that "disability as a tragedy" view is what we're getting from the wheelers we're involved with. Sometimes it's obvious right away (newly injured guys, for example), but sometimes it only comes up after some digging... there's a lot of good actors out there. I would say that if you mostly encounter guys who tell you that their disability is why their life sucks then you’re looking towards the wrong guys. Whether you are looking in the wrong places or you are just attracting the wrong sort of guys I don’t know. What I do know, having been around wheelers for the better part of 40 years (yes, I’m an old fart and I know it) is that the bitter ones are the minority. The ones in need of ‘rescuing’ is a rare species these days in my experience. So if that is your take on it you better reconsider your approach to meeting disabled men. And yes, there are probably some out there who puts on their smiley face and then when there are down in the dumps blame their disability. But are they then truly blaming their disability or are they also buying into the socially acceptable justification and taking the easy way out by grasping the most obvious explanation? Just thoughts… But without going so far as to label life with a disability as a tragedy, I would say that yes, it IS more difficult. Objectively so. The world isn't built for people in chairs. You are right that objectively there are difficulties connected to living with a disability but those all have to do with the actual impairment we have been dealt, be it lack of movement of limbs or sensory deprivation, sight, hearing or touch. But it has nothing to do with the fact that The world isn't built for people in chairs – I can’t help it, but I do consider the last thing outright discrimination. And the fact that words like that can come from a dev that I otherwise find pretty enlightened about these things, says a lot about how far we are from even talking about equality. I know that nobody wants to discriminate against cripples, but the point is that we all do. (yes, myself included. I am certain I in very subtle – and even not so subtle – ways discriminate against ppl with a disability that differs enough from me) But please let me point out, It’s not a given that the world is not built for people I chairs. Just like it’s not a given that black people should not sit in the front of the bus, or that women should have the right to vote, or that homosexuals should not be stoned to death. Do I need to add that it’s the same forces at work here, prejudice and discrimination? There is no objective reality to the above statements they are simply rules we at some point have chosen to live by (or not) as societies. I might be completely wrong and I am looking forward to discuss it with anybody willing to explain the objective differences between a ‘world that is not built for people in chairs’ and the aforementioned prejudices against blacks, women and homosexuals.
|
|
|
Post by annabelle on Apr 17, 2013 6:17:49 GMT -5
I have to admit that it’s been a few years since I read any but the nausea factor was pretty high then. So I went to the fiction page and the first thing that struck me was a story titled “Tales of a Sick & Twisted Devotee” and I admit it, I picked it b/c the title rubbed me the wrong way a sick and twisted devotee why is she twisted, I honestly don’t know?? It was well written, I like the language. But the first chapter was entirely based on the main character’s objectification of wheelchairs – not necessarily the guy in it, but the chair itself! Not wanting to spend too much time I scroll towards the end where there’s a sort of break-up scene based on the guy finding out that she’s a dev and his inherent lack of self-esteem b/c of his disability. Having written that story, I feel compelled to respond: The title was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. She's not *actually* sick and twisted, but that's the way devs sometimes feel about themselves. I don't feel that way now because I'm more comfortable with my sexuality, but I have in the past when I was very young. It's a shame, actually. I can't say anything about the objectification of wheelchairs, but yes, I find wheelchairs themselves sexy. I also find ties sexy. And glasses (although that could be a dev thing). Is there something awful about that? Regarding the ending, *spoiler alert*, the guy is mostly upset that she didn't *tell* him that she was a dev, not that she is a dev. He basically felt she'd been lying to him, which she also did because of her own insecurities and fears, and that was what he took offense to. He had nothing against devs and *spoiler alert* they do work it out and he ends up thinking her devness is a plus. Happy ending! If the story had a moral, it would be that devs should not feel ashamed of their devness and that honesty is the best policy in relationships because (in my experience) guys are all pretty cool about it. I mean, the guys are actually *amazingly* cool about it, for the most part. When I first realized that, it was so cathartic. You don't know how much your attitude influences ours. I might be completely wrong and I am looking forward to discuss it with anybody willing to explain the objective differences between a ‘world that is not built for people in chairs’ and the aforementioned prejudices against blacks, women and homosexuals. I think Jane meant the quote literally. In your example, black people are physically capable of sitting anywhere on the bus. It's cultural issues at play. But for a person in a wheelchair, they *literally* cannot sit anywhere on a bus. If we all suddenly "became more accepting", that wouldn't magically make the world more wheelchair accessible. In this case, there are physical limits to what is possible. I *think* that's what Jane meant, although I don't want to speak for her.
|
|
|
Post by alf on Apr 17, 2013 9:09:44 GMT -5
If the premise of the story is that she isn’t telling him that she’s a dev, then we’re back to secrecy that and my point is that the secrecy is a result of guilt which is steeped in ‘disability as tragedy’ – because there is no secrecy without guilt or shame or whatever you call it, and that guilt/shame has to have a point of origin. As for the title, yes, I know it is tongue in cheek. But that is exactly the point. Would there be anything funny or tongue in cheek if you were’t playing on the guilt/pity aspect? It is true that acceptance of disabled isn’t enough. But until that acceptance is part of the narrative nothing is going to change. Who are creating the physical limits that you are talking about? As a great friend of mine said today: “Nature doesn’t build stairs, but people do.” And very, very lastly, I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in trying to educate here. So that is why these are my last words in this thread. Those who would like to know more about these issues, here’s my blog: disabilityrightsbastard.wordpress.com/
|
|
|
Post by annabelle on Apr 17, 2013 9:25:45 GMT -5
Exactly, Alf. I was trying show that her guilt and secrecy was wrong, and she should have been honest from the beginning.
I guess I just don't understand the point of trying to prove to devs that we're ashamed and pitying of disabled guys. Either you're wrong and it's offensive to us. Or if you're right and that's the attraction to begin with, then the only way you can fix us is to turn us "straight."
I don't pity men with disabilities and I don't like men who pity themselves. A positive attitude is really attractive in any man!
|
|
|
Post by Valkyrja on Apr 17, 2013 12:56:34 GMT -5
I really believe that your point of view is very different from the pov from some of us. I don't know why but it end up circling around the "you say potato, I say potatoe" thing. Personally, I know who I am and I know what I like. And I know for sure that, for me, words as "pity" and "tragedy" are not gonna be asociated with disability... ever. That's why I think it is useless to keep arguing about this. And that is my POV.
|
|
|
Post by RyooT on Apr 17, 2013 14:37:56 GMT -5
Do I need to add that it’s the same forces at work here, prejudice and discrimination? There is no objective reality to the above statements they are simply rules we at some point have chosen to live by (or not) as societies. I might be completely wrong and I am looking forward to discuss it with anybody willing to explain the objective differences between a ‘world that is not built for people in chairs’ and the aforementioned prejudices against blacks, women and homosexuals. I would love to discuss this, but sadly (for the sake of the discussion) I believe that you are entirely correct in your statement. So other than my full agreement with the above statements, there is litle discourse to be had The biggest problem I think is that these rules are socially constructed limitations that constrain people's thinking. And the insidious thing is that these rules are accepted without any reflection and real understanding of the consequences. And you are correct in saying that until people start to question their own basic assumptions about disability, equality and just simply the implied definition of normal, little progress can be made. This reminds me of my favorite quote: The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice there is little we can do to change, until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds! (RD Laing)
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 17, 2013 19:07:51 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Alf, but... no. Your life is not richer because you are disabled, even if you are just a para (which I sometimes call "disabled lite"). If choosing to think this way helps you be a happier person, awesome, but at least be conscious that there's some denial going on.
Disability is seen as a tragedy, or a negative event, because it is a negative event. It's not good. And it's perceived that way correctly. Just like we see getting cancer as a bad thing, or breaking an arm, or losing your wallet... Sure, you may meet a cute girl at the bank while getting your new ATM card, but losing your wallet still sucks. You may gain some insight on life by getting cancer, but getting cancer is still bad. Being/becoming disabled, also, is not good. My disability may occasionally grant me an understanding or put me in a positive situation I wouldn't have otherwise had, but that doesn't make it not "a tragedy".
As I said here recently, I live a great life, but I know my life is worse, not better, qualitatively and quantitatively (I'm likely not going to live as long). I realize this sort of statement isn't as rosy as the "I'm so glad I'm crippled" idea, but I'm cursed with living in reality. And I'm not the only gimp living an amazing life who thinks it'd be better if I wasn't disabled. I know Matisse has said so many times.
I realize we want total equality, and no one wants to be pitied, but let's not swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. And let's certainly not imply that gimps who don't see disability as positively enriching their lives are somehow holding back progress or are bitter, maladjusted, and should be avoided at all costs.
|
|
|
Post by ProudRealist on Apr 18, 2013 4:06:39 GMT -5
I agree with E, we can still turn a bad situation into something good, but that does not negate the fact that the situation was bad to begin with...and the 'effects' of the 'cause', in this case a disability, do not disappear with the power of thought - what effectively happens is not too dissimilar from the process of 'mourning'..
BUT i gotta say E, definitions have power and words can sway, when one considers words like "tragedy" or "cursed" the implications can prohibit the progress of 'recovery'. Is it bad that you ended up a quad Mr. PR? Yes. Is it a tragedy? Not so much.
You live a great life dude, and that's great, and even better, you do so while being brutally honest with yourself about your situation. But not everybody can do that, so 'rosy' words actually help ppl move along...but only if those 'words' are real to them.
|
|
tina
Junior Member
Posts: 94
Relationship Status: In a relationship
|
Post by tina on Apr 18, 2013 18:34:03 GMT -5
My take on the whole "tradedy" thing is that for most people, there is a point where a trauma ceases to be a tradedy and becomes just the way things are. It doesn`t mean it wasn`t bad, nor you don`t wish it didn`t happen, but it`s just asn it is and you deal with it. Some people never reach this point, but most do, regardless what the tradedy is.
What I think is strange is that a lot of "common" tradedies in people`s lives - dead of a loved one, divorce - are considered by society exactly as this - you mourn, and then you are expected to get on with your life. And people often get awful when someone isn`t moving on as fast as generally expected. But when someone becomes disabled, a lot of people seem to expect the opposite - that the tradedy stays tradedy forever and never becomes "the way it is". The whole "inspiration" thing is based on this. I am sick of it and I can`t understand that so many disabled people go with it. Or that it is possible to make a carreer of becoming an "inspirational speaker".
|
|
|
Post by E on Apr 20, 2013 3:18:12 GMT -5
I might be completely wrong and I am looking forward to discuss it with anybody willing to explain the objective differences between a ‘world that is not built for people in chairs’ and the aforementioned prejudices against blacks, women and homosexuals. I can help you with that. It's pretty simple. Besides skin color and appearance/sexual preference, there's absolutely no difference between blacks/homosexuals and everyone else. None. The restrictions imposed on them are completely cultural and societal and nothing else. On the other hand, there are actual, very real differences between cripples and able bodies. We really, actually can't do things they can. Not because of cultural perceptions, but... because we're crippled. All black people needed to move to the front of the bus was cultural approval. We require actual physical modification and engineering and an entirely new design to even get on the bus. And since we are such a ridiculous minority, that requires dramatic and expensive renovations to co-exist more equally, no, the world is not built for us. Black people don't require renovations. The prejudice is completely superficial and mental. They are totally capable of walking up the same stairs and going through the same doors as white people. There's no ACTUAL difference. I honestly don't see how this isn't pretty obvious.
|
|
|
Post by RyooT on Apr 21, 2013 3:22:46 GMT -5
And since we are such a ridiculous minority, that requires dramatic and expensive renovations to co-exist more equally, no, the world is not built for us. Black people don't require renovations. The prejudice is completely superficial and mental. They are totally capable of walking up the same stairs and going through the same doors as white people. There's no ACTUAL difference. I honestly don't see how this isn't pretty obvious. That particular fact might seem obvious, but I don't think it is that simple. The thing is - it doesn't have to be that way! What makes it that ways is the ignorance of those that build the stairs and inaccessible buses. I have recently become a Mom by adopting a 5 month old baby and I am now having similar accessibility woes trying to navigate the world with a pram. And children, I believe, are not a ridiculous minority. Neither are their mothers. Yet either group is obviously not well enough represented with the architects of shopping centres, city planners, etc. Yes, some PWD have obvious physical differences while others have not. Both my parents were considered 100% disabled in their later lives for very different reasons. Yet, looking at them you could never tell. But for both of them stairs for example posed similarly insurmountable problems. The problem is really the mindset that because it has always been this way it has to be right and it has to continue to be this way. So there is a very large number of people out there who would prefer less stairs, wider parking bays, automatic doors, etc. Me included. But the reason it is not happening is because not enough people advocate for a shift in thinking that fundamentally changes how we construct the world around us so that the environment benefits everyone, people with disabilities included. And that is exactly how it should be - how true equality happens, when people don't have to lobby to have their needs considered because they are already being considered. So maybe a person in a wheelchair might never get to ride right upfront in the bus because of the practicality of bus construction. Wheelchair accessible buses are a reality however as the city I live in busy implementing a completely accessible public bus transport system with the goal that within the city limits no person should have to cover a distance of more than 500 m to reach a bus stop. But the problem is not the bus itself, isn't it? It's the fact that the seats in the front are given a greater value than those in the back. Yet again this is entirely socially constructed. Because some person randomly decided to stigmatize the back seats and sell it to the public as a good idea. And we are still buying into that. It's THAT kind of thinking that needs to be unstuck. Prejudice is mental regardless of the physical realities.
|
|
|
Post by alf on Apr 21, 2013 8:27:25 GMT -5
I know that we as a society have not made it easy for many cripples to get around. It requires not only a mental change but also physical changes to make us equal citizens, valued, listened to and understood. But there is absolutely no excuse for the obvious prejudice that we are met with on a daily basis and until the thought patterns behind these prejudices are dealt with, nothing is going to change – especially not the physical obstacles. It is my strong belief that nothing changes before people (and their ideas) change.
These ideas and thought patterns are of the same type no matter the prejudice. They are not only a mirror of the way the world looks at any particular time in history, they are creating the reality of their time and place by being the lens we view the world through.
Women were not part of the work place and knew nothing about society because they didn’t need to. They worked at home, taking care of the house and raising children. What interest did they have in working or voting? How should they even know how and who to vote for if they got the chance?
Slavery was legal because everybody ‘knew’ that black people were actually and fundamentally different from white people. But it was equally legal because the entire US economy relied on the plantations in the South and their slave labor. There were actual and very distinct differences between blacks and whites above and beyond the very noticeable physical differences and they were the reason everybody held the view that it was ok to treat them as animals.
All of this is historical fact and I know it is really difficult to wrap our heads around the forces at work here. Things were as they were because ‘facts’ like these – they were scientific facts at the time, mind you – were the way the world was viewed. And my point is that at the time they were no more wrong than anything we ‘know’ today.
Whatever lame (pun intended) excuse we make about our prejudices they will never be more than mere excuses. If there is a will to change the world then there is a will. But that will does not grow in a vacuum. It takes somebody to stand up and point out the inequality before the change can be made. And I am not asking for anyone to change what is already a fact, I am asking for those of us who care to be open-minded and point out the injustice that is at work here every single day.
Yes, I come up against insurmountable obstacles every day. But those obstacles are thought out by somebody and built by somebody. And I see no reason why they necessarily have to be there. I can’t remove them here and now but what I can do is to point out that they are making me feel like I am less than human. I can point out that it is not all right to live in a society that is prejudiced against me and therefore build things that are discriminating – still. That is what I am talking about, the not-accepting the status quo because it is convenient for the majority. Slavery was also convenient for the majority (as well as financially sound) but we still decided to abolish it.
So I can’t help feel a great sense of sadness when those who are the recipients of this type prejudice are perpetuating the ideas and ‘facts’ that are there to keep them discriminated against – and I am not only talking about us cripples but many other minorities in the world. Not only are they working against their own self-interest (something I can’t really have much compassion for) but they are working against all of those who are in the same situation as themselves, those who see the injustice and want to change things.
|
|
|
Post by annabelle on Apr 21, 2013 9:29:07 GMT -5
I would absolutely love it if everything could be accessible, but I just don't know how realistic that is.
For example, consider this situation:
The US is in a recession right now. My sister, a single mom, lives in a single family home in a congested area that's a reasonable commute from her job. If her home were not two stories high, she would essentially have to sleep in one room with her three kids. If the region built accessible one-story homes, the cost would probably be prohibitive to her living there or anywhere within an hour's drive from work. Having a totally inaccessible 2-story home with stairs is the only thing that allows her to afford to live a reasonable commuting distance from her job in the city. But any person in a wheelchair who came to visit would be screwed.
In the interest of promoting change, how would you deal with this situation, which is by no means rare (and actually very common)?
|
|