We’re Really Not That Different: Part 2

Disabled and can’t work? Call xxx-xxx-and-we-will-get-the money-you-deserve-at-no-fee-unless-we-win-your-case. I saw this ad for a law firm that will remain nameless late last night as I was browsing my Cable, and it raised an interesting question in my mind. Are these ads another way to perpetuate stereotypes of disability? I was not convinced one way or another until this morning I saw one of those ads that claimed the following: “Does your child has a birth injury?” And then listed several, including my disability. The ad went on to say that the disabilities entitled the persons concerned to large sums of money. Then they guaranteed that they would help advocate for that money.

After seeing both of these ads, it raised a profoundly disturbing question. Why do we perceive disability as so weak? This goes back to my terminology debates. In my opinion, but quite simply, I believe we perceive disability as a weakness rather than an obstacle. This is by the way we address it.

       To bring home my point, let me address two crucial areas of life: social interaction. The other being that of earning a living. Finally, I will manage a broken system, which reinforces stereotypes. As I’ve said previously, there are two types of disability. One a person is born with and one a person acquires through some means or another later. No matter what type of disability one has, though, it seems that as soon as one is labeled with a “disability,” they are also labeled as weak and need protection or assistance—for example, the law firm’s ad equating disability to not being able to earn a living. I have several things I could say about this ad, many of which are not pleasant, but the most constructive response I have to it is I understand their desired message. However, the way they present it could be different.

       Any lawyer out there who does disability work can feel free to correct me on this point. I believe that the producers and writers of this and are trying to convey that if one is suddenly overcome with a disability after not having one for so long, then it can be overwhelming either emotionally, physically, and in the least thought about way, which would be financial. This point is fair, but I argue the premise that one who is disabled can no longer work needs to be re-thought. Perhaps instead of disabled and can’t work—we will get you the money you need to survive…the slogan could be something like below. “Disabled and have to re-think things? We will get the money you need to get things back under control.” Just because someone is disabled doesn’t mean they cannot contribute to society. Ads like these are not the only element of society preventing disabled people from being meaningful contributors to society in great need of contributions.

The second element is that of something I like to call “the social and projection bias.” What is this bias, you ask? Simply put, it is the idea that disabled people need to be protected from themselves and cruel society. This idea is not only archaic, but it is detrimental to disabled people and society in general. I know many people that believe in the “fixing” philosophy, i.e., that wherever possible, a portion of the person’s disability that can be fixed needs to be. This is harmful from a social interaction standpoint. I agree that if a person’s health is in jeopardy from a particular facet of their disability, that needs to be addressed. Otherwise, aspects of their disability that are aesthetically are not pleasing or cosmetic adjustments be left alone. Simply because this will give the disabled person a better sense of identity and realism, another social aspect that needs to be addressed is that disabled people are supposed to fit a specific mold that we are supposed to be one type of person.     As I have said in “We Are Not That Different,” disabled people are just that! People first. Because we are all people first, we are all different. We do not fit into a cookie-cutter mold. Some of us are quiet and reserved that enjoy our solitude, while others are outgoing, adventurous, and even a little crazy (in the right way). What am I getting at? Society, and more importantly, the people close to people with disabilities should not restrict their activities because they are disabled. If there is a safe way for someone to (for example) go skydiving without becoming a chalk outline, then, by all means, they should be allowed to go for it. I don’t know how often I get the question, “Wow, you drink beer and go out when you’re disabled? How is that possible?” Let me re-emphasize again; the chair does not define me. I define how I use the chair. All that said, ads on T.V. and social perceptions are not the main problems. They are just part of it. If disabled people want to be seen as “not that different,” there is another issue we need to address.

       In general, the system is broken, and by that, I mean all aspects of the system, in general, are broken. The perception of disability as a weakness is reinforced by ads on T.V., implying that once you are disabled, you can no longer contribute to society. At the same time, social stigmas would have created those ads in general. The disabled community as a whole is oppressed by a society living in an archaic mindset and being oppressed by themselves. They are okay with a social security system that only earns $65 a month without losing their benefits. They should be screaming bloody murder at this injustice, but instead, we sit back and take it. It all comes down to one thing. Change is not easy, but to quote a dear friend of mine who is no longer with us, “There are doers, and there are talkers. Which one are disabled people as a community going to be?”

Who says we cant have a family

 So, it's been about a week or so since I last posted.  Since then, I've gotten older.  I had my 27^th birthday, which was a quiet one this year.  One of the more unexpected gifts that I got was a Voiceless Minority T-shirt. It looks pretty awesome.  I will soon post pictures, thanks to my family for getting it for me.  Speaking of family, it due to recent conversations that family and disability will be the subject of this post. 

            I am not a psychologist, even though I took a few classes here and there.  However, I do believe it is human nature to want offspring. Our lives are only a blip on the cosmic radar.  It is through offspring that one leaves impressions and legacies behind.  This blog will not discuss how there is an overwhelming number of disabled children in America that need to be adopted, even though that is the problem that needs to be addressed, instead let's talk about disability and love.

            In one of my earliest blogs, I talked about the eugenics movement in the US.  That blog is called The Dark Side of Disability.   Supporters of the eugenics movement felt that disabled people should not be allowed to reproduce.  In a sense, they were dictating for us without us.  I, like many others, find this to be unacceptable.  In a book that I am reading entitled, What We Have Done, an Oral History of the Disability Rights Movement, by Fred Pelka, I continue to learn more about the disability movement I have recently become so passionate about.  The opening line in the book hits me extremely hard.  It is a slogan that is used widely throughout the disability rights movement.  Simply activists demand, "Nothing about us without us."  This slogan refers to several things, but it can be mainly applied to the family discussion.

            I recently turned 27, and like most late twenty-somethings, I have become a bit more focused as of late.  Apart from focusing on finishing a degree, I am also focusing on what my future holds in all aspects of life.  I have decided that I am bound and determined to have a family.  Some have told me that this is perfectly reasonable, while others have launched the following point against it.  You would be missing out on so many life activities of your kids, i.e., Playing ball, holding them without assistance, changing diapers… wouldn't that be too hard for you?  And still, others have said you would be basically just donating sperm and being there for emotional support.  To all who have waited on the issue, I appreciate it; however, I have this to say on behalf of myself and, I hope, also, on behalf of disabled people in general:

            What makes a good parent?  Is it how many times one can throw a ball back and forth?  Is it how many diapers one changes in a lifetime?  That is part of it, but it is not the heart of it.  The nature of being a parent is instilling caring and love into another human life for eighteen years.  By that point, you hope that they have become good people and productive citizens.  How often do you look back and wonder, "Did I change their diaper right on that first Wednesday home?"  I realize that people with physical disabilities are limited as far as the type of physical interaction they can involve themselves in.  However, accommodations can be made.

            When a baby is firstborn, he needs a lot of attention physically and emotionally. While I am grateful that I can't change a poopy diaper, I present a way that a male who is as physically challenged as I am can connect with his son or daughter.  I have often criticized these inventions as "hippie" or "new age." Still, in all seriousness, those baby carriers one occasionally sees would be the perfect solution to my lack of ability to hold my infant without "lobster-clawing" it to death.  The mother, my future wife, could indeed position the infant in my arms and on my lap as my parents did with my cute, "Q-ball headed" baby sister.   On a final note in regard to males and raising their infants, I'm sure with a little outside the box thinking, one could even rig up a way to feed their small alien a bottle at three in the morning.  

            While I am not well versed in what a female has to do with nurturing and caring for the infant, I am aware that she is often more physically involved than the male's participation.  To go out on a limb, I can suggest that if a female was in my situation, her partner could take on diaper duties, and as far as breastfeeding goes, there would be a way to adapt that as well.  Before I end this section on raising infants and physical contact, I must ask the question, are our minds as a society so narrow that we are unable to think about anything other than what we are used to?  To the several individuals who have recently tried to dissuade me, I say that disabled people have great gifts to share with society, and it is sad that you want to pass over those gifts before we have had the chance to share them with the rest of the world.

            The physical care of an offspring is an issue, but others have raised a more pressing and disturbing case to me when it comes to family.  They suggest that it might be hard for me because I'm missing out on certain activities with my child.  In response to that, all I can say is, "Come on, man, you make that argument?"      I have missed out on various aspects of it; walking, running, standing, using the restroom, etc. At first, I have accepted the issues of this part of my disability. I have had enough time to deal with it.  I acknowledge that some disabled people have not accepted their disability for what it is. Still, the majority of the disability community is well aware of what they are missing out on.

 Another point I will use to support my argument is the example of single motherhood.  With many single mothers in this country, one cannot help but notice a few things.  In many cases, single mothers are not helped out by the fathers of the children.  One may ask how they deal with missing out on certain male experiences crucial for male children to have.  The answer is that if a mother is thinking outside of the box, they seek other strong influences in their children's lives. That being said, why couldn't this be the case if a child had a disabled parent?  Yes, my spouse or I may lack in certain areas, but that is what a strong support system is for.  Even though it only takes two people to make a child, it takes various people, including relatives, parents, friends, teachers, and others, to develop a child.

Finally, as I've said in many of my pieces, it is not my goal to force people to see the world the way I do, but it is the goal of this blog to show people that disabled people are human, too.  We are not defined by our disability.  Oftentimes our disabilities are simply a very small part of who we are.  As it is in human nature to want to pass on legacies and values, it is in the nature of the disabled to want to do the same.  I ask this question if we have overcome obstacles to this point of our lives, what is parenthood but another obstacle to overcome.  The only difference is that this time, we want to struggle just like everyone else.

Way to go, Georgia!

  So usually, I don’t follow up blog after blog. My typical average is about two a week. I am willing to give you guys enough time to process the blog because I am not writing about the latest fashion trend or celebrity gossip but essential issues that matter. However, today I can’t help but note one. 

A friend of mine tagged me in a link on Facebook. Curiously, I clicked on the link, and it was a link to a news website. The article, which was published by the site RT.com, told a sad story. It was similar to the story I wrote about earlier in this blog concerning the little boy being excluded from a photo. This story, though, hit me close to home.

       I hold two degrees, one of which is in History. A lot of History can be seen in museums. Museums are one of the few public attractions that people can enjoy for little to no cost while also learning something in the process. The R.T. article told a heart-breaking story of a little girl being denied access to the museum.

 The Haas family of North Carolina was on vacation in Georgia and intended to visit the “Ships of the Sea” museum on a Sunday before they left. The father admitted in the article that he was aware that it might be difficult for his daughter to make the journey into the museum, but he was baffled by the reason she was denied access. What reason could have confused him so much? A museum employee said that the little girl in a wheelchair was not allowed in the museum because “the carpets would get too dirty.” No, don’t adjust your computer screen. You are reading that right. The little girl Lexi, who has a disability, which requires her to use a wheelchair, was denied access not because her wheelchair wouldn’t fit in the building, which would also be wrong—but because the carpets would get too dirty!

       I usually am not surprised by anything anymore, but this one makes me go, “WHAAAAA--?!” The museum later fired, to put it nicely, the “misguided employee. “ When I read this, I thought that they had handled the situation correctly, but when I read further down in the article, I came across another incident where a similar problem occurred at the same museum. With Lexi’s situation, there was a literal apology issued. Still, in the second situation where a boy with Muscular Dystrophy was denied access, the article made no mention of an apology. While these are only two incidents, these incidents highlight a point, which I have made before.

       The legislation does not change people. Even though the ADA is in place to safeguard the disabled community from these types of incidents, sadly, they still occur. More often than not. Several years ago, I went on a school trip to Boston, Massachusetts, around Halloween to use a personal example. The trip was designed to showcase the Witch history of Salem. On this tour, the professor from The Edinboro University of Pennsylvania was in charge of it was under the impression that all sites would be accessible for the few other disabled individuals that went on the tour and me. However, we found this not to be the case. Granted, I am aware that Salem is a historic town, so a lot of its buildings do not fall under the ADA because they are a grandfather. I still believe that accommodations could have been made for the other disabled person and me on the trip to view certain sites. Instead, we were given personal money to go to an alternative activity. I was appreciative of the gesture, but I felt it was a gesture that she should not have had to make. In the RT.com article, they noted that the Haas family was offered the option for Lexi to view the little tour on T.V. While this is an option, it takes away from experience and further separates people with disabilities.

       As I’ve said above, this incident and others like it make me wonder. Will society ever step out of the ’80s? If it is only persuaded to do so by words on paper, I fear the answer is no. My question is, what will it take to bring society fully into the 21^st century when it comes to equality? For not only disabled people but other groups as well. 

 

Footnote:
http://rt.com/usa/museum-rejects-disabled-girl-024/

We Want Our Close-Up Too!

"I appreciate that I do, but I just want to go out for the right parts and not waste anyone's time." –Teal Sherer from My Gimpy Life

       As some of you know, I have a degree in Theater and have recently become an aspiring screenwriter. So I thought, is there any way to connect what I want to do to live my blog? Then I remembered the above quote from a great show, "My Gimpy Life." Those of you who haven't heard of the show or checked out my Facebook page where I promote it constantly, let me give you a brief synopsis.

       In the show, Teal is a disabled actress, and the show chronicles her life activities over five episodes. While the show does talk a lot about her trying to audition for parts, it also mentions critical disability issues such as accessibility, the able-bodied community's perception of disabilities in general, and some awkward situations people with disabilities can be placed in. Right now, the show is in production for Season 2 after Teal's Kickstarter campaign raised more than 50,000 dollars in the hopes of producing more episodes after its successful Season 1, which was presented by Dracogen and Rolling Person Productions.

       The quote about Teal wanting to go out for the right part and my love for T.V. inspired me to do a bit of research, and what I have found is upsetting. Yet, it's not surprising. I have said before that perceptions of the disability community are not all self-inflicted. In fact, for the most part, society creates them. In today's society, one wonders what avenue has the most influence? If one thinks a little bit and does their research, they will find that the media has a great deal of impact on societal trends and perceptions. To go along with this point, there is one corner of the media market that has, in my opinion, the most significant impact.

       Celebrities and Hollywood are trendsetters in society whether they intend to be or not—people often emulate their fashions, beliefs, and sad behavior. I believe this is true when it comes to perceptions of the disabled community as well. I am not saying that Hollywood or the media created perceptions of the disabled but merely that they're reinforcing them. In an excellent article titled "Depictions of disability on T.V. still leave much to be desired," the author lays out how the media influences perceptions of the disabled.

       One startling quote from the article can summarize it all.

"When depicting disability, mainstream broadcasters give us the good, but they give us the bad and the ugly – and in the case of Bodyshock or Extraordinary People, do so while calling them exactly that. The modern-day freak show, these ratings hit mix deformity, disability, and obesity into a one-size-fits-all hatchet job of ignorance." Disability is a wide-ranging term and to lump us all together in a format that has so much influence is detrimental. What also is detrimental is something that often occurs in life. The author puts it like this, "Like a lot of people in life, it's when programmers think they're helping that they can cause the most havoc."  By this statement, the author refers to the fact that often shows presented under the pretense of explaining the world of disability often end up falling into two categories: give these people sympathy or be inspired by them.

While many disabled people have inspirational stories, I believe that it is not the community's desire as a whole to be seen just as an inspiration. As I've said previously, it's our desire to be seen as normal people but with visible obstacles that we must overcome.

       Along with this issue regarding television, there is a much more pressing issue that I think needs to be addressed. As I've said, I am into Theater, and any of my friends would tell you I like to be a ham and have quite the imagination. I have several sides to my personality and honestly would enjoy acting at some point. However, I realize that if I get into the movie and television business, the available roles are limited. This is why I focus my talents on other aspects of the company. It does not bother me personally that functions are limited for disabled people right now on basic and cable television. I do not expect society to immediately create watchable disabled characters if they do not rightfully understand disabilities. However, I do have a beef with the industry that I want to get into.  

       Recently, there has been a stream of disabled characters on T.V. Most notably perhaps is the character House played by Hugh Laurie, the character Artie in the show Glee, and Walter Jr. in the show Breaking Bad played R.J. Mitte. Sadly, only one out of the three listed here are disabled. R.J. Mitte has the same disability I do, just a milder form of it. That being said, I have a question for Hollywood. Why in the world would an industry as powerful as yours miss an opportunity when you have one? Hollywood often engages in what is known as "Crip face" or "Crip casting," where they employ a non-disabled person to play a disabled person. This practice is so common that my friend was even surprised when we found out that the disabled characters were not.

       I may be being a little harsh. I mean, yes, it is significant that society is being exposed to disabilities. Still, they are being exposed to disabilities most often in negative ways. Most of the characters with disabilities on T.V. are stereotyped. This may be a drastic comparison, but I believe that it is a valid one. When people dress in blackface, which is a white person dressing up as an African American, it is frowned upon. For example, many years ago, a fraternity was suspended from activities at my school because they had a black face party. Granted, the blackface's gentlemen were black, ironic, but the idea is still the same. Since Blackface is so frowned upon, why isn't Crip face similarly frowned upon by society and the disabled community?

       As I've said earlier, there are limited roles on T.V. right now for disabled people in this blog. Another article published a list of 10 roles in which actual disabled people played disabled people. Sadly, only one show of which I would consider mainstream. There were shows on networks such as ABC Family and networks like OWN, but these networks do not get as much attention from the public. The show that did have a disabled character, who was played by a person with a disability, was the aforementioned show "Breaking Bad," which is a beautiful series. As I also said earlier, I would love to act, but this chance is rarely possible. If Hollywood continues to unintentionally or intentionally eliminate a few parts that are perfect for disabled people, this will not only create a sad loss for Hollywood but a tragic loss for society in general.

       In closing, but I will use a quote from my friend's. "There is a brain drain in this country because society does not see the person with the disability, and instead, they see the person after they see the disability." Sorry, Karen, I changed it a little bit! Disabled people have a great story to tell, and we deserve the chance to say to it in one of the most potent places to tell a story, that being Hollywood and the media in general.

l.Footnotes

1.) http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/tvandradioblog/2011/jul/01/born-to-be-different

2.) http://whereslulu.com/2011/05/01/ten-disabled-people-with-regular-tv-roles-right-now/

3.) mygimpylife.com 

 

But They Said it Was “Accessible"

So yesterday was officially 3 months that the blog has been up. The Facebook page has only been up a few days but at the end of yesterday, we had 887 page views on the actual blog and 54 likes on the Facebook page reaching an outstanding 607 people. It is amazing what 3 months of my writing have produced. I have had help from so many people. Emily Ekstrand, Kelsey Waltz, and Haley Larson. I’ve also had help from a great T.V. show called My Gimpy Life. It is this show and certain life events that inspired me to start writing again. Here’s to more success for the Voiceless Minority as we move forward! However, with all that success and cause for celebration, there are still many issues that need to be addressed.

       As I have written before, the Americans With Disabilities Act was signed into law in the summer of 1990. I will not rehash it again what exactly the act covered (if you would like information on that either visit “ada.gov” or my previous blogs). I simply mention the act here because its 23^rd birthday is coming up on the 26^th of July. When I recently asked the question on our Facebook page about whether anyone had future ideas for blogs this response came up…

       Joe Peet commented on July 6^th and he recommended a blog on “real-time access.” Now for those of you who are new to the disability advocacy fight and I do call it a fight. Real-Time Access is an interesting concept. The idea provides us (the disability community) access to things on paper. What it does not do is clearly defined how that access should be presented. Instead, the language is left broad and ambiguous. In short, the language leaves the decision up to human intuition or interpretation. This is all well and good but I think the idea forgot one very important point to consider. The developers of buildings and producers of products, for the most part, aren’t disabled because we are rarely given opportunities to pursue everyday jobs. That being said, what the majority the able-bodied people consider accessible, oftentimes is not. I don’t mean to offend a majority of readers but I’m just being honest. I will give several examples to demonstrate my point. Some of these examples are my own and some come from others.

       As I have said numerous times, I go to a school in the North Western part of Pennsylvania and that school has its flaws like every other school, but it tries to build itself as one of the most handicapped friendly schools, not only in the area but also in the country. Nothing against that school as they are the institution that will grant me my Master’s Degree in December if all goes well. However, I need to suggest a few things. As far as being accessible, most of the campus is, but crucial portions need to be fixed i.e. the giant cracks in the sidewalks that some power chairs and I’m sure manual chairs have trouble navigating over or around. How is it possible the school can spend money on new dorms but not fix their existing sidewalks to make them easy for a large portion of your population? Also, another issue that is prevalent on campus but is also a cross-venue the issue is the placement of the automatic door and elevator buttons.

I have a tremendous fear of elevators. Yes, I said it. Even though I use them any time I want to go anywhere above the first floor. I absolutely hate them. I don’t know why but I think claustrophobia is genetic or something—no, not really, but thanks, mom! Anyway, one of my biggest pet peeves is not having uniformed elevator buttons either in height or type. I am very short when sitting in my power chair. If I were to stand up straight, which rarely happens, the doctors say I would be 5’10. However, that doesn’t help me when I’m sitting down. There are two buildings in particular that I have in mind when I talk about the elevator button placement and height. One building s a good example and one building absolutely sucks.

       The first building has an elevator button cutout where the button protrudes from the wall and is one of the more conventional buttons you see in medical facilities and hospitals. It, in this case, is white and it is raised off the cutout a little bit. I have very limited hand mobility but even I can press this button by myself. If that wasn’t awesome enough, when I get into the elevator I can even select what floor I want to go to by myself. Sadly, this awesome elevator design is very rare on campus and in real life. At least in places that you need to go on a regular basis and not just when you’re sick.

       The other a building that I mentioned before has a button and it is placed in an area, which only the tallest disabled people can reach. Granted, like I said, I have very limited movement in my hands but there are very few people that I know who can use this button by themselves. There are those in manual wheelchairs who have more mobility than I do who are capable but even some of them struggle. The button is set into the wall and does not protrude from the cutout. I have seen this type of design in many places—movies theaters, Dave & Busters, local malls, and etc. I have a question for developers. Why in the world are these buttons in use still? Maybe I’m being too narrow-minded but, does everyone in the world think that disabled people always travel around with an aide who can push the button for them? The sad fact in my experience is that most people do believe that. As I have said as recently as the “Hey, down here!” blog we desire our independence too. If elevator buttons aren’t where we can use them they are useless.

       Another issue that I’ve seen which is a cross-venue issue is the placement of automatic door buttons. For those who are unaware (and I only mention this because the blog reaches international audiences now and some of you might not have an automatic door) but automatic doors can open with the push of a button which makes it easier for people who are slower or with wheelchairs to enter. There are several types of automatic door buttons but what I don’t understand again is why is there not a uniform type of automatic door button? Maybe it is, with the simple fact that, nobody consulted disabled people when they were designing them. However, I think we should start a focus group and ask disabled people how long on average does it take someone in a manual chair vs. someone in a power chair how long it takes to get through a door. Take the happy median and then set the button time for that! Also in that focus group maybe we could ask disabled people what types of buttons are easier for them to operate? I prefer the round, grey, metallic ones that are offset from their cutout. I hate the ones at my campus library (which some of my able-bodied friends have trouble pressing). Finally, before I move on to a new topic let me express one major complaint. What is it with the placement of automatic door buttons?! I am not kidding. I have seen buttons placed behind where the door opens at i.e. my campus library. Or below an average wheelchair height. Not to offend short people, but we are not ALL so short that you have to put the button by our knees. Enough with that rant. Let me get to an even more disconcerting issue.

       I’m a pretty an active individual with a disability. I like to go out and visit theaters or movies. Or even sporting events. A lot of the able-bodied people that will read this might not understand what I’m about to write about but someone, please explain why all the handicapped seating is in B, F, E! On the one hand, I can understand that the developers might do it to prevent people from standing up in front of us, and for that I appreciate it. A word to developers though, you’ve avoided me being blocked by some really tall glad or really robust person, but now instead of seeing the hockey game that I sometimes pay 50-100 a ticket for I only see little ants. In the case of the movies, you guys are getting better. You put us in the middle of the stadium seating, but you often don’t have enough seats around us for friends and companions. And god helps us if there are two people in a wheelchair in our party. Someone’s feet are getting crushed! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been run over by another person’s wheelchair just because they are trying to back into the movie seat. Now I know you have a limited budget and limited space, but could you at least give us another inch to an inch and a half? So we don’t have to ask the poor lady who just sat down to get up just so we can situate ourselves? Thank you!

       A final issue I wish to bring to the table is that of the organization of the malls and stores. I do not intend to offend anyone in retail but I just have one simple question. Isn’t your job to attract the most customers’ possible so that you can sell us merchandise? Excluding those stores who discriminate based on weight or body type (coughcoughAbercromeandFitchcoughcough). If this is the case, I think you are missing out on a large population! No pun intended. When I say “missing out” I really mean making it difficult for a large population to enjoy an American past time known as “buying shit.”

       I am not a girly guy but I do like to go to the store and browse. One of my favorite stores to go into is Spencer’s. This is not a kid-friendly store but like many other stores, it is not wheelchair friendly either. I get that you have to have enough space for merchandise, but honestly…? Why is it that merchandise displays have to cover every inch of the store? I am not able-bodied but I’ve even seen able-bodied people that do not know each other have to get super intimate each other just to get by in that store. In fact, because of where I sit sometimes I am cursed with running into certain body parts of people that I really do not want to. Spencer’s is not the only store that fails to give any customer walking space. Another store that is one of my favorites has to be Bass Pro Shop. Forgive, me. That’s the redneck coming out. While Bass Pro Shop has a large center aisle for foot traffic, it like a majority of stores, also places the clothing racks way too close together! Every time I go in there my parents or person I’m with end up having to do the one thing I hate to have people do. They have to help me drive through the clothing racks so that we don’t end up buying the whole store. Part of them probably does this because I’m not the best driver, but I guarantee part of them does it because a 26-inch wheelchair base cannot fit within a half inch space without killing something.

       All that being said, I bring up these issues because they would not only benefit the disabled community if they were addressed but they would benefit the able-bodied community as well. I am going to be very blunt for a second and remind you that this is only my view on things, but it is my belief that some people rarely want to go places with people with disabilities because they don’t want to have to deal with inconveniences such as helping their friend. While I disagree with most of this premise, I do agree that wherever inconveniences arise due to the disability can be altered or should be. Wouldn’t giving able-bodied people more walking room (or in the case of movie theaters) wouldn’t more room lead to more satisfied consumers? Just a thought.

       In closing, I turn my focus back to the disability community. We are an active community given the opportunity. We are tired of sitting in the back of the room and we deserve to be on the front line like everyone else. 

Hey! Down here!

So, it's been nearly a week since the last time I posted here.  This is not to say that there haven't been things bubbling around in my mind, just that I've been a little busy.  Since the last time I wrote, I've been busy promoting the blog by creating a Facebook page.  You can now show your support for the blog and disability advocacy in general by visiting The Voiceless Minority on Facebook.  I've also been busy continuing to write my first full-length screenplay.  Now, however, it is time to get back to the meat of things. 

       I've written extensively about several different issues, including how disabled people desire to be treated equally but still use the "Disney World" principle, as I like to call it, cut lines, etc.  While I've said that, in most cases, disabled people do want equality and strive for it legitimately, it does not mean that they are always supported in their efforts.  I've also written about social acceptance and disability.  However, this past week, this issue has come up twice.  The issue has not arisen in my personal life, but I've had friends and acquaintances mention it.  Therefore, I thought I would write this blog. But I would take a different approach. 

       I have mentioned that legislation cannot legislate acceptance, and while I know that this is not my view alone, a young woman powerfully drove this point home in a poem. Sarah Smith is a young woman who has the same disability that I do, cerebral palsy.  I first met Sarah several years ago.  We both attended the same university.  I am not going to mince words. Sarah and I haven't always gotten along. Still, we've grown to respect one another because of our drive and determination to prove that, although we have obstacles that society calls disabilities, these obstacles do not define us.  What follows is the poem that this driven young woman has written.  It is used here with her permission.  Thank you, Sarah.

 

"I was born too early

small, fragile, and weak

they thought I would not survive.

But along with my will to live,

another token was bestowed upon me;

one that I didn't want to ask for or need.

 

"What is this token," you ask?

Well, the answer is quite simple.

For it is a cloak

of invisibility.

 

I carry it with me

throughout my life.

It was given to me by society

and shallow close-minded souls,

who believe my disability

defines me.

 

They walk right past me,

never bothering getting to know

the person beneath.

Or worse yet,

they pretend they care,

but really,

I'm just a pit stop,

until something better comes along.

 

To those cowardly people,

I say, "your loss."

You are missing out

on meeting someone

who is loyal, honest, and loving

through and through.

 

For those who have taken the time

to look beneath the label,

thank you

for giving me a chance

to live and love

undefined and free."

 

 

 

       Being nonobjective for a second, I must say that I love the poem.  I may not agree with everything that Sarah has ever said, but I was stopped dead in my Facebook clicking when I read this.  Back to objectivity now, if one indeed looks at Sarah's words, they cannot help but be struck by them.  Sarah brings to light a well overdue point.  Not only are disabled people often brushed aside like second or even third-class citizens, but they are also often unwantedly pitied and patronized.  We, as a group, is either exalted as heroes or we are wallflowers.  People rarely take the time to know us as people; instead, they get to see the machine or device with the person in it. They do not see, as Sarah says, a person who is loving, honest, and loyal, instead they see someone to feel bad for or to judge.  Sadly, this not only occurs in the general public, and the realm of academia, but it often occurs in social settings.  By this, I mean, we are not only looked down on by waiters in restaurants who glance at our companion to give our order, and professors when we reach the higher levels of education, but mainly we are looked down on by our peers.

       Now, when it comes to social invisibility, I refer to two ideas.  One is that we are not perceived to be capable or worthy of being in a romantic relationship.  While this idea is most infuriating to me, being in my late twenties and being human, I do feel that this is secondary to the second idea.  It is even more frustrating when our peers brush off our intellect in regular conversation and everyday interaction, and they brush off our ability to behave like them.  How often I hear the words, "You like to do that, you're disabled," or "But you're in a wheelchair," or "That's weird, I wasn't expecting you to act like that." It is almost like we are visible and invisible at the same time.  Well, it is time that the disabled community, as a whole, is recognized for who we are as people, and not just for the disabilities that we have to overcome.