Hi guys. This blog will go a little off format. I know this
blog is designed to talk about disability issues, and this one will cover a few
personal details as you all seem to have responded well to the last blog, where
I told a little bit of my personal story. That gave me the idea for this one.
A new school year is about to begin. My baby sister is
finally growing up! She moved into college dorms this weekend, and that hit me
interestingly. I know it's not a very good description, but it's the best way I
can describe it. I have two Bachelor's degrees, and I'm working on my third.
People think that's so impressive and amazing, but I look at this little
seventeen-year-old genius (yes, I said seventeen), and I wonder, what am I
doing with my life? She is already certified with 90 hours of preschool
assistance that translates into some certificate in Maryland. Sorry, Kim. I don't
remember all the details. She's going to have about a semester or half a
semester already done. Overall, she is exceptionally goal-orientated, and I am
very PROUD of her. However, she makes me question myself.
For the past couple of days, I have been debating whether my
lack of traction or mobility in my life has been a result of my disability and
societal condition, the re-evaluation of my disability, or a lack of direction.
My parents often said to me over the last nine months that I change direction
every other month. This statement only has some merit.
As I've said before, until about eleven months ago, I had my
life planned out. I would be a teacher first in public school then eventually
at the college level, but life threw me a curveball, which throws people often.
I didn't think it was going to be an identity crisis curveball, though. I
finally realized that my passion and my drive didn't equal out to my situation
or opportunities. Why was this?
That is the question that I have been struggling with for
days upon days since the last "hardcore" conversation I had with my
mom. She keeps saying that because of a certain event, our circumstances have
changed. Which they have…but does that mean my passion has changed? No. If
anything else, the last year's fragility has made me realize that they must go
for it if one wants something before they do not have the opportunity anymore.
This philosophy is what drives me. I guess it has always driven me. That is why
I've been at odds with so many people in my life. They have their preconceived
notions of what I should do because of my societal limitations, and I look at
them and feel that way does not work for me. It should work for anybody in a
chair.
Many people with disabilities settle into what they think
they're supposed to be as a person with a disability. For example, people in
manual chairs often won't date people with power chairs and vice versa because
society thinks that it is a natural fit for us. That is the only form of
companionship that is "normal" or "natural." For some, I
can see why they choose that route. However, my eventual life choice will not
be just based on whether or not they have a disability. If they do, then they
do. Suppose they don't, then they don't. This brings me back to my main point.
As I finish my third degree, which will eventually be "useless,"
I am at another crucial transition period in my life. The small town in which I
live has served its purpose. It's too damn cold, and it's a transient town. All
my friends that I've made here have come and gone, minus a few who I think will
be here forever. As I wrap up my career for now anyway, I have to decide on
where to live.
My parents wish for me to live close to them so that I can
visit on holidays and family occasions, and so that I will be in a little safe
bubble in case anything happens. I agree with the first point—I would love to
be close to family, but the second point is what drives me away the most. I've
always been a go-against-the-grain-type person. I have ever had to do things in
a non-easy way. Not the hard way, but if there's a challenge involved, I have
to take it. I see no reason why I should be limited to geographically because
of my disability. Society and those around me say otherwise. This is another
crucial issue that disabled people need to be vocal about. No, not the
geographic location in particular, but instead is allowed to nurture our spirit
for what we want it to be. Not what others think it should be.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Finding The Way
Sunday, August 18, 2013
The Identity Crisis
“On
the one hand, she was viscerally aware of what polio had done to her body and
of the day-to-day realities of living with a disability. But she was also aware
of what she called “a gentleman’s agreement” at home and at school to pretend
that her disability didn’t exist.”
This is a quote from chapter 1 of
Fred Pelka’s book What We Have Done: An Oral History of the Disability
Rights Movements. This particular quote is a part of the Childhood
chapter, and he’s introducing Corbett O’ Toole. In the pages following this
quote, Corbett O’ Toole’s interview describes a fundamental problem still
relevant in society today--that of identity.
As we progress from childhood into
adulthood, we struggle to find our identity. We strive to no longer be
perceived as so-and-so’s child but rather our independent person. This is no
different, no matter your race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender.
However, when one has a disability, the identity struggle is often
internal.
What is the nature of the internal
that disabled people face? Apart from dealing with all the obstacles that any
teenager or adult deals with, people with disabilities often struggle with what
I like to term the “okay with it” or “not okay with it” question. When I say
that there are two sides to a disability, I’m speaking from personal experience.
No, I am not referring to born with vs. acquiring your disability in later
life. In this case, I am referring to accepting your disability for what it is
or wanting it to be something different. This is a pervasive struggle
throughout the disability community, but not many people with disabilities are
willing to discuss the inner battle that occurs. Sometimes daily, this battle
happens. I present here a little bit of my struggle with the question of
identity.
I know what it is like to have a
disability, but I do not know what it is like to have a child with a
disability. So I cannot imagine what it would be like to raise that child. That
being said, it makes complete sense that the stigma about disability is
arraigned from childhood. If I were not familiar with disability, I would see
it as a “bad” thing. Also, if I had never been exposed to it, as Pelka puts it,
“The idea that disability is a taint, a statement about the inherent worth or
character of the person with the disability, works itself out most painfully on
children with disabilities who absorb, often without knowing, this prevalent
but generally unspoken judgment.” (Page 30). I can say that this is true in my
life, as well. The earliest memory I had was taking a ride with my mother and
maternal grandfather on the way to physical therapy and falling out of the car.
My mom was a therapy drill sergeant when I was a kid, and to her credit, I
thank her for that. It was her belief and mine at the time that therapy would
improve my condition. I believe that the treatment will help me maintain my
condition, but it will not improve it. If it wasn’t for my mother taping my
hands open to the playpen while I was standing, I don’t know if I would have
the sense of humor I do and my ability. Her practices reflected an essential
belief about disability. There is one school of thought, as Pelka puts it that,
that the belief the person with the disability needs to be “cured” and “made
whole.” (Page 8). My mother is easily stressed, but she is one of the sweetest
people I know. She will bend over backward for anybody, but when it comes to
disability, I still believe (like all of us) she has a lot to learn.
It was ingrained in me as a child
that appearance was vital. To some extent, I agree with that philosophy, but on
some levels, I am sure unintentionally, it came off as treating my disability
as if it wasn’t there. All that being said, I am very grateful for my parents
for the support they have given me throughout all of the years—including the
struggle with my identity that I am about to discuss.
When I was fifteen until I was about
twenty, I can safely say that my parents and I didn’t get along at all. Back
then, I thought it was because they didn’t understand me; they didn’t know
anything or some teenage notion like that. I’ve since come to discover that our
fighting was a result of something much more profound. The fight that occurred
between us was a result of me not being comfortable with whom I was. Therefore,
being able to stand up for my own identity. This does not mean I was not pleased
with the sarcastic smiling kid I was—no, the discomfort occurred on a much
deeper level. I was not comfortable with who I was as far as my disability. I
would often get into fights with my mom over therapy, simple tasks like
shaving, or “keeping up my face,” as she termed, trying to control the acne
that would break out. What I was fighting about was the ability to control my
own life. Some of you that might read this will say that this is a typical
fight between a teenage child and a parent, but nothing is typical when the
parent is also your caregiver. Typical goes out of the window. Not only was I
fighting the hormone storm that was raging in my body known as puberty, but I
was also fighting with the two people that I loved the most. Because we had
never been put in a situation like this before. I mean, they had never raised a
child with a disability, and they were only doing what they thought was best.
For my part in those fights, I sincerely apologize. They say hindsight is
20/20. How true that expression holds in this instance.
Apart from the fighting with my
parents—from the time I was twenty to about twenty-two, I had a hard time
dealing with the social stigmas and pressures that came with disability.
Without going into detail, I can suffice to say that I did not handle those
pressures very well. After several years I thought I was all right, and things
were on the upswing. Until fairly recently, when I discovered the underlying
cause for most of my identity problems.
Because I had always believed that I
could do anything despite my disability, whether rightly or wrongly, it would
come back to haunt me. I am not saying that people with disabilities should be
limited but should be aware that though it is unjust and not fair—society puts
limitations on them. Recently, I came into a crisis with my school and what I
had planned for my life. Those around me and those who know me well know that I
am mentally capable of whatever an average person can do. However, if I am not
given specific accommodations physically, I am at the mercy of others. This
holds in the realm of everyday life to pursuing dreams of education and
employment. Although I believed that I could be a productive teacher in the
classroom, I came up against my first real sense of resistance in life. I’ve
always been told by a good friend of mine (who is no longer with us) that I can
do anything if I put my mind to it. Sadly, while in an ideal world, this may be
true, but it is not reality when you have such obvious obstacles to overcome as
I do. Without someone in a position of power supporting people with
disabilities in their chosen aspirations, desire can only take it so far; hence,
why society needs to develop a greater understanding of disability. Once a company
develops that more excellent knowledge, then more allies for the disabled will
emerge. More barriers that we, as a community, face on an everyday basis will
be thrown aside.
Footnotes:
Pelka, F. (2012). What We Have Done: An Oral History of the Disability
Rights Movement.
Saturday, August 10, 2013
I Don’t Need Fixin'
So it’s been a while since I’ve written. I can’t say precisely why, but
recently I’ve gotten inspiration back. I’m reading a great book by Fred Pelka, the
first global history of the Disability Rights Movement that is actually told by
people there. It is called What We Have Done: An Oral History of the
Disability Rights Movement. This book does a great job of two things:
teaching someone who is disabled more about their movement because, sadly, I am
not well informed, and secondly, backing it up with scholarly research.
However, it’s this book and recent conversations that have caused me to write
this blog.
There are several perceptions of
disability but one perception of disability that irritates the disability
community and me in particular. Fred Pelka has the medical model of disability.
Rather than using this technical term, I refer to it as the “need to fix what
is not broken.” Often in my life, I have encountered both persons with
disabilities, caregivers, and friends who follow one of two sides when it comes
to this issue. Either one believes that disability is a problem that we need to
fix or think it is an obstacle that we must overcome.
In my case, I was born with a
disability. Like I have stated before, there are other ways to become disabled.
Disabled to me is not important how one becomes disabled but how they approach
disability. Recently, in conversations with my elderly neighbors, they’ve asked
me the following question, “If there was a cure for your ‘disease’ would you
take it?” As politely as I could, I said to them, “No, I would not.” They, like
many others, had the same response to that question in which they looked
bewildered. How is it possible that if I could wipe my private area, I would
not take it? Simple. I believe I don’t need “fixing.” I am supposed to be the
way I am for a reason. Although I think that, society as I have noted in many
blogs, sees me as an outsider or outcast. I did not understand why society saw
me as an outsider until I read a powerful quote from What We Have Done:
An Oral History of the Disability Rights Movement. In the following section,
Pelka lays out the belief system that supports the idea that disability needs
to be fixed. By the end of it, he also brings to life why society, in general,
has such a hard time making a place for persons with disabilities. It is not
only because they d not understand the difference in terms of disability. It is
indeed more merely that they feel that disability is a problem that can be
eradicated and fixed.
“Here too, however, the ideal was that the person with the disability be cured
and again “made whole.” In this model, a failure to cure was not attributed to
the spiritual or moral state of the disabled person (at least not overtly) but
rather to a loss of medical science. Even so, the continued emphasis on cure
vs. pathology, according to Richard Scotch, “assumes an idealized notion of
‘normality’ against which disabled people are always being compared. ‘Abled-bondedness’
is seen as the acceptance criterion of normality. Further, as Kaplan notes,
“under this model, the problems that are associated with disability are deemed
to reside within the individual. In other words, if the individual is ‘cured,’
then these problems will not exist. Society has no underlying responsibility to
make a ‘pace’ for persons with disabilities since they live in an outsider role
waiting to cure.” -What We Have Done: An Oral History of the Disability
Rights Movements, page 9
Pelka’s statement reinforces the idea
that persons with disabilities are outsiders. To the “fixers” of society,
persons with disabilities should accommodate society and not expect to be
adopted into society. This idea is not only erroneous but also more prevalent
than some would like to believe. The following section of this blog may rub
some close to me the wrong way, but it needs to be addressed.
I do not often use personal stories
without permission. I try to stay as straight as possible. However, the
“fix-it” philosophy has been something I have encountered for most of my life.
My posture has not always been the greatest. In fact, over time (due to my
disability and laziness), it has gotten worse. For the part my laziness has
played in it, I admit that I can fix it somewhat. However, I have realized that
I am never going to sit up straight, and I am always going to end up leaning
over at some point in my day. Some around me say that this will make me
unemployable, and I should do things to correct this. To them, I have this to
say, I try to maintain my posture as much as possible, but are we suggesting
that we correct all of our flaws as humans? Just to fit into a pre-determined
societal standard? In that case, I don’t want to fit into society.
Another issue that I have is that
sometimes I cannot get to the restroom on time because people are not always
available to help me. I used to beat myself up over this issue. In the past
year, though, I’ve realized that certain things about my disability are not
going to change, such as not always having assistance in the bathroom and the
lobster-like hands that I have developed. You laugh, but literally, they look
like chumps. My physical differences may look unsightly to some. A large
majority, but they are a part of me. I would not change them for anything. If
anyone cannot accept someone with a physical disability, it reflects that person
and not demonstrates the person with the disability.
The above statement does not mean
that persons with disabilities should not carry themselves and possibly can but
simply that they should not be afraid to allow for their disability. If someone
is unwilling to accept someone for all of who they are, they are not worth it.
This includes society as a whole. If an employer does not want to hire me
because occasionally my posture lags or my hands look different, then I have
only one thing to say, you are missing out on a great friend because you are
narrow-minded. I am not the only brain you will be missing out on. I hope you
have a good day!
I hope this blog wasn’t too preachy.
Still, my main message is that if people with disabilities are ever going to
find a peaceful place, they must first accept themselves physically and
emotionally. They need to stop living for what society says they should be.
Footnote:
1.) Pelka, F. What We Have Done: An Oral History of the
Disability Rights Movement. 2012. University of Massachusetts Press.
The Dark Side of Disability: Eugenics and Euthanasia
On July 26, 1990, a quiet minority found their voice. President George Herbert
Walker Bush would sign into law the most comprehensive disability rights
legislation to date1. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act
was just the culmination of a silent minority struggle to be heard. This
struggle is not often recognized. Since this blog is designed to empower people
with disabilities and educate others, it would be inappropriate not to examine
the Disability Rights Movement's history. For a group to have a powerful voice,
they must understand their roots. In terms of the disability rights movement,
it is important to examine the key figures involved and critical events and
milestones within the training and the movement's goals up until the present day.
The term disability is defined as
"lack of adequate power, strength, or physical or mental ability;
incapacity" 2
Initially, the term eugenics was
coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883 in his book Essays in Eugenics.
Initially, the term was meant to encourage people with good genes to procreate.
Some of Galton's followers even combined it with Gregor Mendel's inheritance
research patterns to explain the passage of certain inherited traits from
generation to generation3. It was not long before the
term eugenics would no longer have a positive connotation. Many people would
soon embrace the term eugenics and the movement that went along with it to
solve the disabled problem. They would end up passing laws that would limit
such activities as marriage and childbirth. Many regulations went as far as
allowing the forced sterilization of people with disabilities. There were
several compelling cases, which upheld this principle. Perhaps the most
influential was the Buck v. Bell decision.
To understand the Buck v. Bell case,
it is important to understand the law that prompted the Supreme Court to hear
the case in the first place. What follows is the Virginia Sterilization Act of
March 20, 19244.
"An emergency exists; this act
shall be enforced from its passage. An ACT to provide for the sexual
sterilization of inmates of State institutions in certain cases. They were
approved on March 20, 1924. Whereas, both the health of the individual patient
and the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the
sterilization of mental defectives under careful safeguard and by competent and
conscientious authority, and Whereas, such sterilization may be effected in
males by the operation of vasectomy and in females by the operation of
salpingectomy, both of which said operations may be performed without serious
pain or substantial danger to the life of the patient, and Whereas, the
Commonwealth has in custodial care and is supporting in various State institutions
many defective persons who if now discharged or paroled would likely become by
the propagation of their kinda menace to society but who is incapable of
procreating might properly and safely be discharged or paroled and become
self-supporting with benefit both to themselves and to society, and Whereas,
human experience has demonstrated that heredity plays an important part in the
transmission of sanity, idiocy, imbecility, epilepsy, and crime, now, therefore
1. Be it enacted by the general assembly of Virginia, That whenever the
superintendent of the Western State Hospital, or the Eastern State
Hospital, or of the Southwestern State Hospital, or the Central State Hospital,
or the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded, shall believe that it is
for the best interests of the patients and of a society that any inmate of the
institution under his care should be sexually sterilized, such superintendent
is now authorized to perform, or cause to be performed by some capable
physicians or surgeon, the operation of sterilization on any such patient
confined in such institution afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that
are recurrent, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness or epilepsy; provided that
such superintendent shall have first complied with the requirements of this
act. 2. Such superintendent shall first present to the special board of
directors of his hospital or colony a petition stating the facts of the case
and the grounds of his opinion, verified by his affidavit to the best of his knowledge
and belief, and praying that an order may be entered by said board requiring
him to perform or have performed by some competent the physician to be
designated by him in his said petition or by the said board in its order, upon
the inmate of his institution named in such petition, the operation of
vasectomy if upon a male and of salpingectomy if upon a female. A copy of the
said petition must be served upon the inmate together with a notice in writing
designating the time and place in the said institution, not less than thirty
days before the presentation of such petition to the said the special board of
directors when and where said the board might hear and act upon such
petition."
Based on this act, a seven-month-old
named Vivian Buck and her mother Carrie and her grandmother Emma were "feebleminded"
on May 2, 1927, by the U.S. Supreme Court. The primary reason they were
believed to be feebleminded was that Carrie had Vivian out of wedlock5.
These individuals were classified
under a term that had no clinical definition or meaning. The state of Virginia
would later apologize for its role in the eugenics movement; however, the
apology would come decades too late. The Buck v. Bell decision would give the
green light to other state laws, which would lead to the sterilization of
an estimated 65,000 individuals with disabilities6. Although
eugenics was a deplorable practice, it did not promote the killing of the
disabled population. Eugenists believed that the disabled community should not
be allowed to procreate. It is not until the Holocaust that a much greater
tragedy would occur.
Mostly everyone is familiar with
Hitler's Holocaust against the Jewish community, in which 6 million Jews
perished. However, the Jewish community was not the only one to suffer at
Hitler's hand. A program known as Aktion T-4 was instituted to eliminate
"those unworthy of life." The program was designed to destroy those
who were physically and mentally disabled. At one point in Germany, the program
even went as far as to decree on August 18, 1939, that all births of
physically and mentally challenged persons be reported to the public health
offices. This decree was later extended to adults7.
It is no wonder that people with
disabilities have undergone struggles from the beginning. They were subject to
a natural human habit—a nasty human habit of judging those different from us.
The difference is, what makes humanity great, but often it is not celebrated.
It is looked down upon. This blog examines what happens when the fear of
difference goes too far. The euthanasia and eugenics movement were perhaps some
of the darker obstacles the disabled community has had to overcome. This blog
is not meant to focus on the negative, but one cannot gloss over certain parts
when examining one's past and still hope to understand them better.
Footnotes:
1.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40205.html
2. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disability?s=t
3.http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/eugenics/2-origins.cfm
4. http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=1236&printable=1&detailed=0
5.http://eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/themes/39.html
6.http://isc.temple.edu/neighbor/ds/disabilityrightstimeline.htm
7. http://www.deathcamps.org/euthanasia/t4intro.html
Saturday, July 27, 2013
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?”
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
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 27th 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.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Way to go, Georgia!
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 21st 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/