- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 0
-
Sparkle (0)
I’ve been working with a lot of new (to me) material coming from the anti-ableism community, as it currently expresses itself. In most ways, this is an internal dialog between my 20-something self and my 40-something self, but you’re welcome to listen in, if you like.
The first question, I guess, is about the whole concept of “disability.” *(footnote. Since this is a discussion of ableism, I’m starting with the dominant form, “disability’, I know that's problematic, but I'm trying to "show my work" as the math teacher says ) And the question runs something like “If you lived in a society that was completely accessible, and everything was designed for the use of...for this example we’ll use ‘people in wheelchairs’... and everyone WAS in a wheelchair, would it still be a disability?”
And my answer is, yes. It still would. I mean, it would mean better employability for people in wheelchairs, which would be good, but I already have a sneaking suspicion that the fact we can’t travel by transporters, fly by ourselves, speak mind to mind, and use our gills for long-distance swimming represent widely shared disabilities (in this thought experiment) so I really don’t like picturing a world without wobbly first baby steps and grand jetes. I think those things are valuable, and I think being without them constitutes a LOSS, and I would grieve them. Therefore, I think the concept of “disability” has some validity, but the cultural weight of it being almost entirely negative, I’ll try to do without the term, henceforth. Connotative VS. denotative.
(My 20 -something is glaring at my 40-something. She’s a big fan of abstractions.)
The next question is, “What accommodations for differently abled people is society responsible for?” and my answer to this is, “Society is responsible for accommodation that guarantees basic services to everyone.” For example, we need toilets and voting machines that work for anyone who needs them. I think if someone wants to go to the opera (and can afford a ticket) they should go. I DON’T, however, think that if someone is unable to conform to societal norms for cleanliness and comportment, everyone else should just ‘suck it up’ on the basis of not being “offensive to differently abled people.” I know this can complicate things, and I’ll continue to look at it, but I come at this partly as a person who is often surrounded by children and other persons in evolving development. My 20-something self worked in food preparation environments. Washing was a challenge for some people of ALL backgrounds, but a challenge worth winning.
The next question is the “helmet law” question. And the question is, “What role does the reason for a change in the methods of expressing ability play in accommodations for/sympathy with that status?” This is a particularly hot-button topic around obesity, right now. Is “concern about obesity” merely a cover for fat hatred and “blaming the victim?” It’s a tough question and where it becomes particularly difficult for me is in discussing the role of self-hate in eating, and in not eating.
First, let’s establish as fact that people eat to fill needs that are unrelated to merely continuing to fuel their daily activities. Whether every personal trainer on the planet sees this as a defect or not, people eat to make emotional connections with others or with their heritage, to celebrate, to console themselves, to try to gain control over their environments, to distract themselves, to please people, to defy people, and a million other things you can leave in the comments, if you’re so moved.
