Thursday, May 15, 2014

Mia Mingus On "Crip Solidarity"

Mia Mingus, Leaving Evidence - May 3, 2010

I just mentioned in my last blog that the Stella Young essay Dear 16-year-old Stella is my favorite piece of writing on disability. I think this post by Mia Mingus is now the runner up for me. For those of us with disabilities, it challenges us to be better “crips”. I think it can also help explain to non-disabled people … and disabled people just starting to explore what disability means ... what, exactly, “crop culture” is supposed be.

Stella Young On "Inspiration Porn"

Megan Griffo, The Mighty - May 14, 2014


I have been reading here and there about Australian Comedian / Broadcaster Stella Young doing a TED Talk in Sydney, and finally here is a chance to share the video of her talk. Any time Stella Young writes something or gives a presentation on disability it’s worth tracking down. As it stands, she is the author of my favorite piece of writing on disability, Dear 16-year-old Stella.

Here, she introduces the TED audience to the concept of “Inspiration Porn”, and gives a pretty convincing argument for why it is a bad thing, not just something that rubs disabled people the wrong way. She also asserts that disability isn’t “a bad thing”, which is an idea I understand and basically agree with, but I think is very hard even for some disability rights folks to swallow. Personally, I would prefer to say that disability isn’t “as bad as you think”, but I get what Stella means here.


Ironically, I found the video via Ramp Your voice, on a website called The Mighty, whose slogan is “Superheroes Among Us”, and appears to traffic in a form of Inspiration Porn. They present the video with seemingly no awareness at all that they practice at least some of what Stella speaks against. I’m glad they liked her talk and happy they offered it up, but it shows just how ingrained the inspiration instinct is, especially for a certain kind of “good guys / let’s all be positive” organizations and websites.

Pass The CRPD ... For Spite

Phil Pangrazio, AZ I See It, azcentral.com - May 14, 2014

Advocacy topic icon
A few weeks ago, I noticed a new round of social media activity in support of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The reason for the renewed activity was that the Senate had finally approved a different United Nations Treaty, on fisheries. This prompted CRPD supporters to launch a slightly tongue-in-cheek campaign asking: Why does the Senate feel it important enough to pass a treaty on fishing, but can’t see it’s way clear to pass a treaty on the rights of people with disabilities?

The "fish" formulation took off, and it's great to see mainstream newspapers, like the one linked above, using it in a renewed push to pass the CRPD on the grounds of decency and common sense.

The subtext of this, of course, is also the reason why the CRPD has failed to pass twice. It’s got almost nothing to do with disability rights. The problem is that it is a United Nations treaty, and a handful of highly ideological right-wing and religious organizations argue that the UN itself is illegitimate, powerful, and hostile to freedom and US sovereignty. Any UN treaty that fails in the Senate is a victory for these people, almost regardless of the treaty’s topic.

The fishing treaty probably passed because it’s about as niche and obscure a treaty as can be imagined, so the advocacy knives weren’t as enthusiastically out for any conservative Senators who dared to vote for it.

Take a look at this May 5 piece by two attorneys for the Home School Legal Defense Association, one of the strongest opponents of the CRPD … and and of the UN itself.

William A. Estrada, Esq., Director of Federal Relations and Cordell J. Asbenson, Congressional Action Program Director
Home School Legal Defense Association - May 5, 2014

Read the whole piece ... but here are my "favorite" quotes:
“HSLDA has fought on many occasions to stop ratification of United Nations treaties, most recently with our work to defeat the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). While there are many reasons HSLDA opposes the CRPD, one key reason is that the United Nations is openly hostile to religious freedom, the right to life, homeschool freedom, and parental rights ... ”
"The modern UN has become a powerful global player that is hostile to many freedoms that we as Americans and homeschoolers take for granted. UN treaties have become tools used by unelected, power-hungry international bureaucrats to gain control over nations and free peoples ... ”
"Protect Your Family
If you aren’t yet a member of HSLDA, consider joining today! HSLDA’s work benefits homeschooolers in the United States and around the world. We invite you to participate in our ministry to the homeschool community.”
Oh, right. Don’t forget the membership come-on at the end! Protect your family … pay us dues!

Clearly, this organization is about more than the practice and policies around home schooling. I doubt they care much about the concerns of left-wing, hippie parents who home school their kids. Their constituency appears to be right-wing religious families who feel like the world is against them, and believe that the Federal Government and the UN are agents of godless socialism. I also question whether the organization has any special insight into the unique needs of kids with disabilities … who sometimes have very specific reasons to benefit from home schooling that have nothing to do with religion, traditional values, or the meaning of national sovereignty.

All of which is to simply say that for the most part, opposition to the CRPD is bullshit. Opponents may have a slight area of actual disagreement to the treaty, insofar as its language suggests that kids with disabilities have some rights that could take precedence over what their parents want to do. It is possible to view that catastrophically, as total usurpation of parental authority. You can also view it more sensibly, as recognition that children ... even disabled children ... are human beings, and not their parents' property.

The irony is that we could have a real discussion about whether the UN has enough power and relevance do anything about disability rights around the globe, other than pass what is essentially a set of suggestions. CRPD opponents fear the awesome power of the UN, while the only real argument against the CRPD is that it’s probably too weak.

That said, I really think the Senate should pass the damned thing. For one thing, all UN treaties have ambiguous authority. That’s part of the point of the UN … it relies less on naked power and more on information, persuasion, and role-modeling. Second, it is embarrassing for the United States to be one of the few holdout countries on this, when it basically pioneered the whole concept of “disability rights laws”. Finally, at this point, I want to see the CRPD pass to spite its opponents. They are so dishonest and cynical that I want to beat them just to see them beaten.

That’s not very noble motivation, I suppose, but it’s how I feel.

Addendum:

For more information on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, visit disabilitytreaty.org.


Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Another Thought On “Defined By Disability?”

Followup to: Defined By Disabilities?

How about this? … “He’s hasn’t let his disability define him” is irritating because it it’s the way newspaper and TV news reporters say, “He’s disabled, but surprise, he’s not sad, he's awesome!"

Defined By Our Disabilities?

Since Monday, I have been thinking about the meaning of an often-heard phrase in the disability community, and from people who interact with the disability community:

What do people mean when they say, "My disability doesn't define me"? Or, from another perspective, “He / she doesn't let disability define him / her”? What do we mean by "define"? What negative experiences and feelings do we think we are avoiding by not being "defined" by our disabilities? Is it mainly that we don't like being labeled, or is there more to it than that?

I invited people to share their thoughts on these questions, and two people commented:

The Wheel Deal:
"What does a definition do? It explains what a word is. If someone were to explain who I am, give a definition of me, my disability would only be part of it. A disability does not make a person, they are much more than what they "have" and how they get around. As a disabled person I do not let my disability define me. To me that means that I am more than just someone who happens to use a wheelchair to get around. When I meet someone new our "get to know you" conversation doesn't center around my medical history. My life and thoughts do not revolve around being disabled. Being disabled is part of me, I fully acknowledge that, but it's not all of me.”
Debra Buell:
"My problem with the words we use to talk about anyone, disabled or able bodied is that they are the perception of others who may or may not have an appreciation for the full human being. You've said it here, Andrew, when people talk to us, we have interests beyond our disabilities to share. Sometimes people have a hard time getting past whatever the body barrier is that exists. I actually think that very attractive people have some issues in this area. People are awed enough to keep themselves distant. People with tattoos scare some people. In the case of disabilities, people may feel awkward or scared and they keep distant. To be able to have a full sense of who I am, you have to be brave enough to dare to approach me and then look me in the eyes, not focusing on my wheelchair.”
Both of these comments point to the frustration and pain of feeling as though non-disabled people see us and just think, “disabled”, and move on, as if they already know everything that’s important about us. Underlying this is also a practical concern, that if people never bother to see us in three-dimensions, then we will lose out on more than just friendly small-talk … we will be disadvantaged in job opportunities, friendships, and relationships.

So, when we as people with disabilities say we don’t want to be defined by our disabilities, it seems clear that what we mean is that we want people to see all of us, including, but not restricted to our disabilities.

I think it’s different, though, when non-disabled people, either directly or indirectly … like in new stories … say that we are not defined by our disabilities. I think in these situations, it means:

You are successful and independent, not stagnant or dependent on other people or support systems.

You look and act “normal”, even though your disability is also obvious. Your appearance and personality are familiar and appealing, while your disability quickly seems like just an add-on.

You rarely seem to need help. You seem to have your situation well in hand, and you never seem to be stuck or helpless.

You don’t complain much or get upset about your difficulties.

You have a positive attitude. You are ambitious and always willing to try. You don’t use your disability as a crutch or excuse.

Do these thoughts sound familiar? It's as though "not letting disability define us" is a stamp of approval. We're doing disability right!

The problem is that almost nobody with any kind of disability truly fits these descriptions. Even the most successful and independent among us rely on some adaptive tools, techniques, or supports from others. Some of us look different enough that no amount of positive attitude can overcome peoples’ initial awkwardness on meeting us. We all run into physical and attitudinal barriers that can wear on our patience, and place real external limits on the things we want to do. We all have legitimate reasons to complain, and complaining can sometimes be productive. Finally, it is hard for a non-disabled observer to tell who has ‘given up” out of malaise or laziness, and who is genuinely stymied by complicated, intractable problems that one person alone can’t sort out.

None of these things necessarily mean we are “defined by” our disabilities or have “let our disabilities define us”.

“He doesn’t let his disability define him” presumes a kind of disability ideal that few if any of us can ever live up to. Nor should we perhaps if that ideal is imposed on us from the outside by people who only vaguely know what it takes to function in a practical way with disabilities.

Young woman with long black hair sitting next to a handicapped parking sign with an arrow pointing in her directionI think that’s the key. It’s one thing for us to say that we don’t want others to define us by our disabilities. Of course we don’t want to be reduced to one attribute. It’s another thing entirely when other people say we haven’t let our disabilities define us, when what they mean is that we fit their idea of what makes a disabled person admirable.

So it’s okay if the first thing someone notices is my disability. That’s only natural. It’s also fine when they find out that disability is an interest of mine … that I also choose to think about disability issues. That’s another way that disability defines me. My disabilities do partially define me, they are part of who I am. I am also defined by dozens of other likes, dislikes, aptitudes, interests … not to mention race, gender, ethnic background, education, family, geographical region, etc.

Ultimately, saying that I or someone else with a disability isn’t “defined by disability” feels like running away from something, or trying to hide something shameful. That’s why the phrase bothers me. Yet, I also need to remember the other meaning ... that we don’t want to be seen as nothing but disabilities. Nobody wants to be simplified into an icon.

Photo: From the Hypermobile Tumblr blog, via Wheelie Wifee.

More comments from Tumblr:

Brilliant comments by Vent Blog:
"... Lets try that again and change the words around
Ex. “I’m a girl but I don’t let that define me! I like video games and sports. I don’t wear makeup and dress in casual clothes. I don’t diet or obsess about my appearance. I’m just one of the guys!”
And more from Posts and Mirrors:
" ... There are parts of me that my disability has less to do with, but it’s such a pervasive part of my life that it touches on basically everything. I don’t get the option of ‘rising above’ or ‘conquering’ my disability, and I don’t prefer to spend my life unhappy about that fact. There are times I still rail against it, but mostly I work at learning how to accept the definition that is unavoidable and how to work with that to have the life I want."

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Photo Of The Day

Business entrance has two accessible buttons to auto-open the door, depending on if you’re standing or sitting, wheelchair user, walker or came user, prefer to use your hands or kick the button
From the Hypermobile Tumblr blog, via Wheelie Wifee.

Yet Another Service Dog Problem

KTVU.com - May 12, 2014

Annnnd  again with the service animals!

I really dont understand this. Service animals are allowed just about everyone people can go, and have been for years, decades even. If there are very specific exceptions to that, maybe involving aircraft safety, then those exceptions should be stated very clearly and declared whenever the issue comes up.

Are service dogs allowed in bulkhead seating or not? If they arent, maybe because they cant be seat belted and could be hurled around a cabin in severe turbulence, then say so upfront. If its not a problem, then make that clear to all airline employees.

This really isn’t difficult. The only reason this kind of crap keeps happening is that companies haven’t felt it important enough to send clear messages to their employees. If, on the other hand, the companies really don’t agree with the law, then let them have it out with the Justice Department, or propose reforms. But don’t just decide not to follow the law, and don’t just let service employees make the call.

Monday, May 12, 2014

Work In Progress ... What Do You Think?

I am going to start posting short previews of blog posts I'm working on. If you see a topic you are interested in, feel free to comment and I may cite your comments or ideas in the finished post.

First up:

What do people mean when they say, "My disability doesn't define me"? Or, from another perspective, "She doesn't let disability define her"?

What do we mean by "define"? What negative experiences and feelings do we think we are avoiding by not being "defined" by our disabilities? Is it mainly about not liking being labeled, or is there more to it than that?

About Our Bodies

Natalie E. Illum, Guest Writer, The Body Is Not An Apology - April 28, 2014


This is another great article on the very tricky, hard to explain, but absolutely crucial issue of disabled people learning to recognize and then shed shame about our bodies.

Don’t let the art world and poetry slam setting of the essay distract you. You don’t have to be a poet or a performance artist to grapple with the same issues Natalie Illum did, or to make the progress she has. One part of her story that I think might be essential, though, is having a friend or even just a casual acquaintance ask the right question or say the right thing at the right moment that helps penetrate the walls we build up around us and get to the kernel of the issue. Do we love, do we accept, do we have any positive feelings at all about our bodies, or not?

For most of my life, I assumed that it was enough to appreciate my own mind, and sort of forget about my body. Now I’m not so sure that’s a choice you have to make, just because you have physical disabilities. It may not even be a sustainable choice. Fortunately, it seems like one of the few things you can change about yourself, without needing other people to change as well. You can just start appreciating your body as it is, and having some fun with it’s unusual shapes and angles. That positivity can often rub off on others, and they in turn will be more positive about your appearance. But even if they don’t, it doesn’t really matter because you made the key change in your own head.

Ending Ableism: Part 3 - Asshole Ableism

This is the last entry in my second series on Ableism, in which I offer some practical tips for people who want to know how they can battle different forms of disability discrimination or “ableism”. I have already suggested steps for fighting Well-Meaning Ableism and Systemic Ableism. Today, it’s what I call, “Asshole Ableism” … a.k.a., the really mean stuff, and the very dangerous stuff.

1. Confront, or at least give a very cold shoulder to anyone who tries to get you to join them in making fun of disabled people, using ableist slurs, or expressing disgust or resentment of disabled people.

Don't underestimate the power of the cold shoulder, especially for people who think they’re being hilarious. A disapproving look and no laugh can accomplish a lot. Example: Shaq’s Instagram photo mocking a disabled man’s unusual facial features.

2. Push back against people who claim that disabled peoples’ needs cost too much and take too much away from “normal” people.

People don't mind approving help for disabled people, until they think more for disabled people means less for everyone else. It's almost always a false choice, and sometimes, bureaucrats and politicians with an agenda will purposefully pit disabled peoples' needs against the needs of  the "average citizen". Example: School budget debates where people blame Special Education mandates for cuts in music programs, football, advance placement classes, or whatever other programs people care about.

3. Be on alert for regressively ableist ideas that have the potential to gain renewed popularity.

Some people just seem attracted to out of date ideas ... sort of like people who love antiques. They think it's clever and refreshing to reanimate dead ideas. Example: Eugenics ... in which people argue that disabled people shouldn't be born and shouldn't reproduce because they are bad for the human gene pool. Or, re-segregation, where families and professionals might start to argue that separate, institutional services have gotten a bad rap, and are preferable to the stigma and harsh competition of mainstream life. Tell them that their ideas aren’t new or brave … they were bad in the old days and they’re bad now.

4. Learn about how disabled people have been treated throughout history … especially some of the ideas and policies that were once thought to be “progressive” or “humane”.

People are much better today at being polite and hiding or obscuring what they really think about things. It wasn’t long ago that otherwise decent, respectable, even compassionate people supported widespread institutionalization, forced sterilization, “mercy killing” as public policy. Remembering is a defense for the future.

5. Call out arguments that suggest that there should be different standards of treatment and civil rights for people with “certain kinds” of disabilities.

I've heard it dozens of times ... "Everything you're saying is right for disabled people like you, Andrew, but I'm talking about really disabled people." Example: Disability service providers who imply that disability rights and independent living values don’t really apply to intellectually disabled people, justifying paying below minimum wage and maintaining sheltered, segregated services. Different disabilities call for different approaches, but human rights and human agency are universal.

As you can see, most of the actions I suggest for Asshole Ableism are rhetorical. It goes without saying that you may find moments when you can actually cast a meaningful vote, too … such as in a school budget ballot or an assisted suicide referendum. Most often, though, confronting Asshole Ableism simply means confronting assholes who are ableist. Since they so seldom pay a price for their assholeism, a little bit of confrontation, or just passive resistance and refusal to “go along" can be quite powerful.

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Photo Of The Day

Baby carriage next to a wheelchair, both viewed from the front, baby in carriage, young adult woman in wheelchair, turned to her left to talk to the baby, with the baby looking at her
I have posted this before, and I don’t even know if it’s an actual motherhood photo, but it feels appropriate for Mother’s Day.

From the Rough Pix Tumblr blog, via disABILITYaware.

Weekly Wrap-Up

Disability Thinking Weekly Wrap Up in white letters superimposed over sepia-tone photo of handicapped parking spaces
Sunday, May 4, 2014
Monday, May 5, 2014
Wednesday, May 7, 2014
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Friday, May 9, 2014
Saturday, May 10, 2014

Happy Mother's Day!

One of the things I will always appreciate about my mother, Claire, is that she always treated me like a person.

She used to say that she enjoyed her two kids much more when we got older because you can't have real conversations with a baby. As we got older, we got more interesting … not easier mind you … more engaging. In other words, at some point we became people to her. I never felt like Mom saw me as anything more or less than a person, never a symbol, a message, a burden, or a reward. In her eyes, I didn’t represent or mean anything but myself.

At the same time, Mom was definitely the sort of person who thought that individuals were important mainly in terms of what they did. She wasn't a right winger or a capitalist, so she didn't care that much about whether people were "productive" or "successful", but rather that everyone should fulfill their potential and add something to the world.

Mom didn’t have much of a direct influence on my disability consciousness, because I don’t think she ever adopted any distinct personal theory of disability. I think for her, disability was just a thing that happened, not something you had to think about much beyond practicalities. That was pretty much how I viewed my disabilities until well into adulthood. And even though I now wrestle with the social and political aspects of disability, personally, I still tend to think of my own disabilities in purely practical terms.

That's fine. Mom helped me become a person, and appreciated me as a person, which gave me a strong base to build on. I think that's the best thing parents of a disabled child can do. I don’t spend a lot of time these days actively missing Mom, but I often wish I could discuss ideas about disability with her now. I wonder what she would think? I do know it would be a great conversation.

Here are some of my favorite photos of my mother:

Black and white photo of three youths standing in a row in bathing suits, on a rock, near water and trees
Mom and her three siblings. From the left: Dana, Barbara, Claire (Mom), and Kit.

Black and white photo of young man and young woman seated next to each other in the back seat of a running motorboat
Mom and Dad (Peter), I think shortly before being married.

Professional-style family portrait from left, teenaged boy with glasses, labrador retriever dog, woman seated with baby on her lap, man seated on the arm of her chair
The classic family portrait: My brother Ian, Cleopatra (the dog), Mom, baby Andrew (me!), Dad.

Two adult men standing behind two seated adult women in a posed group photo
The Fearon siblings, all grown up: Dana, Kit (back), Claire (Mom), and Barbara.

Adult woman in sunglasses, sitting in a motorboat on the water, with golden retriever next to her
Mom and my brother’s dog, Opus … A.K.A., Mom’s granddaughter.

Photo of an adult white woman wearing sunglasses, with short grey hair, smiling
Mom … Claire Anne Pulrang, 1926 - 1997