Warning: Declaration of Suffusion_MM_Walker::start_el(&$output, $item, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Nav_Menu::start_el(&$output, $item, $depth = 0, $args = Array, $id = 0) in /data/22/2/51/136/2051788/user/2247910/htdocs/Toys/wp-content/themes/suffusion/library/suffusion-walkers.php on line 0
Mar 112014
 

You know those guides for telling you what to do when you meet a person with x, y, or z disability? Well, maybe you don’t, but please just take my word on this one. They’re full of crap. If you follow them, I almost guarantee (I have learned I can’t guarantee anything) you’ll wind up alienating the person instead of interacting with them. These guides actually really insult the intelligence of the people reading them, telling them they’re not possibly smart enough to figure out how to negotiate a possibly unfamiliar situation (I.E. talking to or helping a disabled person). It also forces them into the role of automaton as they struggle to remember what they’ve learned.

Actually, it occurs to me that guides for helping disabled people are just a further way our society reinforces the notion that we’re better off memorizing rules than developing our skills of reasoning, communication, and compassionate intuition.

Still don’t know what I’m talking about? Consider yourself lucky. Or take a look at these responses to such guidelines.
How to Talk to Normal People: A Guide for the Rest of Us

What To Do When You Meet An Able-Bodied Person

If you laugh while reading through these, as I did, that’s more than okay; they’re pretty ridiculous and I think the best way to deal with ridiculousness is to laugh. Sadly, this isn’t too far off the mark from what those of us with disabilities experience. I have personally served as Christmas angel or other ethereally inspirational being to many strangers, people who decided they knew all about me, and that I was of superior moral character, all based on my having a visible disability.

Thing is: We who have disabilities aren’t one-dimensional; our disability might be the most noticeable thing about us to others, but it is, for most of us most of the time, not what we notice most about ourselves. While it, depending on the nature of the disability, might impact how we run our day-to-day lives, it’s just one of many things we consider or think about. For example, someone who uses a wheelchair might have to plan the safest, most accessible route to the local knitting shop, or arrange for accessible transportation, or find an accessible knitting shop in the first place, but their focus is going to be on getting to that knitting shop to teach or take a class, or to buy goods with which to make holiday gifts or stock up for their custom-designed shawl-knitting business. The special arrangements they need to make to get to the shop don’t define who they are. Using a wheelchair and needing to find an accessible way to get to the shop is just one aspect of that person’s identity as a fibre artist, small business owner, yarn geek, or whatever their relationship to knitting happens to be. Once they get there, an employee or another customer engages our imaginary yarn geek in a question-and-answer session about their disability, that’s likely going to be a huge disconnect for them, since they’re not there as a disabled person, but as a yarn geek.

There’s no one thing that a particular kind of disability (or disability in general) can tell us about the person or people who are disabled in that way, about what they need and want access-wise, or really anything concrete about them at all. I heard a story once, from a blind guy who was sitting in on an accessibility training at his local library. The person giving the training suggested that if someone with a disability is in line at the desk to ask a question or get assistance, and there are others in line behind them, that the library worker should ask the person with the disability to wait until they’ve served the other patrons, regardless of their position in line. This blind guy spoke up, reciting his weekly schedule, and asked if the folks their thought that he had time to give up his place in line.

The accessibility trainer was operating under a few assumptions. 1. The person with a disability is primarily a person with a disability, not necessarily a busy parent, entrepreneur, community volunteer, etc. Following from that, they assumed it’s not unreasonable to ask a “person with a disability” to do something you wouldn’t ask another “person” to do. 2. That a person with a disability is necessarily going to need more help and take longer to serve than a person with no visible disability. This may or may not be true, but generally will depend on what they need, not on the fact that they have a disability. If their question requires extensive research, or a prolonged foray among the stacks, then certainly, they might be asked to wait, or to make an appointment to come back, but so would any not-visibly-disabled person.

In writing this post, and preparing the presentation I’ll be giving this weekend at Catalyst Con, I’ve gone back and forth with myself a lot on whether to give specific guidance or suggestions on appropriate protocol when interacting with disabled people. There really cannot be one protocol, for disability in general and for disabilities specifically.

The No. 1 rule really is, of course, just to treat us like human beings. If you wouldn’t walk up to a not-visibly-disabled person and ask how they got dressed in the morning, or how they can possibly take care of their child, don’t do it to someone with a visible disability. If you wouldn’t touch a not-visibly-disabled person without asking them, then don’t do that to a visibly disabled person. All of this is pretty obvious, yes?

Good.

While I would like to be able to leave it at that, I don’t think it’s ultimately helpful to do so.

I think that disability is something pretty foreign and frightening to a lot of people on a gut level. Some of this is because people find the prospect of losing any sort of functionality in their day-to-day life to be terrifying. There’s a cultural element too, as there aren’t a lot of good models in media for relating to people with disabilities, both around our sameness and around our difference. Come to that, there aren’t generally a lot of representations of people with disability in media sources, and what representations there are tend to hold us up as either inspiring (I wasn’t joking about that Christmas angel bit) or helpless. Even for those who recognize the one-dimensionality of these representations, I think they can still affect people on an emotional level, making disability seem foreign and difficult to understand.

The harder people try to understand disability, the more separated they become from the recollection that we’re just human beings like everyone else.

So, I present to you a small list of suggestions. While these read like dos and don’ts, they’re intended more as thought starters, and as “things you may not have thought of because they’re not part of what you encounter in everyday life. Honestly, I thought this list would be a lot longer than it ended up being, but boiling down the basics ended up being pretty simple.

Mobility Devices (canes, crutches, wheelchairs, service dogs, and so on): Do not touch someone’s mobility device without their express say-so. Our mobility devices are there to help us navigate, not for you to navigate for us. Grabbing someone’s service dog, or cane, or wheelchair, or walker, is akin to grabbing a car’s steering wheel out of the driver’s hands, and, depending on the mobility aid, could be akin to grabbing the steering wheel from a driver and kicking an ambulating person’s feet out from under them. Unless someone explicitly indicates that they want you to push their chair, or hold their cane for them, or otherwise interact with their mobility device to be helpful to them, it’s hands-off!

Yes, this also goes for guide or other service dogs. I don’t care how winsome those eyes are, it’s always best to ask before you pet and respect whatever answer you get. Touching someone’s assistance animal without permission is like touching them or their small child without permission.

“Can I pet your dog?” also needs to not be the first question you ask someone upon meeting them.

Communication: Small talk is the same whether we have a disability or not. Small talk (whether through speaking or other forms of communication) is about shared topics. Maybe you feel like you don’t know what similairities you have with a person with x, y, or z disability that makes their life and how they experience it different from yours. Really, though, the things you’d talk about with any stranger–the weather, latest movies, anything related to the space you’re in (if at school, questions or comments about classes are always appropriate)—is suitable. Disabled people are not that different from you, and while our disability might be of interest to you, trust me when I say that to us it’s more boring than talking about the weather!

If you’re talking with the person who has the disability, always look at them. If you’re communicating with them through a sign language interpreter, still look at them. Think of the interpreter is useful furniture. Their job is just to interpret what you’re saying, and, if the deaf or hard-of-hearing person doesn’t speak your language, to also “voice” their responses. That’s basically it. Here’s a great Wiki on communicating with a Deaf person through an interpreter.

You want to look at the person or people you’re talking to even if they can’t look at or make eye contact with you; for example, if the person is blind, or is physically unable to move their body in such a way as to look at you. Speaking as someone who can’t see, it really does make a difference when someone looks at me while talking with me, not out over my head, or at anyone I might have with me.

Our family and friends generally don’t speak for us, unless we ask them too. Even if a family member, friend, or personal support attendant (someone employed to help a disabled person do things they need help doing) voices for a person with a disability, or appears to be taking charge of the disabled person they’re with, it’s still courteous and humanizing to address the person. For example, if you want to know what someone wants for lunch, ask them. Regardless of who responds, it’s still so much nicer to hear “what do you want for lunch?” than “What does she want for lunch?” It’s also sound not to make assumptions about what someone might or might not understand just because they’re not verbal or otherwise not communicating with you.

If you keep that No. 1 rule I mentioned above in mind (always treat people with disabilities like human beings) at all times, you’ll be just fine!

I hope I’ve provided some food for thought here. If you have specific questions about interacting with people with specific disabilities, or have encountered situations you’d like some feedback on, please leave your question in the comments or email me privately so I can address specific concerns in this space.

Mar 032014
 

A lot of people worry about what language to use when talking about disabilities, and about people who have them. People want to be respectful, or at least PC. Some people want to protect themselves from what they see as hostile attacks when they use what we who have disabilities recognize as defamatory, hurtful, or belittling language. Others know that the language used means something, that words have emotional resonance and cultural meaning (sometimes multiple cultural meanings), as well as literal definitions.

What I’m about to tell you is not the final word on disability language. I’m not the expert on this—no one can be—and my aim is only to present some facts and theories for your consideration, and share what I find works for me both personally and professionally.

Many people are confused because the terms we are and aren’t “supposed” to use around disability seem like they change on a dime. These language changes are not random; the changing ways in which we use disability language is directly affected by a global community of people (or perhaps communities of people all around the globe), with various disabilities or impairments, and our growing voices and presences.

So, how do we figure out what words to use, especially if we’re not plugged into disability politics and activism?

I think we do this by changing our approach a wee bit.

I think we’re best off not worrying so much about whether we’re using the wrong words, or the latest PC terms, as whether we’re actually saying what we mean, saying what we want to say.

For starters, when talking about disability, there’s a tendency to talk about disability itself, or the people who have it, as one big homogeneous thing. This often comes out as talk of “the disabled” or “the blind,” or some other disability group. Honestly, I can’t think of too many scenarios in which talking about disability (or people with disabilities) as a whole would lead to anything close to accuracy. Also, and this is a biggy, we’re not “the disabled.” People talk about making sure the person comes first when talking about us—will flesh that more in a bit—and there’s no better way to make sure that our personhood is completely erased than by using disability as the sole way of addressing or describing us.

The other big problem with referring to disabled people as a homogeneous whole is that this is often done when talking about accessibility or inclusion. It’s always nice to know that we, as a group, are welcome somewhere, but if the practical needs of one disability group aren’t met in a specific place or situation, saying that this place or situation is disability accessible is misleading, and again, dehumanizing.

For example:

If we’re trying to indicate that an event is being held in a place accessible to people using wheelchairs and other mobility devices—that is, a space with no stairs (or that has alternatives to stairs), spacious doorways, et cetera—we need to say so, not just say that the space is disability-accessible. After all, if the event only offers sign-up sheets, educational materials, etc in printed form or there is no sign language interpreter or captioning service, the event is not accessible in general. Maybe it sounds like splitting hairs, but what I’m trying to say is that it’s important to indicate what kind of accessibility we’re talking about when we say “accessible.”

It’s also important to acknowledge the differences between disabled people, not to place disabilities on a hierarchy (as is sadly often done, and sometimes by people with disabilities ourselves) but as a way of acknowledging individual needs, and, I think, of acknowledging that the disability is just one part of the person.

In other words, the more specific we are in what we say and how we say it, we can end up placing less overall emphasis on disability, and more on the whole person. This is particularly true when we’re talking about access, as if people know up-front whether their access needs are more or less likely to be met, the more everyday their disability becomes. Access isn’t about doing special things, after all, but about levelling the playing field or balancing the scales.

What about terms for disability and disabled people? Do we say disabled people or people with disabilities? Is handicapped okay? We’re not allowed to say crippled, right?

What terms are acceptable will vastly depend on who you are, who you’re addressing, where in the world you live, and what you’re trying to do with your words.

Yes, “crippled” is generally not an okay term these days. But many disabled people call themselves crips (or sometimes “krips”) as a way to reclaim the word. As with most reclaimed words, it belongs to the population reclaiming it. Unless you personally have a crip identity, you’re probably best off not using the word in your writing, unless you’re quoting someone talking about their own crip identity or unless you’re writing or talking about crip theory/activism as a movement.

One of the newer terms—and the current darling of the PC brigade–is “differently abled.” Words cannot describe how much I personally detest this term. It is saccharin, infantilizing, dismissive, and ultimately meaningless. It’s meant to emphasize that we all have different abilities and strengths, but since it’s a term reserved for people with disabilities and not used to describe everyone else, it still promotes that there is a norm, and then there is other, and that we who have disabilities are other.

The term “differently abled” almost literally hurts my teeth when I think about it, hurts in the way that biting into candy that is just pure sugar and food colouring often does. I’ve personally felt the othering impact of this term. Once upon a time I was participating in a sex education event where I heard one educator blithely discussing things that were “good for the differently abled.” This person’s supervisor had just reacted negatively to my presence upon discovering that the person (me) they had previously just conversed with online was someone with a disability. As I listened to the talk of the “differently abled” I couldn’t help but marvel that I, a “differently abled” person, was sitting right there, feeling totally alienated from what was supposed to be an accepting, inclusive space.

I’m not the only one who feels this way about “differently abled,” though. In Twitter discussions with other disabled folks, the point was raised that politically correct terms have not affected any obvious change; we still have stigma against people with disabilities; we still have unequal access. I agree with this. I’d suggest that having PC terms allows people to skate through without giving what they’re saying or doing a lot of thought. See how this ties back to what I was talking about earlier—being sure to say what we mean, and say what will be most useful to others?

So, what terms do we use? I’m partial to people with disabilities and disabled people myself. Again, I also think that, wherever it fits, specifying which disability we’re talking about is useful.

So, is it people with disabilities, or disabled people? Depends who you ask. This is also a question that has gotten a lot of dialogue going.

Many folks with disabilities believe in people-first-language; that is, saying or writing the person before the disability. Others, me included, think that doing this 100% of the time is grammatically cumbersome and unnecessary. Some people, I’m still on the fence about this, think that the person-first construction puts more emphasis on the disability, not less. Others prefer “disabled people” as a way of asserting disabled identity and claiming disability pride, much as the folks who’ve reclaimed Crip, gimp, and other words-formerly-known-as-insults are doing.

Grammatically, it can get pretty awkward pretty quickly when we’re always saying “people who are disabled,” or “a person who is blind,” or “women with intellectual disabilities.” Because I’m personally not completely wedded to person-first language, and am also not completely opposed to it, I tend, when writing, to start by using the person-first construction, then use either one, depending on what grammar and sentence structure call for subsequently.

Calling people “differently abled” also puts the emphasis on the individual person. Disability is understood by many disability activists to be partially or wholly a product of society’s lack of physical or cultural accessibility to different impairments.

The Disabled People’s International explained the difference this way.

Impairment: is the functional limitation within the individual caused by physical, mental or sensory impairment.
Disability: is the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in the normal life of the community on an equal level with others due to physical and social barriers. (DPI, 1982)

Viewed this way—and please do understand that there are many, many other models for understanding disability and disabled people’s experiences—we can think of the way “differently abled” has been embraced by the PC brigade as a societal shedding of responsibility. It’s much easier to talk about the words we’re supposed to use than to stretch out of our comfort zone, and do the emotional and practical work of having a fair and just society for everyone.

I’m leaving you for the moment (I’ll be bac, I assure you) with a few links sussing out some of what I’ve pondered here. If you’re wondering where to do more reading beyond these links, I’d suggest focusing your search on material written by individuals with disabilities or by disability advocacy groups. As always, if you have questions, thoughts, or would like to discuss anything I’ve written here, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Autistic Hoya: How “Differently Abled” Marginalizes Disabled People
Wheelchair Dancer: Differently Abled — Disability Language On My Mind
Disability Definitions, Models and Terminology | Western Cape Government

Dec 202013
 

My ire was roused recently when reading about Dan Savage’s artistic venture, Miracle, a retelling of Helen Keller’s story. So that I don’t have to recap, I’ll let you read about it for yourself.

Yes, I know. I’m a little late (at least a year) to the game hearing about this, and later still talking about it. I needed time to gather my thoughts and calm my pounding heart of anger and disbelief. I needed time to think about whether I wanted to speak out against the work of someone who is such a publicly lauded member of the sex ed community.

I’ve taken that time, and I have no choice, per my sense of integrity, but to say what I think and how I feel. And, after all, Miracle was hardly educational.

Oh, and I’m still angry.

Furthermore, the broader issue here is timeless and one that isn’t discussed nearly often enough–how we talk about disability, and who gets to do that talking.

It’s pretty clear to me, with the recent, highly publicized debacle of the sign-language-interpreter-who-wasn’t and the ignorant, ableist theories, beliefs, and attitudes that have been voiced in response, that inclusion and acceptance of people with disabilities–in all spheres–still needs to be talked about. (There are also some pretty hefty concerns with how mental illness is being discussed around all of this, further complicating the disability discussion. While we only have part of the story, I suspect, from what we have heard, that this man should never have been put in the position he was in, for his sake as much as for anyone else’s. The South African government’s responsibility to ensure that it was hiring a qualified interpreter–preferably more than one–for deaf people’s access to information cannot, to my mind, be disputed. Yet, that’s what some people seem to want to do.)

All this to say that we’re not anywhere close to being done with the need for speaking up, clearly and often loudly, for how people with disabilities are perceived, included, and represented publicly, whether that’s in the arts or at an internationally important event. It also means we have to speak clearly, and often loudly, about the words and actions around this inclusion and representation.

————–

presumably, Miracle is supposed to be humourous. A discussion of the ethics and respect lacking in the mockery (no matter how artful, and no matter how humourous”) of a population one is not a member of would fill pages. Minority humour is live and well, and must, by virtue of respect, and of an inner knowledge of the workings of that minority group, be left to members of that group. Attempts at humour by people not belonging to that minority group smack of power, of appropriation, and of mockery. I think we call making fun of people for their differences bullying.

From an artistic, as well as human equality perspective, any humour not informed by the group the humour is about is bound to fall flat. Humour, as with everything else in life worth knowing about, requires thoughtfulness.

Since I haven’t seen this play, I’m not in a place to evaluate its humour objectively. I don’t like what I’ve heard, though, and think that it likely appropriates something the playwright has no knowledge of and views it through the lens of something he does know. Viewing someone else’s experience through our own lenses usually yields a mirky, and incorrect, image.

Helen Keller’s story is powerful. Through finding a way to transmit language to a child who could neither see nor hear, Anne Sullivan helped that child transform her life, and paved the way for other people to take hold of their lives in similar ways. That’s powerful, but not superhuman. Ms. Sullivan solved a problem for Ms. Keller—how to communicate—and assisted her with interacting with the rest of the world who didn’t communicate in the same way. The rest was up to Ms. Keller. Indeed, the story of what Ms. Keler did as an adult is at least as interesting as her childhood.

Most retellings of “Helen Keller’s story” leave her later years out. Also left out are the problems both Helen and Anne faced throughout their lives, not only individually, but in their interactions with each other. Very often, their story is told as “the Helen Keller story” not “the story of Helen Keller’s life.” See the difference? One is her story, the story other people put onto her; the other is the real story, nothing left out to make it more palatable or sensational.

While Keller and Sullivan’s story is often overdramatized and simultaneously oversimplified, it’s a pretty amazing story in itself. It’s not a story that anyone has the right to appropriate. Sadly, too many people have done so far too many times, though never, to my knowledge, in quite the way Miracle does.

What really rouses my ire about Savage’s play—and what I’ll talk about here–was the sign that was apparently posted above the stage. Ironically, if I had been to see the play, I’d not have known about this sign unless someone had told me about it, since I can’t see.

It said this:

This play will be deeply offensive to the deaf/blind community, so please don’t tell them. Keep your hands shut!

Really? Seriously? Someone thought it was okay to say this in public? A whole bunch of someones agreed with this decision? No one, from the actors, to the stage hands, to the theatre manager, realized that this crosses the limits of human dignity? In any other context but an artistic one, this sign would be seen as discriminatory.

I’m ordinarily quite gentle, too gentle, often too willing to give people the benefit of the doubt. Too many times I’ve been told to not object to someone’s disrespect of me as a disabled person as “They meant well.” Or “They don’t know any better.”

I’m not feeling particularly gentle this time.

Dan Savage is not, so far as intellect goes, a stupid man. So, he did know better, and, I’ve know doubt he did mean it—I imagine it’s “just a joke.”)

“Just a joke” is a worn out cop-out for saying something that shouldn’t be said.

“Just a joke” is a rickety bridge between the speaker of the “joke” and what they’re actually saying—a way for them to release responsibility for the true meaning of their words.

Suggesting that information be withheld from anyone is not a joke.

In the interests of full disclosure, I’m blind and have a bilateral hearing impairment, though I do not use sign and can usually hear what is said to me. I have friends who are deaf-blind and use sign, a computer, or a mobile device when out and about to communicate. So, this is personal for me, but I’d like to think that those for whom this is les personal could still know in their minds and feel in their guts that even the suggestion to withhold information is just not okay—and certainly isn’t funny.

I’d like to take away Savage’s (and anyone who agrees with him) mobile phone, his car keys, and his computer, and see how he feels about suggesting that communication should just be kept from anyone intentionally. I wonder if he’d think it was funny then?

Savage has likely never, as an adult, been denied information because someone else didn’t think he needed to know it. He’s likely, at least not in the computer-age, never had to solely rely on another human being for information.

To suggest that someone keep any knowledge from someone else who otherwise wouldn’t know or be able to access it is disgusting in the extreme. Think, for a moment, what it would be like if someone filtered what you knew through a screen of what they thought you needed to know. This information could include anything from the specials posted on the chalkboard in your favourite restaurant, to the fact that the people behind you are talking about you because they know you can’t hear them, to the plans everyone is making for going out, plans they’re conveniently leaving you out of. This can also include things like the entirety of what your doctor, lawyer, or financial advisor just told you. Get the picture?

Well, people do that to children all the time, you say. Yes, but disabled adults aren’t children! I’m also not a fan of keeping information from children anyway, though do recognize that information sometimes needs to be doled out differently based on cognitive and emotional development. Even then, I’m a fan of sharing and adapting the information in a cognitively-appropriate way, and not of willfully keeping information secret.

No, this isn’t like talking to children. We were all children once. We all had the experience of growing up, of having adults filter what we knew in one way or another.

No, what Dan Savage is talking about here is keeping information from adults because they might be offended by it. And…if they’re offended by it, that might mean that people will say he shouldn’t have written the play in the first place.

Oh, pardon me…I forgot. The whole thing is just a joke, including that sign.

Ha! Ha! I mustn’t take things too seriously…

Except for that part where it makes a joke of something that really happens to people, the withholding of information—something that denies their humanity, limits their options, and, depending on the information in question, puts them in danger.

I still find it ironic that I wouldn’t have known about that sign if I’d gone to see the play—unles, of course, someone had told me about it. I would have been ignorant, not of the play’s offensiveness, but of the excuses around that offensiveness.

I’m not the only one expressing these concerns. Given Savage’s work around the needs of young people, I think this young disabled lesbian’s words are particularly important. What she has to say about this play and its broader implications for Savage’s work and her own place in the world is worth a read, or two, or three.

Nov 292013
 

It seems that people lose all perspective on the nature of human interactions when visible disabilities are at play.

Last week, I read this blog post about just such a loss of perspective.

Apparently, a newspaper decided that two college football players sitting with a visibly disabled fellow student in their school cafeteria was newsworthy.

karin of claiming Crip gives a brilliant analysis here. She offers the clearest, most concise, most down-to-earth deconstruction of ableist thinking I’ve seen in a while–the most honest, most no-holds-barred explanation of exactly why it’s unacceptable–and inaccurate–to view disabled people, and the nondisabled people who associate with us, as inspiring.

It’s pretty apparent that, in this story, the perspective of the student these football players sat with wasn’t terribly important. There are quotes about him, but not from him.

It’s further apparent, to me, anyway, that this reporting is also a reflection of the cultural view of college athletes.

College athletes are often held in hero status in general, lauded at a level and for things far beyond their age and degree of life experience. Lauded in a way that actually negates their humanity. Here, praising them for–even reporting on the fact that they did–choose to sit with a visibly disabled fellow student in the cafeteria is ridiculous, and sends a larger message. Sitting with, spending time with, disabled people is inspirational.

Between the elevated status of college atheletes, and the reduced status of people with disabilities, there’s a real lac of balance in the way this was reported, never mind that it wasn’t worth reporting at all.

Having what is usually a visible disability–blindness–and having had numerous people sit with me while I ate alone in my university’s cafeteria, I certainly hope no one ever saw them as inspiring.

Yes, I even had a college hhockey player join me a few times. We had really pleasant, down-to-earth conversations, and he’d even say “hi” to me if he saw me other places on campus. Did this make him inspiring? I sure as hell hope not! He was a pleasant, well-spoken, intelligent guy. Lauding him for being friendly to me would just have degraded him, on top of what it would have said about my equality as a human being.

This inspiration credo is incredibly dehumanizing to disabled people (and to the people who genuinely care for or love us). It’s dehumanizing on an individual level, yes, but also in collective cultural consciousness.

One or two isolated incidents of being out in public with an able-bodied person and hearing that person’s actions praised can make one start to doubt oneself. One may look to others, ask about their experiences, start observing interactions in which they are not involved; one will see and hear the same story. That pervasiveness leads to the message that we are less than human, or that we’re superhuman for drawing friends to us who will be patient and caring for us, in spite of our subhuman disabilities. It also negates any caring or kind actions or feelings on our parts, making relationships with us appear to be one-way.

Sometimes, it doesn’t even take experiences to send this message; it’s built into the underlying consciousness: you are object, to be feared, admired, inspired by, but not equal in your humanity.

When I was getting ready to leave home for university, I was told by many well-meaning adults that people at college might be afraid of or put off by my blindness, that they might not know how to interact with me. I was told that I might have to go the extra mile to make friends, to be willing to meet people beyond halfway.

I believed this! Ironically, this belief trampled my confidence and led me to be more afraid, more timid, less friendly with folks. It led me to behave in ways that were probably seen as weird, rather than just settling into my shy, slightly nerdy,, but ultimately sweet and friendly self. It led me to question everyone’s interactions with me, to hold them at arm’s length rather than to welcome.

Remember that hockey player? I never asked if we could co-ordinate to meet at the cafeteria some time, or if we could hang out somewhere else. perhaps if I’d had more confidence, rather than feeling like I had to apologize for myself and avoid any awkwardness, perhaps if I hadn’t felt like I was a bother to people, I would have felt more comfortable making connections when they presented themselves.

I could have become friends with many people, or at least gotten to know them better if I had known how to step beyond my appreciation and gratitude that he had gone the extra mile, had met me more than halfway, by choosing to sit with me.

These messages elevating the actions of able-bodied people to hero status can leave their mark on we disabled people.

The idea of nondisabled people being brave, stepping outside themselves, even inconveniencing themselves to be nice to a disabled person is harmful in the extreme, both to the self-esteem of many disabled people and to how valid relationships (of any kind) are seen between disabled and able-bodied people.

I know of one situation where a lesbian couple- comprised of a Blac woman in her forties and a blind white woman– in her twenties had a lot of problems because of how they were perceived in public. The older partner felt that she was always seen as the caregiver of her younger partner, not as her equal, let alone as her partner. Given the history we have in this country (and others) of women of colour being in caregiving roles related to white children, elderly people, or sick people I can certainly see how this perception could have really hurt, on so many levels. Ultimately, from what I understand, it was one major factor that damaged the relationship beyond repair.

With all of these meanderings, the one thing I keep coming back to is humanity. the humanity of people in a romantic relationship. The humanity of people just headed off to college. The humanity of college students eating lunch in the cafeteria.

I don’t want to say we’re all the same, because we’re not–and that’s a good thing. I’m not saying that there aren’t really special, generous people out there–because there are.

They’re just not generous and special in who they choose to eat lunch with in a public space with multi-person tables and general seating.