I'm rambling, so forgive me.
Someone once told me that an empty wheelchair was a scary sight. I think I understand this. After all, our conception is that people rarely just climb out of their wheelchairs and walk away, so where did the person go? Did they fall and are now trying to get help? Did someone scoop them up? Did the chair roll off on it's own? I should note that this anxiety only seems to be around "personal" wheelchairs. By that I mean, the bank of wheelchairs at the mall or the hospital aren't quite so troubling, maybe because they don't belong to someone.
The truth is that there are many reasons that a wheelchair could be empty. The person might have actually gotten up and walked away, some of us do. There might have been an area that was not accessible by chair and the person was helped to a seat and left the chair behind until it could be brought to them. It might even be set up waiting for it's new owner/borrower.
In the end, I think my own discomfort about this stems from the fact that my chair is such a part of me. I can and do walk regularly. Mainly when I can't get in some place (like an apartment). But leaving it behind is scary. Not having it available makes me feel like part of my body is missing. I miss it, and feel less whole. Which is ironic because most people see me as more whole when I walk.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Shoes and fashion
So this is a very belated rant on shoes and fashion inspired in part by Wheelchair Dancer's article on shoes (Wheelchair Dancer: Name and Shame: Shaw Shoes).
Why is it that all fashions are created to only look good on people when they are standing? Seriously, I have tried on so many outfits that look great when I'm standing, but the minute I sit down I seem to gain 30 pounds and lose a waist. Or they gap in the back, and could cover my knees in the front.
Now, most people these days spend most of their time sitting, right? So wouldn't it make sense to have clothes that look decent regardless of whether people are sitting or standing? Maybe this is the real reason it's proper to rise to greet people?
They do make "wheelchair" clothes. But throw that into a search engine and you are most likely to find something like a muu muu. No offense to those of you who like them, but I'm 26, I'm not ready for a muu muu. And you want to talk about adding weight, well, I refuse to wear those things. When truly stylish clothes designed for people in wheelchairs exist, they are horribly expensive. These mostly show up as jeans or slacks. But I'm not quite ready to spend $80 on a pair of jeans.
And people wonder why I sew my own these days. Hey fashion designers, why not design something that looks okay when people are sitting?
Teach the children
I miss walking. I miss not having parents pull their children away from me. I can never figure out if they are expecting that I will run them over, or if they are worried that their kids will hurt me somehow. I understand not wanting people to get in the way of people moving in general, but I'm not anymore out of control than a person walking and I'm not more likely to run a child over than someone else. Actually, I'm less likely, because I'm at their level, and I'll notice them.
I often see kids ask their parents questions and their parents quickly shush them. I get it, we don't want children to point out differences of every person that they see. It's likely to lead to issues later. There's one problem, if they never get the answers, then they grow up afraid of people with disabilities. There's also the problem that parents don't necessarily know the answers either. I would rather have parents or children ask me a question and learn and grow more tolerant, than have them stay afraid.
Ask. Ask respectfully and I'll answer.
I often see kids ask their parents questions and their parents quickly shush them. I get it, we don't want children to point out differences of every person that they see. It's likely to lead to issues later. There's one problem, if they never get the answers, then they grow up afraid of people with disabilities. There's also the problem that parents don't necessarily know the answers either. I would rather have parents or children ask me a question and learn and grow more tolerant, than have them stay afraid.
Ask. Ask respectfully and I'll answer.
ADA Restoration Act
As many of the people reading this might be aware, there is a push to update the ADA (American's with Disabilities Act). http://www.aapd-dc.org/News/adainthe/indexada_restore.php
Basically, judges have eliminated many of the protections of the ADA. It's the only civil rights legislation where you have to first prove that you deserve to be protected. It would be like having to prove that you are black enough to not be discriminated against for being black. It also tries to decide who is "disabled enough" to need protection. I say if an employer won't hire you because of your disability, you're disabled enough.
Critics say that it would kill small businesses. http://www.employmentblawg.com/2008/does-the-ada-americans-with-disabilities-act-need-restoration/ By expanding the definition of disability, it would end up including everyone who had even a minor physical "imperfection." Of course, this ignores the fact that you shouldn't be discriminating against employees because of scars either, and that the ADA only comes into effect when there is discrimination. So I actually find that to be an odd argument.
Another objection is that it still considers someone disabled if there are medications or assistive technology (including glasses) that can mitigate the disability. Well, if someone is being fired because they need glasses then that's a pretty stupid reason, and it probably shouldn't be allowed. You shouldn't be fired for being hard of hearing just because you have hearing aids. You shouldn't be fired for being diabetic even if you control it with insulin. So what's the issue here?
Finally, critics object to the idea that the ADA would then force employers to PROVE that a person can't be qualified to do a job even with accommodations, or PROVE that the accommodations are not reasonable. It takes the burden of proof off the person with the disability and onto the employer. I'm not quite understanding why that's a problem, but the article I linked to seems to think that this will have people with disabilities suing over every management decision. Again, ignoring the issue that it only comes into effect if there is discrimination.
I know first hand how hard it can be to get a job when you are disabled. I've seen people look at the chair in an interview and wonder how much hiring me will cost them. And I'm sick of it.
Basically, judges have eliminated many of the protections of the ADA. It's the only civil rights legislation where you have to first prove that you deserve to be protected. It would be like having to prove that you are black enough to not be discriminated against for being black. It also tries to decide who is "disabled enough" to need protection. I say if an employer won't hire you because of your disability, you're disabled enough.
Critics say that it would kill small businesses. http://www.employmentblawg.com/2008/does-the-ada-americans-with-disabilities-act-need-restoration/ By expanding the definition of disability, it would end up including everyone who had even a minor physical "imperfection." Of course, this ignores the fact that you shouldn't be discriminating against employees because of scars either, and that the ADA only comes into effect when there is discrimination. So I actually find that to be an odd argument.
Another objection is that it still considers someone disabled if there are medications or assistive technology (including glasses) that can mitigate the disability. Well, if someone is being fired because they need glasses then that's a pretty stupid reason, and it probably shouldn't be allowed. You shouldn't be fired for being hard of hearing just because you have hearing aids. You shouldn't be fired for being diabetic even if you control it with insulin. So what's the issue here?
Finally, critics object to the idea that the ADA would then force employers to PROVE that a person can't be qualified to do a job even with accommodations, or PROVE that the accommodations are not reasonable. It takes the burden of proof off the person with the disability and onto the employer. I'm not quite understanding why that's a problem, but the article I linked to seems to think that this will have people with disabilities suing over every management decision. Again, ignoring the issue that it only comes into effect if there is discrimination.
I know first hand how hard it can be to get a job when you are disabled. I've seen people look at the chair in an interview and wonder how much hiring me will cost them. And I'm sick of it.
Monday, June 16, 2008
30 Days
Sorry for the delay. Work has beat out blogging the last few weeks.
I wonder how many people caught the last episode of "30 Days". For those of you who haven't seen it, the premise of the show is that someone tries to live in someone else's shoes for 30 days. They've done shows of several professions, living on minimum wage, and a few other things over the years. Generally it's decent enough, and interesting to see what living in someone else's life could be like.
Last week, the show was about living for 30 days in a wheelchair. Specifically, Ray Crockett, a former NFL player, tried living the life of a paraplegic. They allowed him to get up and stretch once a day, but otherwise he was supposed to pretend he couldn't use his legs. Generally, I hate these activities. I think most of the time people only see how hard it is, and end up pitying wheelies. But in this case, I think he learned something.
They sent him home without making any adjustments to his car or home. While he didn't face many of the issues with his home and car that many new paras face, he still struggled. His car easily held the nice little chair that he was given. And he had a bathroom big enough to use comfortably. Doorways weren't a problem, but steps were. And so was having to be driven everywhere by his wife (though she seemed more put out than he did). After they brought in ramps and things, he actually had few problems navigating his house, or his car. At the end of the first day, he was close to giving up.
One of the advantages of this program, as opposed to most "try a wheelchair" projects, is that he actually met people who are paras and quads. One young woman is a new quad, still in rehab learning to do some of the basics all over. Watching her progress is clearly an influence in not giving up for Ray.
He also attends a support group of people who are recently disabled. And the thought of "could I really do this if it were for longer than 30 days" is clearly in Ray's mind. He struggles to find a way to connect to his children without his athleticism (he later figures out that this is something of a self-imposed limitation).
Next up, is a meeting with a quad rugby team. The team that was filmed for the movie "Murderball". And for the first time, he realizes that he isn't in as good a shape as he thought he was. These guys were running laps around him, and the look on his face was priceless. Suddenly, these weren't people to be pitied, they were people to be looked up to.
The show mentions the need for disability rights, and links that in with the wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and the issue of stem cells. I wish it had addressed the financial costs of disability a little more. While they did mention that Ray was in a better position than most people because he had the money to pay for ramps and other adaptations to his home and car, I wish they had addressed this more, especially considering the difficulty that many people with paralysis have with getting and keeping good jobs.
While the show continuously uses language that I wish the world would abandon (wheelchair bound), I think overall it presents a good balance. It shows both the triumphs and the challenges that people with paralysis face.
I'll add a link when and if it shows up on YouTube
I wonder how many people caught the last episode of "30 Days". For those of you who haven't seen it, the premise of the show is that someone tries to live in someone else's shoes for 30 days. They've done shows of several professions, living on minimum wage, and a few other things over the years. Generally it's decent enough, and interesting to see what living in someone else's life could be like.
Last week, the show was about living for 30 days in a wheelchair. Specifically, Ray Crockett, a former NFL player, tried living the life of a paraplegic. They allowed him to get up and stretch once a day, but otherwise he was supposed to pretend he couldn't use his legs. Generally, I hate these activities. I think most of the time people only see how hard it is, and end up pitying wheelies. But in this case, I think he learned something.
They sent him home without making any adjustments to his car or home. While he didn't face many of the issues with his home and car that many new paras face, he still struggled. His car easily held the nice little chair that he was given. And he had a bathroom big enough to use comfortably. Doorways weren't a problem, but steps were. And so was having to be driven everywhere by his wife (though she seemed more put out than he did). After they brought in ramps and things, he actually had few problems navigating his house, or his car. At the end of the first day, he was close to giving up.
One of the advantages of this program, as opposed to most "try a wheelchair" projects, is that he actually met people who are paras and quads. One young woman is a new quad, still in rehab learning to do some of the basics all over. Watching her progress is clearly an influence in not giving up for Ray.
He also attends a support group of people who are recently disabled. And the thought of "could I really do this if it were for longer than 30 days" is clearly in Ray's mind. He struggles to find a way to connect to his children without his athleticism (he later figures out that this is something of a self-imposed limitation).
Next up, is a meeting with a quad rugby team. The team that was filmed for the movie "Murderball". And for the first time, he realizes that he isn't in as good a shape as he thought he was. These guys were running laps around him, and the look on his face was priceless. Suddenly, these weren't people to be pitied, they were people to be looked up to.
The show mentions the need for disability rights, and links that in with the wounded soldiers returning from Iraq and the issue of stem cells. I wish it had addressed the financial costs of disability a little more. While they did mention that Ray was in a better position than most people because he had the money to pay for ramps and other adaptations to his home and car, I wish they had addressed this more, especially considering the difficulty that many people with paralysis have with getting and keeping good jobs.
While the show continuously uses language that I wish the world would abandon (wheelchair bound), I think overall it presents a good balance. It shows both the triumphs and the challenges that people with paralysis face.
I'll add a link when and if it shows up on YouTube
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Wow, you're so brave
I thought I'd blog a bit about compliments. Because for me, and many other disabled people, they can be a little bit mixed. I'm not saying that I don't like compliments. I like to be told that I'm pretty or smart. I like to be congratulated on completing a tough assignment at work, or finishing a particularly pretty piece of knitting. What I'm tired of, is the compliment that I am "brave" or "amazing" for just living my life.
Maybe someone can tell me what the alternative is. I mean, I suppose I could kill myself. Or I could wallow in misery. But neither of those options seem that appealing. Not that I don't have bad days. Who doesn't? But I also have good days. And I don't want to be called brave just because I have days where I'm comfortable in my own skin.
Next time you are tempted to compliment a person with a disability on their bravery, ask yourself if you would say that if they weren't disabled. Especially if you are about to compliment them on just living with the circumstances of their life. We all have our struggles and challenges in life. Trust me, the wheelchair isn't the biggest one in mine.
I'm not brave. I just haven't found an alternative that seems more appealing.
Maybe someone can tell me what the alternative is. I mean, I suppose I could kill myself. Or I could wallow in misery. But neither of those options seem that appealing. Not that I don't have bad days. Who doesn't? But I also have good days. And I don't want to be called brave just because I have days where I'm comfortable in my own skin.
Next time you are tempted to compliment a person with a disability on their bravery, ask yourself if you would say that if they weren't disabled. Especially if you are about to compliment them on just living with the circumstances of their life. We all have our struggles and challenges in life. Trust me, the wheelchair isn't the biggest one in mine.
I'm not brave. I just haven't found an alternative that seems more appealing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
