Further decending into misogyny
So I think I've mentioned before how becoming disabled has turned me into something of a misogynist, haven't I? I've at least alluded to it, as I know I've mentioned several times that women by far treat me worse than men when it comes to disability-related issues. Women are way more likely to slam doors in my face, approach me with judgmental assertions, and so on. And I know I'm not the only one - I have other disabled friends who have experienced similar trends, and there are now various blogs like FWD/Forward devoted to disability feminism explicitly because mainstream feminism pretty much consistently ignores disability issues and the intersectionality therein. I've never really understood why it's usually women who treat disabled people horribly, especially other disabled women, but I suspect it is somehow tied into the phenomenon of why women cut down other women, disabled or not. I suppose it's just that being disabled makes you an even more visible/easy target.
I know there are lots of compassionate women out there, and these are the ones I try hard to make allies with (the flip side of my experiences is that I've also found that, among my female friends and acquaintances who do understand disability, they are also more likely than the males to vocally assert my rights in tough situations). But overall, when I hear blanket statements about women being more caring and nurturing, my stomach turns, because I know from experience that's total bullshit.
Still, I try to give everyone I meet an equal chance. I try to be open to the possibility that maybe things will change, maybe it is that women have fewer opportunities to interact with disabled people and it's simply an awareness issue. But it isn't easy.
Latest case in point: this news story. In sum: A couple and their kids are living in the Beaches, a trendy neighbourhood in Toronto. The wife develops a condition that requires her to use a wheelchair and suddenly their house is not suitable because it is not wheelchair-friendly. Not wanting to leave the neighbourhood, disrupt their kids' schooling, etc., they start looking for an alternative. They are unable to find a condo big enough for the whole family, but after searching for 18 months, a house on a large enough lot becomes available. The house itself is not wheelchair-accessible, but after making sure they would be allowed to tear it down and rebuild a new one, they purchase it. The husband makes the "mistake" of blogging about the demolition and a neighbour discovers this and recruits her city councillor to help designate the house as a heritage property (i.e. can not be torn down). Another Beaches property owner, who doesn't even live there (she lives in Germany), also joins the fight against demolition of the house. The city councillor quickly submits a motion to designate the property a heritage site, but she ends up having to withdraw the motion, as the family has now obtained the demolition permit.
It's such a clusterfuck of issues, e.g. is something valuable just because it is old? if someone owns property, should they be allowed to do what they want even if it deviates from the rest of the neighbourhood? why is the heritage designation process so easily manipulated outside the control of the property owner? etc.
But for me, the two most disturbing issues are:
1) the notion that property values could ever trump human rights (there's a lot of online comments claiming "it's not a disability/human rights issue" or that the family has mentioned the disability only as a ploy to get support for their project - I wish I were joking!);
and even more so, which I haven't seen explicitly highlighted anywhere, is that:
2) the most vocal opponents of the demolition are/were all women - the neighbours and the councillor. And it's hard not to get furious when I read comments from a women in one of the related blogs claiming that the wife should stick to using the back entrance of the existing house which apparently is accessible. Never mind that it doesn't change the fact the rest of the house is inaccessible; in any other context, telling someone they are not allowed the same access is unacceptable. Even up to the bitter end, the neighbours and the councillor are declaring their opposition (the councillor even had the gall to tell the family publically that they should have consulted her before buying the house, essentially blaming them for the whole mess!)
It enrages and saddens me that it's women actively oppressing another women (and in this case it's clearly not a simple issue of awareness of the challenges faced by a person with a disability). I try to remind myself that it could be just another coincidence, but I'm having trouble believing myself.
It's also my disability that's made me a small "l" liberal and small "a" activist (I don't do any group activism at all anymore), for essentially the same reasons. There is so much hypocrisy on the left about being inclusive, etc. but with zero actual support (and in many cases active opposition) for the core issues. At least conservatives don't claim to care about us cripples. But that's a rant for another day.
I know there are lots of compassionate women out there, and these are the ones I try hard to make allies with (the flip side of my experiences is that I've also found that, among my female friends and acquaintances who do understand disability, they are also more likely than the males to vocally assert my rights in tough situations). But overall, when I hear blanket statements about women being more caring and nurturing, my stomach turns, because I know from experience that's total bullshit.
Still, I try to give everyone I meet an equal chance. I try to be open to the possibility that maybe things will change, maybe it is that women have fewer opportunities to interact with disabled people and it's simply an awareness issue. But it isn't easy.
Latest case in point: this news story. In sum: A couple and their kids are living in the Beaches, a trendy neighbourhood in Toronto. The wife develops a condition that requires her to use a wheelchair and suddenly their house is not suitable because it is not wheelchair-friendly. Not wanting to leave the neighbourhood, disrupt their kids' schooling, etc., they start looking for an alternative. They are unable to find a condo big enough for the whole family, but after searching for 18 months, a house on a large enough lot becomes available. The house itself is not wheelchair-accessible, but after making sure they would be allowed to tear it down and rebuild a new one, they purchase it. The husband makes the "mistake" of blogging about the demolition and a neighbour discovers this and recruits her city councillor to help designate the house as a heritage property (i.e. can not be torn down). Another Beaches property owner, who doesn't even live there (she lives in Germany), also joins the fight against demolition of the house. The city councillor quickly submits a motion to designate the property a heritage site, but she ends up having to withdraw the motion, as the family has now obtained the demolition permit.
It's such a clusterfuck of issues, e.g. is something valuable just because it is old? if someone owns property, should they be allowed to do what they want even if it deviates from the rest of the neighbourhood? why is the heritage designation process so easily manipulated outside the control of the property owner? etc.
But for me, the two most disturbing issues are:
1) the notion that property values could ever trump human rights (there's a lot of online comments claiming "it's not a disability/human rights issue" or that the family has mentioned the disability only as a ploy to get support for their project - I wish I were joking!);
and even more so, which I haven't seen explicitly highlighted anywhere, is that:
2) the most vocal opponents of the demolition are/were all women - the neighbours and the councillor. And it's hard not to get furious when I read comments from a women in one of the related blogs claiming that the wife should stick to using the back entrance of the existing house which apparently is accessible. Never mind that it doesn't change the fact the rest of the house is inaccessible; in any other context, telling someone they are not allowed the same access is unacceptable. Even up to the bitter end, the neighbours and the councillor are declaring their opposition (the councillor even had the gall to tell the family publically that they should have consulted her before buying the house, essentially blaming them for the whole mess!)
It enrages and saddens me that it's women actively oppressing another women (and in this case it's clearly not a simple issue of awareness of the challenges faced by a person with a disability). I try to remind myself that it could be just another coincidence, but I'm having trouble believing myself.
It's also my disability that's made me a small "l" liberal and small "a" activist (I don't do any group activism at all anymore), for essentially the same reasons. There is so much hypocrisy on the left about being inclusive, etc. but with zero actual support (and in many cases active opposition) for the core issues. At least conservatives don't claim to care about us cripples. But that's a rant for another day.