Ableism is bigotry and discrimination at its worst.
(Cross-posted from http://comautworld.blogspot.com. As I said elsewhere, "I am big on human rights, especially disability rights. And the right of a person to be as independent as possible trumps the right of anyone else to feel comfortable emotionally."
One of my dear friends, J, has cerebral palsy and fibromyalgia. As a result, she has mobility issues that she handles quite nicely with her service dog and wheelchair. She is sometimes able to navigate without either, but as a general rule she prefers to bring her dog to help her get around. This dog was trained by her and is incredibly well-behaved. He wears a vest when he's working, so you know when you can't pet him. The two of them do presentations about disabilities and service dogs for schools and organizations.
J and I met via NaNoWriMo, that writing contest I do every November (you know, where I have to write 50,000 words in 30 days). As you may or may not be aware, I was the regional coordinator (ML) for Calgary from 2005 until 2008. (I may choose to take up the mantle for Saskatoon, but that's beside the point.) I take my ML duties very seriously, and always did my best to ensure that the locations I booked for meets were accessible for individuals with disabilities who used wheelchairs as well as for anyone who had to rely on public transit to get where they were going. J brought her dog along to the first meet she came to, and it was a complete non-issue. There were nearly 50 people in our party, and the place was busy, but he was great and lay under the table and didn't disturb anybody. He behaved the same way at every other meet she brought him to. The one time J used her wheelchair, it was cumbersome and unwieldly, and there were a lot more issues getting her where she needed to be.
This weekend is the birthday of J's mother-in-law. There is much drama surrounding whether or not the dog is to come to the birthday dinner, which is being held at a restaurant he has been to many times in the past.
J's sister-in-law asked if they could leave the dog behind, purportedly because when she told her mother that the dog would be there, her mother sounded "sad." She says that J should just use her wheelchair.
There are many reasons why the chair is not an option, the main one being that J uses botox injections to loosen up her leg muscles, and at this point in the botox cycle she is in pain a lot of the time. The chair exacerbates this pain. That alone is reason enough to forgo the chair and bring the dog instead. In addition to being more difficult to maneouvre, the chair will draw more attention than the dog, and it limits J's independence. Given the fact that Aids to Daily Living are meant to increase the independence of individuals with disabilities, it should be fairly obvious that the dog is a better choice, period.
Except, apparently, the mother's feelings about this matter trump the many reasons why the dog should come. According to the sister, the dog should not be an option because her mother should be happy on her birthday, and because the mother sounded sad on the phone, the dog's presence would make her unhappy, and that is all that matters.
Unfortunately for J's in-laws, one person's happiness does not trump someone else's right to be as pain-free and independent as possible, especially when the methods to be employed break no laws and put nobody in physical danger.
Here is how I put it on Facebook (names have been altered):
There is absolutely no reason why [the dog] should be left at home.
It is discriminatory to try to mandate what Aids to Daily Living (ADL) an individual with a disability can and cannot use. The point of ADL is to INCREASE INDEPENDENCE.
[The dog] is a better option than the chair because the dog increases independence much more than the chair does. I have seen both in action, and the chair is much more difficult to deal with.
I have never even THOUGHT about asking that [the dog] be left behind for events that I have run, because it would be discriminatory to do so. Accommodation means booking the event in a place where individuals with disabilities will be comfortable and that is easy to access for those with mobility problems.
The chair causes pain, as well, which is important to consider. I don't think someone's emotional comfort is more important than the physical comfort of someone else, especially if the person who will be in physical pain is already dealing with constant pain anyway. What kind of a person would expect or even ASK that of somebody? Seriously?!?
Accepting somebody means accepting their disability, as well. This means accepting the different ways they cope with their disability. Some people with ADHD take medication, others do not. Some blind people use guide dogs, others use a cane. Some deaf people communicate using speech, some use sign language. Some people with mobility problems use a service dog, some use a wheelchair, some use a scooter, some use a walker, some use a cane. Some people with epilepsy have a service animal that alerts them to seizures, some don't. There are a lot of different ways to deal with disabilities, and only the person who actually has the disability knows what is best for their particular problems.
Someone needs to ask C's mother why she doesn't want the dog there. Sparing her feelings is a ridiculous excuse for not doing so. So far, all of this discussion and drama is taking place without her input, and that is not right. So somebody ask her. Then maybe there'll be some light shed on the situation, and a properly informed decision can be made.
In short, your closed-mindedness should not be J's problem, and if she and C choose to attend this dinner, I really hope they bring [the dog] along, because that is what is best for J and her disability.
The response from the sister was to completely ignore all points and focus in on her mother's happiness on her birthday. To which I replied as follows (names modified):
Wow, B, did you even read everything I wrote?
Yes, a person's happiness on their birthday matters.
However, the RIGHT of a person to be INDEPENDENT trumps the happiness of another person. [The dog] helps J to be more independent than the chair does.
Also, the RIGHT of a person to be as FREE OF PHYSICAL PAIN AS POSSIBLE trumps the happiness of another person. [The dog] is a less painful option for J right now.
Have you asked your mother what she thinks yet? Cuz if you haven't, you really should.
No, my opinion doesn't affect the situation. I never thought it would. However, it would be an incredibly Good Thing if you took a moment to actually LISTEN to those of us who deal with disabilities on a daily basis.
This is ableism, pure and simple. C's family (J's in-laws) is assuming that J can choose which mobility aid to use based on the convenience of others, and this is simply not true. While those of us who are mobile have the freedom to choose between walking, running, riding a bike, and any number of other choices, J hasn't got those choices. If she's going to get somewhere, she often needs the dog or her wheelchair. I think she does sometimes use another mobility aid, like a cane of some kind, but I have not seen her use it. I have, however, seen the dog in action, and I think he is probably the best option most of the time.
The extent of the sister's bigotry, by the way, is seen in her assertion that if J were blind and used a guide dog she would still ask that the dog be left at home. I can understand, to some extent, asking that a service dog be left behind, since they are less common and not as well understood as guide dogs. But to ask any individuals with a disability to change his or her accommodations to suit your sensibilities is outrageous. (And we know it's not allergies because C grew up with dogs in her home. This is something directed entirely at J and her service dog and seems to be something to do with disabilities in general.)
As J has put it, the dog is a part of her. Accepting J means accepting the dog. That's all there is to it.
To sum up, let me give the response Brad Bill offered over on Facebook (again, names have been altered):
The long and the short of all this seems to be that B has fallen on the wrong side of this issue. And the bigger problem is that --even if she knows it-- there's no graceful way for her to climb down and admit she's at fault.
As was said earlier, a person's right to be comfortable and largely pain-free will always be more important than someone else's perceived "comfort" or "happiness" --even on her birthday.
We do live in a free country, so B is perfectly entitled to think/feel whatever she likes, but anybody with a shred of wisdom and compassion and decency will know better.
Sad.
Sad it truly, truly is.
One of my dear friends, J, has cerebral palsy and fibromyalgia. As a result, she has mobility issues that she handles quite nicely with her service dog and wheelchair. She is sometimes able to navigate without either, but as a general rule she prefers to bring her dog to help her get around. This dog was trained by her and is incredibly well-behaved. He wears a vest when he's working, so you know when you can't pet him. The two of them do presentations about disabilities and service dogs for schools and organizations.
J and I met via NaNoWriMo, that writing contest I do every November (you know, where I have to write 50,000 words in 30 days). As you may or may not be aware, I was the regional coordinator (ML) for Calgary from 2005 until 2008. (I may choose to take up the mantle for Saskatoon, but that's beside the point.) I take my ML duties very seriously, and always did my best to ensure that the locations I booked for meets were accessible for individuals with disabilities who used wheelchairs as well as for anyone who had to rely on public transit to get where they were going. J brought her dog along to the first meet she came to, and it was a complete non-issue. There were nearly 50 people in our party, and the place was busy, but he was great and lay under the table and didn't disturb anybody. He behaved the same way at every other meet she brought him to. The one time J used her wheelchair, it was cumbersome and unwieldly, and there were a lot more issues getting her where she needed to be.
This weekend is the birthday of J's mother-in-law. There is much drama surrounding whether or not the dog is to come to the birthday dinner, which is being held at a restaurant he has been to many times in the past.
J's sister-in-law asked if they could leave the dog behind, purportedly because when she told her mother that the dog would be there, her mother sounded "sad." She says that J should just use her wheelchair.
There are many reasons why the chair is not an option, the main one being that J uses botox injections to loosen up her leg muscles, and at this point in the botox cycle she is in pain a lot of the time. The chair exacerbates this pain. That alone is reason enough to forgo the chair and bring the dog instead. In addition to being more difficult to maneouvre, the chair will draw more attention than the dog, and it limits J's independence. Given the fact that Aids to Daily Living are meant to increase the independence of individuals with disabilities, it should be fairly obvious that the dog is a better choice, period.
Except, apparently, the mother's feelings about this matter trump the many reasons why the dog should come. According to the sister, the dog should not be an option because her mother should be happy on her birthday, and because the mother sounded sad on the phone, the dog's presence would make her unhappy, and that is all that matters.
Unfortunately for J's in-laws, one person's happiness does not trump someone else's right to be as pain-free and independent as possible, especially when the methods to be employed break no laws and put nobody in physical danger.
Here is how I put it on Facebook (names have been altered):
There is absolutely no reason why [the dog] should be left at home.
It is discriminatory to try to mandate what Aids to Daily Living (ADL) an individual with a disability can and cannot use. The point of ADL is to INCREASE INDEPENDENCE.
[The dog] is a better option than the chair because the dog increases independence much more than the chair does. I have seen both in action, and the chair is much more difficult to deal with.
I have never even THOUGHT about asking that [the dog] be left behind for events that I have run, because it would be discriminatory to do so. Accommodation means booking the event in a place where individuals with disabilities will be comfortable and that is easy to access for those with mobility problems.
The chair causes pain, as well, which is important to consider. I don't think someone's emotional comfort is more important than the physical comfort of someone else, especially if the person who will be in physical pain is already dealing with constant pain anyway. What kind of a person would expect or even ASK that of somebody? Seriously?!?
Accepting somebody means accepting their disability, as well. This means accepting the different ways they cope with their disability. Some people with ADHD take medication, others do not. Some blind people use guide dogs, others use a cane. Some deaf people communicate using speech, some use sign language. Some people with mobility problems use a service dog, some use a wheelchair, some use a scooter, some use a walker, some use a cane. Some people with epilepsy have a service animal that alerts them to seizures, some don't. There are a lot of different ways to deal with disabilities, and only the person who actually has the disability knows what is best for their particular problems.
Someone needs to ask C's mother why she doesn't want the dog there. Sparing her feelings is a ridiculous excuse for not doing so. So far, all of this discussion and drama is taking place without her input, and that is not right. So somebody ask her. Then maybe there'll be some light shed on the situation, and a properly informed decision can be made.
In short, your closed-mindedness should not be J's problem, and if she and C choose to attend this dinner, I really hope they bring [the dog] along, because that is what is best for J and her disability.
The response from the sister was to completely ignore all points and focus in on her mother's happiness on her birthday. To which I replied as follows (names modified):
Wow, B, did you even read everything I wrote?
Yes, a person's happiness on their birthday matters.
However, the RIGHT of a person to be INDEPENDENT trumps the happiness of another person. [The dog] helps J to be more independent than the chair does.
Also, the RIGHT of a person to be as FREE OF PHYSICAL PAIN AS POSSIBLE trumps the happiness of another person. [The dog] is a less painful option for J right now.
Have you asked your mother what she thinks yet? Cuz if you haven't, you really should.
No, my opinion doesn't affect the situation. I never thought it would. However, it would be an incredibly Good Thing if you took a moment to actually LISTEN to those of us who deal with disabilities on a daily basis.
This is ableism, pure and simple. C's family (J's in-laws) is assuming that J can choose which mobility aid to use based on the convenience of others, and this is simply not true. While those of us who are mobile have the freedom to choose between walking, running, riding a bike, and any number of other choices, J hasn't got those choices. If she's going to get somewhere, she often needs the dog or her wheelchair. I think she does sometimes use another mobility aid, like a cane of some kind, but I have not seen her use it. I have, however, seen the dog in action, and I think he is probably the best option most of the time.
The extent of the sister's bigotry, by the way, is seen in her assertion that if J were blind and used a guide dog she would still ask that the dog be left at home. I can understand, to some extent, asking that a service dog be left behind, since they are less common and not as well understood as guide dogs. But to ask any individuals with a disability to change his or her accommodations to suit your sensibilities is outrageous. (And we know it's not allergies because C grew up with dogs in her home. This is something directed entirely at J and her service dog and seems to be something to do with disabilities in general.)
As J has put it, the dog is a part of her. Accepting J means accepting the dog. That's all there is to it.
To sum up, let me give the response Brad Bill offered over on Facebook (again, names have been altered):
The long and the short of all this seems to be that B has fallen on the wrong side of this issue. And the bigger problem is that --even if she knows it-- there's no graceful way for her to climb down and admit she's at fault.
As was said earlier, a person's right to be comfortable and largely pain-free will always be more important than someone else's perceived "comfort" or "happiness" --even on her birthday.
We do live in a free country, so B is perfectly entitled to think/feel whatever she likes, but anybody with a shred of wisdom and compassion and decency will know better.
Sad.
Sad it truly, truly is.