Showing posts with label disabled. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disabled. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

"Got another forgery then, have you?"

The last few weeks I've been on two crutches rather than one. This started when I tripped and tore a toenail off, then continued when I got new neurological symptoms in a rather large new section of my left thigh.

While I am normally all in favour of the wonder of mobility aids, because they give people freedom and independence and, well, mobility, I get seriously less enthusiastic when I need two crutches rather than one. It means I am hurting my elbows and wrists on both arms instead of just one, it makes doing nearly anything a nightmare. I have to ask for help a lot more, it hurts, I hate it.

If it turns out to be long-term I'll just have to get the hang of it, but in the meantime, I'm seriously unimpressed.

This morning I got on the bus. It's a local service where it tends to be the same drivers most of the time, so I know some of them. Today, on spotting that I had two crutches and not one, a driver I know reasonably well said, "got another forgery then, have you?", and laughed.

It was banter. That bloody word. Can't I take a joke?

On top of feeling distinctly unimpressed with the two crutch situation already, this idiot added a whole other layer of fed-up-ness to the mix. For the rest of the day I felt self-conscious. Do all these people think I'm faking?

If he had thought about it, even for a millisecond, he would perhaps have realised that an increase in the number of crutches perhaps corresponded with a deterioration in my health. He would perhaps have realised that I might not be overjoyed about that.

Today was so painful. My arms are completely wrecked, and my right hand is considerably worse than usual. I don't know if that is a progression of the condition, or just a reaction to too much crutch use today.

It's not funny. It's not banter. It's thoughtless and fucking cruel, if you take even a second to think about it.

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Workfare: Exploitative and cruel, especially for disabled people

Some disabled people are completely fit for work, but cannot find any, so claim Jobseekers' Allowance. This is particularly an issue because disabled people face many barriers to work, including inaccessible workplaces, employer prejudice and employers being ignorant of, or refusing to adhere to the Equalities Act in relation to reasonable accommodations.

Increasingly, however, disabled people who are not fit for work are finding themselves claiming Jobseekers' Allowance, when they are reassessed and fail to meet the limited criteria for ESA. The result of this is that more and more people are signing on, but also unable to work, for health reasons.

The Guardian has published a press release from the DWP, which states,
People who have been unemployed for more than two years and haven't secured sustainable employment could be referred onto compulsory community work placements under plans being considered by the government.

Under the proposals people who have been supported intensively through the Work Programme for two years yet have still not entered sustainable employment, may have to do community work or ultimately they could lose their benefit entitlement.

Ministers believe a minority of jobseekers struggle to engage with the system fully, are unable to hold down a job and therefore require a greater level of support.

The government is to test compulsory community work coupled with more intensive support through Jobcentre Plus in four key areas ahead of rolling out the scheme
nationwide in 2013.

This is fundamentally unfair. We are in a position as a country where unemployment rates are rising, and job opportunities are shrinking. If someone has failed to get a job in 2 years, it is most likely to be due to circumstances outside their control, and to then force them into unpaid labour, against the threat of losing their pittance of an income from JSA, is exploitative.

For disabled people, even moreso. People who are disabled but genuinely fit for work will still require adaptations, accommodations, and accessibility. These people are less likely to have found a job in 2 years because of the reasons I explained above. And will the people who are happy to take unpaid labour also be happy to accommodate people with complex needs and requirements?

And those who have been found fit for work but are, in fact, not at all fit for work, will be in the most trouble. All of the above, on top of not being well enough to do it. Will their regular sickness absences or inability to be reliable cause them to lose their benefit entitlement? I would imagine so, according to what the press release says.

Workfare is exploitative and unfair to everybody who is forced to do it. For disabled people it has added layers of unfairness, which have the potential to leave, yet again, the most vulnerable abandoned without financial support.

Cross-posted at Where's the Benefit?. Thanks to @m_s_collins for prompting me to write this.

[The image is a black and white photograph taken at a protest in New Zealand against a Workfare programme. There are numerous people with placards saying, "The rich get rich at the expense of the poor" and "Real jobs not workfare". It was taken by SocialistWorkerNZ and is used under a Creative Commons Licence]

Thursday, July 07, 2011

When the dignity of one person is denied, all of us are denied


Disabled people in the UK have been under constant attack lately. Whether it's the vast and wide-ranging benefit cuts; Birmingham city council refusing care to people with substantial needs, which has since been ruled unlawful; cuts in Access to Work, ironically when we are being told we should all be getting jobs; or the impending closure of the Independent Living Fund, the hits feel like they are coming from every direction.

But I read about a case a few days ago, Court tells disabled woman: just wet yourself, and it showed me just how government cuts are affecting real people. It is not an 'austerity measure', nor is it 'small government', it is an affront to a woman's dignity and human rights, and we should all be utterly outraged.

Elaine McDonald has just lost a Supreme Court fight for her local council to allow her to continue to have overnight care. Funding was withdrawn by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for the overnight care that Ms McDonald needs to assist her with going to the toilet during the night, and the council instead gave her some incontinence pads, stating that this was cheaper.

Elaine McDonald is not incontinent! And she, quite rightly, objects to being asked to lie in bed for 12 hours at a time (since her care has been cut), in her own waste. She needs to go to the toilet regularly due to a bladder dysfunction, and complained that providing pads instead of care caused a lack of dignity and independence.

Can you imagine if you were at work and your boss stated that bathroom breaks were wasting time and money, and that it would be cheaper for the company to provide everyone with incontinence pads instead? If you weren't on an authorised break then you could just use the pad instead, and sit in it until you were permitted to go? And Elaine McDonald is in her own home - of course, moving to a care home instead would cost the council considerably more.

Even in purely economic terms this is a questionable decision. The lack of mobility which she will now experience, and the potential infections from spending night after night in your own faeces and urine, could cause significantly worsened health and social problems, which would increase the cost of her care significantly. And some people in Ms McDonald's situation may try to go to the bathroom or commode regardless, risking increased falls and, thus, increased health and social care costs again.

But the Supreme Court judges ruled 4-1 that the council had acted lawfully. Judge Lady Hale, the sole judge to rule in Ms McDonald's favour, stated that,
"A person in her situation needs this help during the day as well as during the night and irrespective of whether she needs to urinate or to defecate.

"Logically, the decision of the majority in this case would entitle a local authority to withdraw this help even though the client needed to defecate during the night and thus might be left lying in her faeces until the carers came in the morning.

"Indeed, the majority view would also entitle an authority to withdraw this help during the day."

Of course, incontinent pads in themselves are not bad things. For people who are incontinent, they are invaluable. But Elaine McDonald does not need them and does not want to use them. Nobody should be put in this position, and she was right to challenge it legally. The depressing truth is that the council and courts rated costs over human dignity, and Ms McDonald could be the first victim of many.

And it seems that she is not the only person being challenged on their use of a toilet to save money. According to The Scotsman, "disabled residents at a supported-housing complex have been told to train themselves to go to the toilet at fixed times to fit in with a strict new rota". Is this where the infamous Big Society comes in? You can run libraries, or you can assist disabled people to go to the toilet. Because after all, those who should be providing those services will not bother.

[The image is a photograph of a hand, holding a piece of paper on which is printed, "The budget is killing me!". The photograph is adapted from an original, licensed under a Creative Commons licence, by Steve Rhodes.]

Friday, May 06, 2011

1 in 6 women would rather be blind than fat - so?

[The image is a disability access symbol for people with visual impairments. It has a dark blue background and a grey circle, in which there is a stick figure using what appears to be a cane. The image has been edited to add a fatter tummy and pink hair.]

I was alerted on twitter to a blog post about a recent study which reports that one in six women say they would rather be blind than obese. By sheer coincidence, I had just been reading Whose Tragedy? Towards a personal non-tragedy view of disability, by Sally French and John Swain (pdf), and this sentence stood out:
"To become visually impaired, for instance, may be a personal tragedy for a sighted person whose life is based around being sighted, who lacks knowledge of the experiences of people with visual impairments, whose identity is founded on being sighted, and who has been subjected to a daily diet of the personal tragedy model of visual impairment."
They go on to explain that the Tragedy model of disability and impairment "is not just significant for non-disabled people in understanding themselves and their own lives. It is extrapolated to assumptions about disabled people and their lives".

Non-disabled society's view of disability as something awful which happens to people is very disempowering, and negates the reality that what disables us is an inaccessible society, not the impairment(s) we may have. So, with that in mind, I found the horror with which the revelation that 'some women would rather be blind than fat' was met, to be very telling. Reading between the lines, I hear, Who on earth would rather be blind? Who would choose such a dreadful affliction over fatness?

How would that read to a blind woman? Oh em gee, some people would rather be like YOU than be fat! And how would it read to a fat, blind woman?! How much can we disempower disabled people in one go?

I agree that this survey suggests some very distressing things about women's attitudes to fatness and weight gain. It is depressing that being fat is so feared and so loathed. But saying that the most noteworthy of the things that women 'would rather be' was blind, and then using that as an example of just how incalculably far our body fascist society will make us go to avoid fatness, speaks volumes about our attitudes towards disability too.

Bibliofeminista's post ended by stating,
Maybe if we stopped fat-shaming and equating women’s attractiveness and worth to unreasonable, media-driven standards of beauty, women wouldn’t value their appearance over health..
But blindness in itself is not ill-health! There are very, very many completely healthy blind people, both thin and fat. While I agree with her absolutely about fat-shaming and unreasonable standards of beauty, the rest of the equation does not sit comfortably me, speaking as a fat, disabled woman. It makes me feel like women believe I must have the absolute worst of both worlds, and the last thing I want, when reading feminist websites, is to come away feeling worse about myself than when I started.

(With thanks to Leo Reynolds for the image which I used to create the picture above).

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Disabled women and sexual assault.

[A photograph of a bright pink, hand-written placard against a brick background, which says "I hate rape". There is a marker pen in the background.]

The Guardian has published an interview with Kier Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, about restoring rape victims' confidence in the criminal justice system.

Rape Crisis reports that
Only 15% of serious sexual offences against people 16 and over are reported to the police and of the rape offences that are reported, fewer than 6% result in an offender being convicted of this offence.
The lousy conviction rate is a key reason that many women do not report being raped. It can feel like a waste of time to even report, when the likelihood is that it will go nowhere?

In recent years, new concerns have emerged among women who are raped, as we hear of more and more being imprisoned themselves when their rape allegations were not proved in court, and perhaps most high profile, a woman who was imprisoned for retracting true allegations. With regard to this specifically, Starmer has now requested that all perverting the course of justice cases that involve retracted rape and domestic violence allegations should be submitted to him for approval.

It seems he is taking action, and I am very glad of that, as it is sorely needed. And Starmer insists that the 25% funding cut to the CPS will not affect sexual or domestic violence services.

One group of women that has been overlooked in these efforts to improve reporting of rape, is disabled women. Around 10 years ago I spoke to a specialist sexual assault police officer about having been raped. It did not go well, and we both decided that I should not proceed with making a formal report. This was initially because I was unable to tell her the details of what had happened. From my point of view, she was a stranger, a quite intimidating one at that, and I had never told anyone the intimate details of what had occurred (and in fact, I still haven't). From her point of view, if I couldn't tell her, then I would never be able to stand up in court and tell a roomful of strangers. I agree. The other reason, however, was that she found out I had mental health diagnoses. She said that this would make me an 'unreliable witness' in the eyes of the court, and my word would not be believed. There was no acknowledgement of cause and effect - that in fact sexual violence may have caused my distress. Many women experience mental distress after rape. If that automatically means we are not 'reliable witnesses', then it needs looking at urgently.

And it is not just women with psychiatric diagnoses who have difficulty reporting rape, or being taken seriously in the judicial system. Women with learning disabilities face similar prejudice, and may have difficulty communicating that any abuse has taken place at all. Disabled women can have more difficulty leaving an abusive relationship, particularly if they rely on the abusive partner to assist them with communication or mobility, and very few refuges are fully accessible even if they can leave.

In terms of domestic abuse, as well as physical, sexual and emotional abuse, there is an extra layer of abuse which can happen to disabled women. Their partner can withhold medication, over-medicate, refuse to assist the woman at all, or refuse dignified assistance options, if the partner is also the woman's carer. They can withhold communication aids, and limit mobility and outside contact considerably.

And it is not just that disabled women are less likely to be taken seriously, and less likely to have access to support and judicial services, we are also much more vulnerable to abuse.

As many as 83% of women who have been disabled since childhood have been the victims of sexual assault, 49% of whom experience 10 or more incidents. 40% of physically disabled women in one study reported have been sexually assaulted, and for individuals with psychiatric disabilities, the rate of violent criminal victimization including sexual assault was 2 times greater than in the general population. 45% of female psychiatric outpatients report being sexually abused during childhood, and horrifyingly, lifetime risk for violent victimization was 'so high for homeless women with severe mental illness (97%) as to amount to normative experiences for this population'. (Statistics all from Wisconsin Coalition against Sexual Assault - the sheer dearth of figures available about sexual assault and disabled women other than these from WCASA, is very telling in itself).

If these efforts to encourage women to come forward, and efforts to support women following sexual assault, do not start addressing the specific issues faced by disabled women, then they are doing all women a disservice. If there is a space in a refuge, but the steps into the building prevent a disabled woman from taking that place, then we are letting women down. If nobody checks with the woman who is unable to speak, whether her assistants are taking care of her with respect and not hurting her, we are letting women down. And if somebody doesn't believe the 'unreliable' learning disabled or mentally ill woman who talks about abuse, then we are letting women down. If disabled women do not have the same access to justice as non-disabled women, then women do not have access to justice.

(Photo by Steve Rhodes. Article cross-posted at The F-Word blog).


Sunday, October 24, 2010

Video Follow-Up

I've had such amazing support since posting the video yesterday. I also wanted to let you know that it has been re-posted at various places.

Mind In Flux posted it on her blog about mental health and disability.

The Broken of Britain is collecting the stories of disabled people in the UK, and has linked to the video.

And it has also been posted on Pickled Politics blog.

I am touched and moved that so many people have contacted me, and commented, in such a supportive way. It was a very scary thing to do, but it also felt very important. Thank you everyone.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Vlog Message to You.

In response to the wonderful words of BendyGirl.



[Edited to add a transcript of the video:

The last few days I've watched the videos from BendyGirl at Benefit Scrounging Scum, and I loved them, I thought they were brilliant. But I never thought it was something I could do, until in her second video she pointed out how important it is for everyone to speak out.

Like many, many people I am frightened by the proposed changes, the cuts, to disability benefits, and what's going to happen to services and the third sector.

The thought of withdrawing mobility rate... the thought of withdrawing the mobility section of DLA for people in care homes is disgusting. The thought that just because somebody was living in a care home, they no longer need to go anywhere, they no longer need mobility equipment, is just obscene.

The changes in housing benefit rules so that people under 35 in private rented accommodation can't get full housing benefit if they live on their own is disgusting.

And limiting ESA to one year, when so many people were fighting against the very principle of ESA at all, and now to have to change that fight to at least, it was perhaps better than nothing, and if people are going to be put on it because they are considered fit to work, even though we know that many, many people who are not fit for work are being put on ESA, the fact that that's now limited to one year, and nobody seems to know what would happen after that.

When we are in a recession, and people – everybody who isn't working is finding it difficult to find jobs, and the strange assumption that the few jobs that there are will go to disabled people, is just not unfortunately how this society works. Disablism means that disabled people are discriminated against every day, and that includes the disabled person who is well enough to work can find it more difficult to find that job because employers are frightened, or don't want to make changes, or don't know what it means.

I'm frightened. And I'm also, like many other people, very confused. I watched the budget on Wednesday, and I was thankfully using twitter at the same time because there were many aspects that I didn't understand, or that I thought I must have misheard. And that there was a group of us all watching and using twitter at the same time made it more accessible to me, I guess.

But there are many unanswered questions. I've heard of people ringing the DWP to say, 'What's this about ESA being stopped after a year?' and the DWP not being able to answer, because they don't know.

The Housing Benefit cuts, I've heard so many different stories about who it's being cut for. So it's not just that the changes are frightening, it's that they're very unclear, and people don't know where they stand.

When I first became ill and went on benefits, I just got Income Support, and it was a horrible time. With paying part of my rent out of that, and with making debt repayments out of that, I had £15 a week for food, and electricity, and transport. For months I lived on... I used to buy these tins of Irish Stew from Kwik Save, and they were disgusting, but they were really cheap, and I figured it was as close to a balanced diet as I could get because it had meat and potatoes in it. And for months, every day, I had one meal a day, and that consisted of Kwik Save Irish Stew and as much bread as I could eat. Every day. For months. I couldn't afford sanitary towels, I couldn't afford shampoo.

I didn't know about other benefits. And someone told me about DLA and I applied for it, and I eventually got it, and it was one of the key... it was key for me, it was vital. Because my health was bad enough anyway, it was vital for me because I could afford to eat more than Irish Stew. I could afford to go to places on the bus. And I'm talking medical appointments. Before that I was missing medical appointments because I couldn't afford to get there. I could get taxis. I could get ready meals when I wasn't well enough to cook.

Getting DLA literally changed everything for me. And makes, still makes, such a difference. It means that I can afford the extra things I need because I'm disabled. Like taxis. Like ready meals when I can't cook. Like mobility aids, and other aids I use. DLA, along with everything, is being threatened. With ATOS taking over the medicals. And after what they've done with the ESA medicals that's frightening, and many people who need DLA are going to lose it.

Everything that is happening since the new government came in is frightening to disabled people. And I'm not a Labour supporter. I know that various important Labour politicians have come out and said that they would be doing what the Conservatives are doing with regard to disability benefits. So I'm not falling into the trap of saying, 'the coalition government is awful, Labour is the answer', because they are... although they are fighting some aspects of the budget, they are supporting the disability benefit cuts.

I feel like I'm being punished for being disabled. The press and the government are doing a really good job at the moment of whipping up hatred, whipping up this image of disabled people being scroungers, of disabled people not really being disabled, and being workshy and lazy. The government and certain parts of the press are promoting this strongly and I can feel, in the atmosphere, that this is affecting people's views. And with the further cuts, this gets worse and worse.

What depresses me is not my illness. What depresses me is not my impairment. What depresses me is how I am treated because of it. That's what makes everything so much harder. We do need to speak out. Because disabled people are being scapegoated and it's horrible. And for non-disabled people, you don't know what's round the corner. I became disabled. Many people become disabled. It could be you in a few years, with no care packages, with no benefits, with no support. With people thinking... with people thinking you're lazy or can't be bothered, or exaggerating. Nobody's immune from disability. And there are some people in the government, the Prime Minister included, who really should know that through their own lives. I am so... I'm frightened, and I want to give a message of hope, but at the moment it's hard to find one.

So I'll agree with BendyGirl that the hope... maybe we have to get hope from each other... from knowing it's not just us, it's not just me that's frightened, it's not just me that's confused, who doesn't know what's happening and what's going to happen.

We're all in this together.]

Friday, October 08, 2010

An Easy Way to Email your MP to Protest Benefit Cuts.

Scope are running a campaign to email your MP to ask them to take action immediately to oppose the cuts to the public services and benefits that many disabled people in the UK use and rely on.

All you have to do is fill in your contact details, then your MP's email address is automatically found and you can read and alter the proposed message before you confirm that you would like it to be sent.

So, email your MP to protest the proposed cuts here.

Cross-posted at Where's the Benefit?.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Intrusive Questions

in·tru·sive/inˈtro͞osiv/Adjective

1. Making an unwelcome manifestation with disruptive or adverse effect.

2. (of a person) Disturbing another by one's uninvited or unwelcome presence.
Intrusive comments from strangers about my breasts began pretty much as soon as they grew. Intrusive 'are you anorexic?' questions happened when I was slim (and yes, some of that time, I was. Did you really want that answer?). Intrusive comments about my weight are different now, but still intrusive and rude.

But lately, the subject of the vast majority of intrusive questions I get asked are related to being disabled.

Practically every time I go out, someone asks me, "So, what've you done then?" and nods to the crutch. This happens disproportionately in the bus queue, oddly. But can happen anywhere - last week by the guy serving me in Subway, and he didn't even stop there.

I am never quite sure how to answer. In my head I come up with clever and funny stories to answer this question, involving shark attacks and being trampled by donkeys, but in reality these rarely come out of my mouth. I sometimes say, "I had an operation on my leg" which, while true, isn't entirely relevant. For what it's worth, regarding that actual question, I haven't done anything.

I could tell the truth of course, but it's a long, complicated and in depth story, and people wouldn't actually want to hear the whole thing. Not that I'd do this, because it's none of their business. If you are a complete stranger, you are not entitled to my medical history.

Some, like the Subway guy, go further. "What was the operation for?" "What does it feel like?"

Then there's the unsolicited advice that so frequently follows: "My mate had something like that and when he stopped eating *insert random food group here* it got better"; "Have you tried *insert unproven alternative treatment here*?"; "You want to be careful using that stick, you don't want to get reliant on it".

Look, I have a consultant on the case, and she knows a lot about this stuff. You don't. Just drop it.

Think about it this way, if you were waiting in your GP's surgery waiting room, and someone asked you what you were seeing the doctor for, you'd feel that that was an inappropriate and overly intrusive question. It's the same - perhaps worse - at a bus stop, or a sandwich shop, or in the park.

Just like telling me I have big boobs (as if I didn't know) is inappropriate, and telling me to eat less is inappropriate, and telling a slim woman to eat more is inappropriate, so asking a complete stranger about their impairment is also inappropriate.

Sometimes young kids ask me questions, and I don't mind that as much. They mainly want to know if it hurts. Then they get on with whatever they were doing before. Actual friends asking me questions is fine, and actual friends offering me advice based on something they've read can be helpful, because they know what I've already tried and what I'm likely to want to try.

But the man at the sandwich shop and the woman at the bus stop and every other stranger who feels entitled to know, it's not fine. My body is mine, in all its weirdnesses and failings and successes. Some of its details are visible to you, but it's still not ok to just tell me what you think because you can see that I have breasts, a big tummy, a limp, scars or a mobility aid.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Budget Impact on Disabled Women

Jess posted that women will bear the brunt of three-quarters of extra taxes and benefit cuts from the latest budget. Disabled people are also at risk, especially with the proposed changes to benefits, so disabled women will be particularly adversely affected.

In a 2004 study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, on the extra costs of living associated with being disabled, it was found that disabled people living on benefits face a weekly shortfall of £200 compared to the amount required for them to ensure an acceptable, equitable quality of life and minimum standard of living. And those results were for people on maximum benefit levels.

With many people who are too sick to work being 'pushed into seeking work without any help or support', and the continuing rolling out of ESA, a system condemned as 'unfit' by one of the very people who designed it, along with proposed 'savings' (by which we mean cuts) to Disability Living Allowance (DLA), many disabled people living on benefits will be even more limited.

The cost of living for everybody, as well as the particular extra costs of living for disabled people, continues to rise, and will do so especially with the increase in VAT. As benefits are frozen and essentially cut, disabled women in particular will be seriously adversely affected.

For working disabled women, there will also be more problems. The Joseph Rowntree report found that disabled people with high-medium needs would find themselves with a shortfall of £80 a week, not even including possible PA costs. Add to this that more disabled people tend to work in the public sector than the private sector, where cuts are of course being made, and the situation is frightening. In addition, disabled people who work can claim Disability Living Allowance, so cuts and limitations will affect them too. In fact, some working people can only work because of the way they use their DLA to cover additional costs, so cutting that could well mean that some working disabled people would have to stop work, and claim benefits.

The proposed budgetary changes threaten to send many more women into poverty. They threaten to send many more disabled people into poverty. So for disabled women? It is a very scary time indeed.

Thursday, May 06, 2010

Signal Boost: Feminism and Mental Health – Call for Submissions

Found via FWD (feminists with disabilities) blog:
Feminism and Mental Health – Call for Submissions – Deadline: June 1, 2010

Call for Submissions:

The lived experience(s) of mental health in feminist communities

Call for submissions from people of any gender who identify with feminism and have lived experiences of a psychiatric diagnosis.

Our upcoming anthology, Feminist’s Navigate Mental Health (working title), will explore the complexities of navigating mental health and how a feminist identity may (or may not) shape those experiences, thoughts and feelings.

Submissions are welcomed in the form of personal short stories.

The submissions received will shape the outcome of the book. The final
manuscript will be submitted to relevant independent publishers.

Possible themes may include (but are not limited to):
o Coping – what works and what doesn’t
o Any positive aspects of your mental health that are commonly considered deficits
o Treatment preferences and past experiences
o Medication
o Personal/lived understandings of your diagnosis (acceptance or rejection)
o Stigma/tension around mental health issues in the feminist community
o Feminism and well-being/strength/empowerment
o Feminism and distress

Guidelines:
o Remember to take care of yourself while writing about topics that may be distressing;
o Good writing skills are great, but not mandatory! We will work with you to edit your piece;
o Submissions should be saved in .doc or .rtf, size 12 font, Arial or Times New Roman, and double spaced;
o 500 to 4000 words
o Include contact information and a brief biography;
o Only email submissions will be accepted;
o Submission deadline is June 1st, 2010.

Who we are
The women behind this project are Jenna MacKay and Alicia Merchant. Jenna is a psychiatric survivor and community activist who is particularly interested in violence and mental health. Alicia is a freelance writer and contributing editor for various magazines and has been published in CR Magazine, thirdspace and the Globe & Mail. Both self-identify as feminist, are interested in critical perspectives of health and live in Toronto. This project is not affiliated with any institution or organization.

Comments, concerns, questions and submissions should be directed to:

fnmhsubmissions@gmail.com


Saturday, May 01, 2010

Blogging Against Disablism Day: What Is Disablism?

What is disablism?

Disablism is arranging a meeting in an inaccessible venue.

Disablism is sitting in the 'priority' seats on public transport and not offering those seats to a disabled person, if you are not disabled yourself.

Disablism is when a doctor ignores physical health problems because you have mental health problems.

Disablism is parking in a disability car parking space when you are not disabled (even if it is *just for a minute*).

Disablism is using words like retard, psycho, spastic, handicapped and lame.

Disablism is thinking that making buildings accessible is 'bending over backwards' and political correctness gone mad.

Disablism is presuming that disabled people are less than you.

Disablism is not hiring a disabled person because of assumptions you have about their abilities or needs.

Disablism is staring at someone because they look different.

Disablism is making assumptions about what someone can and cannot do.

Disablism is making offensive jokes about a group of people on the basis of their impairment.

Disablism is presuming that disabled people's lives must be awful.

Disablism is casting a non-disabled person to play a disabled person in a play or TV show.

Disablism is disability hate crime.

Disablism is refusing to prescribe contraception to a learning disabled person because they can't possibly want to have sex.

Disablism is not acknowledging that many disabled people experience discrimination on multiple levels.

Disablism is frequently institutionalised.

Disablism is assumptions.

Disablism is not asking whether your event needs a sign language interpreter.

Disablism is going ahead and doing what you think might help, rather than asking someone what would help.

Disablism is refusing to prosecute men who rape mentally ill or learning disabled women, because the women are 'unreliable witnesses'.

Disablism is thinking that you don't need to consider access needs, because disabled people don't come to your events (and not wondering why they don't).

Disablism is assuming that someone you haven't met (or even that you have) is not disabled.

Disablism is presuming that people diagnosed with schizophrenia are dangerous and violent.

Disablism is thinking it is less tragic when a disabled person kills themselves than it is when a non-disabled person does.

Disablism is presumptions about 'quality of life'.

Disablism is behind all these news stories.

Disablism is sacking somebody when they become ill or disabled.

Disablism is not in the dictionary.

Disablism is telling us we are being punished for something we did in a past life.

Disablism is thinking that if someone doesn't look disabled, then they are not.

Disablism is ignoring somebody because you don't understand.

Disablism is thinking that disabled people 'have it too easy these days' and are therefore being overly demanding if they want to be able to get into a building.

(cross-posted at the f word)

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

The Election Is A Comin'

I'm not recruiting for votes. I haven't even conclusively decided who I'm voting for. So I thought I'd share some of the tools and sites I've been looking at to help me to decide who will get a cross on my ballot paper, and who will definitely not!

There are quizzes like Who Should You Vote For? online, where you tell them your attitudes to policies, and they tell you at the end which parties your views seem to coincide with the most.

Abortion Rights are doing an election campaign. You can download a factsheet, and lobby your candidates via the site. You just type in your postcode and it lets you email all your local candidates. It then requests that you let them know your candidates' responses to their questions on abortion rights, so that others who enter their postcode can see where everyone stands.

I have only had a response from one candidate (Green, and she answered the way I hoped she would), but hopefully the others will be forthcoming too.

Similarly, the UK Disabled People's Council have put together a list of questions which you may want to question your prospective MPs about.

MyGayVote.co.uk has pie charts showing how the different parties have fared in terms of their past votes on LGBT issues.

Planet Mouret Films is "a blog designed for learning disabled adults and those who are involved in the LD community", with lots of straight forward information about the general election, links to easy-read information about voting, easy-read manifestos and the rights of learning disabled adults to vote.

And Scope are urging "local authorities to act immediately to make sure polling stations are more accessible. They have warned that some people may find it difficult to vote in next month’s elections but said it was not too late for councils to make a difference."

(Cross-posted at The F Word)

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

The Supertram Problem Exists Worldwide.

Following my post yesterday about people not giving up 'priority seats' on Sheffield Supertram for disabled people, I have found some interesting links online.

I was reading Man on Crutches on Train with Camera and, about 2/3 of the way down, some words sounded familiar - I realised they were linking to a comment I made on the subject last April!

That article actually has some really interesting thoughts and information, which I want to look at in more detail when I have the chance. And it is talking about this blog, named People Who Sit In The Disability Seats When I'm Standing On My Crutches, where the creator took photos of those very people. This blog has not been posted on for nearly a year now, sadly. Though I could create my own alternative for Sheffield trams!

Another article I've found is The iPhone Vigilante, about the blog mentioned above. And I also found a discussion board message on the same issue, but in Singapore. This thread is another that I will havfe to read in better detail some other time, but one new idea I got from it is to suggest to Stagecoach that the messages announced through the tram system could include one about giving up your seat for someone who needs it more.

There is a discussion here, a yahoo discussion and a Facebook group, for those of you so inclined!

There will definitely be more happening on this issue, watch this space! (well, this blog at least).

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Disabled Access to Stagecoach Supertram in Sheffield

Something has bewildered me for some time. It's that normally, when I'm on a bus in Sheffield, if none of the Priority seats are free, other passengers usually offer me a seat when they see my walking stick or crutches. However, when I take the tram, this virtually never happens. I have no idea why tram passengers don't do this when bus passengers do.

Offering me a seat is immensely helpful. Standing up for any period of time, even short periods, causes me pain. Balancing on a moving vehicle with only one free hand, or no free hands (depending on whether I'm using one or two crutches) is really difficult, when my balance is already bad. And being able to sit down, even for a short journey, helps to delay the inevitable exhaustion, which means I can hopefully get a bit more done, wherever I'm going.

Since I had surgery a month ago, I have needed to sit down more. Standing up causes me much more pain, and even the slightest things tire me out.

So, this morning, I emailed Supertram about this, saying:
Dear Supertram,

I use the buses and trams regularly in Sheffield, and whenever I take a bus, if there are no free seats, I am nearly always offered a seat when someone sees that I am using crutches or a walking stick. However, when I take the tram, I am virtually never offered a seat.

I do not know why this is the case, but people on buses seem to have a lot more respect for the 'Please give up this seat if a disabled person needs it' type signs than they do on trams.

It makes my tram journeys very difficult and painful, and is putting me off using them at all.

I was wondering if there is anything you feel you could do to help with this situation. I am obviously aware that there are people with invisible disabilities who would have every right to keep their seat, but that cannot be the case for everybody who stays in the 'disabled priority' seats when there are disabled people clearly struggling with standing.

The first things that come to my mind in terms of what you can do, are awareness raising campaigns on the trams themselves, and more proactive action from the conductors in this area.

I would appreciate your thoughts on the situation,

The response I received was, frankly, awful. They are taking no responsibility for their role and show no acknowledgement at all of my concerns.

They say:
I was concerned to hear that you find it difficult to use the priority seating if another passenger is already there. In the first instance I would suggest that you politely asked the passenger if they would leave the seat to enable you to use it . I agree with your point that some passengers may have an invisable inpairement [sic] but the seats are clearly marked and there should be no problem in the majority of cases. Experience has shown that not all passengers who warrant the use of the priority seats wish to do so and although I would expect conductors to assist when requested they will not always do so automatically. I will pass on your comments re awareness training but feel that the best way to "educate" able bodied passengers to give up the seats is if they are asked to do so by other passengers.

It's a cop-out. I feel, more strongly than ever, that they need to look at the 'Priority seats for disabled people' signs and see that whatever they currently have up is not doing the job, as people are paying no attention. There are only a few available seats which don't involve going up steps, so these need to be seriously prioritised. In addition, training the ticket inspectors in assisting disabled passengers to find a seat could be an effective way of combating the problems.

Interestingly, I was sent the link to this government consultation on Improving Bus Passenger Services today, and learned that:
7.9 We are seeking views on further ways to ensure stricter enforcement of the duties of drivers, inspectors and conductors with regard to disabled people. Conduct Regulations set out the duties of drivers/ conductors of regulated public service vehicles with respect to passengers in wheelchairs and other disabled persons. DfT’s guidance specifies that passengers who are not disabled but are occupying the wheelchair space could be asked to move to allow a passenger in a wheelchair to board, provided that there is room for the passenger to move elsewhere on the bus and the seating and standing capacity will not be exceeded. Drivers are also required to take reasonable steps to ensure the safety of their passengers.

7.10 The Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations stipulate that there should be clear signage for the priority seat and the wheelchair space on the bus. The Department is committed to delivering transport that works for everyone. We have therefore been considering how enforcement of these regulations can be improved. Stricter compliance with the Conduct Regulations would go a long way in ensuring that the wheelchair space is available for a passenger in a wheelchair.

7.11 We therefore seek views on measures to ensure stricter compliance with the regulations in general, particularly on whether introduction of financial sanctions against operators who persistently breach any aspect of the regulations, would be useful.

Now, while this regulation is regarding buses, the trams in Sheffield provide a very similar service, and should take account of the current regulation and proposed changes. My safety is certainly compromised when I have to stand on their vehicles.

I don't know what steps to take next. I was hoping that a response from Stagecoach would be helpful and open to looking at improvements. However, their huge failure to take what I have requested into account has really disappointed me.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

We Are Women Too

This video is of Eleanor Lisney and Michelle Daley, talking at Million Women Rise at the weekend, about disabled women's lives. About the reality of domestic violence committed against disabled women, including individual women's accounts, and about Fiona Pilkington who killed herself and her disabled daughter after being unable to get help against the abuse and intimidation they were suffering. About refuge provision - scarce at the best of times, and accessible provision being almost non-existent. About the particular vulnerability of disabled women when it comes to sexual assault and brutality in care homes or by carers, and the difficulties in reporting and being heard, as well as barriers to accessing services. And about multiple identities, and how disabled women can experience multiple discrimination from within the disability movement, other women, the community and society.
"It is about raising the voices of our disabled sisters. It is also about ensuring our recognition within this struggle for human rights. [...] We all have a responsibility to ensure that disabled women are recognised, and respected, as equals within this struggle, and all our voices to be heard. We are women too."



[Edited to add - There are transcripts of these speeches here, thank you so much to Eleanor, one of the speakers, for letting us know, and to Felix Gonzalez for making the videos and doing the transcription. More transcripts of speeches of the day will be published at http://connectculture.wordpress.com/ in due course.]

Monday, January 11, 2010

Let Go!

I've been told about the phenomenon by various disabled people, but had never experienced it myself until today. The phenomenon of a complete stranger grabbing hold of you without warning, to 'help'.

Today was the first time I left the house since the snow started. It was a very scary prospect, helped a lot by yaktrax. My walking can be pretty dodgy at the best of times, but amidst ice and snow I just haven't been able to risk it. But by today I was tearing my hair out. I needed to see something other than my 4 walls. So, yaktrax and woolly hat on, I ventured out.

It was pretty precarious. The city centre pavements were worse than I'd anticipated, but I did most of what I had to do, then waited for my bus home.

It was when the bus arrived that the presumably well-meaning man grabbed me. From behind. By the shoulders. The jumping-out-of-my-skin which resulted was far more likely to make me lose my balance than any amount of ice, and his holding onto my shoulders was hardly going to help with that.

It was only when he said, "Here, let me help you on the bus" that I knew I wasn't being mugged.

I know, I know, he was only trying to help. But seriously, grabbing a woman from behind is not a good thing to do. It's inappropriate and way too invasive to personal space. And when that woman has a walking stick, which is perhaps why you're grabbing her, you're probably more likely to cause injury than to prevent it.

If you really want to help, just ask. I would have actually appreciated being able to hold onto Mr Grabby's arm to help me on the bus, had he asked if I needed any help. Don't presume, don't grab, don't force a blind person across the road or a wheelchair user down a kerb. If you ask, and they need help, they'll tell you what you can do. And you won't frighten or injure them that way.

Monday, December 07, 2009

God Wants to Cure Me

DSC_9725


Yesterday a man approached me at a farmers' market, and said, "I can't help but notice you use a walking stick". This exact phrase is regularly used by people who want my address to send me mobility aid catalogues in the post.

However, he then went on to say, "And God wants you to walk home without your stick. I have seen healings here today, and wonder if you would let me pray for you so that he can heal you."

I was amused at the time, refused his offer and walked on. However it wasn't long until I was actually furious.

Firstly, how dare he make all sorts of presumptions on the basis of my using a walking stick? Actually, my stick is a good thing. It helps me to get around without falling over, which is always a bonus. Sure, it's a hassle sometimes and it's wrecking my wrist, but his outlook assumed that mobility aid = awful, must be fixed. When my outlook is mobility aid = great, helps me go places.

And secondly, I don't think that your God does want me to walk without a stick. If he did, he's had a good few years now to sort that out, and hasn't. If he was that bothered, he'd have done it by now, and frankly wouldn't need you praying to him to get around to it.

So please, don't make presumptions about my rather gorgeous purple walking stick, whether I should want to get rid of it or not, and whether I want you to get inside my head by promising something you can't possibly achieve, by means of superstitious nonsense.

Friday, December 04, 2009

Disabled Feminism

My third guest post over at the F Word.

I was very anxious before writing my first post here, but when the comments starting rolling in, I was overwhelmed by the positive messages in response to it.

Firstly, it really helped me. The encouragement that I am doing ok, I am doing good things, and I am making a difference, even if I can't necessarily do the 'outside' things.

And secondly, that it touched so many people. Not especially that my words helped, but that talking about disability and feminism seems such a rarity, and that many people were reading about it for the first time. I'm so glad I could do that, and I'm so glad that it provoked thought for some and reassurance for others, but we need much more!

I mentioned on my main blog that I had posted here, and one of the commenters there said,
Isn't it a shame that writing about disability and feminism and inclusivity is something that is still a remarkable thing?

And she's right! Feminism and activism really needs to catch up, and really address this.

I appreciate that some groups have limited resources, or not much choice of venue, but seriously, if you are a feminist group and you are not meeting in an accessible place, what are you thinking? Would you meet somewhere that excluded other groups of women? Some kind of white-only venue?

You wouldn't, because, even if the founding members of the group were all white, you would know instantly and instinctively that this went against every human and feminist value you have ever held. You would not want to associate yourself with a venue like that, nor would you want to support that venue in any way. If you did meet there, that would give out a message to black women that they were not welcome, so they would not enquire about the group, which might give you the impression that black women did not want to join the group, so it was ok, for the moment, to meet there. This might eventually give you the false impression that actually, meeting in a white-only venue wasn't so bad, black feminists weren't trying to join so it was less of an issue than you had predicted, and after all, the room hire is free.

You know, reading that, that it's wrong! And meeting in an inaccessible venue is the same. Even if no disabled feminists have enquired about the group, this may be because they know they can't use that venue. Or maybe they even turned up, waited outside for a while when they couldn't get in, then went back home. What if one of your regular members becomes disabled? Will they be no longer welcome?

However, overall there was a really positive message from the commenters to my original post, which is that online activism is relevant, is important, and does make a difference. Raising awareness, taking action and sharing stories and experiences can all be done extremely successfully online, and even more effectively than in real life at times. This is a good reminder to me, and to all the women who responded who also have limited spoons, whose uses have to be carefully chosen.

Kitt, in the comments, said
I know disabled feminists have a lot to offer - we have been forced to plumb the depths of our ingenuity to do the things we want to, using as few spoons as possible, and to choose our battles because we simply have to prioritise everything, everyday. Feminism has always benefited from the ingenuity of women - letting disabled people in will only add to this. We are another voice in the choir that will make the song sweeter and stronger.