Again, this response has made the very point that the original post made,
in the guise of decrying it. Perhaps the definition of "access" needs to
be rethought a bit. Access to participating in society is denied through
both physical set-ups and institutional set-ups, i.e., work schedules. It
is very clear that both groups have a long history of institutionalization
and isolation. Also, that both groups have a long history of
stigmatization in similar ways by society-at-large. So, the question
becomes, for me at least, why is it that there is all of a sudden a
distinct "physically impaired agenda" over against a "mental health
agenda". Access to public buildings, to toilets "available" in those
buildings, to information about how to get somewhere (from a passer-by) is
often denied to folks with mental health problems while experiencing those
problems precisely because they don't "appear" to fit into a "normal"
category--actually, a very similar reaction as that given to people with
physical disabilities by folks who have grown up in Western society _and_
not around folks with physical disabilities (i.e., the great majority).
There is much that is and should be _incredibly_ overlapping in these
supposedly distinct "agendas". The needs aren't that different. They are
varying _kinds_ of access, and huge amounts of public education, along with
appropriate treatment (both physical and emotional) by the medical
establishment. And, by the way, no one on the list so far who has
suggested that the physical disability movement has a history of distancing
itself from the mental disability movement and issues is someone who is
unaware of, or been personally unaffected by, the severe nature of physical
access problems that lack of appropriate accommodations creates for folks
with physical disabilities. I can assure you that the two folks who have
written these comments deal with the physical access issues on a daily
basis in their own lives. So, it's a bit of a swipe, and, again, a false
distinction, to suggest that they don't know about/aren't aware of this.
Natasha
>Hello, I do have to take issue here about the comment regarding
>traditional disability rights organisations. The main reason for
>physically impaired people pursuing their agenda rather than the mental
>health agenda is clearly one of access. Political maybe, but no hidden
>agenda as to mental prejudices. We are all driven by needs and
>physically disabled people need to gain access to local authorities and
>government officials in person, which is why we concentrate such a lot
>on the built environment in order to be able to put our points about the
>'disabling society' in person. I promise you there is nothing like
>seeing someone in a wheelchair wedged in a doorway (because it is too
>narrow) to make a point. When a disabled person cannot even get into
>loo because of the 'environment' then what does one do except wet
>oneself. Sorry I do take issue with the thought that traditional
>disability rights have ignored, I simply think the needs are different.
>Do not forget that it was not that long ago that mentally ill people
>were locked away from society as were many disabled people who had to be
>'taken care of' by not allowing us to upset Joe public. Admittedly
>physically disabled people have broken away from the institutionalised
>setup earlier than mentally disabled people. Has the writer not
>realised that we (physically disabled people) were kept separate from
>mentally disabled people and would have been unaware of their plight, as
>they were of ours!
>
>I think we should celebrate the fact that all disablility prejudices are
>now being challenged instead of berating traditional 'rights'
>organisations for not doing their bit! It is the rights movement that
>has highlighed the inequalities and not ignored certain sections for
>their own benefit. In message <[log in to unmask]>,
>[log in to unmask] writes
>>My experience is that the "traditional" disability rights organizations and
>>communities (fizz dizz) have historically failed to challenge
>>myths/fears/stereotypes regarding persons with psychiatric disabilities,
and
>>failed to include persons with mental health conditions (as well as other
>>persons, such as persons with HIV) for political and other reasons. The
>>cross-disability coalition to enact the ADA without psychiatric exclusions
>>was an important turning point. IMO, the marginalization of psychiatric
>>disabilties in the broader disability rights scene has been slowly
improving
>>(at least here in the Bay Area, Cal. where I am) but there is long way to
go.
>>I don't think this history is about the amount or absence of literature on
>>mental health disabilities (there's a fair amount of such literature,
though
>>not all of it particularly helpful). I think it has more to do with the
>>political fears of mainstream disability organizations (a la lavender
>>menace).
>>
>>Claudia Center
>>
>>In a message dated 99-10-27 10:49:14 EDT, you write:
>>
>><< I first wanted to counter the notion that it is "fear of
>> crazies" that separates phys. disabled identities from groups more
concerned
>> with cognitive impairments.
>>
>> Couldn't it be, rather, that the borders arise from:
>> 1) ignorance of each others' unique concerns and experiences,
>> 2) the general (but artificial) border between apparent disability v.
>>"hidden"
>> disability,
>> 3) the ever-increasing literature on physical disabilities v. scant
writings
>> available from/about cognitive disabilities? >>
>
>--
>Denise Webber
>
Natasha Kirsten Kraus
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology
430 Park Hall
Box 604140
University at Buffalo-SUNY
Buffalo, NY 14260-4140
[log in to unmask]
(716)645-2417 x 457
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|