I'm with you Jennifer. I see my scholarship as activism. And the "real
and pretend world" dichotomy that is stated below does offend. Simi
Linton
--- Jennifer Sutton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> You know, I see many posts on this list, not just
> this one, which suggest
> that those of us in academia live in ivory towers.
> To be blunt about it, I
> resent this kind of statement. Why must this us vs.
> them attitude be
> perpetuated? To whom is it helpful?
>
> For my part (and I venture to assert that I am not
> alone), I'm doing
> disability studies *precisely* because it has "real
> world" (whatever that
> is) implications and applications. Last time I
> checked, I didn't have any
> life-maintenance tasks done for me way up high in my
> ivory tower. As a
> matter of fact, I probably need some directions to
> find it, since there are
> no ivory towers where I am.
>
> Is it not true that research benefits people outside
> of academia? Or is
> the implication, from non-academics, that it's all a
> big waste of time, and
> people should just be out on the front lines,
> advocating? If so, that
> makes no sense to me. Information we have from
> research *helps* us to be
> better advocates, doesn't it?
>
> And, for my part, I don't think I have a split
> personality. My advocacy
> "self," and my academic "self," are all rolled up
> into one. I can't do one
> without doing the other.
>
> I suppose this message could be called a flame. If
> so, accept my apology
> for it, but I'd would *really* like to know why this
> attitude is helpful to
> anyone? John, please note that this is a general
> inquiry.
> Jennifer
>
> At 07:51 AM 6/24/99 +1000, you wrote:
> >Dear Diane,
> >
> >The first bit of integration and awareness that may
> be needed is to have
> >the ivory-tower-set achieve some equity and
> understanding of the real
> >world most of us live in.
> >
> >My wife and I are carers for an intellectually
> disabled daughter. Some
> >years ago we assembled a 'reality check' on the ten
> things that we, as
> >carers found the most insensitive, boorish,
> inconsiderate: that realy
> >crapped us off. (see below)
> >
> >May be some people with disabilities in the real,
> and pretend world
> >should start looking at doing something similar. I
> remember a blind
> >man's observation that when in a lift: 'nobody
> talks with me, but they
> >all talks to my dog'.
> >
> >Have a good time, rgds John
> >
> >> Ten Guaranteed 'Turn-Offs' for Carers
> >>
> >> 1 - 'We know how you feel' - Whether sincere or
> patronising, it is not
> true. Nobody but other carers can begin to
> understand the frustration,
> worry, desperation, unrelenting pressure and
> hopelessness that dominate
> carers lives.
> >>
> >> 2 - 'You are very special people' - Balderdash.
> We started off like
> everybody else. Purely by chance did we become
> carers. We are not
> volunteers or 'chosen people'. We cope as best we
> can with an impossible
> situation for only two reasons: We deeply care for
> and love the person we
> care for, which is all right; and there is no
> alternative, which is very
> frightening.
> >>
> >> 3 - 'Devaluation by association' - People
> patronise us carers and speak
> to us as if we are the disabled ones. We carers are
> usually pretty sane,
> and only abnormal in our desperation. We expect to
> be treated accordingly.
> >>
> >> 4 - Having a conversation about the person with a
> disability in her or
> his presence, as if the person isn't there' - This
> is a rude and demeaning
> thing to happen to anyone, but particularly to
> persons with disabilities
> who are already devalued, and may have little
> ability to defend or assert
> themselves.
> >>
> >> 5 - Rushing in to give assistance without
> ascertaining if this is
> necessary or wanted' - Most people with disabilities
> are proud and
> protective of what they can achieve on their own, no
> matter how slowly or
> imperfectly this may be in other people's eyes. To
> have things taken out of
> their hands, even if done out of kindness, only adds
> to their frustration
> and affects their self esteem and sense of worth.
> >>
> >> 6 - 'We know better'- It is evidence of a massive
> arrogance, a deep
> seated belief that it is proper to make decisions
> profoundly affecting
> people with disabilities and carers, without any
> consultation, and that
> when these people object, as they should, the
> complaint can be dismissed on
> the basis of 'When you understand'. Carers do
> understand, they are getting
> the mushroom treatment and don't like it one bit. It
> is not only
> contemptuous and insulting, it also totally ignores
> the vast repository of
> specialised knowledge and experience that carers and
> many persons with
> disabilities have. It is an attitude that calls into
> question for whose
> benefit services are run
> >>
> >> 7 - The perceptions of 'charity'' - Carers, are
> people in crisis. Even
> though their tragedies are behind closed doors, they
> are real tragedies.
> Carers and people with disabilities are
> Queenslanders too. They have every
> right to expect help from the community at large,
> and as represented by
> government. Without it they are condemned to remain
> the most
> underprivileged minority in the country, even worse
> off than out-workers in
> the garment industry. Through no fault of their own.
> >>
> >> 8 - 'Turning fund-raising into a circus that
> demeans and degrades the
> very people it is supposed to assist' - Many
> worthwhile services have to
> rely on fund-raising to survive. It gives the
> community the opportunity to
> help where it is needed. It is inexcusable that, in
> order to raise money,
> the dignity and esteem of people with disabilities
> and carers are
> compromised, as we see so often.
> >>
> >> 9 - 'Questionnaires and Surveys' - Carers are
> bombarded with them, they
> come from everywhere. There never is any feedback
> though about the vital
> knowledge they have uncovered, and they certainly
> don't make any difference
> to our plight.
> >>
> >> 10 - 'The blatant and unashamed duplicity of
> government' - When reading
> policy and legislation on disability it is easy to
> believe that we have
> deeply concerned and compassionate governments, who
> understand what needs
> to be done and are committed to doing the right
> thing. It exudes confidence
> and hope. Until we ask '. . . but what about the
> money then?' This is when
> we discover that they have taken us to the well, but
> again, do not allow us
> to drink. Nothing has changed. The rhetoric has
> improved, but not the
> funding. There is some money for minor and token
> services, but the real
> crisis, like supported accommodation and post school
> options do not get
> addressed.
> >>
> >> John Homan,
> >> 19/7/96
> >
> >[log in to unmask] wrote:
> >>
>
=== message truncated ===
===
|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|
Simi Linton
[log in to unmask]
212 580 9280 (phone and fax)
|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|~|
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
