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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|