An apology
May. 31st, 2016 04:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
At opening ceremonies I attempted to give an "elevator talk" (2 to 3 minutes) describing the social model of disability.
The metaphor I used was eye glasses and contact lenses: many of us wear corrective lenses and do not consider them to be a marker of disability. While impairment exists in my vision, my eyesight is not disabling because society does not make it so. It is relatively easy to acquire corrective lenses in most cases, because both brick-and-mortar stores and online stores supply them, and because doctors and community members encourage you to use them. There is wide support for these pieces of assistive tech in the society I live in, and they are mostly non-stigmatized, with some exceptions such as very thick lenses.
I contrasted corrective lenses to wheelchairs, which are highly stigmatized. Doctors and community members will generally not encourage you to use them; they are expensive and difficult to acquire; difficult to fix when broken; and infrastructure in our society does not support them, unlike corrective lenses.
A WisCon member pointed out to me later that I missed an intersection having to do with race: Glasses are designed for white people. People with flatter features (for instance some Asian people) can have a lot of trouble getting glasses that fit correctly, as glasses tend to rest on a prominent nose.
I completely missed this intersection of oppression and I apologize for causing pain. I will be more mindful in the future.
The metaphor I used was eye glasses and contact lenses: many of us wear corrective lenses and do not consider them to be a marker of disability. While impairment exists in my vision, my eyesight is not disabling because society does not make it so. It is relatively easy to acquire corrective lenses in most cases, because both brick-and-mortar stores and online stores supply them, and because doctors and community members encourage you to use them. There is wide support for these pieces of assistive tech in the society I live in, and they are mostly non-stigmatized, with some exceptions such as very thick lenses.
I contrasted corrective lenses to wheelchairs, which are highly stigmatized. Doctors and community members will generally not encourage you to use them; they are expensive and difficult to acquire; difficult to fix when broken; and infrastructure in our society does not support them, unlike corrective lenses.
A WisCon member pointed out to me later that I missed an intersection having to do with race: Glasses are designed for white people. People with flatter features (for instance some Asian people) can have a lot of trouble getting glasses that fit correctly, as glasses tend to rest on a prominent nose.
I completely missed this intersection of oppression and I apologize for causing pain. I will be more mindful in the future.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-31 11:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-06-04 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-06-01 03:11 am (UTC)I agree with the other commenter that the additional intersection, while super important, doesn't break your metaphor – both glasses-wearing and disability are compounded by racial oppression, but the cultural meanings of glasses and wheelchairs are nevertheless radically different even with all that context. I have often used that example and will continue to do so, I think, though after learning more about the racism of spectacle production I might frame it as how we interpret glasses on a person we meet rather than on how easy it is (since it clearly isn't) to get a range of well-fitting spectacles.
Also, <3. I always admire your openness and responsiveness to new information and critique.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-01 04:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-06-04 01:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2016-06-04 05:06 pm (UTC)