Boom Boom called for a disability rights forum in this thread back in March--and idea which instantly garnered support. Late to the party as usual, I just saw it and also agree it would be a great idea. Disability/crip rights have always been a shortcoming on babble and this forum idea might hilight those deficiencies.
Before I put Boom Boom's idea into action, do babblers have any thoughts on this proposed forum? Any suggestions for names apart from "Disability Rights"?
Anti-ableism and inclusion comes to mind, but I'll allow there are probably better ideas out there. I'm wondering if there will be ground rules as in some other areas of the board, such as valuing the social model as opposed th the medical model of disability.
The problem is not within us, the problem is around us.
I prefer something more along the lines of "Rights of Persons with Disabilities", as calling someone Disabled tries to define them solely by the disaibility. Or, as Oldgoat suggest "anti-ableism", but I still find that problematic as it posits people with a disability as "not able".
As much as this topic interests me, I wonder if we need a new forum. I find body and soul works well most of the time.
Well yours might...
I agree with Caissa.
I think this is just pandering.
I believe the jist of the thread was to elicit constructive dialogue and ideas, as opposed to a thumbs up or down debate on the merits of such a forum being included on the board.
I think talking about disability in a forum like this is key to understanding some of the issues surrounding disability itself. I am severely hearing disabled and it's an invisible handicap - relating to others is extremely difficult, because hearing people have no idea or comprehension of what it is like to be deaf. Maybe a forum like the one I've been calling for can help folks understand disability, becuase, frankly, most people I meet haven't got a clue at all.
I don't think it falls under body and soul simply because of the fact that it concerns our bodies. It is a distinct political and social issue.
How about abilities?
We all have them. It's just that some of us have an easier time with them, temporarily.
'[url=http://still.my.revolution.tao.ca/node/68]Disablism[/url]' forum would be my suggestion, but I'm not too picky about what it's called, as long as the discussion doesn't have to focus on a narrow definition of 'rights'. [I see originally Boom Boom said, [i]issues[/i], not [i]rights[/i], which works better, IMO.] When I hear 'rights', I tend to think in terms of things that are specifically spelled-out in legislation. But, of course, that's only one aspect of life as a disabled person. The two main ways I'm affected by my disability are government-mandated poverty, and having to deal with non-disabled people who just don't get it [for example... being told that a disability forum is redundant or pandering]. I think this forum should be broad enough to include discussions around the intersection of disability and poverty.
Thanks for the constructive feedback, everyone. I'd like to keep this open a bit longer before we jump in, but the point is well taken, F55, re: "rights" and its constitutive discourse. I can agree with that.
I'll participate in a Disability Forum as much as I can, but this month I'm doing renovations and I won't be online as often as I usually am.
I hope to be active in such a forum as well if it is constituted.
I hope to be active in such a forum as well if it is constituted.
Must be my inferior Mob education, but I have no idea what that means. 
There should be a comma after well.
Okay, that explains it. 
bump!
Just curious - what's the holdup in getting the forum started?
Well, I was hoping to get a consensus on the name, and I was also hoping that CMOT Dibbler would chime in, since he also was keen on the forum.
Right now I'm considering Anti-Ableism or Disablism.
Not sure what "Anti-Ableism" or "Disableism" mean as I've never heard them before this thread. They both sound too intellectual to me. Why not stick to something simple?
Not sure what "Anti-Ableism" or "Disableism" mean as I've never heard them before this thread. They both sound too intellectual to me. Why not stick to something simple?
In post #9 I linked to a [url=http://still.my.revolution.tao.ca/node/68]blog entry[/url] that addresses those points, and makes an argument for the term 'disablism'. It would still be my preferred name, but ultimately, the name of the forum is of less concern to me than the content of the discussions that will hopefully happen within.
I used to use the term "ablism" to describe oppression against people who are labeled as disabled and/or the idea that disabled people are not as good as to non-disabled people. Within the past year or so, however, I have begun using the word "disablism" instead. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the primary one is the fact that ableism implies that this oppression is somehow related to ability – which it is not. Disability is a social category and its label is imposed on certain groups of people because of their perceived characteristics as un(der)productive.
Internationally, disablism is the more commonly used term and, it is my understanding, ableism is really used only in North America and Australlia.
Lisa, author of Lizy Babe's Blog, writes: "If 'racism' is discrimination on the grounds of race, surely it is logical that the word for discrimination on the grounds of disability would be 'disablism'?" She goes on to argue that "'ableism' is derived from the medical model of disability - the idea that a disability is something we have, that we are disabled by a lack of ability."
With respect to the disabilism vs. ableism debate, I think that the reasons for keeping ablesim are far outweighed from the benefits to fully replacing it with disablism. The primary reason that folks I have talked to want to keep it is because it is what people know. Unfortunately, within radical activism, the reason that people know this term is because we have taught it to them. People have had similar debates about gender politics. For a good while people called folks who were not trans “bio women” and “bio men” but this was problematic because it reaffirmed the false dichotomy of biological sex. So, we collectively changed it. It took some time but “bio” then became "assigned" which was still not quite right. Now, folks use the term cis gendered to describe people who are not trans (or, my preferred, cissies). Not everyone does it yet but these things take time. Because people knew what “bio woman/man” meant was not a valid reason not to change it. We shouldn’t be afraid to push politics forward, we should, however do so as gently as possible with folks who are sincerely trying to understand things.
Further, I don't think that the change would confuse people. I mean, disabilism is easier to understand as an oppression linked to disability than ableism. And, yes, we may have to have conversations explaining the change but those are opportunities for political education, opportunities to help people challenge some of the assumptions they have about disability.
Lastly, I think it is important to note that this is not an argument about semantics. The words we use to describe our experiences are the tools that we have to begin building resistance. Let's go.
"Internationally, disablism is the more commonly used term and, it is my understanding, ableism is really used only in North America and Australlia."
Weird. I'm 62, have lived in North America my whole life, and have never seen or heard these terms before this thread opened. Never saw these terms used in my visits to England and Wales, either. I don't like them - they go over me head, maybe because they reek of intellectual baggage, as do most "isms".
I agree that "isms" based on oppression reek of something.
Well, what would you want the forum called, BB? oldgoat suggested Anti-ablism because, as he says, the problem isn't with people living with disability, but the rest of us (who just aren't disabled yet).
excerpt:
The disability rights movement began in the 1960s, encouraged by the examples of the African-American civil rights and women's rights movements.
It was at this time that disability rights advocacy began to have a cross-disability focus. People with different kinds of disabilities (physical and mental handicaps, along with visual- and hearing-impairments) and different essential needs came together to fight for a common cause.
excerpt:
Ableism is a form of discrimination or social prejudice against people with disabilities. It is known by many names, including disability discrimination, physicalism, handicapism, and disability oppression. It is also sometimes known as disablism, although there is some dispute as to whether ableism and disablism are synonymous, and some people within disability rights circles find the latter term's use inaccurate.
All in all, I personally find "disability rights" to be the better choice, but do as you will.
Maybe we should just keep it simple and go with "Disability Issues". People who take Disability Studies, or who move in such circles may be more familiar with such terms as "ableism" and such, and that certainly has it's place, but if someone who is as thoughtful and credible as Boom Boom is on this subject wasn't familiar with them, then getting overly academic is in itself exclusionary.
Actually, I just chatted with my kid on facebook. He's in the Disability Studies program at U of T, and works in accessibility services there. He also does presentations on the subject from the POV of someone on the autistic spectrum. I brought this thread to his attention and asked for his thoughts. His input:
"I think it's sort of adorable how the left gets itself so worked up about being politically correct. Calling it the Disability Forum would seem to make the most sense, but the name of it doesn't matter as much as the attitude behind it. Focusing on the social model would be the most important thing, I think."
So there you have it. We're nothing if not adorable.
I've already thought of one thread for the new disability forum - a "Questions and Answers" thread regarding disability issues, and one question will deal with disability pensions and how they are calculated.
ETA: I'm sure babblers will have plenty of their own issues to add to the new forum. I wonder if "Homecare" issues such as advocacy would fit into a disability forum?
Can't access that link - keep getting this message:
Thank you for your participating in rabble.ca
For some reason you are not authorized to access this page.
This could be simply that you are not logged into the site. In the TOP RIGHT hand of the screen you should see 'My Account' if you are logged in. If not you will see a link to Register or Log-in. Please login and try this page again.
Try again, Boom Boom. Do you still have the problem? This thread is now in the DI forum, so you must be able to access it...could have been just a temporary glitch.
Still can not access it with the link you gave.
ETA: I went to Forum Topics, then Disability Issues, and still can't get in.
Going for supper, back later.
I'm getting "Access Denied" as well.
P.S. Was there any irony intended in putting "Disability issues" under the rubric of "Walking the Talk"?
I'm getting "Access Denied" also - which in itself is a message which disabled folk encounter all the time!
Ok--I think I solved the issue. Sorry about the grand opening glitch!
Well done, it works - and good to see this forum!
That link just takes me back to this page. Is there a new link???
Well done, it works - and good to see this forum!
How did you get there? I can't.
I just used Catchfire's link from above:
http://rabble.ca/babble/walking-talk/disability-issues
Or of course you can click on the [url=http://rabble.ca/babble]Babble tab[/url] and scroll down to Disability Issues.
Okay, now I understand. This thread has been moved to the new Disability Issues forum, and is in fact the only thread there so far. Thanks!
I was thinking of making a post about Home Care in this forum, but then realized it would make more sense in an "Elderly Issues" forum. Any interest in an "Elderly Issues" forum? (Elderly health and welfare, etc...)
