Week 6 Readings Comment

Priestly, Mark (2003). Disability: A Life Course Approach. (Chap. 4) Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Barron, Karin (1997). Disability & Society. Vol.12, No.2. (Pg 223-239) Upsala, Sweden: Journals Oxford Ltd.
The articles by Priestly and Barron help to put into perspective the disabling culture in which we live. Both of these articles bring attention to the concept of normality and the emphasis on individual autonomy as well as the body as a powerful symbol of identity, both of these concepts are viewed as elements of oppression for those living with impairments. Also, the widespread notion that those living with impairments are asexual beings is also discussed in both of these articles.
In the article "Disability and Youth" Priestly discusses how youth identities are defined in terms of what is referred to as leisure consumption and expressions of style. Those youth who live with impairments face significant barriers in terms of the lack of financial resources and also in terms of access. " the normalization of youthful bodily ideals, in terms of functional and sexual desirability, contributes directly to the construction of disability".(95) Individuals living with impairments are then disabled by the society in which they live. When an individual fails, for lack of a better word, to achieve the status of being normal they are pushed to the margins of society regardless of whether they are capable of making valuable contributions to society or not. This article also discusses certain myths that exist about individuals living with impairments, particularly the myth that those who have impairments are asexual. I would just like to mention briefly that I believe this notion to be absurd. With such a myth in place, individuals with impairments are denied sexual desires and devalued in terms of being a potential sexual partner. Also, this myth only helps to further the belief by many persons that individuals with impairments should not be able to have children of their own. Those who have impairments are also discriminated against when it comes to the transition to adulthood. " the institutional management of training for young disabled people has focussed on less marketable and lower status ‘qualifications’, primarily concerned with the acquisition of ‘life skills’(108). Again we are brought to this concept of normality. It is assumed that if one does not possess specific ‘life skills’ also referred to as activities of daily living, then one will be unable to live a ‘normal’ life. Here the concept of quality of life is determined by the quantity of activities and individual can perform, and how ‘normal’ one can perform these activities. Through such a narrow lense, quality of life is also determined by the degree of individual autonomy. Here the importance of interdependence is ignored and replaced with a strict emphasis on independence.
In Barron article entitled " the Bumpy Road to Womanhood" this emphasis on living an independent life in order to live a high quality life is also recognized. The myth of those with impairments living a life absent of sexual desire is also drawn upon and the concept of gender roles is emphasized. Barron mentions that " Research on disability has traditionally neglected the impact of gender roles" (224). By denying the impact of gender roles, individuals with impairments are viewed strictly as disabled rather than male or female. This starts a chain reaction which results in the perception of disabled people as asexual, denying the fact that individuals with impairments experience sexual desires just as those without impairments. Barron also mentions that woman with impairments have to deal with what I will refer to as a double stereotype.
" Dependence, passivity and non-assertive behaviour traditionally are viewed as appropriate and desirable behaviours for women, but their effects are even more detrimental for disabled women because they are also stereotypes of persons with disabilities" (227)
Not being recognized as a member of a particular sex, in this case a women, denies and generalizes the experiences of women living with impairments. These women have to strive to achieve their status both as ‘normal’ members of society and as women. This can be especially difficult when faced with society’s opinion of what constitutes beauty. Most people view beauty as a feature of being a woman, something they should strive for. " Having a physical impairment may mean having to come to terms with a body that departs from cultural norms of acceptability and attractiveness".(229) Baron notes that the emphasis on women having to be beautiful suggests that those women who live with impairments possess bodies that are not ‘up to scratch’. Rather than being granted the status of being a female at birth and growing into a woman, as is the case with women without impairments, those with impairments have to qualify for their status as women. Baron indicates various ways in which they do this such as being accepted by a ‘normal’ man as a sexual partner or becoming a wife and mother. However there are also obstacles to achieving these aspirations for women with impairments.
By placing any kind of importance on the concept of normality, we automatically generalize the experiences of individuals in society, especially those with impairments. When society constructs these concepts of what it is to live a ‘normal’ life, and what it means to look like a ‘normal’ person we are denying the heterogeneity of the population and the diversity of human experience. As mentioned in class the body cannot be separated into bits and pieces, we are all of one piece and together we make up the puzzle that is the society in which we live. By affirming the notions that oppress individuals with impairments we are essentially saying that these individuals, as pieces, are broken and cannot fit into the puzzle that is society. This type of thinking rationalizes ableist attitudes and discriminates against individuals with impairments which, in turn, makes them disabled.