Tag Archives: respect

Summertime… when I Feel More… Respected?

24 Saturday Jun 2017

Posted by in blindness

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

This time last year I remember (and facebook reminded me) getting up for a 9:00 AM job interview. I opened my eyes and got hit with a sudden burst of intense stabbing pain… right in both eyes. I had two options: reschedule the interview (as I had already done the day before because I was feeling absolutely awful) or attend the interview with a light-sensitive migraine. If I chose the second option, I had two options stemming from that: suffer through it, or do the somehow stereotypical “blind” thing and walk in with sunglasses.
It was far from an easy decision. To me, sunglasses were for sunny days, not moderately cloudy ones, and absolutely never ever ever indoors. I looked so… blind in them (I still don’t know what I meant by that thought). When I asked several people I knew – sighted and blind – through the instant question-answer format of social media, I received so many answers, and many conflicted with each other. All paraphrasing is mine, but the general ideas went something like this.
“Absolutely not! Your interviewer NEEDS to at least have the semblance of eye contact.”
“Why not? Your eyes hurt; you need to be functional.”
“It’s SUCH a blind thing to do.”
“If they’re fashionable, wear them!”
I chose to wear the sunglasses. They had been purchased years before and were both fashionable and moderately functional for my purposes. The frames were basic black with round lenses, and they didn’t scream “blind person!” to anyone who looked at them. The instant I put them on, just before leaving my house, I felt my entire face relax, and the stabbing pain in both eyes magically disappeared.
The interview bombed. It bombed worse than almost any other interview I went on the year I was unemployed. It had nothing to do with my glasses, my headache, or anything else. The job and I were simply not a good fit.
But when I left the interview and went about my day, my sunglasses still in place, I noticed something else I hadn’t considered before.
People treated me better.
You see, if you were to look at my eyes directly, you would know that I am blind. My left eye is, for all purposes, unusable. My right eye won’t stay still. Walking down busy downtown streets that morning – even with a guide dog – while wearing those sunglasses, people seemed more inclined to make general non-blindness-related conversation with me, or accepted my assertions that I didn’t require their assistance. This old pair of sunglasses seemed, in a way, to be magical to me, to open a doorway to some previously rarely-found milieu of autonomy and dignity.
During the course of a few weeks, the more I wore my sunglasses, the less blind I appeared to others. The less blind I appeared, the more people left me alone (or at the very least respected my polite declining of their assistance, something they offered less frequently). I loved how it felt.
But those glasses I wore to that interview no longer flattered my face the way they had years ago when I had first purchased them. I needed, as a friend stated, a more fashionable pair.
So what does a girl do when she needs a stylish pair of sunglasses that she doesn’t need to see clearly through? She goes to Walmart, and finds the coolest, most professional-looking pair of sunglasses they have that also covers her eyes and flatters her face. I spent a grand total of $15 on my sunglasses, and the complements from friends, family, and strangers make me feel like I should’ve spent more. And when I wear them, people generally treat me better, like I’m any other office worker or customer or pedestrian.
I wonder why that is.

And I wondered why I had resisted them for so long.

When discussing this topic, I had no idea the types of division I would stir up. Some people were very comfortable with their choice to wear glasses, others firmly confident in their decision not to, and many fell somewhere in the middle. Comments ranged from “No blind person should wear glasses, ever, because it makes them look pathetic,” to “I wear them on sunny days because the glare bothers me, but I’m still uncomfortable doing so… it’s such a blind thing to do,” to “I wear glasses because my eyes hurt otherwise,” to “I wear them because I know my eyes are damaged due to accident or illness, so I wear them for the general comfort of those around me.” Others hadn’t considered them one way or the other, either because they were never encouraged to wear them, or because it was really never an issue; while my sunglasses made me look “less blind”, some believed that their wearing them would call attention to their blindness in a way that their uncovered eyes never do. Still others believe that wearing sunglasses means that they are hiding a part of themselves – their blind eyes – even if they are imperfect.

But one friend, whose blindness is due to Retinoblastoma, described in vivid detail being forced by parents or teachers to wear them. She would get in trouble in school if she took them off, and even now – as a grown woman – if she’s in her family’s company, the comment is made that she needs to wear them. Like it or not, she is judged on her appearance. Retinoblastoma can sometimes lead to facial scarring that may be off-putting to some, so some may argue that if it can be covered by makeup or glasses, then why not use them? And yet, my friend has a very complicated relationship to glasses today, for the simple reason that they were pushed at her so much as a child and teenager and even now as an adult.

A simple accessory to some, to others a way to make it through the day. To some they bring freedom, to others a sense of complicated shame. I had no idea that the job interview a year ago would start me on this journey of asking questions about an accessory that most people wear without a second thought. It’s opened up far more questions for me than it’s answered, and yet, I’ve made my own piece with my sunglasses. My cute sunglasses make others more comfortable with me, which makes me more comfortable with myself. I hate that this is so. And I hate that others would receive the exact opposite reaction because their uncovered eyes don’t make them look blind.

So for now, while the days are long and the sun is so bright that almost everyone has to squint to navigate the world visually, I’ll take that automatic respect that these lenses and frames seem to have granted me. Now the question is… can this continue in the winter?

Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice? Not on MY Life!

13 Saturday May 2017

Posted by in blindness

≈ 10 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

About three months ago, I started a brand new job. I love my job, the people I work with, the location… all of it. Working in a big building downtown wasn’t something I ever thought I’d do again, but I’m thrilled to be where I am. Jenny and I have been welcomed with open arms by colleagues, managers, building regulars, fellow transit passengers… just about everyone.

But working in a big crowded building also brings to the forefront something every disabled person has dealt with at one time or another: the grabbers. Sure, I’ve dealt with them before in other jobs or other places, but working in a very large building open to the public 5 days a week puts me in touch with many amazing people… and many grabbers.

And you know what?

I’m done being nice to grabbers.

Over the span of the past month, I’ve had numerous encounters with someone (several someones) who thinks that grabbing my body to direct me is acceptable. My shoulders have been turned to direct me, someone steered me by the waist, my hands and arms have been grabbed so frequently (and at one point so hard) that I swear I can still feel marks on my body from the other person’s fingers. Depending on the situation, the closeness of quarters, and the willingness of the other party to observe both visual and verbal queues, my reaction is situationally specific, made in a split second, when I’m not stunned motionless and speechless by someone’s lack of personal boundaries.

But why should I have to think about it? Why should I need to make judgment calls on an appropriate reaction on a frequent basis simply because I have a disability and people get weirded out about it? Why should I have to be nice because someone “meant well”? Meaning well means asking first. Meaning well means listening to my response. Meaning well means not doing something that would reasonably get one punched, kicked, screamed at or sprayed in the face if the action was directed at anyone without a disability.

And think I’m exaggerating?

A blind friend on a facebook discussion on this very topic “only gets rudely grabbed twice a week or so.”

Only?

ONLY?

There is no ONLY!

This behavior is unacceptable. We can all agree that able-bodied people aren’t frequently grabbed, manhandled, pushed, prodded, or otherwise bodily manipulated. We can all agree that such behavior is wrong. So why does disability make it right? The fact that it happens so frequently to people with visible physical disabilities that we think it “only” happens twice a week or so should appall you. The only time to grab someone is if they are actually falling and you need to catch them, or you need to pull them back from real danger (like an oncoming bus a split second away). That does not happen twice a week or so.

My tongue bleeds sometimes from my biting all of this back, from keeping quiet, from being nice. If I had fingernails, the palm of my right hand would have half-moon shaped scars from clenching my fist in my pocket. But I’m done bleeding and scarring because of my own desire to blend in, to simply go about my day. Grabbers, you are the problem, and I’m done taking out my frustration on myself. I’m done being nice because being nice has gotten me – and society – nowhere. So your intentions don’t matter; keep your hands to yourself. I’m taking my equality into my own hands. A woman without a disability can fend off an attack? Your firm grip on my hand, wrist, arm, shoulder, hips, waist, or mobility aid without my knowledge or consent is an attack, and I will respond accordingly. If grabbing me is your way to ensure my safety, I plan on learning and training and finding out how I can keep myself safe… from you. You don’t ask me if I want your help; you think you can and should decide for me. That decision is not yours to make.

Schoolbooks and Slingshots: Education, Legislation, and the Mess In Between

26 Friday Aug 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

What does discrimination look like? Is it being told, flat out, that you can’t do this task or have this job or enter that building or raise a family? Is it using insulting words, raised voices, thrown objects? Or is it subtler? Is it the pervasive idea that our presence in and of itself – with minds or bodies that don’t function “correctly” – is unwanted?
More important than that, how can we combat it? Is education the best way to eliminate misconceptions? Or is confrontation more productive? Over the years I have believed that one or the other is appropriate, but I’ve done a lot of thinking recently… why is it assumed that the two are mutually exclusive?

Not long ago I found a couple of friends posting on Facebook a status that went something like this: “Maybe I’m the only blind person you know, and maybe you’re afraid to ask me questions. THIS is a safe place to ask any questions you have – big or small – about my life as a blind person.” It’s an interesting thought – something that I would consider doing on social media, for people who have already built up some form of a relationship with me. But I question the appropriateness of educating the general public… just because they are curious and don’t know how I live my life. It’s one thing for a prospective employer or university professor to ask questions about how the job gets done – but my life is my own, and I shouldn’t have to educate the passenger beside me on the bus how I cook, clean, live my life, just because they’re curious and are dying to know. If someone has the time and inclination to share this information, that’s absolutely acceptable. But not everyone wishes to do so, and should not feel judged by the disability community at large or by the general public for politely declining to answer what can be considered nosy, invasive questions when directed at a non-disabled person.
But what if someone says or does or asks something truly offensive? Is education appropriate? The answer is… yes and no. It does definitely depend on the situation – what was said, how it was said, and how willing the other party is to understand that what they said, did or asked was inappropriate or invasive. I recently had a really rough day, where someone I asked for directions talked over me as though I couldn’t talk for myself, an interviewer told me that my resume was just what she was looking for but she “just didn’t know if I could do the job”, and then a woman on the bus told me that I “looked so young and attractive” that she “never would’ve guessed I had any challenges.” With person number 1, I was admittedly abrupt and short, thanking him sincerely for his help but that I could take it from here and speak for myself (His response: “Really? You can?”) The job interviewer was much trickier, because I felt like I had to not only convince her that I COULD do that job, but also be polite in the face of that dreaded C word (“can’t“). When I was later advised the position had been given to another candidate, I requested more information about my interview itself and was able to explain why her comments and questions were unreasonable and inappropriate, and how it’s always best to presume competence; she thanked me for my feedback and promised to implement changes to her interview practices. The lady on the bus… I was so taken aback by her comment – that attractiveness, youth and disability couldn’t co-exist – that I thanked her for her compliment but told her that it was offensive, because disability is not just for the old and the unattractive. She thanked me for telling her and said she would choose her words more wisely in the future.
But not everyone is as willing to hear our answers, having their own ideas about our capabilities and the realities of our lives. More than once someone has made a statement of how sad my life must be, but when I try and explain, I effectively get told that I’m wrong – that I miss out on so many beautiful things. It’s frustrating on an emotional level, but when it comes to employment it becomes economically frustrating as well. So what do we do when others’ perceptions and ideas and design affects our ability to work, to study, to access facilities? We sometimes fight through legislation. Maybe it won’t change someone’s mind until they realize how serious it is that we’re denied job opportunities, academic pursuits, and the ability to move freely through cities, streets and businesses. I’ve never seen the picture of the “Capitol Crawl” – a public visual demand for passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act – but it’s an important image to keep in mind: access to some is not access for all, and until all citizens have access to the same products, services and facilities, a society is not truly free and equal. And even though not everything is a fight, it is important to band together as a stronger disability community – to support each other and the non-disabled who stand with us as we try and make a difference.
Sometimes it’s best to catch flies with honey rather than vinegar. But if you can’t catch them with honey because they just don’t care, vinegar is absolutely a valid option. It’s important to choose our battles wisely, to conduct ourselves with a strong will tempered by grace, wisdom and logic. Emotion, if channeled appropriately, can be powerful, but it can’t be the only way we respond to circumstance. And logic without personal experience is dry and boring and, frankly, no one wants to hear that either. Sometimes change is best accomplished through well-timed, well-tempered words; other times it means pushing back against ideas and thoughts and practices through personal or government advocacy. No one way is right or wrong for everyone, but it is important that whatever we do, however we combat discrimination and prejudice, that it improves life for everyone, not just one segment of our community.

A Burger with a Side of Discrimination, Please

05 Friday Aug 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ 7 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Not long ago, I was visiting British Columbia, a province with a very well-publicized and shiny new Service Dogs Act. My trip was generally a positive one, until I attempted to enter one particular bar/restaurant that I had previously frequented. I’m not unfamiliar with being asked for ID to verify my age in such places, and even my (thankfully relatively) few access challenges with my guide dog have primarily been handled discretely and/or quickly. What I did not expect was to be demanded, loudly and publicly, for my guide dog’s paperwork… from across the bar. My dog was doing nothing inappropriate, was guiding me into the restaurant, her nails slightly struggling to gain purchase on the slippery floor. So… I was demanded – loudly and publicly – for paperwork that no one else in the restaurant was required to produce. Long story short, I realized that I didn’t have current ID with me (I had mistakenly packed an expired school-issued ID card), and I was asked to leave. When I told the employee she should consider discretion if she had to request paperwork from paying patrons, she acted so surprised that such a thing would be requested of her.
Without getting into the nitty-gritties, I contacted the BC government on this issue. They ended up responding to my complaint with an inaccessible PDF (one that was scanned as a picture, so no readable text for a screen reader), which said – basically – that since I didn’t have a piece of plastic (whether issued by the government or a guide/service dog program), a business was within their rights to refuse service. They did not address the humiliating and embarrassing experience of being demanded publicly for such information and then publicly being told to leave.
Where is the outrage outside of the service dog and/or blind community? Would anyone else be expected to accept this treatment?
Last week, a news story made the rounds about a teenager with a disability who was purposefully excluded from a relative’s wedding because of her disability. The support on sites like Reddit came in fast and furious, which is awesome… but it got me to thinking: Where is the support from the public when people with disabilities are turned down for jobs (whether stated or implied) because of their disability, forced to alter their academic pursuits or undergo additional testing, find it easier to obtain resources to assist in their death than aids to live life, are killed for simply being disabled?

There is open discrimination in the world – being told you won’t get a job because of your disability (yes, this happens). There is invisible discrimination where it’s implied by the subtext of a conversation or interaction that your presence, request, or concern is not wanted or valid (yes, this happens, too). There is violence against the disabled as can be evidenced by interactions with police, the murder in Japan last week, or by cultures who view disability as a curse on a family. While disability can have its own limitations (at this point, I won’t be driving a car anytime soon); but I believe that it’s not disability that holds us back as much as perceptions and demands of others. To some, not eating at that particular restaurant may be a “little thing”, and I suppose it’s true because we had other options. But what if we didn’t? Maybe that young girl loved her aunt and really wanted to be at her wedding for that special day, and she got slapped in the face because of a perception of what she could and couldn’t do. Judging by the amount of tense family gatherings I’ve witnessed and heard of, discrimination – even by a family member – is a pretty big deal. And how big a deal is open or invisible discrimination in the job hunt when it directly impacts one’s ability to make a living and contribute to a local, national or even global economy? And if we can’t access facilities like everyone else, attend family functions, obtain employment if we have the desired qualifications and skills, do we reach a tragic end because we just don’t belong? To quote a friend of mine, I’ve been gifted a double portion of stubborn. Maybe this will help me, maybe it will help others. It’s never “just about a restaurant” when you’re made to feel scrutinized for simply walking or rolling through the door. It’s never “just one day” when you get told that you, specifically, are not welcome at a celebration, but your whole family can come along now. It’s never “just one job” when you get told there’s no way you can do job tasks you’ve honed over years of practice and hard-won experience.

And it’s never “just one life” when you have to fight not only others’ perceptions, bureaucratic red tape, medical concerns, and discrimination… but yourself underneath it all. Sometimes being who we are is a radical act of defiance.

An Open Letter to Hiring Managers: Want to make $$$? Hire Inclusively

09 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Earlier this week, I found a story about a home improvement retailer who hired a service dog user with a brain injury. This is terrific! This is corporate responsibility. This is true representation of the broader community which this retailer serves. This is hiring people with unique skills and talents to fill a role that a company sees as valuable. I took to Facebook and thanked whoever hired this man for giving him a position that he clearly desired, wishing more hiring managers and companies did the same.

 

I’m on the job hunt, too, and it got me to thinking. Did this company hire this man – will a company hire me? – only because it is the law to do so? Will they do so because it is the socially conscious “in thing” to do so? Or will they hire people with disabilities because they realize that we’re a huge untapped market for them? Disability not only touches those living with blindness, who are deaf, who use wheelchairs, and/or who have brain injuries (sometimes in combination)… but those with invisible disabilities as well. This doesn’t even address our friends, families, and others who care about us. A Canadian organization recently launched the We Belong App. The app allows consumers to search by location for companies and organizations that hire inclusively (primarily people with developmental disabilities), giving them the opportunity to show financially that it pays to do so.

 

Meaningful employment is something that’s very important to me. I want to be hired at a position with a company that views me as an asset, not a liability. Unfortunately, the latter appears to be the prevailing thinking among people who’ve met me for interviews. I don’t make constant eye contact, I imply that it’s important to use words to communicate… and yet I have years of experience behind me, so that should count for something. Do I want a job? You bet your last dollar. But I want a job with a company or organization that views me as the asset that I am, with unique insights, skills, and talents to bring to the table. Things may have to be done differently, but change is a part of life; many accommodations for people with disabilities end up benefiting entire workplaces, and it’s not often realized until after the disabled employee moves on to other opportunities (personal or professional).

 

So for those who hire people with any disability out of pity or patronism, thanks, but no thanks. It makes everybody miserable and you honestly shouldn’t bother. For those who don’t hire us because of your preconceived notions of our capabilities – not because you truly had more qualified applicants – please know that you’ve broken human rights legislation. The law is only one piece in a mosaic that fits together to include people with disabilities in society, in the classroom, in the workplace. It takes inclusive thinkers – who are unfortunately not frequently in HR – to understand that we’re more than the eyes or ears or hands or legs or brain that doesn’t work as expected. If the law is the only reason you begrudgingly hire me or anyone with a disability, congratulations, you’re a rule-follower, move along now. Ditto about everyone being miserable. But if you want to be progressive, inclusive, and innovative like you claim you are, hire people with unique skills, talents and insights who just happen to be disabled. Your business will benefit as much if not more than the employee you hire, because we do have friends and families and others who care about us… and they reward truly inclusive and empowering workplaces with their positive words to their friends and families and coworkers… and their consumer dollars. The bottom dollar is a motivator for many; I’d like to use some of mine to support employers who don’t discriminate. but that can only happen once pretty words on a page start becoming action, once HR managers, CEOs, and office managers view people with disabilities as unique resources and assets to business and commerce.

 

Oh, and if you are one of those progressive, inclusive, innovative HR managers, CEOs, or office managers, drop me a line; I’d be happy to meet you.

“Do you Want Fries with That?”

02 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

A few days ago this article blew up my social media accounts: a blind man is suing McDonald’s for providing exclusively drive-through service during certain hours late at night, thus alienating blind customers. VERY strong opinions – often conflicting – have been voiced by many people I respect. There are two definite schools of thought, and I haven’t seen much middle ground:

(1) the plaintiff is acting entitled and wants special treatment for blind people, which makes all of us look bad;

(2) If a paying customer wants chicken McNuggets at 2:00AM, a driver’s license shouldn’t be required.

After considering the angles myself (admittedly not the legal implications), I’ve got a few brilliant thoughts to add to the pile… but let’s leave the “why would you want to eat at McDonald’s in the first place?” comment out of this, okay?

 

First: drive-throughs are for cars, period, the end. If you’re a particularly height-challenged pedestrian walking through a drive-through and someone pulls up in a big tall truck, the likelihood is that the driver can’t see you and you’ll end up being road pizza. Add to that the small size of drive-through lanes, some of which have curves that make it impossible for drivers to see pedestrians anyway, and being a pedestrian in a drive-through lane is taking your life into your hands. That’s why they’re called drive-through windows, OK? Good?

 

It is completely understandable that McDonald’s as a business wishes to serve late-night customers without having to keep open a storefront where people enter who may be intoxicated and/or disruptive and/or wish to find a warm dry place to sleep. So they get the benefits of serving drive-through customers without having to watch a storefront. I would assume that intoxicated pedestrians have attempted to walk through the drive-through lanes and order food, and I’m sure that’s not always pleasant. The customers who are driving (in theory) are sober and just want their food and everyone is happy.

 

But this is where in my opinion it gets sticky. Like it or not, not everyone drives or has ready access to a vehicle – and it isn’t always because of blindness. This is where I think the plaintiff is short-sighted (no pun intended). Over the years I’ve met people who have epilepsy, are terrified of driving at night, or don’t wish to take on the financial responsibility of keeping a car in good working order. While the article indicated employees mocked him on several occasions (unprofessional?), I’m sure they’ve had many intoxicated people try and take their lives in their hands by walking through the drive-through. But relegating this lawsuit to discrimination against exclusively blind people – instead of all those who can’t/don’t drive – has many blind people thinking he’s wanting special treatment.

 

But is he really and truly wrong? I don’t think so. McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants with drive-through-only hours are providing an additional perk to those who can drive just because they can drive. And I don’t think that’s fair either. Driving is a huge societal advantage; you can get in your car and go wherever you want to go. You don’t have to rely on someone else’s schedule to leave a dreaded Thanksgiving dinner with your in-laws, you can take a spontaneous road trip just because you want to, and you don’t have to worry that you’ll get stuck in the rain because the next car (read: bus) won’t show up for 45 minutes. And, yes, you can get McDonald’s fries at 2:00 AM because you have a car and driving is the only way you’ll get served.

 

I don’t know how this lawsuit will pan out. But maybe if everyone meets in the middle, something will change and pedestrians will get served at 2:00 AM because we get hungry at that hour and we’re paying customers too. Maybe this happens by opening a designated walk-up window out of the way of those cars that can run us over. Maybe the storefront should be open the same hours as the drive-through windows. Maybe fast-food restaurants can take advantage of food-delivery services that have become extremely popular in the past few years (I’ve seen this, by the way). However it happens, it’s 11:00PM as I finish typing this. I live four blocks from a McDonalds… I wonder if they’re open? I think I’ll walk over there, because I really want some fries.

MY job is better than Yours!

06 Friday May 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, ,

You’d think – after more than 30 years on this planet and having had a ton of really really stupid things said to me – that I would learn not to stick my foot in my mouth. Not so much.

Last week, I posted on Twitter about a topic that is close to home – employment. I had recently seen a blindness organization posting work-from-home opportunities, as well as openings in their industrial shop. I asked why this is, that it feels like we’re being “hidden away” just to be employed. Others pointed out to me about transportation logistics and the desire of some to work from home. It was never my intent to disparage such things, but it could have come across that way… Because twitter’s strength and its weakness is its brevity, I figured I could explain myself and my viewpoint here on this blog… but I want your opinions, too!

Employment is Essential

I’ve written about this several times on this blog, whether it’s describing my own personal employment journey or the perception of blind people (and those with other disabilities) as inspirational or incapable. Many of us have education, transferable skills, and a strong desire to work, yet get turned down for job after job after job. It is demoralizing and demeaning – not to mention discriminatory – to hear that even though you are more than qualified for a job they have chosen another applicant (usually dancing around the word “disability”). This is where grit and determination come in, sometimes (though not always) aided by organizations that either assist in the job search for applicants with disabilities or provide work opportunities themselves. For those whose disability makes it possible, employment brings a sense of accomplishment, contribution and dignity. So why can’t I just be happy that people with disabilities are being employed… by someone?

The Home Office

The modern workplace is ever-changing. Some companies allow employees to telecommute (work from home) on either a permanent or situational basis, providing employee flexibility, lower office overhead, or the ability of employees to care for loved ones. So it comes as no surprise that some disability organizations subcontract workers for these jobs. It’s a perfect solution for those who prefer to work from home, or who have transportation or logistical challenges to come in to an office every day, or whose disability makes telecommuting the difference between being employed or relying on government assistance. And with the disability organization providing or advising on accessible technology for a disabled client/employee, it’s a win-win… right?

Separate Work Spaces

Some organizations provide workplaces (sometimes called sheltered workshops) where people with disabilities can be employed (primarily alongside other workers with disabilities), learn new skills, and be promoted (something that may be more of a challenge in the public sector). It can provide a sense of accomplishment, comraderie,  and usable employment skills, not to mention – in theory – the ability to earn an income. But some workplaces (Goodwill comes to mind) have paid their disabled workforce sub-minimum wages. This is not the case in all facilities, but it happens enough to be a real concern. This begs the question: is separate really and truly equal?

One Size Does NOT Fit All

It was rightly pointed out to me that it appeared my initial concerns about being “hidden away” by working at home or in blindness organizations came across as unyielding. It was never my intent. If someone wishes or needs to work from home and/or in a disability-centered organization, it should be their choice to do so. But it is by no means the only way for people with disabilities to obtain meaningful employment. Many disability organizations – particularly those who assist in the job search process – have clients who are happy working, no matter the pay, the job duties, or the employer; others have very specific goals, educational background, and salary expectations. Even if it’s not easy, organizations that assist people with disabilities on the job hunt need to be very aware that both types of people exist, and many fall somewhere in between. It is essential that all who wish to use these services feel welcome, like they are being heard, and not like they’re being shoved into a little box that over- or under-estimates their qualifications, setting them up for failure.

Conclusion

I’ve heard horror stories about highly-educated people with disabilities being referred to a job as a Walmart greeter. I’ve experienced first-hand the frustration of asking for advocacy assistance from disability organizations, only to be told to just take whatever job came along because they didn’t know what to do with me. I am not thumbing my nose up at anyone who works from home or in a sheltered workshop if it is their choice to do so and they are happy, healthy, and believe their work has value even in small ways. But it is not what I want for myself, simply because I like to separate my work from my home life, and I – and anyone with a disability – should be given the opportunity to be “out there” in public if that’s our choice.

So if you work from home and like it? I’m thrilled for you! If you work with other people with disabilities and love what you do? Rock on! If you work in the public sector and have found acceptance there? Keep it up!

For those of you who work in the disability field – teachers, employment counselors, advocates, social workers, even family members – really listen to the disabled children or adults with and for whom you’re affiliated. They may have hopes and dreams and fears that you haven’t considered, and they need you to listen to them and act accordingly. We live in our bodies, we know our minds; we know our capabilities. We likely know the employment situation that is best for us, and should have the freedom to reach for the stars – whatever constellation strikes our fancy.

Satire: Choosing a Guide… Criminal?

22 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

It happens every day. A video is posted on facebook and a zillion comments follow. Against my better judgment, I read some of the comments on one of these shares. Interspersed among comments wishing that more video was shown of the dog to the “awwwww doggie!” responses was a group of people who expressed that it was cruel for dogs to be “enslaved” to serve people, even people with disabilities that “need extra help”. I’ve never met one of these types (at least one that acknowledged it openly), but many of my friends have. What surprised me was a comment stating that it was not only cruel of us as humans to force dogs to work for us, but that criminals should be trained to provide guiding services to blind people.

 

OK, so forcing a dog to work for love and praise and pets and treats and constant companionship is cruel… but forcing a blind person to be at the mercy and whim of another person – criminal or not – is completely logical? And training a released criminal to perform guiding services at the whim of a blind person is not enslavement? Oooookay. Let’s run with that line of thinking. If someone chose to do this… how would one be matched with a guide criminal?

 

Which institution will train your guide criminal? It would be advantageous to select an institution close to home, because there’s no way a blind person can travel independently before they are matched. So blind people should all live in the basement of their chosen training jail or prison, and in the event that’s not possible, they should at least live next door, with no tricky streets, steps or any changes in elevation more than 1/16 of an inch. Ideally, the jail or prison should screen their guide criminals carefully, produce capable trainees, and make sure they are trustworthy people, but the fact they’re there at all should be sufficient reason for blind people who are recipients of their trained guide criminals to weep and genuflect in gratitude. I’m sure there will be studies eventually, but what previously-enjoyed activities would increase the success rate: embezzlement, robbery, assault, drug possession, driving under the influence of alcohol? And would it be expected that a guide criminal should be able to continue to enjoy these activities post-placement, even if it might put the blind person at risk?

 

What attributes would be preferred? Sure, compassion is one; they need to love what they do in support of the poor poor blind people of the world… But what about reliability, personality, habits, age, gender… I mean, this person is supposed to be on-call for guiding duties 24/7 in the unlikely event that a blind person would actually want to go somewhere. So you’d want someone with a good enough work ethic to – at a moment’s notice – keep a blind person safe from creepy people, from falling down stairs, or from looking or acting normal in any way… but they can’t be reliable enough to hold down any other job after all of that training in case the blind person needs their services. How much do you tell a blind person about their guide criminal’s life pre-placement? They shouldn’t care, but occasionally one of them might ask about their great skills or bad habits or health problems or family background or why they would want to be a guide criminal in the first place.

 

The logistics of working with a guide criminal… What if they get distracted and wish to go on a hot date with that attractive person across the street? Would they need to bring their blind handler along for this date? What do guide criminals eat? Where would they sleep? Does anyone cover medical expenses in the event they get sick and can’t work? What behaviors or health conditions would make a guide criminal no longer fit for service? Since blind people are incapable of deciding things for themselves, who decides if a match just isn’t working out?

 

I don’t think the guide criminal lifestyle is for me… I’m off to enslave my dog by taking her for a run around the neighborhood, followed by a seriously good game of fetch, a big bowl of fresh water, and a snuggle on my bed. Doing such things with a guide criminal would be… really creepy. But, hey, thanks for indulging my catharsis in imagining a life where conscripting the time, dignity, and autonomy of not only blind people but post-released criminals is a thing…

First They Denied Access…

09 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Earlier this week, my friend Meagan wrote a brilliant blog post about selective discrimination. If you haven’t read it yet, you should, because it’s important. I had full intentions of writing about a similar topic from another angle; thankfully she is gracious enough not to point out that SHE wrote about it first…

Over the past six months or so, since becoming more involved in the disability rights movement and meeting more people, I’ve come face-to-face with some of my own ideas about disability, access, and availability of information. People with a wide range of disabilities – those who are deaf or hard of hearing, who use wheelchairs, who are on the autism spectrum, who live with PTSD – have been far more patient than I deserve. I’ve had my own sense of privilege pointed out – just because I have access to something doesn’t mean that everyone does, and how dare I sit back and be content that I have access to facilities, employment, or information, when the fight for equality is far from over for everyone else? If you live with a disability, and even if you don’t, I hope you’ll consider the next few paragraphs carefully, make whatever necessary changes in yourself, and realize that it’s up to you and me to make things happen, even if it doesn’t directly benefit us.

Let’s start with a few examples. Several followers on twitter have recently opened up a huge discussion about a popular podcasting website that provides audio posts for their blind followers, but delays (if it publishes at all) the publication of transcripts so that deaf or deaf-blind followers can follow along. Many blind people are pushing for TV networks and video-on-demand services like Netflix to provide descriptive video, even as closed captioning has been part of TV networks for years now so that those who are deaf or hard of hearing can more fully enjoy movies and TV programming. In either example, many of those who have received access to the information or service are strangely silent on pushing for others with different accessibility needs to have that same access for themselves. What about physical access to buildings? Just because I have two strong feet and the ability to use them to propel myself forward, how dare I take for granted the ability to walk into any building I choose – a shop, a restaurant, a concert venue – and not even have to think twice about it? Many wheelchair users have to contact restaurants ahead of time to ensure there are ramps to the building, or make sure the seats they purchased for that blockbuster concert are truly accessible. Many are too gracious to point out that we all have our own struggles, but that’s hardly the point now, is it?

 

Among service dog users, the guide dog is the most commonly recognized. But many other service dogs exist. What gives guide dog users (myself included) the right to police what specific services another’s service dog provides so long as it mitigates a disability? How dare we sit smugly by when other legitimate service dog teams are denied access to public facilities just because we are the privileged and most recognizable? What gives other service dog users the right to tell guide dog handlers how much more training our dogs need than theirs? I’ve seen all of this and more… and it’s ugly. And I’m not even touching on the service dog fakers…

 

The blind community in and of itself is not exempt from such stances of privilege. There is an outspoken outrage when a guide dog user is denied access to a restaurant, movie theatre, or taxi. Yet, in moments of vulnerability and candor, some blind people who prefer to travel with canes acknowledge that there’s a teeny tiny part of themselves that is grateful that the battle for access isn’t directly related to them. Until this past week when two blind friends using canes were refused entry to a restaurant because the eating area was upstairs, modern instances of service denial to the blind traveling with canes are exceedingly rare. Several of my deaf-blind friends have had blind people question their dignity and right to access information, resources, and employment services. None of these things are right, and no one should ever indicate that discrimination in any form is OK… and yet…

 

I’m going to go out on a limb and borrow an oft-quoted and paraphrased poem by Martin Niemöller. Maybe this will help the disability community realize that we’re not so different after all, and denying access to some of us should be considered equally as horrible as doing so to all of us:

 

First they denied access to the service dog handler, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a service dog handler.

Then they denied access to buildings for the wheelchair user, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a wheelchair user.

Then they denied access to information for the deaf, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not deaf.

Then they denied access and accommodations for the autistic, and I did not speak out— Because I was not autistic.

 

Then they denied access and dignity to those with PTSD, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have PTSD.

 

Then they denied access to me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

It’s Not About the Oranges

12 Saturday Mar 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

I never thought I would write a blog post about a fruit I seldom eat, but I also never thought that Twitter would nearly blow up over… oranges.

 

Whole Foods, an American grocery chain generally marketed to the upwardly mobile and/or environmentally conscious recently stocked pre-peeled oranges wrapped in plastic. The backlash on social media was swift: Who is too lazy to peel their oranges? And all of that plastic CAN’t be good for the environment… right? Whole Foods then issued a statement that the product was a “mistake” and they pulled it from their shelves.

 

In response to – if not defense of – this product, many people with illnesses or disabilities that make peeling and cutting fruits and vegetables a painful challenge (if not impossible) chose to use this as a teaching opportunity. I’ve written a bit about social media activism, and while an argument can be made that much of it might seem angry or whiny, I found the tone of this particular activism was more informative. It brought to the consciousness things I’ve never considered myself, because I’ve been blessed with two steady hands that make cooking and food preparation a generally (though not always) safe life skill. But what if I had limited dexterity or severe joint pain? What if I had to worry about coordination or seizures? I don’t live with these things, and that’s a blessing, but many people do… and many have articulated that products like this are accessibility needs, not wants.

 

Leaving aside the general price-points of high-end markets, I’ve enjoyed the general tone of this conversation, at least the respectful bits that discuss the seeming gap between environmentalism and access to healthy food. Whether Whole Foods put this product on their shelf, or another grocer somewhere else, the topic will continue to be brought up in various incarnations. What is the difference between pre-peeled oranges packed in plastic and pre-sliced mushrooms packaged the same way? No one bats an eye about that. How about personal servings of yogurt, pre-shredded salad mix, or juice boxes with plastic-wrapped straws? Many of these foods are considered “convenience” foods, and no one can argue that they aren’t as environmentally friendly as buying that big tub of yogurt or that large carton of juice. Convenience in and of itself isn’t always bad, especially if it makes life easier and healthy food more easily preparable for everyone. No one seems to bat an eye at these “convenience” foods as much as the oranges, perhaps because they are portable and self-contained right off the shelf. But I, for one, may never think of them the same way again. What if I couldn’t peel my own orange, for whatever reason? Would I have to try and hide my “convenience” food purchases for fear of being judged as not caring for the environment? Would I, as others have suggested, have to call someone over to my house to peel my apples for me if I get peckish in the middle of the night? Thanks, but no thanks…

 

The discussion that this little fruit has brought may never go away completely, and it’s not an either-or debate. The suggestions have been swift and numerous to intersect convenience, attainability, and environmentally friendly. Suggestions ranged from simply pointing out that there are worse or different ways of being poor stewards of the earth, to suggesting that some of the cost of pre-packaged food can go into research and development for more environmentally friendly containers and wrapping. None of this is a one-sided debate, because it is like comparing… well, apples to oranges. If I walk to a grocery store and buy some pre-packaged food, am I leaving more of a carbon footprint than someone who drives to the grocery store and buys all of their products in bulk? There are no easy answers to these questions, but the conversation is worth having. I may not be a card-carrying environmentalist, but I like to do what I can for the planet. And if someone wants to buy a pre-packaged salad, for whatever reason, it’s nobody’s business but theirs. Besides, if you want to raise a stink about plastic-wrapped vegetables, what about the plastic bag of chips in your shopping cart?