Did these people [in academia who claim that they are not exposed to disabled people] realize that when they encountered the work of Rosa Luxemburg (who limped), Antonio Gramsci (a crippled, dwarfed hunchback), John Milton (blind), Alexander Pope (dwarfed hunchback), George Gordon Brown (club foot), [Jorge] Luis Borges, James Joyce, and James Thurber (all blind), Harriet Martineau (deaf), Toulouse-Lautrec (spinal deformity), Frida Kahlo (osteomyelitis), Virginia Woolf (lupus), they were meeting people with disabilities? Do filmgoers realize when they watch the films of James Ford, Raoul Walsh, André de Toth, Nicholas Ray, Tay Garnett and William Wyler that these directors were all physically impaired? Why is it when one looks these figures in dictionaries of biography or encyclopedias that their physical disabilities are usually not mentioned – unless the disability is seen as related to creativity, as in the case of the blind bard Milton or the deaf Beethoven? There is an ableist notion at work here that anyone who creates a canonical work must be physically able. Likewise, why do we not know that Helen Keller was a socialist, a member of the Wobblies, the International Workers of the World, and an advocate of free love? We assume that our ‘official’ mascots of disability are nothing else but their disability.

Lennard J. Davis, Enforcing Normalcy: Disability, Deafness, and the Body (via irwonder)

Source: irwonder

autistic-knight-errant:

I honestly think that we would eliminate one of the major causes of ableism if we stopped basing people’s worth off how much revenue they generate.

Source: wheneds

Advocacy group for disabled loses provincial funding (Manitoba)

pom-seedss:

allthecanadianpolitics:

allthecanadianpolitics:

The Manitoba League for Persons with Disabilities, which was founded in 1974, says it may have to call it quits after the province denied its core funding for the year.

It’s a “devastating blow,” the league that advocates for Manitobans with disabilities said Thursday in an open letter to its members. The provincial non-profit organization promotes accessibility and inclusion for people of all abilities. Its executive council said it recently learned that the provincial government will not be providing core funding of $50,000 for the 2018-19 fiscal year.

“It’s extremely difficult for organizations to operate where there is a lack of core funding,” said disabilities advocate Carlos Sosa.

The league has been the voice of Manitobans with disabilities for more than 40 years, pushing for changes in attitudes toward people with disabilities, Sosa said. One of its biggest accomplishments is the creation of HandiTransit in Winnipeg, which has opened doors for thousands of people, he said.

Continue Reading.

Your friendly reminder that Conservatives HATE disabled people.

Friendly reminder that Conservatives would rather disabled folks die and decrease the surplus population than be allowed to live with dignity.

If anyone believes the Scrooge line is an exaggeration, it is not. 

$50,000 is nothing to a provincial budget but it is a fatal blow to the organization. They want us gone, make no mistake.

Advocacy group for disabled loses provincial funding (Manitoba)

Writing Deaf Characters | Speech is Speech

artattemptswriting:

Before I get going, I’m 75% deaf, as some of you know, semi-reliant on hearing aids and lip reading. My first languages were Makaton sign and then BSL. I now use spoken English.

There are a lot of issues I find with how deaf people are represented in books, when represented at all. I would love to see more deaf and hard of hearing characters in the books I read- without having to read books specifically about deaf/HoH people- but when I find them, they’re grossly undercharacterized or stereotyped. Authors write them in a way that sets signing language characters apart from speaking characters as if they are inferior, and this makes my blood boil.

Some technicalties

I’ll keep this brief.

• You may have heard that “deaf” is a slur and you should use “hearing impaired”. Don’t. I’ve never met a deaf or hard of hearing person who believed that. Use deaf for people who are deaf, and Hard of Hearing (HoH) for people who lack hearing. These can be interchangeable depending on the person. This is why sensitivity readers are a useful part of the beta process.
• Sign language is incredibly varied. It developes in the same way as spoken language. Fun fact: in BSL there are at least half a dozen ways to say bullshit, my favourite of which is laying your arms across one another with one hand making a bull’s head sign and the other hand going flat, like a cowpat. It’s beautifully crude, and the face makes the exclamation mark. Wonderful.
• There are different sign languages. Knowing more than one would make a character multi or bi-lingual, even if they are non-speaking.
• Makaton is basic sign language used by children, and it mirrors the very simple language used by toddlers.
• Yes, we swear and talk shit about people around us in sign language sometimes, and no, it isn’t disrespectful to have signing characters do this. Just remember that we also say nice things, and random things, and talk about fandoms and TV shows and what we’re having for dinner, too.
• Each signed language is different from another. ASL and BSL? Nothing alike. Just google the two different signs for horse.

Remember that sign language is a language, equal to the spoken word

Therefore, treat it as such. Use quotation speech marks and dialogue
tags. You only need to explicitly state that this character uses signed language once, and then let your modifiers and description do the rest.

 It isn’t a form of “sub-speech" or “making hand actions”- sign language is a language all on its own: it has its own grammar rules, syntactical structures, punctuation, patterns, idioms and colloquialisms. For example, “what is your name?” becomes “Your name what?” with the facial expression forming punctuation in the same way that spoken English uses alterations of prosodic tone (inflections). There is even pidgin sign; a language phenomenon usually associated with spoken language.

In the same way that you would describe a spoken-English character’s tone of voice, you would describe a signed-English speaker’s facial expressions and the way that they sign- keeping in mind that these things are our language’s equivalent of verbal inflection.

So please, none of that use of “special speech marks” or italicised
speech for sign. If your viewpoint character doesn’t understand signed
speech, then you take the same approach that would be used for any other
language they don’t understand, like French or Thai. E.g “He said something
in rapid sign language, face wrinkling in obvious disgust.” is a good
way of conveying this. The proof that you’ve done this well is in whether or not you can switch “sign language” for French or something else, and it would read the same.

Don’t be afraid to describe how things are said, either.
Sign language is such a beautiful and expressive way of talking, and to
see a writer do it justice would be truly fabulous. Putting this into practise:

“Oh, I love maths!” She said, fingers sharp and wide with sarcasm. She raised her eyebrows.

“I’m sorry.” He replied and made his face small, but could not keep the grin forming. She was starting to laugh, too.

This is part one of two, for the sake of readability and keeping the information simple as I can. Part two- writing the deaf characters themselves- is coming up over the weekend. See you then and best luck with your writing until that point 😀

---

This is part of my weekly advice theme. Each week I look at what you’ve asked me to help with, and write a post or series of posts for it. Next week: settings and character development (including heroes, anti-heroes, villains, and every other kind of character).

load-bearing

thantos1991:

brightlotusmoon:

aspiring-bonobo-rationalist:

theunitofcaring:

Sometimes people hit a place in their life where things are going really well. They like their job and are able to be productive at it; they have energy after work to pursue the relationships and activities they enjoy; they’re taking good care of themselves and rarely get sick or have flareups of their chronic health problems; stuff is basically working out. Then a small thing about their routine changes and suddenly they’re barely keeping their head above water.

(This happens to me all the time; it’s approximately my dominant experience of working full-time.)

I think one thing that’s going on here is that there are a bunch of small parts of our daily routine which are doing really important work for our wellbeing. Our commute involves a ten-minute walk along the waterfront and the walking and fresh air are great for our wellbeing (or, alternately, our commute involves no walking and this makes it way more frictionless because walking sucks for us). Our water heater is really good and so we can take half-hour hot showers, which are a critical part of our decompression/recovery time. We sit with our back to the wall so we don’t have to worry about looking productive at work as long as the work all gets done. The store down the street is open really late so late runs for groceries are possible. Our roommate is a chef and so the kitchen is always clean and well-stocked.

It’s useful to think of these things as load-bearing. They’re not just nice – they’re part of your mental architecture, they’re part of what you’re using to thrive. And when they change, life can abruptly get much harder or sometimes just collapse on you entirely. And this is usually unexpected, because it’s hard to notice which parts of your environment and routine are load bearing. I often only notice in hindsight. “Oh,” I say to myself after months of fatigue, “having my own private space was load-bearing.” “Oh,” after a scary drop in weight, “being able to keep nutrition shakes next to my bed and drink them in bed was load-bearing.” “Oh,” after a sudden struggle to maintain my work productivity, “a quiet corner with my back to the wall was load-bearing.”

When you know what’s important to you, you can fight for it, or at least be equipped to notice right away if it goes and some of your ability to thrive goes with it. When you don’t, or when you’re thinking of all these things as ‘nice things about my life’ rather than ‘load-bearing bits of my flourishing as a person’, you’re not likely to notice the strain created when they vanish until you’re really, really hurting. 

Almost two weeks after reading this, and I’m still kind of blown away at what a ridiculously fruitful definition this is.  Like I had no idea that load bearing things were a thing that needed to have a word for them, but now I’m like holy shit I’m so glad that there’s now a word I can use to refer to this really important class of Thing.

This is astounding. Load-bearing. Forget spoons, this concept is wonderful. I’m going to update my Spear Theory with this.

@thebibliosphere @sister-forget-me-not

allthecanadianpolitics:

tigressjasper:

Lisa Macleod the minster of child services and social services laughed when told about how ontario citizens on ontario disability support program and ontario works felt heightened in their anxiety and depression and suicidal thoughts when waiting to hear what the progressive conservatives were going to do with these programs. Then called the second part of Lisa Gretzky’s question a joke. 

It is great to know as a canadian living with mental illness, my illness is seen as funny and a question about my livelihood is a joke. 

Link to video:

https://twitter.com/LGretzky/status/1065729837594226688

Ontario NDP: Ford redefining disability means vulnerable Ontarians will be turned away from ODSP benefits

allthecanadianpolitics:

The Ford government has announced it’s changing how it defines a disability — a move that means many more Ontarians will be turned away when they apply for the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).

“For people in Ontario living with a disability or serious illness, this change is going to make them more destitute, and more desperate,” said NDP Social Services critic Lisa Gretzky.“ This is a callous way to deliver a cut on the backs of the most vulnerable people in Ontario. It’s taking Ontario’s social services from bad to worse.”

Conservative Minister of Children, Community and Social Services Lisa MacLeod announced Thursday that the province will change the definition of disability to match the federal definition. The most common federal definition applies to Canada Pension Plan Disability (CPPD) applicants, who can only get support if their illness is likely to prevent them from ever working. If Ford applies this definition to ODSP recipients, Ontarians whose disabilities allow them to work occasionally, or those who may one day be able to work, will be denied support. This could include people with cancer, common forms of diseases like MS, and certain mental illnesses.

The move enables the Ford Conservatives and Lisa MacLeod to make a deep cut to social service programs. Her ministry, which includes Children, Community and Social Services, is budgeted at about $1 billion less than the 2018 budget allocated for those ministries when they were separate.

“The Conservatives have already made deep cuts to a social assistance system that gives much-needed support to nearly one million Ontarians,” said Gretzky. “Doug Ford has already cut in half a planned increase to social assistance from three per cent to 1.5 per cent. He killed the Liberals’ three-year basic income pilot, a project that has been helping 4,000 low-income earners across Ontario.”

These cuts are causing serious anxiety for Ontarians struggling to make ends meet on the existing social assistance payments provided by Ontario Works (OW) and ODSP.

“The Conservatives are taking things from bad to worse,” Gretzky said. “In Windsor, one in four women and one in four children live in poverty – the highest poverty rates in Canada. For MacLeod to pass this change off as anything but cuts to Ontario’s most vulnerable people is disgusting.”

In Toronto, the Daily Bread Food Bank recently reported that over 60 per cent of its users rely on social assistance to make ends meet. Last year, the food bank had 914,000 visits. Doug Ford’s own riding of Etobicoke saw the largest surge – 170 per cent – in food bank users. Daily Bread Food Bank CEO Neil Hetherington warned that Ford’s cuts to social assistance will only drive these numbers up.

Ontarians, and Ontario’s most vulnerable, deserve better.

Ontario NDP: Ford redefining disability means vulnerable Ontarians will be turned away from ODSP benefits

There are danger signs in Ford government plans to reform welfare

nrh61:

allthecanadianpolitics:

As political tactics go, it’s not a bad one.

Drum up fears that the social assistance program than sustains nearly 1 million Ontarians might be gutted. Do this by talking about how it costs taxpayers $10 billion a year, isn’t sustainable, and doesn’t encourage people to work.

In short, terrify the people who can barely survive on what they’re getting now that something much worse is coming their way. Then deliver a series of changes that, at first glance anyway, aren’t as bad as expected, and even include the potential for improvements down the line.

To be sure, Ontario’s social assistance system does not work as well as it should for anybody. But where the rubber always meets the proverbial road is figuring out how to fix it.

Doug Ford’s government unveiled its plan this week to “restore dignity, independence and empowerment” to those on social assistance.

The biggest change is redefining disability to more closely align with federal guidelines. Lisa MacLeod, the minister of children, community and social services, says this will provide “clarity.”

Perhaps it will. But the government isn’t doing this to make paper-pushing easier. This change will make it harder for new people to qualify for the Ontario Disability Support Program. And the obvious underlying suggestion is that there are people on the program now who shouldn’t be.

People with “severe disabilities” who can’t work will be treated with “compassion and dignity in our new system,” MacLeod promised. Those who can work will also be treated with dignity and better supported to find jobs, she went on. “If you can work, or if you can’t, we have a plan to help you.”

But part of the plan, clearly, is to move people from one group to another by ruling more injured workers or those suffering mental issues ineligible for disability support. That leaves them with no option but the Ontario Works program, which provides substantially less support. The monthly maximum for a single person on disability is $1,169 compared to just $733 on welfare.

Continue Reading.

I just can’t with these fuckers. Is everyone taking that in? $733. Where in Ontario can you pay basic rent for 700 bucks, let alone eat or meet any other expenses? But that’s what you’re going to survive on if you’re only 95% disabled in Ontario now. Ontario works is already a joke and now we’re going to expect people who are disabled to live on it too.

There are danger signs in Ford government plans to reform welfare

Hey so I have a family friend who use to work in the social services and still had connections in there. She says that the cuts and changes are mostly focused on Ontario Works not on ODSP. I wasn’t given any specific information, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but I know that a lot of your are probably anxiously wondering what could possibly in store for us, and I hope that knowing this information helps some of you or get’s you a leg up preparing for the future. Stay safe everyone 💚

allthecanadianpolitics:

~~~~