Up Front: Another Brick in the Wall
134 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
BenWilson, in reply to
You're like the ultimate lefty to vote directly against your interests, on behalf of a cause (children) that doesn't have a personal element. I don't actually think that kind of reasoning is "like most kiwis". Voting after one's back pocket is really common.
-
Lilith __, in reply to
You’re like the ultimate lefty to vote directly against your interests, on behalf of a cause (children) that doesn’t have a personal element.
Why does this have to be an either/or thing? We can't care about our own interests AND looking after those with special needs?
-
I'm happy to pay more tax. But only if it goes to Giovanni's children. And Emma's.
I don’t actually think that kind of reasoning is “like most kiwis”. Voting after one’s back pocket is really common.
I actually think they both happen at the same time. People have strong altruistic group-based motivations, and they have strong personal ('selfish') motivations, and they come into play in different contexts. In some people one is stronger than the other. Both can be primed. By turning these needs from an abstract idea into people with names, faces, and identifiable interests, you could successfully entrench the former, at least around this issue.
-
Sacha, in reply to
What I would say we urgently need is for people in the profession - and not just disabled (or mentally ill) people and their families - to come on board. Advocacy has to include them
Totally - which requires smarter thinking and collaborative action than has been common. Those with the greatest need are unlikely to be those with the greatest resources or power.
-
Despite several decades of ideologically-encouraged selfishness, I like how strangers still approach pregnant women in the street expressing an interest in the wellbeing of their future fellow citizen. That's human nature and a cause for hope.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Why does this have to be an either/or thing?
It doesn't. I was making a comment about Bart, and somewhat flippantly. It's a digression so I don't really want to talk to any points raised against it.
-
"chris", in reply to
I’m happy to pay more tax. But only if it goes to Giovanni’s children. And Emma’s.
That should be pretty easy to arrange.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Sacha, I think this might be an overly rosey view. Certainly doesn't happen if you look like you might already have more than your quota, or could possibly be one of those dangerous single mothers.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
If we write on this board chances are we’re the lucky ones.
My research conclusions that love and luck are the intangibles that make a positive difference in outcomes for autistic or other disabled children has been reinforced for me over many years. I now believe there is also a significant ‘mother’ factor. This was illustrated so well by this week’s story of the mother of the autistic adult men in Christchurch who were temporarily homeless. The news provided a hint of the importance of the the lifelong mothering/advocacy/strategist/planning role required for access to some of the basic rights to health, education, housing etc. I often come across young disabled people without mothers and they are not doing nearly as well (eg housing, education, employment, benefit support) as those with them.
Sometimes you can substitute ‘father’ for ‘mother’, but that role is much less likely to exist for disabled young people, and in my totally unscientific analysis, not as reliable an indicator for good outcomes.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Sometimes you can substitute ‘father’ for ‘mother’, but that role is much less likely to exist for disabled young people, and in my totally unscientific analysis, not as reliable an indicator for good outcomes.
Can you outline what you are distinguishing as 'fathering'?
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
I'm not talking about fathering. I'm just saying that in my experience those disabled children who have an activist 'mother' tend to do better throughout life. In reality it is usually the biological mother. But that one person could also be a father, grandparent or some other person who is prepared to fight on the front line for that person's rights for as long as it takes, which could be a life time. That mother of the two autistic men in Christchurch is a very good illustration of this theory.
-
Sacha, in reply to
so by mother you mean committed parent.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Yes but in my experience that person is most likely to be the mother - hence I call it the mother factor. Some lucky children have two activist parents and they share the advocacy, but I would say that most disabled children, for a variety of reasons, only have one - their mother. This might offend those activist fathers and friends on this thread and those who I know personally, but I fear they are not representative.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I simply don't see the point in labelling a desirable attribute in the name of only one gender as you've done. If it is committed parenting that makes a difference, why not call it that? If it is forceful advocacy, likewise.
By all means recognise the load currently falls way too much on women's shoulders, but that seems less likely to change if you remove the responsiblity from fathers altogether in the way it's described. Or for our gendered roles to evolve in useful directions. Essentialism was not that helpful in the 70s and I really thought it had been replaced by smarter approaches.
-
I'm sorry,Sacha, but disability care and blame (eg anything by Michael Laws) is very gendered.
I would love for it not to be. But until we have gender equality in the care industry, in disability education (eg teacher aides) and throughout the disability support sector, in single parenting of disabled children, and when disability parents' meetings and conferences have better gender representation than 90:10 women/men, then I might reconsider.
How do you suggest we move it in a more useful direction?
-
Sacha, in reply to
Let's focus on the nature of those advocacy roles, and how we can strengthen them and their place in the system in the interests of disabled children and families.
Equity is not equality, so I doubt we will see similar numbers of men and women performing all roles any time soon. Both genders bring strengths to the table, especially when it comes to speaking up for disadvantaged people and working to fix broken systems.
-
I agree. But this is not about essentialism (ie women are naturally better at caring), but about gender politics, which is why I keep framing it as such.
To change it also requires an increase of status of 'disability' itself. At the moment when you look at the hierarchy of status and expertise around disability, those who spend most time in caring roles are likely to be women, unpaid or poorly paid. Whereas the more 'expert' the person is (eg a clinical specialist) the less time they will spend with the child but the more they are paid, the more likely they are to be male, and the greater status in society they have.
I also have fears about the new disability services mantra of increasing 'natural ' ie free supports. That also means more unpaid work for women.
-
To fix these long-standing problems, we must involve allies and persuade decision-makers (many of whom may be male). I suggest gendered labelling of desired characteristics will not help with that. Anyone who doesn't know better may assume the solution is more mothers, rather than better-supported parents and champions.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I also have fears about the new disability services mantra of increasing 'natural ' ie free supports. That also means more unpaid work for women.
Totally with you on that.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
I suggest gendered labelling of desired characteristics will not help with that.
I am not suggesting that 'desired' characteristics are gender labelled. Just that there are gender labels and roles now. These should be challenged in all sorts of ways. But that is not to deny the current situation.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I am not suggesting that 'desired' characteristics are gender labelled
Um, you described parental advocacy as mothering. Or I wouldn't have noticed and spent so much time discussing it.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
No, I observe that most of the people who do lifelong advocacy on behalf of their disabled children, young people and adults, are mothers. I'm not talking about desired characteristics or essentialism or saying this is how it should be. Just stating my observation of 2013 NZ (mainly informed by my experience in the autism and ID sectors and to a lesser extent impairment generally).
And that it is an issue of gender politics. Because if, as the social model and the NZ Disability Strategy have it, people have impairments but society disables, by extension that means society also risks disabling those who are the front line carers and advocates. And they are predominantly the mothers.
-
giovanni tiso, in reply to
This might offend those activist fathers and friends on this thread and those who I know personally
None taken whatsoever. I'm with you on this one, advocacy in my (limited) experience is still expected more of mothers than of fathers, and has more power (for instance in the media) because it is supposed to be coming from the quasi-mystical place of motherly love, which still has a firm grip on the collective imaginary.
-
Just so long as no one accuses a certain caucus of lacking balls, or anything really important like that. :)
-
Jodi W, in reply to
I am terrified of what battles I will face in a few years when my daughter starts school. I knew it was going to be hard when I first went to WINZ to apply for the CDA for her. I was told WINZ would have to get their medical advisors to assess whether it would automatically rollover each year or if it would need reassessing. My daughter has down syndrome. It not like she will grow out of the extra chromosome. That was a pretty traumatic conversation to have to have with some moron about my 3 month old. I am sure I will have some gems to come
Post your response…
This topic is closed.