Frances Bolton (PHI) wrote:
> I read your post, Marta, and I was reminded of the arguments I used to
> have with a friend who did (academic) stuff on disability. She had CP, and
> ws writing primarily about stuff that concerned people with physical,
> rather than mental disabilities. She admitted that the groups had
> different concerns, but wouldn't admit that it was problematic to talk
> about "disabilities." My brother, for example, has mental retardation, is
> autistic, and has recently been diagnosed with OCD (I think the OCD is
> part of the autism, but that's another story. the meds help, and that's
> what matters). Now, talk about yer invisible populations--crazy retards
> are pretty high up there (whoops gonna get slammed for that one--gallows
> humor). And it seems to me from what I've read (admittedly limited), he's
> invisible within the disability literature as well.
I agree with your comments on invisibility. There is such a broadness to disability that one group tends to deal with its issues as the primary set of issues, others, theirs, blind, deaf, mobility impaired, developmentally disabled, mentally ill. People who have mental disabilities and otherwise "seem normal," I hate that word normal but you get the drift, experience a double bind. They are the most discriminated against group and the least treated (health care wise) It is true that many physically disabled people do not want to associate with them because they don't want to be grouped with the "nuts," though they don't use this word. There is a stigma attached that is even worse than with the physical impairment. It is a horiible thing that there is a pecking order within the ranks of the DRM. However there has been of late more talk about this problem, so perhaps that will change. To let you know, Mouth, the voice of disability rights, is very good on mental disabilities.
>
>
> The Benetton ad pissed me off. It pissed me off because we are always
> seeing images of happy laughing children with Down's syndrome. Every time
> someone wants to make people with MR seem not repulsive, they go for the
> folks with Down's. I think it makes people with MR as a whole more
> invisible. People in the physical disability community get pissed off at
> Jerry Lewis for the way the "kids" are presented as perfect little happy
> grateful angels. Why not get pissed about the gorgeous little Down'sy
> children that we always see? How is it different?
The Bennetton ad is different in the sense that it is an image of a welcomed baby in the arms of its mother. The baby is not being used to wrench money for a charity like the Tiny Tim images, it doesn't reek with pity for the disabled child (a big Jerry Lewis tactic to get people to donate to his empire) rather it exudes acceptance - the parent wants this downs syndrome child(which are primary targets for abortion). I see it in the context of the other Benetton social commentary ads preceeding it which carried a multicultural message.
Best, Marta