Hi,
I am the least likely person to agree with the woke agenda or identity politics. We all know that this insidious craze has resulted in some serious crazy shi* in recent years. Yes, various historical injustices clearly needed to be fought and corrected, but identity politics plays into the hands of the far right and divides us like never before. It is one of the many reasons why Brexit happened and that Trump will likely win later this year (probably on a landslide.)
I've never been a fan of diversity targets or quotas either (for many reasons.) But given that many groups have already benefitted from such things, why should other groups continue to be excluded?
It always amazed me that disabled people are excluded from the diversity and inclusion agenda. Even when they are included by the BBC or mainstream media, they are only included as an afterthought. This is despite the fact that they are arguably the most economically and socially disadvantaged group of all. People talk about female or black (or Asian) presidents/prime ministers or CEOs, but the chances of a US president/British prime minister - whether white/black or male/female and having a clear or obvious disability is basically zero.
You only have to look at the current make up of our parliament. The media takes great pride in telling us how diverse it is, but there are, at most, only a handful of mps (out of 650) with any kind of disability. And that's before you get to the more controversial subject of mild v severe and visible v invisible disabilities.
I realise it's a complex subject. Take autism. If the Labour party goes ahead and mandates disability reporting for all medium and large UK companies, the cynic in me says that only those who are 'high masking' individuals will benefit. Meanwhile, those who aren't able to mask very well/at all will still have trouble gaining employment. It think such a scenario will be true of all disabilities, where those with dyslexia/dyscalculia etc. will be employed over those who need more significant adjustments and adaptations. I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt it.
The main problem is representation in the media. This is why the abuse of disabled people and the disability wage gap etc. are seldom discussed. We still have a situation where the likes of the BBC etc. still seem reluctant to move forward with disability with the sort of fervour and determination that is the case with gender or race. As with our parliament, disability rights are still seen as (largely) optional.
This was summed up by a recent article I read in the Independent. A woman who worked for a company who was holding a diversity and inclusion board meeting, said that one of the senior board members mentioned how important such things are to corporate and societal progression. But when the woman mentioned disability, he simply laughed dismissively.
I've noticed this phenomenon when talking about violence and hate speech. Whenever anyone is violent or openly ableist to disabled people, most people claim it derives from genuine ignorance. Of course, were this to be said of gendered or racist behaviour, the anti-racists/feminists would rightly be livid.
You only have to look at this forum. There is no doubt that the moderators do a very difficult job admirably, but whenever any discussions come up about PIPs or disability benefits the usual ableist posters come out of the woodwork, spouting their vitriol. Similarly, when the topics turn to autism, particularly non-verbal autistic males are often painted by some as sexual predators and rapists (numerous studies show that it is virtually unheard of for non-verbal autistic males to commit violent or sexual crimes.) The relationship section of this site is also a case in point, where there are numerous threads frequently insulting (and generalising about) autistic partners (mostly males), the vast majority of whom - surprise surprise - are undiagnosed or are simply diagnosed by the OP (or other posters on the thread.)
The frequent threads about autistic people making excuses about bad behaviour are a case in point. Yes, I have no doubt that some do (though, from experience, it's not normally they themselves, who do this, but usually their parent(s)) I also have a strong hunch that the few who do this themselves are mainly self-diagnosed.) But, anyway, in the age of self-entitlement and victim culture, why should they be singled out? Afterall, haven't many high profile politicians and celebrities used their protected group status (of various kinds) as a go-to-excuse for bad behaviour. You see this a lot even on Mumsnet. Like with disability, it's a minority of people, but still...
Which takes me back to my original point. Even though I am neither a fan of identity politics nor the woke agenda, it is clearly here to stay for the foreseeable. If it's good enough for other groups, surely it's only right that disabled are invited to the party. Starting from now.