Madmouse's open letter to MNHQ about the treatment of those with disabilities on MN

[madmouse]

Dear MNHQ

I joined MN when I was pregnant with my lovely ds. That heady autumn with bump before such words as NICU, neonatal seizures, brain damage, cerebral palsy, speech delay, special school entered my vocabulary.

That was 5 whole years ago - and all that time MN has been a part of my life. Got a lot of support from my ante- and postnatal buddies and from experienced SN mums. Gave back where I could. Became ill with PTSD, found the MH threads, recovered, started to give support on the MH threads.

Now I've come to the point that the only thing stopping me from leaving MN is that I would let down people on the MH threads. Other than that your (MNHQ) behaviour today has been an eye opener and a bit of a final straw.

MN has become, like RL, a place where disabled people and people with disabled children are not safe, not treated equally and not extended the same courtesy and respect as those without disabilities.

What happened today is just a tip of the ice berg. Day in day out threads appear with the same old theme. AIBU to use this disabled space because my baby's maxi cosy is too big and the P&T spaces are full, AIBU to use the wheelchair space on the bus (those two appear weekly by and large), AIBU to think it's nice to be disabled because you get lots of benefits, AIBU to think disabled people have it easy, AIBU to think I should have a free car too seeing as that I pay taxes.

It goes on and on and on. And none of it is ever challenged other than by a small group of us who do all this fighting in RL too - because it affects us and our children.

There is such thing as discrimination. And you do have a duty to stamp it out. Hand off moderation is no excuse certainly seeing how quick you were to delete 2shoes thread when some of us started fighting back against the endless threads of threads which in turn are copies of last week's threads.

I am very disappointed. And I think you have some thinking to do.

Best wishes

I'm not disabled, neither are my children or anyone I know. I have occasionally worked with people with various disabilities.

I am one of the ignorant.

However, some of the posts on here give the impression of huge chips on shoulders.

One in particular stands out: people complaining about the op of the original post talking about "a wheelchair" getting on the bus.

I genuinely cannot see the issue with this. There was a wheelchair space on bus (may I say that, or should I say space for a wheelchair user?), therefore surely it is reasonable to say there is a wheelchair waiting to board the bus? In this case it is the wheelchair not the person that is correctly the focus as it is the wheelchair specifically that entitles the user to this particular space.

Maybe it is just around my way, but if we are on a bus and see a child in buggy with parent/carer we will move so "the buggy can get on the bus". Is this massively offensive to buggy users?

I think the argument that people find it harder to tell a disabilist comment from a racist one is a straw man.

30 years ago comments about race, sexual orientation and even gender would have been seen as acceptable that are not now. The comments haven't changed, just society's tolerance and education regarding the acceptability of the comments.

Some people have a better understanding due to circumstance or experience. Some by education. Others by not being a twat and listening to what both the other groups are saying.

Celine - I literally mean saying 'there's a wheelchair' on the bus is ambiguous. I agree with the rest of what you say though.

Itsallgoingtobefine - I think when you've spent a lifetime putting up with some fairly hideous (and depressingly mundane) crap every day, it's fair enough to be pissed off when you see it happening yet again, and seemingly no one standing up to stop it.

@CelstialNavigation

I know the OP apologised on her next thread (regardless of her "justification" the term should in no way have been allowed to stand) -Ii don't understand why the OP of her first thread which contained the language was allowed to stand for days, and is still not deleted. Despite people pointing it out on the thread.

See, there is an example of something HQ and ourselves agree is "ugly", but it would only be deleted if it was deliberate and persistant.

Whereas if that was a derogatory racist term it would be deleted immediately without waiting to see if it was repeated or persistant.

There is a difference in how the policies are applied for disabilism. I don't think it's a deliberate decision on HQ's part to permit it more, but unfortunately the end result of applying the guidelines fairly lightly in this area, means that the end result is that disabilism is permitted more.

Thanks Celstial - that is a good example.

In the spirit of teasing it out (not dismissing your point): looking at my post further down, I referred to 'a pram' and 'a wheelchair'. I think you could make the argument that - in the context of a generally respectful attitude - those are acceptable shorthand terms for 'a child in a pram' and 'a wheelchair user and their wheelchair'. What's not acceptable is deliberately referring to a wheelchair user as 'a wheelchair'.

Does that make any sense?

Thank Jeff for the Orange Klaxon. Helps keep me sane.

@CelineMcBean

I do think postings should stand for the most part - I like to know who is an ignorant twat - but sometimes it would be useful to have an official clarification of the law, acceptable language and the reminders on a thread are good for this. It's not the job of those already living difficult lives to have responsibility for managing the ignorance of some posters.

Yes, this a fair point and we should try to do this more often.

robin I am not going to tritely say I understand, as obviously I can't not really.

However it seems that some posters are a bit oversensitive and choose to interpret ambiguous comments in a negative way rather than choosing to assume the positive.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine that post of yours sums it all up

Itsallgoingtobefine - yes, it's the weakness of the internet and written communication. Makes for crappy constructive dialogue on 99% of issues.

For those that have asked (and I'm glad you did) it is considered very offensive to reduce people to their condition. For example, someone has diabetes but that is not all they are so solely describing someone as diabetic is quite rude or occasionally dismissive. The equivilent would be to describe someone as "the blonde" or "the gay" or "the black". Wheelchair is even more offensive because it isn't even part of the person and we should always be talking about people first and foremost because that is respectful and how we all like to be treated. Common courtesy.

I admit sometimes I say someone is a diabetic instead of has diabetes or similar when having a relevant conversation because it used to be considered perfectly acceptable to talk about people like that and it's habit and lack of opportunities to change my behaviour (I don't have many chats about disability). I try not to do it and pull myself up when I do because it is rude.

The more we all strive to get it right the more automatic it will become and the less acceptable reducing someone to their condition will become.

Well said.

thats it for me, I have emailed mn hq and been ignored, I have asked them on here and been ignored.
my thread was deleted. yet a newer one was left!!
bye

ItsAll, the same would have been said of terms like Little Lady, Spacker, Nigger, Raghead, Yid, Cripple, Half Caste etc at some point in the last 50 years.

Tell me what's offensive about Coloured other than historical context? Then say it to dp's face and see what happens. He's lucky enough to have the verbal (and, unfortunately, physical) skills necessary for self defence. Can a chair user return a punch? A person using a communication device reply with a cutting put down? A visually impaired person describe their attacker to the police?

You are right 2shoes. The other thread is still there and the same cr*p is spouted on it. Let's get out of here. See you on fb.

I meant I'm glad people asked because I find the posts where people say "I can't see anything wrong with saying she's a diabetic, because she is". Not because I wanted an opportunity to lecture

It's a brave thing to ask for more information or admit ignorance and anyone who is genuinely asking should be treated respectfully and generously. I can see a point to that. Educating bigots... not so much.

@2shoes

thats it for me, I have emailed mn hq and been ignored, I have asked them on here and been ignored. my thread was deleted. yet a newer one was left!! bye

Very sorry 2Shoes - service hasn't really been normal tonight because of this and the other Site Stuff thread, so reports and correspondence are backing up a bit. We will take a look as soon as we possibly can.

I already left for this same reason.
Guess what? MNHQ did not give a shit.

Woah! Don't shoot off yet - I think you're winning at the moment although obviously still in the midst of the current battle.

Take heart. You have a lot of support.

But surely in this particular case "saying a wheelchair needs on the bus", is acceptable shorthand as the wheelchair is the specific thing that is entitled to the specific space on the bus?

It is not a space for the disabled
Or for people with LDs
Or people with MS
It is specifically labelled as a space for wheelchairs.

It is a space for a wheelchair user. It is not somewhere to park a wheelchair.

To elaborate, the person in the chair needs to use the space because s/he cannot sit on a normal seat (of which there are usually about 77) or stand. S/he can only sit in their wheelchair in the space specifically designated for a wheelchair user. Those wheelchair users who can sit elsewhere due to limited mobility still have to sit in the chair because otherwise they would be taking up a seat and a large space where the chair's parked.

Does that make more sense?

no it's not acceptable shorthand

I can't believe you find it acceptable

No, just no

Of course silly me I forgot that wheelchairs magically propel themselves and park in a space without a disabled person occupying them.

So it is also offensive to make space for "a buggy to come onto the bus"?

Well since theres no specific space for a buggy and you only pay for parent buggy gets folded and child goes on knee its not rocket science