This is my child and 'that's so gay'

[inappropriatelyemployed]

Great to see MNHQ involved in both campaigns (Stonewall campaign here but I am not sure why they can't be linked in terms of using offensive language.

There are many heated debates on the use of disablist language here, yet this has not been part of the 'This is my child' campaign - why?

The Stonewall release even says:

"It's often having that chat with the student and explaining to them that it shouldn't be used and equating it with words of race or language of disability that they might use that they know is unacceptable."

Yet, do people know that disablist language is unacceptable? I really think they don't and that the use of disablist language on tv and amongst mainstream figures is at least as prevalent and apparently 'acceptable' as homophobic language (if not more so). It seems de rigeur for some so-called 'comedians'.

Why the difference in approach? Is it because disabled children is all about 'children in need' and cuddly, pitiable disabled kiddies who need to be understood?

We don't need to persuade anyone of our children's rights to be heard and to live free of disablist language and discrimination.

We need to demand their rights.

Don't get me wrong: no form of discrimination is more or less acceptable than the other but why the difference in approach?

No one is saying 'this is my gay son' with lots of cuddly photos and pleas for acceptance are they? And their is a reason for that.

Agree with you there zzzzz. Had a meeting the other week with DD's school (AR). They told me that even though she's really good at French, she shouldn't do it for GCSE because of her speech articulation issues. I asked if they had any French speaking TAs. Yes they do an French woman. Why doesn't the actual French TA take over the SLT component and help DD with her French Aural? Honestly they all had a lightbulb moment. That's the exhausting bit that you the parent, have to do 'out of the box' thinking for the professionals.

Completely agree with you guys. Fighting the crap that goes with a disabled child can be the most exhausting part.

Facing all this apparatus, these people who haven't a clue yet whose views carry much more weight than yours when you end up doing all the thinking and work.

I have posted a very simple question (in haste, as ds is wreaking havoc) on this thread

I wonder what the response might be.

and a typically weak response.

it is our fault for not specifically mentioning schools as a focal point when the brain storming took place

okey doke.

There's a poster on FB at the moment, which says:

"I am who I am. Your approval is not needed."

It's quite neat.

I like that Lougle.

Good question New. Bit late to the party with the children and families bill aren't they?

I like that too. Why apologise for something that cannot be helped or changed. We are all different. That's what makes a society, and a world.

It is disappointing to see them reach for other established organisations/bloggers to articulate their message.

So many voices and experiences have just been overlooked.

Maybe because we mere mortals don't have the cache that big brands organisations have?

Yes, as years of these big organisations speaking for mere mortals has brought about such change!

I posted this on the other thread:
"If I may add, that admirable as Stonewall is, and not wishing to take anything away from the campaign, the statistics show:

Office for National Statistics 1.5% of people self-identify as gay/bisexual/lesbian.

Office for Disability Issues 6% of Children are disabled. Let alone the children who suffer disablist language aimed at their parents, cousins, etc.

As I say, I'm not saying either is more merited, but there are more children with disabilities than children who are gay, bisexual, lesbian or even have relatives who are.

This makes me wonder why it is seen as a cause that should be given more prominence in schools by MNHQ?"

It's interesting, isn't it? 6% of children affected by their own disabilities at schools vs. 1.5% of children affected by either their own G/B/L status or that of a significant other.

Well...not 1.5% of children. Children affected by the status of 1.5% of the population.

Hello

Right. Obviously we're really sorry to see that lots of you feel let down here.

We did 'Get over it' because was an issue that had been raised a fair bit, and when we checked in with the boards (as we always do) it had pretty unanimous support.

We were really keen to do TIMC and do a good job on it because we know and try to understand how important the issues are to our users. But as passionate as we are about it, it obviously doesn't mean we can't do anything else on the charity or campaigning front.

So far as TIMC itself is concerned, the week of activity was focused on raising awareness and challenging perceptions, and we think - thanks in large part to all the SN posters who engaged with it - we did start to do that. As well as the press, we did some pretty intensive social media, lots of site activity, and sent a mail about it to all our email subscribers (which we don't do often - and are not doing for the current campaign with Stonewall). To date TIMC has been our most shared campaign on social media, which is exactly the kind of way we can start trying to change perceptions.

Does that mean we can't do more? No. We may well need a brain storming session for 2014. We've made the Children and Families Bill a priority for the rest of the year and are doing a targetted webchat on that soon, with some follow up if something concrete emerges from posters' responses, but it would be good to have a wider, engaging-with-whole site type of activity in the spring.

Of course TIMC is a MNHQ campaign, in collaboration with our users, but that doesn't mean that you can't encourage us to do more, or organise and develop your own campaigns around specific events.

I just find it extraordinary (and, well, a weeny bit discriminatory, if i'm honest) that on the one hand you have a campaign which sets out to tackle issues to do with disability. the impetus and the information is asked for, and given (freely and happily). Lots of talk, and then the result? a few tweets, with most of the people talking about it being err, the people already involved. No moves to bring it to a wider communnity audience, or to ground it in the 'real' world (rahter than the virtual one), and actually expect 'real' people to do 'real' things wrt attitude change etc.

and then on the otehr, you have a campaign which sets out to tackle issues with homophobia (great, brilliant). and instantly, the tie in is not so much a virtual one (although I appreciate the methods used are to be the same), but a 'real' one. asking 'real' people to do 'real' things and tackle it head on.

why the different approach?

point taken that if we want things to happen we shoudl do it ourselves. 'twas ever thus in the SN world. why would this be any different?

Oh I see...you see, you didn't say 'week of activity' when you were asking for our input. You said, and I quote:

"We were thinking about something along the lines of our We Believe You campaign on rape myths; that is to say, an ongoing awareness-raising project aimed at the general public, rather than a short-term campaign with specific policy requests attached. We would be thinking about pages on Mumsnet itself featuring the experiences of our posters, activity on our Bloggers Network, ye olde Twitter hashtagge, and any press coverage we can grab."

If posters had known that it was only going to be a week-long campaign, they may not have been so willing to give their energy to sharing experiences and finding photos.

In fact, I've just checked through 5 threads about TIMC and not one of them mentions an intention to only carry out a 'week of activity'.

@lougle

Oh I see...you see, you didn't say 'week of activity' when you were asking for our input. You said, and I quote:

"We were thinking about something along the lines of our We Believe You campaign on rape myths; that is to say, an ongoing awareness-raising project aimed at the general public, rather than a short-term campaign with specific policy requests attached. We would be thinking about pages on Mumsnet itself featuring the experiences of our posters, activity on our Bloggers Network, ye olde Twitter hashtagge, and any press coverage we can grab."

If posters had known that it was only going to be a week-long campaign, they may not have been so willing to give their energy to sharing experiences and finding photos.

In fact, I've just checked through 5 threads about TIMC and not one of them mentions an intention to only carry out a 'week of activity'.

It's really not (and never was) only about a week of activity - or we wouldn't be talking about 2014!

The intensive bit at the beginning was the launch week. (The same as what you're seeing this week with Stonewall).

Fair enough. I'll bow out. I haven't got the energy to split hairs on here as well as in RL. Life is hard enough without having to deal with this stuff too.

Really sorry if it came across as splitting hairs - was trying to correct what seemed like a miscommunication. Probably one that we're responsible for - intensive launch weeks are par for the course in campaigns. We probably forget that not all of this is apparent from an external perspective.

It is the very stark difference in your approach that got me posting on this.

Whether you started off with an initial burst of activity in both cases, the reality is your actions were very different in relation to the homophobic issue as compared to the disability issue. And there is no reason why, with a bit of planning, these issues could not have been brought together.

In terms of statistics, if they are of interest, the reality is that most SENs are legally capable of being described as disabilities within the Equality Act. That means around 20% of children could have a SEN which is legally definable as a disability.

This is NOT a side-issue. It is treated as such by education commentators who only seem to wake up for politically 'sexy' issues like free school or selection debates or disputes about teachers' pay/conditions.

My I respectfully suggest that your approach to disability may be a reflection of the difference in the work done by the different charities in these two areas. Stonewall are excellent assertive and progressive advocates for equality. They are prepared to challenge perceptions and to provoke debate. Many disabled children's charities, quite clearly, cannot be described in this way at all. Indeed, they could be seen as propping up the status quo for a seat at the table and they are nowhere near so assertive; propagating 'acceptance' model rather than forthrightly demanding equality.

So, when you say "We've made the Children and Families Bill a priority for the rest of the year and are doing a targetted webchat on that soon", beware.

There is barely a single, relevant charity out there that hasn't taken Government money to IMPLEMENT (yes not trial or work with but implement) the changes. Voices from the grassroots are few and far between.

When Timpson came on here, he didn't want to know. Some of us submitted evidence to the House of Commons on the issue, and the DfE just brushed it aside with a load of pro-LA codswallop.

Make no mistake. This Bill will lead to children losing legal protection and to more children being failed.

With Ofsted's report issued yesterday confirming 10,000 kids (tip of the iceberg) are 'missing' from education (many I would suggest have SEN) this is a crucial issue and it concerns both the nature of our education system and the society we are hoping to build for future generations.

I think merging them makes sense across the board. Discrimination and hate will only be tackled when targeted groups work together. It's not many battles, it's one big equality battle currently being fought by too many little armies. It does' t matter if hate is based on gender,, sexuality, AN status, race- it's the same basic root cause.

And anyway the group's are interlinked.... a particularly high % of people on the spectrum self report as lgbt, females are more likely end up as carers for disabled people and suffer the low status attached to that, and so on.

'Propping up the status quo for a seat at the table'- yes this!

I agree Peachy.