There's a really disturbing campaign of hate being directed at Cerrie Burnell, a host of the children's television show CBeebies, who was born missing the lower section of her right arm.
"Is it just me, or does anyone else think the new woman presenter on CBeebies may scare the kids because of her disability?" wrote one adult on the CBeebies website. Other adults claimed that their children were asking difficult questions as a result. "I didn't want to let my children watch the filler bits on The Bedtime Hour last night because I know it would have played on my eldest daughter's mind and possibly caused sleep problems," said one message. The BBC received nine other complaints by phone.
Charming. In fact, some of the comments were so disturbing, they had to be removed from the site. WTF is wrong with these parents?
Burnell responded recently, saying that the negative comments "are indicative of a wider problem of disabled representation in the media as a whole, which is why it's so important for there to be more disabled role models in every area of the media."
Even if a child is disturbed by seeing Burnell's arm, so what? It's up to the parents to explain to the child that all people are different -- not up to the BBC to fire their host so that parents are spared having to parent their children.That said, I think we know the core issue here isn't frightened children -- it's prejudiced adults.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Parents complain about disabled TV show host.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12137
Clearly, this is an issue of parents not kids. I find that kids tend to be less bothered by any abnormality, possibly because they're less socialized to the stigmas. When I was a kid my great-grandmother was missing both legs (from diabetes) and, not understanding the cause, I rationalized that when you get old, your parts fall off. I assumed she'd lose an arm or ear next -- that it would just fall off -- and, rather than be disturbed, I just accepted that this was natural, like wrinkles and grey hair.
Of course, I was a strange kid. My point, though, is that parents need to adjust themselves rather than their TV sets. I can't imagine small children getting hung up and "losing sleep" over this.
My Great-aunt has a hole in her neck from a tracheotomy and has to put her hand over it when she speaks. She came to visit when I was little, and I started imitating her and putting my hand on my neck whenever I would say anything.
That's actually a pretty clever conclusion to have made. I mean, that makes logical sense for a kid.
Kids tend to not be bothered by disability and differences, yes they ask "difficult" questions, but that's a kid for you. You never know when they're going to ask something like "Mommy? What's a vagina for? What does 'fuck' mean? Where do babies come from?"
Are these parents so overprotective/stupid they can't explain to their child that everyone is born differently and that's ok?
"Mommy, what happened to that lady's arm?"
"Well darling, some people are born with all different colours of skin, hair, and eyes. Everyone is born differently, some people, like the lady on TV, are born without their arm, or they look different, but that's ok. No matter what we're all people."
There, age appropriate answer. Keep it simple and the kid won't ask any more questions about it, and they'll understand. You may have to explain that it's not nice to stare at people in public though.
This is definitely a case of the parents, not the kids, and definitely exhibits the lack of disabled people on television. Yeah, sometimes they'll put a kid in a wheel chair for a show, but never someone who looks different.
That is so fucked up. Reminds me of the arguments some parents have against gay couples - "oh noes, then I have to explain to my kids that not everyone lives a perfect hetero lifestyle!" It's sickening that parents pretend to be protecting their kids (and what, btw, is so scary about missing part of an arm? The only reason kids would think this is frightening is if their parents taught them it was) as a way of covering up their own prejudices. Question - if their kids ever had an accident and lost a limb, or were disfigured, or in some way deviated from the "norm," would they react in horror and disgust? Would their kids react with shame and self-loathing because their parents taught them that not looking 'perfect' was unacceptable?
Exactly.
And would they keep their kid out of school after a disfiguring accident so that the other parents would have to answer "difficult" questions?
These are the same parents who homeschool their kids so they won't have to learn about evolution or hear dirty words from other children.
Wow, awesome stereotype of homeschooling (religious) families.
It has been my experience homeschooling that those families are more tolerant of disability, not less. (and a host of other things that run counter to your snark, but I'm not in the mood to argue it all right now)
But, really, do you KNOW anyone who homeschools?
Sheesh.
Actually, I do know people who were homeschooled.
I'm not saying homeschooling is inherently bad, however it's well known that the majority of parents who homeschool do so so that their children will be "protected" from potentially harmful outside influences. I'm not saying that this is invariably the case. I'm simply saying that in general it follows the trend of parents not wanting their children to experience the outside world with all of the variety of people that it contains, for fear of them being exposed to viewpoints that run counter to the parents'. If you have some other valid reason for homeschooling your kids, then sorry for the generalisation however I stand by my point.
Actually, you missed MY point, which is that homeschooling families--particularly those who keep their kids out of school due to worries about undue moral influence-- have been MORE accepting of the disabled, rather than less. Got that? MORE accepting, often because these people are usually religious people who have a worldview that includes a unique value on every person, no matter what their physical capabilities. But religious or not, their values are typically more open to the varieties of human types of bodies and abilities.
Your statement that "it's well known that the majority of parents who homeschool do so so that their children will be "protected" from potentially harmful outside influences" tries to uphold your stereotype by saying that "everybody knows it is true." Which is not an argument with any basis.
And really, to address the totality of your dismissive snark, I will tell you that in my experience with a variety of religious and non-religious home/un-/alternative&free-schooling families, there are many, many reasons that people keep their kids out of regular schools for some time, or for their whole school career. One of the main reasons, whether the families are religious or not, is that it helps the children to be freer, feel more respected for who they are, and to be more critical thinkers. Which leads to less prejudice, and yeah less stereotyping.
If I sound cranky it's because I feel as if I always have to chime in here to call people on their religious stereotypes. I am not easily offended about homeschooing myself (people can fly a kite, for all I care) but it's the many families that I know and their thoughtfulness and their intellectual bravery that gets me...particularly when other people feel that it is just fine to extrapolate a confirmation of their own personal prejudices from one or two unexamined experiences.
From Barbara Otto, the executive director of Health & Disability Advocates (msnbc, in an article about this case): "I suppose you see that everywhere. You see people home-school their kids because they don’t want them in an environment where they can’t control what they’re doing every minute of the day.”
Yes, I know that is not exclusively the case. But I agree with her. I'm not "snarking", I'm giving you my opinion. I'm not being anti-religious, not everyone who homeschools is religious. But you can't tell me that homeschooled children, who don't interact with children with disabilites every day in the classroom, are MORE tolerant. That's just a holier-than-thou attitude which fails to take into account that the vast majority of parents cannot afford to stay home and school their kids. And I'm sorry, but keeping children at home all day and not allowing them into the big bad world of institutionalised schooling is not making them more critical-thinking than anyone else in the long run.
And I'm sorry, but keeping children at home all day and not allowing them into the big bad world of institutionalised schooling is not making them more critical-thinking than anyone else in the long run.
OK, I'm going to have to take issue with this. First, I think you really have to make some distinctions among homeschooling parents here. I have a couple of friends who are feminist homeschoolers, and their approach looks nothing like the stereotypical fundies you're talking about. And many homeschooled kids are exposed to diversity in the homeschooling coops and other activities that their progressive parents involve them in.
Second, institutional schooling completely fails at producing critical thinkers. I tutored for 11 years while in college and now teach logic and critical thinking courses at the university level. Trust me, our public school systems teach the opposite of critical thinking. And that's to be expected. In a consumer culture, it does not benefit the economy or our political system to have a general population that's good at critical thinking. Critical thinkers are thoughtful consumers who aren't driven by the advertising they're inundated by and don't continue buying more and more shit to fill the emptiness and unhappiness in their lives. This spells disaster for a manufaturing economy. Critical thinkers object to the corruption in their gov't and to the practices of lobbyists and corporate buy-outs of politicians. They object to corporate welfare in a system where the poor are routinely neglected and villified. They object to the class warfare that occurs when corporate executives cling to their large paychecks and bonuses while forcing union workers to accept lower pay and a loss of benefits during hard economic times. No, changing public education in order to produce critical thinkers would be the last thing our gov't would do.
This comment is based upon completely unfounded information. As you said, it is an opinion, and I might add, a broad and sweeping over generalization based upon an apparently extremely biased perspective.
As a college senior who was homeschooled through part of middle and all of high school, I can say, without a doubt, that you are basing everything you say on unfounded opinions formed through interactions with a very few people, if you have actually known any homeschoolers personally at all. In the community of homeschoolers my parents were a part of, we were exposed to more types of people than students ever are at a public school. Many homeschoolers participate in social groups, religious groups, or some other form of regular interaction with other children. Parents do not tend to, as you presume, hide their children from the big bad world. I was educated and encouraged to think for myself. I was taught that the books or authority figures in my life were not always correct, and that it is more important to have common sense and an avid curiosity than an A in high school chemistry. Unlike many people I know who were educated within the public system, I still love to learn and seek out new information constantly. I enjoy literature, art, music, science, history, languages and more. I have attempted everything from painting and photography to candy making to archeology in my back yard. I have traveled widely for someone of my age, having been to two continents and approximately have to the states in the U.S.A., having had the flexibility to move my classroom with me when the opportunity arose. I hope to open my own small business someday, and have the logic and people skills to back up those dreams. I was lucky enough to be taught outside of an education system that tells students, though grades and standardized tests, through jaded and poorly paid teachers who no longer care, that they do not matter and will not succeed. I did not have to waste my time every semester of high school with a two-three week refresher in what was taught last term, last year, two years ago, etc. as other of my friends in my neighborhood did. I was instead about to spend that time dabbling in 3 languages, studying marine life, learning to use computer software like Photoshop and Office, and more.
I saw other young adult regularly. I had other children in my neighborhood to play with, and I attended a youth group and made numerous friends their. I also made friends online, eventually meeting my partner of 5 1/2 years there. I was not lonely or under socialized. And unlike many teens who would never watch the news or read a paper unless required to for a project, I developed a habit of staying up to date on world events. I read approximately 20-30 news reports every day, even while attending school at maximum credits. So, rather than being sheltered, I was exposed to the good and bad of society throughout this time.
Finally, unlike in a school setting, where disabled persons are often mocked and treated poorly (teaching children not that they are real humans with feelings no different than any other, but that they are appropriate targets of hostility and verbal abuse) I was exposed to disabled people the my parents and extended family to help me better understand and cope with such realities. Whereas in school, at 7, I was punished for trying to understand why a young girl had leg braces by trying to walk the way she did (teaching me only that walking like she did was a bad thing). In my own neighborhood, with the time I had free from a regular school day, my sister and I were able to befriend an physically handicapped, HIV+ neighbor who became a close friend and sometimes employer to my sister.
Do not, as an outsider who has done nothing more than see a couple of news stories or made assumptions based upon isolated exposure to others, presume to know anything about the wide and varied world of homeschooling. I do not begin to claim to know what middle schools in Lawrence, KS are like because I am not a part of that school system. I only know my own school system, and the community of homeschoolers I have known in real life and online. Do not speak about any group as through you know what the majority thinks, and do not insult us as though you are somehow socially or intellectually superior because you chose a different path.
You can read my comment below. Great, I get that you had a fabulous privileged that was so much better than that of the public school brats. You aren't going to change my opinion.
"childhood" should go after privileged. My bad.
There was a girl in my kindergarden class that was missing the lower section of her arm, and it didn't give any of us nightmares. Infact, I thought it was really beneficial for everyone to interct and befriend her.
Perhaps this is because it's difficult to convey exact intentions and feelings over the internet (and I apologise if I've accidentally misinterpreted you) but I read your post as being rather patronising. Disabled people aren't just some sort of public community project that exist to offer themselves up for "beneficial interaction" with others.
So we shouldn't learn from others? Or should we only learn from "normal" people?
I don't think blue's comment in patronizing...and she's right that meeting people who are different from you (in whatever way) when you're young is good because it does make you more aware and accepting of diversity throughout your life. So its being beneficial to be friends with someone who has a disability doesn't at all mean they're looking at her as a sort of token or public service project. We all are in some ways public service projects whenever we open our friends' eyes to new worlds, whether that's through our representing a different religion, a different class, different sexual orientation, or different disability.
I don't think she meant to imply that disabled people are in anyway obligated to teach anyone else anything. But I think she meant to imply that we can learn from people who are disabled, just as we can learn from any other person who is different. It's beneficial to befriend a wide range of people to get a well-rounded perspective on life as a whole. You shouldn't be someone's friends only because they have a disability. But neither should you stay away from them because they make you uncomfortable. You don't win medals for befriending disabled people. It's not something you do for show or something you seek out. But any of us who are different from someone else for any reason (i.e. all single one of us) might always be the "first" that someone has met. (For example irst feminist, first queer person, first biracial person, etc) It's not one's intention to make you feel "othered" but it happens sometimes. The best situation is that someone would be interested in your difference, ask you questions and eventually realize that what makes you different doesn't really matter because they like your humanity.
It just sucks that we're made to think that people with physical disabilities are somehow MORE different than everyone else.
HA! Don't we all exist in part to offer up beneficial interactions with one another? On sarah's mention of tokenism, I really don't think kindergarten children are worried about token children. As if kindergartners are politicians trying to look good. They just want to play and have fun, and if they learn something from it, it's probably not because they've sought it out.
"We had a black person in our school, and I thought it was very beneficial for everyone to interact with and befriend her."
See how that reads? Obviously not meant to be an offensive comment blue, we know that, but think about how the above sounds? I use that example because I think most of us here would be offended by something like that, or at least realize that it would not be okay to say (I hope!). But when we're talking about certain groups of people different group, like disabled people, maybe many people haven't thought about those things enough to hear this the same way. Maybe we haven't been exposed as much to make us think about it, and for some of us disabled people are still 'other', so we can talk about them like this?
Think how this would feel to you, if someone was talking about you or your friend/sister/lover/etc. and said something like that? We need to help each other move past this kind of thinking.
"'We had a black person in our school, and I thought it was very beneficial for everyone to interact with and befriend her.'"
Eh, if there was only one non-white person in the school, this doesn't really sound that offensive. No one is into being a token friend, but from the perspective of those in a homogeneous environment, interacting with anyone from different backgrounds or with different abilities will help their development.
"'We had a black person in our school, and I thought it was very beneficial for everyone to interact with and befriend her.'"
Eh, if there was only one non-white person in the school, this doesn't really sound that offensive. No one is into being a token friend, but from the perspective of those in a homogeneous environment, interacting with anyone from different backgrounds or with different abilities will help their development.
I went to a private catholic school that had literally not a single black person in attendance until I was in seventh grade. In sixth grade, the teachers organized a partnership with one of the catholic schools in our diocese that happened not to have any white people. We did field trips with the sixth graders from that school, and we did exchanges where throughout the year you would spend a day or two at the other school, and they would send students to attend at ours. It was extremely beneficial, for both groups of kids. Without it, I may never have been exposed to a POC until I was 14. And while I wouldn't say I was ever a prejudiced kid, it's always beneficial to spend time with people who are different in some way from you, so that you can actually experience the fact that you're not very different at all.
"We had a this skinny lonely kid in our school, and I thought it was very beneficial for everyone to interact with and befriend him."
If only people were saying that now...
Wow - I had absolutely no idea that my single comment would trigger so much debate.
As usual on Feministing, a lot of interesting points have been raised. Unfortunately I can't answer each individual one, but I will instead give some context to my original post:
I am somebody who does have mobility
problems/problems of other types, and I am frequently asked questions by people curious about my condition and how it has impacted on my life. It can be tiring, aggravating and upsetting, and a simple conversation can (despite my best efforts) turn into what feels like a doctor's appointment.
I am a private person and feel upset when complete or relative strangers often seem to feel entitled to know every intimate detail about me and my medical history. I am expected to divulge my innermost thoughts and feelings on demand, to provide interesting, concise and medically accurate descriptions of something that when it isn't ruining my life, or frustrating me to tears, is boring me to tears.
When I (politely or not so politely) indicate my discomfort, they are offended that I'm not flattered that my condition is the centre of attention. Afterall, since it is the first time that they have come across somebody of my condition, it *must* be the first time that I have been questioned about it.
I am sick and tired of acting like some kind of invalid ambassador. I am not a human Wikipedia entry here for your delight and delectation. I am more than my condition and I simply spoke as I felt.
And hopefully, that's precisely what someone learns when they grow up with disability, race and sexual orientation as part of their lives. Not "Oh, that disabled/minority/queer is so brave" but "Oh, that's a person." Period. You don't have to learn life lessons from a magical minority; it's just part of normalizing what would otherwise be the 'Other.' I grew up with an uncle whose partner was a cross dresser, whom I called Auntie Vern, because that's what he wanted, and homosexuality, to me? Eh. It is what it is. I never even questioned whether same-sex attraction is a kind of normal or healthy desire. Hopefully, the same thing happens if you grow up with a kid who has a disability: you don't run up to everyone you meet who happens to be in a wheelchair and ask them to hear their triumphant/moving/beautiful story.
That being said, I'm sorry people treat you like that, it sounds irritating.
"When it isn't ruining my life, or frustrating me to tears, [it] is boring me to tears."
I have disabling medical conditions and mobility problems, and I empathise with this completely.
I do agree with your original comment too and I share your unease with the 'beneficial interaction' remark. While probably not intended this way, it seems to suggest that the only reason to have disabled kids in a school is so that the able-bodied kids can get something out of it. It's somewhat able-bodied-centric.
When in fact social interaction is beneficial for everyone, the message should be that we're all human and being in a wheelchair etc should be no more 'different' than having different colour hair. The less of a 'big deal' it is that a person is disabled, the better.
We monitor TV time pretty closely, so I'm not aware of this show. It's actually pretty common for disabilities to be represented in cartoons, however. There's a dragon in Dragon Tales in a wheelchair and that sort of thing. That it would bother parents to see a real person with a disability is very odd to me.
I've found with my children that them seeing something makes it much easier to address. I can talk all day about people with various disabilities, but they don't get that in the same way they do if we see someone.
You know, I am really tired of parents complaining about their kids asking "difficult" questions. I have to side with Louis CK--if you're too lazy to explain things to your kid, you are not ready for a kid. What fools.
That said, I hope the Beeb doesn't cave to these people.
My older sister was severely disabled (she died when i was 10) and I hated the kids (including some of our cousins) who would come up and stare at her and ask why she was in a wheelchair or why she drooled (she had a feeding tube and couldn't swallow). My parents were always patient and would explain why and were glad for the opportunity to talk about what made my sister special. They said the kids were just being honest and it was probably the first time they'd seen someone like my sister before. Unlike adults who usually had no idea how to react around her, kids weren't afraid and were just curious. So I do think it's BS that the parents are saying their kids are afraid. As another commenter said, if the kids are afraid, it's probably because the parents didn't explain the cause of the differences.
Burnell's response was great and I'd take it a step further and say the negative comments are indicative of a wider problem of disabled representation anywhere. Of course historically people who were different from able-bodied individuals were locked away and today many are still largely hidden from view. My parents were often viewed as crazy for including my sister in everything we did. If there was no wheelchair access, my dad would carry her on his shoulders. It makes me very emotional to this day (and to this moment) to think about all the ways she was excluded and would have continued to be excluded as she grew older. While the Americans with Disabilities Act has surely made things better as far as making more places accessible, the stigma of being different and stared at is still there. Two years ago I wrote a paper for one of my grad school classes on women with disabilities and I wish I could remember all the stats about how excluded they felt from day-to-day life. When was the last time you saw someone in a wheelchair at the movie theater even though there is a section for wheelchairs?
I found through my research that the sexual abuse was pretty bad too, especially for people with mental disabilities, like my sister. When I talked to my mother about it, I was horrified to learn that since my sister reached puberty before she died, the doctor wanted to have her sterilized – basically because if anyone raped her at least she wouldn’t become pregnant. that is messed the f up. (My parents didn't agree to it, btw) Sorry this is turning into a rant. I get emotional around this issue. To end, in the scheme of disabilities, not having half an arm is pretty tame and yet people are still being insensitive about differences and want Burnell off the air. Wtf. We need more people with disabilities on air, certainly not fewer.
I'm sorry for the loss of your sister; I'm glad you loved her so much and she was in your life.
I think you bring up a great point about 'looking different' vs. 'being different'. It does seem like media, even children's shows, only features people who ARE different but don't look different. A person in a manual wheelchair looks like a person sitting down, but rarely is a person missing limbs. Never have I seen a person with existing and clearly different limbs featured.
One that I remember from when I was a kid is Kathy from Diff'rent Strokes. She was only on a few episodes, though.
Maya and Miguel (a children's show) features a boy missing his arm from the elbow down. Of course, the exception proves the rule. It also proves that I didn't have cable for part of college and watched absurd amounts of pbs during the daytime hours.
Right! There was one episode of Maya and Miguel where there was a new boy in school who was deaf, and he taught the other kids some sign language, and it had to be modified a bit for the boy who only had one hand.
Don't want to answer "difficult questions"? Don't have kids.
I didn't even notice that half her arm was missing until I read the post. I guess that's because of the picture. But like others have said, kids ask difficult questions. Parents should be happy that their kids are so eager to learn.
You know what I found odd? This:
""Having an upper limb deficiency does not make someone disabled, it just makes them a person with a difference, and as such they should have open to them all the same career prospects as anyone else," said Sue Stokes, the national coordinator for the British organization Reach: The Association for Children With Hand or Arm Deficiency. "
[From the ABC News article about this issue]
Why on earth is it important to specify that Cerrie Burnell is not disabled? If she doesn't consider herself disabled, that's her self-identification, but it seems like this Sue Stokes is saying "We're NORMAL. We're not those creepy DISABLED people". Double-you tee eff?
The message from Reach should have been the one echoed here- it doesn't matter if you're using an unseen hearing aid or if you have no arm; you're human and should be treated as such.
I can see some very small children (like ages 2-3) being frightened and unable to understand a visible difference, but then it is up to the parents not to let their child watch the show. And obviously, to educate them as they get older.
I have a two year old, and our parenting class teacher has the same birth defect. The two year olds don't seem to notice in any way - they still crawl all over her and expect her to pick them up on demand. If anything, I would think only older kids would possibly be scared - and only because they've already been taught about conformity. The little kids don't even register that she's different.
Also, she has two kids. I'm pretty sure they aren't traumatized.
That is why I said "some very small children". Not all very small children.
Language regarding disabilities has always interested me. I have a severe hearing impairment, and if it weren't for the modern technology of hearing aides, I'd be virtually deaf. I've had it since I was about 6, so I've sort of always grown up thinking I'm just "me" and not "disabled" or "deaf" or "hearing impaired" but I haven't had strong feelings about how I'm labelled.
I've watched with curiousity as some deaf/hearing impaired people shun the word "disabled" - which always makes me think, "Dude, my ears don't work, they're pretty frickin' disabled if you ask me."
I sort of identify with Sue Stroke's quote, as far as it talks about career opporunities. I've been barred from applying to jobs that I really don't think I should be barred from simply on the fact that I have hearing aides, rather than an evaluation of how much I can actually function in normal settings. But I think that disowning "disabled" and insisting on "person with differences" is a stupid matter of semantics, especially when following it up with "and as such they should have open to them all the same career prospects as anyone else." Um, shouldn't disabled people be open to all the same career prospects, too?
I've been lingering over this comment for a while and editing/reediting, I don't think it captures my whole feelings on the matter, but meh, it's a starting point.
As for the topic at hand, I've had plenty of kids point to my ears and ask, "What are those things in your ears?" especially since I spent two years working at Limited Too. I tell them that they're machines that help me hear, since my ears don't work on their own. Sometimes they ask follow-up questions like, "Do they hurt?" but mostly they just say, "Oh, okay" and move on to the next thing. I've never had a kid react negatively, which is more than I can say for some adults I've encountered!!
There is a great need for disabled role models. My sister, who's in high school, had a girl on her cheer team last year who was born missing the same part of her left arm as the host of CBeebies. My mom's boss has an adopted daughter from China who's four and who was born with defects with her right arm. My mom hoped that maybe my mom's bosses daughter could meet my sister's friend to show her that there are other kids with arms that look different that can still do cool stuff like cheerlead.
If my mom's boss's daughter could watch this show, she'd probably freak out with happiness that there was another girl like her on tv, doing cool stuff.
One of the things that I notice about young children is their short attention spans. My guess is that children will ask about the arm, then say, "Oh," and not give it much thought.
Sounds like some parents are misplacing adult fears into children.
One of my favorite stories is of my first time observing in a kindergarten class. The kids asked me if I knew any sign language. When I told them I didn't, they were very concerned that I would not be able to talk to the boy who was deaf, Jose.
During the teacher's lesson, I'd see a kid turn to Jose and sign to him, thus ignoring the lesson. It made me so happy to see that he had the chance to be a pain in the ass to his teacher just like the hearing kids. While I was getting all worried about how to teach children with hearing loss, the kids were treating him like just another classmate. Kids are cool that way.
That's what's so great about giving age-appropriate answers. Kids take what they need and walk away with it. It sticks in their head, even if they don't think about it. If & when they have follow up questions, they'll come find you. It's a beautiful system if you know how to work it.
I remember when my little brother was 2 or 3 (I was 16 or so). I was in the bathroom just grabbing a maxi pad to take with me in my bag. When I pulled the package out of the cabinet I realized he was right next to me.
"What are those?" he said.
Startled, I said the first thing that came to mind, "Um...it's for ladies."
He said, "Ok" and scurried off.
You know, had the word "disabled" not appeared in the title, I probably wouldn't have even noticed her arm. But once I saw the word, I scanned the image to figure out what it was supposed to mean. I think that's strange in and of itself. If this woman wasn't singled out for her arm, most people wouldn't even see her as "disabled".
I don't know what kid would find her "scary". She's an attractive woman, who has half of one arm. It's not like it's a horror movie or anything - her arm is smooth and rather nice looking, actually. If your kid's afraid of her arm than s/he probably will not be able to deal with anything in life.
I dated a kid in middle school who had a similar "disability". Although it seems weird to call it that. He was a star lacrosse player, really athletic...so it's not like missing half an arm stopped him from doing anything. I just can't think of a better word. Anyway, I remember my mom saying that she was proud of me for going out with "someone like him" and over looking "something like that". I found it bizarre, because I liked it because he was cute. My reasons for liking him were probably just as shallow as if I had rejected him because of his arm. Ha ha. But really, complimenting me for liking him? It's not like I was doing him any favors. He was the popular one - I found it strange that he wanted to date me!
I also find it strange that people with physical disabilities are so hidden in regards to mass media. It doesn't protect anyone- all it does it make them seem freakish when they are visible, because many of us have never seen someone missing an arm or in a wheelchair, etc. And whenever they are on TV, it's usually in some bullshit TV news magazine show, where the edges are fuzzy like a dream and dramatic music plays and the announcer says "THIS is what an average day is for Jane! She has trouble doing the normal stuff you do everyday!" It's usually all pitying & condescending. That's just as bad as not showing "Jane" at all. So, disabled people are either INVISIBLE or the subject of our elitist pitying. WTF is that?
That's why these parents are so upset. Because they'd rather disabled people hide in the shadows or be freaks to gawk at. Goodness forbid that this woman been seen as a person first. Seriously, the worst thing that would probably happen to you from interacting with her is that you might be embarrassed if you go to shake her hand and then have to quickly switch sides because you didn't realize she only has one. If that makes your whole world crash down, then I pity YOU. (Although, that's assuming she's a nice person. I don't know who she is. She could just as easily be a total jerk. Either way, it has nothing to do with what she has or hasn't got.)
She's beautiful. I honestly didn't even notice her arm until glancing at the photo for the 3rd time. Why are these people so stupid? It's important that their children are able to realize that people who are different from themselves are just as valuable and capable as anyone else before they end up on the playground picking on others.. why do people so desperately want to protect their kids from reality?
Exactly! I was in special education as a small child and some of my classmates had physical disabilities. One of them I played with everyday. I wasn't scared of her because she needed a walker to walk. I remember being kinda curious why she needed it but I wasn't scared. I certainly didn't have nightmares.
It seems like the parents are uncomfortable with the host and are projecting this onto their children.
Kids get frightened by all kinds of things that don't make sense. Hiding your children from them doesn't exactly help.
For instance, when I was little, the teenager who worked at the local video rental store was missing a forearm. I never saw any adults acknowledge it, and my dad was really gregarious with the kid. But I must admit, to my five-year-old self, his arm did freak me out a little (mostly I found myself staring at it and wondering how he tied his shoes, etc.). I knew I shouldn't be bothered and never mentioned it to anybody. But meanwhile, every time we visited my grandparents, my sister and I would eagerly ask Pappy to remove his glass eye and his dentures to entertain us. At the same age, I was terrified of Pee Wee Herman and Guy Smiley. So yeah -- some kids, especially kids with overactive imaginations like I had, will turn anything into something creepy.
I can kind of understand the Pee Wee Herman thing. Ha ha. Though, I've always loved him, he's certainly creepy!
A while ago i was sitting in a hotel restruant in Toronto with the four-year-old i babysit. We're from a bit of a smaller town with less than steller racial diversity, so when our waiter turned out to be black the little girl turned to me with a bit of a smile, then looked at the waiter and said "His face ..." you could tell she was curious but also really embarassed about something she wasn't familiar with, but all you have to do is explain that people are always different. The waiter was really understanding about the whole thing.
Kids don't really care that someone might be missing an arm or are a different color, but they can be *taught* to be prejudice, and unfortunatly the parents who are fussing about Burnell are just gonna force their messed up ideals on their kids.
When i was in grade 10 i had a dance workshop (YAY! arts education in school) with an amazing fellow who only had two tiny fingers at the end of his right elbow, and even though you have to spend an entire dance class watching the teacher for cues, it took me about 40 minutes to notice his technique as a dancer was absolutely stunning.
I don't think kids would be scared about that at all?
When I was in grade 2 there was this girl in my glass who had no hand and I wasn't scared of her. She explained to all of us that she was just born that way, and we were like "ok cool" and everybody got along great. She was still 10x better than me on the monkey bars, too!
A lot of people here are bringing up memories of disabled classmates, which I think is very relevant. These parents see this as an issue of "protecting" their kids, but what about disabled children? What about their role models?
If disabled TV show hosts are too inappropriate for children to see, then maybe we should keep disabled children away from the "normal" children. You know, so they don't get scared and have nightmares.
I'm pretty sure these parents would say that they would never suggest a thing like that, but how different is it really?
I think that's the whole problem. Those parents don't give a crap how disabled people feel. They see them as freaks that will terrify they're weak-minded children. :(
I agree that is there was more visibility then maybe kids who are born or grow up with physical disabilities might feel better about it. They could even have dreams of having THEIR own TV show some day! Goodness forbid they expect anything from life...
A lot of people here are bringing up memories of disabled classmates, which I think is very relevant. These parents see this as an issue of "protecting" their kids, but what about disabled children? What about their role models?
If disabled TV show hosts are too inappropriate for children to see, then maybe we should keep disabled children away from the "normal" children. You know, so they don't get scared and have nightmares.
I'm pretty sure these parents would say that they would never suggest a thing like that, but how different is it really?
I was around disabled people a lot when I was a kid, some were missing an arm or a leg, some couldn't talk... all different from one another, none scary. I can't remember any of my able-bodied friends ever finding any of them scary. I would argue it's actually good for children to see different kinds of people.
While I agree that the use of the term "disabled" should be determined by self-identification, I wanted to thank you for more stories about disability advocacy lately.
More!
I second that, I was actually really surprised to see this article here. I've always felt like Feministing sort of ignores the whole ableism fight.
When I worked as at a children's camp, I had a camper who had the same condition. Guess what? All the other kids didn't care! She did all the same activites as the kids (except for archery) and when holding hands, she'd have her stump held. No one cared, least of all the kids. So crazy parents? Get over it.
It is a truly sickening state of affairs that are people so shallow that they would actually try to take away a person's job because she's missing part of one arm. I feel sorry for kids with such messed up parents.
I am utterly disgusted; I have worked with persons with disabilities for nearly twenty years and have never heard of such a violation of personal rights. I have dedicated my life to providing services to people with disabilities to increase their independence, and quality of life. I am appalled that parents wish to take this woman’s job away because they are afraid of what their children may think; the only thing that I can say about this is for parents to educate their children at an early age they understand more than some may think. I consider myself blesses to have had parents that encouraged me to give back to the community at an early age of 10. Due to their getting me involved I have dedicated my life to serving this population and consider myself very lucky to be a part of their lives. I wish this lady the best of luck and I encourage her not to give up. In my opinion she is touching the lives of many children and may be encouraging them to be anything that they want no matter their limitations.
If these kids can LIVE with their
parents who are missing a BRAIN
surely they can watch a disabled
TV host missing a limb. I have
never seen parents as stupid
as these to complain about this.
People like this make me reconsi-
der the idea that some people
evolved from apes...Sorry apes
I probably just offended you.
These people are lower level
thinking idiots--both the parents
that said and those that listened
to them! The END!
I also remembered last night that this article is about a British tv show, and anyone in the disabled -rights community knows, there have been horrifying developments in G. Britain over the last few years wrt the elderly and the disabled.
"I have a couple of friends who are feminist homeschoolers..."
I said there were exceptions to the rule, and yes I consider these people exceptions.
I realise that public education is a factory to produce workers for the economy. I'm not blinded. I just get angry when people say that homeschooling or private schooling is *so* much better than public school, because the vast majority of people cannot afford to have their children out of the public system. Basically you are saying that the elite group (not necessarily wealthy, but still elite ie. two parents, etc.) produces smarter children. Think about that for a second. I'm a critical thinker, and the public system didn't "beat it out of me". I was born that way. I plan to send my children to public school, although I will likely be able to afford alternatives. Why? Yes, private school and homeschooling provide more one-on-one attention, smaller classes, etc., but the children often struggle when they reach university because there, you are a number. No attention, no getting to know your teachers. If you've been babied your whole life into thinking you're special and different and better educated from that public school crowd trust me, you'll have a much harder time in uni. and the work world where you have to be utterly self-reliant.
You seriously think that better-educated = smarter? Wake up sweetie. Being stuck in a school that sucks ass does not make you less intelligent. And it's offensive to say that it does. But it's not all or nothing, and some distinctions need to be made. There are all different kinds of students who come out of homeschooling, just like there are all kinds of students who come out of the system. I know, since I teach both kinds. I haven't found that homeschooled students struggle anymore than anyone else. The point is, parents have to make the choices they feel are best for their kids, and for you to portray these choices as akin to believing in conspiracy theories is both offensive and naive.
I hope you're aware that there is a huge range of colleges out there, and many of them pride themselves on things like small class size and getting to know your professors. Even in large state schools where you are a number for the first year or so, once you choose a major and take more specialized classes you are supposed to get to know your professors and get more personal attention.
And if you were just born such a great critical thinker (which nobody is, sorry), then why can't you see how poor this logic is: "Basically you are saying that the elite group (not necessarily wealthy, but still elite ie. two parents, etc.) produces smarter children." Arguing that one system of education is superior to another does not amount to saying that elite people produce smarter children. If all that matters is what you're born with (as you seem to suggest) then it wouldn't matter what kind of school you went to, right? And if elite people really produced smarter children, then these children would be smart no matter what kind of school they went to. I think you're very confused between these two concepts: being intelligent and being well-informed. There's a big difference here.
I agree that people who are privileged enough to be able to homeschool their kids or put them in a private school should not be allowed to drag resources away from public schools. But that claim is very, very different than the claim you're making.
"You seriously think that better-educated = smarter? Wake up sweetie."
- I never said that, I don't think that, and I don't appreciate the condescending tone. Didn't think I'd have to deal with being called 'sweetie' in this forum...
"...akin to believing in conspiracy theories..."
- I do not know what you are getting at here. Conspiracy theories?
"And if you were just born such a great critical thinker (which nobody is, sorry)..."
- Perhaps I poorly worded that part. I'm not claiming I was born some genius who doesn't need to learn anything, but some people are born more intelligent than others, period. There are tons of people who are smarter than me. Not a big deal.
"Arguing that one system of education is superior to another does not amount to saying that elite people produce smarter children."
- I'm not confused. saintcatherine stated that homeschooled children tend to be more critical-thinking. I believe that one is born with the inherent ability to think critically and it isn't totally related to being well-informed. People can be well-informed without being able to think critically, just as people can be not well-informed and still be highly intelligent.
Look, I'm not trying to start some great debate about homeschooling. If parents decide that it is right for their children, then bully for them. I was simply offended by saintcatherine saying that homeschooled children are *more* tolerant than their publicly schooled counterparts, and responded vehemently to her condescending tone. I also stand by my view that the majority (NOT ALL) of parents who homeschool do so to shield their children from outside influences. Vilify me if you want but that's my opinion. Disliking homeschooling doesn't make me some terrible person; if a friend decided to homeschool her children I would support her and not make a single comment about it unless she asked.
You said this:
Basically you are saying that the elite group (not necessarily wealthy, but still elite ie. two parents, etc.) produces smarter children.
And you're right that the "sweetie" comment crossed the line. But when you come on here with your (obviously very young and naive) views and start lecturing people about the choices they make for their children, you've got to expect a strong response.
And I'm not even sure what to say about your claim that critical thinking is an inherent ability. That's just a very strange position, and not supported by research on the topic. Perhaps you mean that some people have more of a tendency to be critical thinkers or something. But trust me, if you surround someone with nothing but bigots and narrow-minded people all their lives, they won't be critical thinkers, no matter what kind of natural intelligence they were born with.
And you're simply wrong that just because having access to something is a privilege means that it's not better or that it's morally wrong to choose it. Because my mom is a nutritionist, I believe that organic food and food that's free of all the refined sugars, hydrogenated oils, and hormones that cause the obesity, diabetes, cancers, and other diseases that are approaching epidemic proportions in our country are better for my family, so I choose to buy them. I realize everyday that this is a privilege. Does that make me a bad person for choosing them in spite of the fact that people who are living in poverty are stuck with the cheap shit that makes them sick? For that matter, having a car, or access to reliable public transportation is a privilege, having access to a good education and clean water is a privilege. Does that make us all horrible people because we utilize these things, even as we acknowledge that many people do not have access to them?
I think you need to rethink your position.
Wow, busy few days; haven't had time to check back here, but I am glad that some others took up the ideas.
Sorry if you thought I was being condescending-- I was really being cranky; it is against my values to condescend, so, again, I apologise.
To clarify: I do not assert that *all* homeschooled children are more tolerant than *all* mainstream-schooled children. "Tolerant" is a big idea with many components, as is the way it manifests in a child's character.
It has been my experience, however, that the children I know who have been homeschooled are hands down more accepting of difference --particularly in their peers, and particularly when it comes to physical appearance, abilities, and self-expression.
That is my experience. When I reacted to your first comment, which now seems to have been borrowed from Barbara Otto, who is also eidencing ignorance, but unlike you making a comparison -- whereas you were claiming that these peole were one and the same -- I was thinking to myself: Even the most stereotyped/-ical religious people who ARE worried about bad influences from public school are NOT going to be worried about a nice lady without arms! For cripes sake, those people are typically large-family, disabled-child adopting types! And the other, less-religiously motivated homeschoolers I know tend to be very open to difference nd teach their children the same.
I really do hope that you consider all that we have said. Nobody is trying to tell you that homeschooled children are better, or even all better off (I can also produce many kids who would tell you they WISH they had been in public school.) I could even try to argue of many-- not all-- schools leads to a lot of the oppressive meanness of the kids in them.... but I won't do all that.
Just, seriously, please examine your stereotypes, especially when it leads you to make mean and offensive comments that assigns a hateful attitude to an entire group of people.