What do we want???
YOU GUYS. I think I may have finally figured it out.
So, one of the main goals of any sort of Advocate/Influencer is to raise awareness about an issue/trend/product/movement…
Ataxia Advocates want disabilities to seem “normal” so people treat us more “normal.” We want to increase public knowledge since that betters our chances of finding a cure. We want people to actually understand what we’re dealing with instead of just seeing us and wondering or assuming.
I’ve written LOTS of articles trying to do just that.
But we’re not “normal.” We know that. We want you to accept our issue, to understand it, not ignore it.
So, how do you do that??
Well, Target tried. Remember? A few years ago, they advertised special handicapped Halloween costume designs, and then just last year they sold “Inclusive” holiday wrapping paper. Yeah.
It’s confusing. I tried explaining the problem, but I’m not sure I completely did. They’re including people with disabilities, so what’s wrong? How do we accommodate but not “treat someone differently?”
I give you… Schitt’s Creek!
Go right ahead and rewatch the Emmy-winning series on Hulu right now. I’ll wait.
Now, one of the main characters is a man named David who just so happens to be bisexual. Here’s a really great clip of him “explaining” this:
Spoiler Alert: He ends up falling in love with and eventually marrying his male coworker.
But what makes this show such a perfect example of inclusion is NOT that they included a homosexual relationship, but that it’s NORMAL and seamless and romantic and not a plot-focus and… It’s hard to explain. Watch this:
That’s it! That’s what we want!
To be included without being explained or highlighted or dismissed. To be able to just exist.
.
Ok, here’s another real-life example:
In Season 7 of Paw Patrol (I have a 3-year-old, don’t judge) they introduce a wheelchair-using dog named Rex. I was excited to see a handicapped character, but then was immediately disappointed when he (I mean, his disability) caused a problem. It seemed like the only reason to include Rex was so that the ramp that only-ever-appears-in-that-one-particular-episode-for-his-house can break.
Right away, the episode was focused on the disabled pup overcoming his own disabled problem.
I get it. It’s not a horrible example. But do you see how this is good representation but not good inclusion? How it’s great that they’re showing (and therefore kind of “normalizing”) disabilities, but it’s through a negative, almost ableist lens?
It’s portraying a disability as a burden to overcome, not a life to live.
But then Disney+ just right now released their own version of Paw Patrol called Pupstruction that features a disabled main character named Roxy. THIS is excellent inclusion because her disability is never even mentioned once – positively or negatively – in 9 episodes, so far.
It’s acknowledged, but her handicap is never the FOCUS of any episode. There are ramps in every single scene, even if not in use, and Roxy doesn’t participate in certain activities…
But somehow the whole show gets by just fine without the audience knowing Roxy’s full medical history. Somehow other characters know how to joke with Roxy without asking if she’s got a “license for that thing.”
In my head, representation is like saying, “Hey you! We have that problem, too!” whereas inclusion is saying, “Hey! Everyone has their own problems!” and the old way of thinking is, “I don’t see any problems anywhere!”
It’s like representation is two groups but inclusion is one.
Does that make any sort of sense at all? Maybe? Good luck!