Talk:Ableism

This is what the discussion page is for

This article seems rather opinionated and in its current state is not quite encyclopedic.

I tried to reword some of the more blatant POV statements. I am not familiar enough with the movement to add any more info, which seems necessary to make it truly encyclopedic. ---Noclevername 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. The article is entirely one-sided with no mention of the fact that there are many who disagree with the "ableism" theories of the disabled movement. --Kasreyn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.1.78 (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone ever writes a criticism section, they should address all the ridiculous language policing, most of it promulgated by http://disabledfeminists.com/ (i.e., calling someone "stupid" is ableist, saying "What's your problem?" is ableist, blah blah blah).

FYI, I'm planning on doing a massive overhaul of this article over the next few months (it's one of my significant areas of interest) and I will be sure to address criticism. I think it's fair to present the disabledfeminists.com bloggers' concerns, since they are one of the main interest groups for this topic, but because this needs NPOV, I'll also discuss opposition to language policing. -- doorautomatica (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This statement is really clumsy: "An ableist society is said to be one that treats non-disabled individuals as the standard of ‘normal living’." By any definition non-disabled people are going to be considered standard or the norm, there's no getting around that. It'd make more sense to say that an ableist society generally fails to take the disabled into consideration, treats them poorly, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.190.195.151 (talk) 23:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This article lacks criticism. It's an extremist point of view mixed with the actual consideration towards handicaped people. How can anyone compare a disability to an ethnicity as if it were a neutral or a good thing? 85.244.145.70 (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is chock full of unsubstantiated opinion. The second paragraph is egregious:

1. "In ableist societies, able-bodiedness is viewed as the norm": The vast majority of people are able-bodied, so able-bodiedness is the norm. This is a simple fact, not an opinion or viewpoint, and therefore not an indicator of an "ableist" society.
2. "people with disabilities are viewed as deviating from that norm": people with disabilities do deviate from that norm. Again, this is a fact, not a viewpoint.
3. "A disability is seen as something to overcome or to fix, for example through medical treatments.": If someone's quadriplegia could be cured through medical intervention, what kind of monster would not see it as something to overcome or to fix? On the flip side, many deaf people are happy being deaf, some even wanting to bear deaf children. But that doesn't change the fact that deafness is a disability that deprives the person of certain aspects of normal life and increases the hazards they face during daily living. How is it ableist to want to overcome or fix deafness?
4. "The ableist worldview holds that disability is an error or a failing rather than a simple consequence of human diversity, akin to race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender.": Quadriplegia is not human diversity. It's a horrible condition that any sane person would see as a major impediment to a normal life, and which anyone with a shred of humanity would want to cure if at all possible. It's not at all like race, etc.
5. The footnote is from a training manual for counsellors. There is no reference to any OR.

— Marcelocantos (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

cleaned up

The article appears to have gotten better over the past month or so, though it's certainly nowhere as good, i.e. as encyclopedic, as it could be.

I'm the Director of PR and Outreach for the Disabilities Network of New York City, so I'm intimately involved in the Inclusion movement and I think the article Ableism could fare much better if it were more closely connected with the 'Inclusion (disability rights)' article and similar articles that purport to encompass the Inclusion movement generally. However, it's going to take time and effort by all of us to ensure that happens. 124.120.5.239 11:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Linguistic considerations

The {{Fact}} tag in the linguistics section is about the Latin, not about the relative popularity of the terms. Can anyone find a source that shows that abilitism is the most obvious term, as derived from Latin?

Actually, can anyone find a source that says we should care what the most Latin word would be? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed the section. I can't find any source that talks about this and I don't see why it's important. Also is this still a neologism if it has been in use since the 80s? I think we should remove the "neologism" stuff from the lead. It's just a word coined the in 80s to describe a concept that has been around a lot longer. Do you agree with that change? futurebird (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any relevant sources either, which is why I posted the note here. My own opinion is that the word probably still counts as being "new" at this stage. It can take more than half a century for some words to quit feeling new, especially if it's not a word in everyday use. (I'd be happy to hear other people's perspectives.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Disablism?

The term Disablism re-directs here, but I didn't see any discussion of it. My hunch is that it isn't a simple negation of ableism...if that's the case, it seems worth mentioning just to prevent confusion. Or at least, to prevent my confusion. ;)--216.62.101.13 (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating question. Disablism could be either a synonym for ableism, or a word for a prejudice against able-bodied/able-minded people. Either way, we should figure it out if we can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where the US and the rest of the English speaking world have settled on different words to mean similar things. 'Disablism' is in common use by the UK based Disablity movement to mean xenophobia directed towards disabled people, while 'Ablism' is unheard of. Personally I'd prefer 'Ablism' to redirect to an article on 'Disablism', but in the absence of that the article should refer to both terms in parallel: DWG

Not convinced by this statement: 'However, ... most words employing the suffix "-ism" represent that the root of the word is that which is deemed privileged or superior in comparison with all other categories;' Sexism not that people with sex/gender deemed superior to those without gender. Racism / chauvism / transgenderism also fail to have root that reflects the group deemed superior —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icarusgeek (talk • contribs) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else find it ironic that a page about discrimination is so U.S./Eurocentric? JanderVK (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

About the usage "the disabled"

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the current title of this article. The subject phrase "the disabled" is a poor construction for both grammatical and terminological reasons. A better construction would be "disabled people" or if people-first-language is preferred then "people with disabilities". Forcing a word that is normally an adjective "disabled" to function as a noun is poor grammar when alternatives exist that keep "disabled" as an adjective or else replaces it with the more standard noun form "disabilities". Roger (talk) 09:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ideological issues

This section is predicated on a sentence tagged as unsourced since March 2008. Unfortunately if I removed the sentence now I would have to remove the whole section. Maintenance tags must be acted upon or the corresponding material may be removed. I will remove the section one week after any decision to keep this article unless this maintenance tag has been dealt with. Of course the content could be restored later with a proper reference. Since the sentence is rather verbose I have no idea on which source or sources it is based so it will be difficult for me to add a reference myself. --Mirokado (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The following text is a comment by 134.139.212.18 moved to the talk page. Yaris678 (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

nazi's and the eugenics movement concerning disabilities are taken out of context. the relation between the two need to be explained more throughly and backed with verifiable evidence. you need to cite your references before posting random red herring statements.

original

Ableism only applies to physical disabilities?

I'm a person who uses the word ableism to refer to oppression of people with all disabilities including mental disabilities, and I know tons of other people who do the same. I feel a little silly saying that my personal experience should prove a Wikipedia article wrong, but this note isn't even footnoted/sourced: "The concept of ableism deals primarily with discrimination faced by those with physical disabilities. For details on the types of discrimination faced by those with emotional issues and similar, see Mentalism (discrimination). Discrimination against the developmentally disabled is not generally referred to as 'ableism.'"

Maybe the word mentalism is used by some people in the mad/psychiatric survivor movement but, as someone with a non-psychiatric mental disability, I've barely even heard that word. I know there is probably less published anti-ableism literature that is about mental disabilities, but that doesn't mean our experiences aren't included in the definition of ableism. I see no reason for this note to be in the article because no explanation is even given for why it is written or where the person who wrote it got this idea.

edited to add: if no one can answer me about this and explain where this idea is from, I'm getting rid of the note in a few days.Gorramdoll (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that notice wasn't right. I see in the end you only reworded it but I suspect it's right that it shouldn't be there at all. I thought they were really for when the exact same word was used for something else, to direct people to those articles or a disambiguation page. So I suggest it be removed after a while if no one disagrees.

I do think the issue needs to be summarised early on in the article though, to indicate there is some divergence of usage. I agree that terms like 'mentalism' and 'sanism' aren't in particularly widespread usage, but then neither does ableism seem to be in mental health (not sure about in the US but in UK the mh orgs just seem to go on at the public about 'stigma').

Also I think the lead needs to clarify that 'ableism' is a joining of able and ism, becuase it's really not clear to newcomers to the concept (or how you pronounce it). I did put that in a while back but it seems to have been taken out. EverSince (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Ableism definitely applies to all disabilities. I'm involved in Disability Studies and I've noticed that it tends to focus on mobility and sensory disabilities, which could be how the impression came about, but ableism definitely applies. Developmentally disabled self-advocates often do refer to the discrimination they face as ableism. I've seen the term "neurotypicalism" used, generally on Tumblr, for neurological disabilities, but this article is the first time I've seen mentalism as well. Sanism I've seen in mad/psychiatric survivor communities. AlyHillary (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeking employment

I wonder whether it can be more difficult for disabled people to find employment - I was informed recently that a recent Panorama programme was on this theme - and whether there should be a section on disability and job-seeking in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It definitely is- the U.S. government has statistics, http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsdisability.htm/ and http://www.dol.gov/odep/topics/DisabilityEmploymentStatistics.htm are relevant and might be good as sources for the USA side of the problem. AlyHillary (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Link to wrong page for Swedish language

The link to Swedish Wikipedia goes to "Diskriminering av personer med funktionsnedsättning", which translated is "Discrimination of people with disabilities". That article is not about ableism, not even remotely. It is only about discrimination with examples of how it can affect people with different disabilites and how it is defined in Swedish law. As there is no article for the Swedish equivalent of "ableism" on Wikipedia (the only possible - "funkofobi", roughly "disablophobia" - has been removed), I will remove this link if noone objects in 3 months. /140416

It's been almost 6 months and noone has objected. Removing the link now. /141009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.133.24 (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Campbell

The name "Campbell" appears in the article without any introduction. It cannot be assumed that everybody knows who Campbell is. 172.56.26.88 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Handicapism

Two articles about a single topic, the only real difference is the terminology. "Ableism" is more commonly used in English, the Handicapism article was originally translated from German. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So in other word, ableism shouldn't be merged with handicapism but the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.133.24 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

They are about the same topic, and I also think mentalism should be merged under a subsection. But the "handicapism" article should be merged, definitely.

And yes, it should be that handicapism is merged into ableism. I've never heard the term "handicapism" being used prior to reading that Wikipedia page, so it wouldn't make logical sense to merge it the other way around. – Jordan Hooper ^(talk) 17:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard the term "handicapism". Many (but not all) people consider the term handicapped offensive and it's use is discouraged, by the American Psychological association. On mentalism, while it is currently considered part of ableism, historically mental disabilities have experienced different forms of oppression, from people with physical disabilities and the idea that they should be seen as disabilities is relatively new. It might make more sense to create history section and link to mentalism there. Xttina.Garnet (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Merge Handicapism into Ableism Subjects are virtually the same. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Messy and hard to follow

Hi all,

This wiki page is really hard to follow along with, I would like to discuss some possible future changes to the page that we could work on to fix. For me the whole definition section doesn't really seem like a definition. Some of the references that are entered seem blocky and doesn't match the floor of the wiki page. I would like to make changes and edits to the page with discretion, I'll give a week for some options and if not I will just continue the edits myself. Some feedback and opinions would be great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetejerrett (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)