blindness

“What’s Happening?”: on the Importance of Described Video

Posted by

2

Described video for the visually impaired is becoming far more widespread in recent years. You’ll often hear “this program is presented with described video for the visually impaired” before The Simpsons, Law and Order, or some other popular TV show. It’s becoming commonplace for movies, too; if you buy a movie, you can often go into the menu and select the described version. It’s not ideal for sighted viewers, of course. The disembodied voice describing detailed versions of what they are already seeing drives some of them crazy, which is why I never insist that they watch the described movie with me. Some, however, think it’s the most entertaining way to watch a movie. These people are very special.

Described TV shows and movies are still regarded as a bit of a luxury (opinions vary) and it’s certainly not a life-or-death situation if someone fails to describe an episode of The Walking Dead. There are times, though, when description is not only helpful, but necessary. Take a look at this PSA about bullying. It’s not as though watching these announcements is likely to save a life, but if they are meant for the “public”, then that public needs to include visually impaired people. Excluding a sizable demographic of the world’s population doesn’t make a lot of sense, especially when there is almost always captioning present for the hearing impaired, and subtitles for those who speak different languages. Shouldn’t we be included, too?

Many of us grew up without described video, even for movies and TV shows, and we still managed to enjoy them as much as sighted people. Sure, it was somewhat restricting, especially for horror and action films, which tend to be a little short on expository dialogue. Either we watched shows that had enough dialogue to go by, or we enlisted a friend or family member who was willing to describe the most important bits to us. It’s not as though we need lavish descriptions; we’re not asking for the moon on a stick. We don’t need to know whether the protagonist is a “dazzlingly beautiful young woman with long blonde ringlets, high cheekbones, and a willowy figure”. Those details are nice (though some describers go a little overboard) but not at all necessary. Very few people need that amount of detail to get the basic gist. I had a friend in junior high who loved describing so much that we’d get together and have movie marathons. He was so dedicated that, for fast-paced movies, he’d get up, hit pause, and describe everything going on. It was lovely. I miss him.

Meaningful description isn’t an unreasonable expectation. People are often hired specifically to provide captioning for the deaf and hearing impaired, so why are people seldom hired to provide descriptions for the blind and visually impaired? There are agencies devoted to describing movies and TV shows, but they don’t usually cover public service announcements and similar videos. Really, they shouldn’t have to.
Description isn’t an extravagant demand made by angry blind people who want to be catered to. Description makes good sense. Nobody bats an eye at providing subtitles and captioning, and it’s time the industry started acknowledging other accessibility challenges as well. There may be other demographics with accessibility restrictions that I don’t even know about, and they need to speak up. If you want your ad or announcement to reach as many people as possible, you’ll need to use inclusive methods of communication. Remember that iconic Super Bowl PSA about domestic violence? It reached us because it had enough dialogue for us to fully understand what was happening. That PSA is a work of art on quite a few levels.

Hey, marketers: you’re always devising new strategies for reaching more people. Description is to your advantage. Many commercials are totally dialogue-free, to the point where I don’t know what half of them are trying to sell me. I’m saying this in a whisper, because no one really likes ads, but maybe invest in some accessibility consultants? It might help your cause.

I’ve written about when accessibility is necessary and when it’s simply helpful. I’m not expecting all my Facebook friends to start describing their cat videos (although I wouldn’t say no to that). I do, however, encourage people to think before they publish. Ask yourself whether this video is important enough to reach millions or even billions of people. Then ask yourself whether it is going to reach as many demographics as possible. If the second question is a no, then start exploring accessibility, for us, and for everyone else, too.

Don’t Mess with the Stick

Posted by

15

While I’m not nearly as attached to my cane as other blind people are to their guide dogs (for obvious reasons) I still like having it around. It’s my mobility tool of choice, and it works well for me. More than that though, it represents security. A cane will almost always tell me what’s directly in front of me. It helps me walk in a straight line, because I can trail along walls, sidewalks and so on. My cane is a major contribution to my independence.
The cane is called many things, some of them peculiar: I’ve heard people call it my “helper”, “walking pole”, and even “special friend”. One older gentleman approached me and asked me whether I hike; “I have one like that, too,” he gushed. It’s hard to keep a straight face, let me tell you. I don’t mind if someone refers to it as my “stick”, but some blind people are particularly sensitive about it. If you’re unsure, just use cane to be on the safe side.

People are sometimes unaware that it’s important to me. They don’t know that it provides a degree of safety I wouldn’t otherwise have. They treat it like any other ordinary object, much the same way you’d treat a coat or backpack. They handle it like something they can take away from me.

When I enter someone’s home, I will often allow the cane to be taken away, for the simple reason that bringing a cane into a house is akin to leaving your shoes on—something that simply isn’t done in my culture, at least. It’s been everywhere my shoes have been, so it’s often trailed through mud, snow, and … other things, of which I prefer to remain ignorant. Unless I feel really uncomfortable navigating a strange house on my own, I will be glad to store the cane and use sighted guide instead.

In all other places, though—including and especially outdoor areas—I insist that my cane remain in my hand and under my control. If I’m left in an unfamiliar area without my cane, I become far less secure in my environment. I’ll walk much slower than normal, in case I bump into something. I tend to shuffle along, because I’m feeling my way with my feet instead of a cane, searching for tactile feedback. I will rely even more heavily on my hearing, so that I stand a chance of detecting larger obstacles like pillars, which create sound shadows. I never feel as blind as when I don’t have my cane with me.

Even when I have it handy, people fail to respect boundaries. They’ll lead me by the cane, pull it out of someone’s path, or even insist that I let go altogether so they can guide me (something I seldom allow). I acknowledge that it really does get in the way sometimes. If I have one hand on a guide’s elbow and the other on my cane, my hands are both occupied. My sighted guides often end up carrying trays, drinks, and other awkward objects I can’t put in a backpack or dangle from my arms. I hate that they have to do this, though they are almost always glad to accommodate. Then of course there is the issue of grace: canes are meant to bump gently against things—that’s what they’re for. If I don’t encounter something with my cane, I usually don’t know it’s there at all. Inevitably, my cane will bump things like ankles and—in one unfortunate case—more sensitive bits. It occasionally trips people, though that can be a symptom of distraction on their part. So, yes, it does make life harder for those around me, especially if they’re not paying much attention.

Although it gets on everyone’s nerves (including my own), I refuse to go most places without my cane. Indeed, when I’m without it, my right hand feels awkward. It’s not used to hanging limply, as though it’s uncomfortable without something to grasp. It’s absurd, really, but without my cane I feel slightly unbalanced. There’s something off about going without, unless I’m in a very familiar environment. Mine is collapsible, so it’s easy to bring it everywhere and fold it up when it’s not in use. That way, it’s there the moment I need it. The cardinal sin of cardinal sins: never, ever abandon me in an unfamiliar environment without my cane. If I’m trusting you enough to go anywhere with you sans mobility tool, don’t break that trust.

I sometimes wish people would respect and tolerate the cane the way they respect and tolerate guide dogs, which are far more conspicuous. My cane can’t bark, play, or scrounge for food, after all.

I hope this post has adequately explained why you shouldn’t mess with my stick, why you mustn’t insist that I leave it behind, and why it’s necessary to witness the stares I’ll invariably get. It’s just one of those things. So please—leave the stick alone.

Accommodation with a Side of Guilt, Please

Posted by

12

This evening, I went out to dinner with some friends. I ordered a dish I’ve eaten many times (a salad) only to find that they’ve begun presenting it in a new way: the dressing was in a small cup on the edge of the platter, rather than atop the food as it usually is. I froze, slightly embarrassed. I’ve always had trouble dressing my salad if it’s in a cup. Squeeze bottles? No problem. These give me a certain degree of control. Cups, however, are a different story. (Disclaimer: some blind people have no issue with these whatsoever.) I was just about to ask someone at my table to help when our extremely-attentive server materialized at my elbow:
“Do you want me to take this back and dress it for you?”
“Um…no, it’s okay…it’s just a bit awkward—“
“I totally understand. Don’t worry about it. I’ll be right back.”
Away went my plate. The server appeared several minutes later, saying “Here’s your salad. We have a special rule here where each time food is sent back for any reason, we have to actually make a new dish. So, we just made you a new salad and dressed it for you.”
I was stunned. I had just inadvertently wasted an entire plate of food so that someone could put dressing on top of my salad for me? Forget being slightly embarrassed: I was mortified and, I confess, a little ashamed. While the server reassured me that it was all okay, I silently asked the powers that be to disappear me immediately. They did not oblige.

I’m used to being “accommodated”. Indeed, I often expect it: when I enroll in university classes, each of my instructors is given an accommodation letter, which describes the accommodations I’ll need to participate fully in the classroom. (If I sound like a handbook, that’s because I wrote one—no, really!) I also expect workplaces to make (reasonable) accommodations to the work environment. This is something I’ve been encouraged to view as normal and acceptable. As is typical for me, I have felt heaps of unnecessary guilt over accommodations, even when they are deemed “reasonable”. Once, in ninth grade, my science teacher got together with a few others on staff and made me a periodic table, so I wouldn’t have to use the rather inadequate one in my textbook. My junior high Industrial Arts teacher went out of his way to make sure I could try out all the same equipment everyone else could. He even positioned the end of a nail gun while I fired, showing a remarkable lack of concern for his fingers. (If you’re reading this, I want to thank you. I’ll never forget that one.)

When people go above and beyond the call of duty for me, I feel grateful (healthy) and horribly guilty (unhealthy). Instead of simply thanking people and getting on with things, I waste time and emotional resources worrying about how undeserving or inconvenient or high-maintenance I’m being. While the person who is helping me is busy doing me a favour, I’m busy coming up with all the reasons I shouldn’t be accepting it. Even when I do accept it, as I did with that salad, the shame and humiliation will plague me for days. Yes, you read that correctly: days. This particular incident was so awkward that I’m amazed I didn’t start crying right there at the table; goodness knows I wanted to.

As far as the server was concerned, she was helping a gal out, no more no less. I have no idea what the kitchen staff thought, though I wouldn’t be surprised if they were about a dozen different kinds of exasperated. As far as I was concerned, I’d manage to waste food, fill my server’s time with running back and forth (in a very busy restaurant, I might add) and make a fool of myself all in about five minutes. I’m cringing as I write this, but the more I think about it, the more I realize it needs to be discussed. There are probably a lot of people out there who have felt how I’m feeling right now.

I’m trying to be okay with being accommodated. I’m trying to be at peace with accepting help, and depending on others, and even letting people do me favours now and then. Could I have dressed the damn thing myself? Of course. Would it have been less messy and awkward to have someone else do it? Absolutely. Did I force anyone to do it for me? No. Am I still going to feel awful about it for days to come? Yup.

But should I feel guilty? Most people seem to think I shouldn’t. Accommodations are there for a reason, and in many cases they are universal enough to be made into policy and/or law. But just because it’s not in a handbook or policy statement doesn’t mean it can’t and shouldn’t be done. While imposing unreasonable accommodations on people at work, school, and elsewhere isn’t going to further the cause, it shouldn’t mean that any random act of kindness ought to be rejected.

Should we make a habit of letting people do things for us, especially when we’re capable of doing them ourselves? If you know me at all, then you know I’d never suggest such a thing. However, this does mean that we should be comfortable with accepting what people want to give us now and then. If it’s not a sin to let someone carry your heavy bag, or hold open a door, or grab you a drink (all things sighted people let others do for them on a regular basis) then why not let someone offer kindness if they really, really want to?

I’m learning, guys. I’m learning. But for now…I think I’ll go and have that cry.

Don’t Be Fooled: Love Hasn’t Won…Yet

Posted by

5

On June 26, 2015, the US Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples now have the right to marry in all US states. Many took to Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks to celebrate that the US had finally achieved marriage equality. Not everyone was ready to celebrate just yet, though. Alicia, who is blind, is intimately acquainted with the marriage inequality plaguing less visible minorities in the United States. While everyone is rejoicing that love has won, Alicia finds herself unable to keep quiet. While she and her fiancé (also blind) do not receive the hatred and scorn that same-sex couples do, they still suffer discrimination which, while much quieter, is just as meaningful. According to Alicia, we have a long way to go before #LoveWins. This is her story, so I’ll let her tell it.

When Meagan asked me to guest-post on her blog, I was honored. This issue is near and dear to my heart, but I hope to write out my thoughts without turning this post into a rant.
While my friends on social media were celebrating, I found myself furious. Marriage equality is not yet a reality. I know this because I cannot marry the man I love … and I don’t foresee a day when that will change.
The United States has marriage penalty laws that will affect anyone who is receiving government benefits. These include SSI (Supplemental Security Income), SSDAC (Social Security Disabled Adult Child), and, perhaps most importantly, Medicaid. These programs are income-based and, once a couple marries, that income is considered “joint”. Therefore, if you and/or your partner are receiving any of these benefits, marriage may put you over the ridiculously low income limit. This assumes that married couples have a higher joint income than they would if they were single but, as is the case with many disabled couples, this is far from guaranteed. Even with joint income, most of these couples are still unable to cover needs such as shelter, food, and medical care (especially the latter) without assistance. Given that a very high percentage of people living with disabilities is unable to work, these penalty laws prevent many disabled couples from getting married, despite their commitment to and desire for marriage. Social Security is sneaky about this. Program criteria states that if a couple is “holding out to the community as married”, that couple can be considered married for Social Security purposes, and lose their benefits. Unsuspecting couples–who accidentally find themselves within Social Security’s criteria for “holding out”—could lose their benefits, leaving them with very little recourse, if any.
My fiancé (Mark) and I both receive Social Security benefits and health coverage through Medicaid. If we were legally married, our cash benefits would be cut dramatically if not entirely, and we would both certainly lose our medical coverage. I have several physical health issues that would make my situation precarious. Even worse, my partner has cancer requiring aggressive expensive treatment. There is no way we could afford this if he lost his medical coverage, which forces us to choose between marriage and his cancer treatments.
I hasten to point out that these laws do not only affect people with disabilities. They unfairly penalize the elderly (often low-income) who are only able to cover their increasing health needs with programs like Medicaid. A friend told me a story about her Grandmother, who had lost her first husband. A year later, this elderly woman met a man she wished to marry. Marriage wasn’t an option, however, because they would both have lost their medical and Social Security Benefits. The choice: stay unmarried, or forfeit the funds that would cover essential medical and living expenses. The solution, whether for a young disabled couple, or an elderly couple with no disability at all, is to cohabitate, and make it abundantly clear to everyone that they are either roommates living together for economic reasons, or nothing more than boyfriend and girlfriend. I, like many others, cringe at having to refer to someone I love more than my own life with the same term a high school couple dating for a week would use for one another, but it is what we must do to secure our living and medical expenses.
When I first started discussing this issue on social media several months ago, I was surprised by the reactions I got, particularly from those within the disabled community. Many asked me why I was so upset: after all, Mark and I were married in our own hearts. Why did we need a silly little piece of paper? Weren’t our own feelings toward each other good enough? The answer is no. The even more infuriating thing is that many of the people giving us these platitudes were the same ones that were telling LGBT couples to keep fighting the good fight, and not give up until they were granted equal rights. No one told these couples that “it’s just a piece of paper.” So, why does this attitude change for couples like Mark and Me?
In the early days of the fight for gay marriage, the concept of Civil Unions was created, which gave same-sex couples the right to be at a partner’s bedside, privy to their medical information, and other rights of marriage without making it legal. For the most part, the LGBT community refused to accept this. For many that I talked with about this issue, it was the system’s attempt to placate them: “we’ll give you half of what you want, but not your heart’s deep desire.” Given that, even when civil unions were offered, same-sex couples continued fighting for the fundamental right that is legal marriage, and were encouraged to do so. Yet there is not even an option for civil unions for those receiving benefits like SSI, sSDAC, and Medicaid. In fact, we can lose these benefits by simply appearing to be married—no piece of paper necessary. Not only do we not get our heart’s desire, but we must go to the other extreme and make sure we don’t join our lives in any way beyond that of roommates.
People (some of them disabled), have come up with another argument concerning why they think I am wrong about this country still not having marriage equality for all. Their take is that prior to the Supreme Court ruling, a same sex couple simply could not get married, no matter how much they wanted to. It was just not an option. They argue that couples such as Mark and I could go down to the courthouse today, apply for a marriage license, and get married by a Justice of the Peace in record time. These people claim I have no argument, because Mark and I are simply choosing not to marry, rather than being unable to. on the surface that logic would make sense. But what happens to us after that marriage ceremony in the courthouse? Do we go off on a honeymoon and begin our lives as happily married people? No. Letters would begin arriving in the mail, announcing that the Social Security benefits which provide for our basic necessities for daily living have been reduced or cut off altogether. Next we get letters that announce that coverage for Mark’s life-saving cancer treatment has been taken away. What do we do then? We are not the only ones in this situation, and many people who wish to marry face disabilities and health difficulties even more severe than ours. Marriage or cancer treatments…not a real choice. For Couples where one or both partners is even more seriously disabled, this is not a choice, either. Marriage, or life-sustaining medical equipment, skilled in-home care, medical procedures….not a real choice. Marriage or food on your table, shelter over your head…this does not sound like a real choice to me.
My friend Amy likened this issue to the poll tax laws that many states had from the late 1800’s all the way up to 1966. Strictly speaking, blacks, whites, women, and Native Americans all had the right to vote….so long as they paid the required poll tax, and (in some states), passed a required literacy exam that showed they were educated. The makers of these laws knew full well that on the surface they would look like progress. Proponents of the poll taxes and literacy tests claimed the laws were perfectly equitable: after all, everyone did have the right to vote, and everyone wishing to exercise their right was required to pay these taxes, regardless of race or gender. What the lawmakers would not publicly admit was that there were groups who would be disproportionately unable to pay, such as African-Americans, Native Americans, women, and even impoverished white people. The sums of money those states required are literally pocket change to us in 2015, but they were exorbitant amounts of money at that time.
The reality was that the poll taxes and literacy tests were quiet ways to ensure that only select groups would be unable to vote. It could have been said to anyone at that time, “Oh you could go vote, you’re just choosing not to.” Technically, this would have been correct. Yes, a person in a minority group could have gone to their local courthouse and cast their ballot, but were faced with a choice that was not really a choice: use the money they often earned with back-breaking labor to exercise their right to vote, or feed and shelter themselves and their families.
Fast forward to modern day and the Federal marriage penalty laws. There are no laws on the books that explicitly state that people with disabilities or those who are elderly cannot marry. There are no rules that explicitly state that those receiving Social Security and/or Medicaid benefits are not allowed to get married. There would probably be a public backlash if the laws were this blatant. Like the historical poll tax, it is a very insidious form of discrimination that most people are unaware of. Many advocates who are aware view it as a quiet form of ableism and ageism.
They theorize that lawmakers are aware that people receiving benefits from these programs largely fall into the disabled or elderly categories. In the minds of many young and/or able-bodied people, these groups should not be allowed to marry anyway. The theory is that Federal laws penalizing recipients of these programs for marrying are just an easy way to ensure that this does not happen, while not being outwardly discriminatory. While I have yet to make up my mind whether I entirely agree with this, it would not surprise me to find it was the case. Therefore, it baffles and angers me that people continue to claim the US has achieved marriage equality for all, just as it would baffle and anger me if someone claimed the poll tax set-up was voting equality for all.
When Mark and I mention our plight to friends, family, medical professionals, etc. Our pain is minimized, more often than not. We get statements like, “Oh, you don’t really need marriage, you know how you feel about each other.” “It’s a silly paper that doesn’t mean much.” Really? I beg to differ. The gay rights movement didn’t see it this way, and though their fight was long, drawn-out, and in many cases painful, they eventually achieved enough lobbying power to get the laws changed. I can’t help but wonder: where is our lobbying power? Where are the groups that will rise up, go to our Congress people, and try to create awareness and change for the millions of couples who are disabled or elderly? Where are the Hollywood celebrities? The musicians with world-wide fame? The high-profile athletes? Where are all the people who helped fight for same-sex marriage? What no one has appeared to consider is that the Supreme Court decision now bring same-sex couples who receive these benefits under the same discriminatory rules. While awareness of this issue is growing, I’m not sure that the disabled and the elderly communities have enough numbers to push such change forward. Collective action is often most effective, but groups/organizations who recognize this problem and its seriousness are few and far between. Those that do exist are often very small groups without the ability to attract the high-profile audience that is needed to get the attention of those in power.
I’ve known of these laws for years, and they have always disgusted me. Unfortunately I never thought to help advocate for change, because I never envisioned meeting anyone I would want to marry. Now I have, so these laws have become very personal. I wish now that I had fought to advocate for change before this issue became so personal to me, but like so many of us, I failed to act until an issue touched my life directly. However, now that it has, I will continue to work to create an awareness of this discrimination, and do whatever is in my power to see the laws changed. I hope this post will be a step in that direction.

If a Picture’s Worth More Than a Thousand Words…You’re Using the Wrong Words

Posted by

4

“Eye contact is way more intimate than words will ever be.” – Faraaz Kazi

Eye contact carries staggering weight with just about everyone. You can say “I love you,” “I hate you,” and “I’m so bored—let’s get out of here!” with a simple look. Indeed, if you don’t make eye contact with the person you’re talking to, it’s not only abnormal—it’s rude, in some cultures anyway.

Upon meeting a good friend for the first time, I was, of course, unable to make eye contact with her. The best I could do was turn my face toward her, and look as alert and interested as I could without using my eyes. I don’t have any control whatsoever over my eye movements; my eyes are always looking everywhere and nowhere all at once. During this particular meeting, I was seated with my folded cane beside me. It wasn’t in full view, so my friend had no idea I was blind. She later confided that she had thought I must have been very shy. “I was so frustrated,” she said, “because you wouldn’t look at me. I was like, ‘Hey, look over here, damn it!’ and wondering what you were thinking. It was really bugging me.”

I’d always known that eye contact was important, but I’d never had it put to me quite that way. It was vaguely disconcerting, as though I’d committed some grievous social faux pas without knowing it. I started to wonder how many others had assumed I was shy, evasive, or impolite. How many times would my meaning have been better conveyed through a simple look? How often were my words, even when carefully chosen, insufficient?

I’ve learned to live with the fact that I’ll never achieve eye contact, but it still irks me, especially since I’m so cognizant of how it could improve my communication skills. I am a professional communicator, after all. And, as always, it’s the little things that get to me. Let’s say a stranger comes into the elevator with me, and I’m too shy to make small talk. It would be nice to simply make eye contact and smile. I use the same facial expressions as everyone else, of course, but I don’t have as much control over them as I’d like. To this day, I’ve never really mastered the fake smile; I just end up looking as though I’m about to commit unspeakable evil. That, or I look painfully awkward. I’ve even been told I suffer from resting bitch face, even though I’m a relatively cheerful person. How nice it would be to show friendliness without having to chatter pointlessly about the weather! (Then again, weather in Alberta is often a legitimate conversation piece.)

I won’t pretend the big things don’t matter, though, even if they don’t nag at me quite as often. I have been judged harshly in numerous musical competitions because I didn’t make eye contact with the audience. Apparently, this is the only meaningful way to connect emotionally with the crowd. The jury’s out on that one. I even had one judge approach me after I’d won second place, saying, “If you’d just looked at us or something, you’d have won.” Gee, thanks. Even when adjudicators are fully aware of my eye condition, they’ll still mark me down, partly because they aren’t conscious of how biased they are in favour of people who can make eye contact when necessary. This would happen even during classical competitions, where visual expressiveness should be less significant than in, say, musical theatre. Oddly enough, I’m far better at theatre than I ever was at classical performance, but I digress.

There’s more to it, of course. My loved ones all know how I feel about them, and I know how they feel about me, too. Nevertheless, I’ve always felt a twinge when someone says “You should see how he was looking at you!” or “I don’t think she appreciated what you were saying to her. She was giving you ‘the look’.” I am told that I have very expressive eyes, so I’m sure I give myself away a lot. But, more than control over my own eyes, I want knowledge of what others are saying with theirs. People don’t always bother to verbalize how they’re feeling. There have been times when someone was giving me a furious glare, an encouraging smile, or a warning glance…and of course it all went whooshing over my head. It’s true that people should probably remember to tell me what they’re thinking rather than staring at me, but it’s so engrained that most people forget.

I take issue with the idea that a look is far, far more expressive than a word, though. I have heard exceptional tenderness and pure venom in words, and I can hardly imagine something more intimate and expressive than that. I recognize that I don’t know what I’m missing, to some extent, so my understanding is very limited. However, people frequently underestimate the power of words and auditory cues because they simply don’t value them as highly. It’s much easier to look at someone than it is to search for the words that will express the same feeling. So, people naturally opt for the easier, quicker route. I would like to think that the words I say matter at least as much as the look you’re giving me. I don’t think I could tolerate a reality where my words don’t matter because I can’t look at you while I’m saying them.
Is it possible that looks are only more effective than words because they are convenient? A look, after all, is free of language barriers. It means the same to most anyone in the world. (Of course, there are exceptions: direct eye contact in Japan means something different than direct eye contact in America.) It is also much harder to mess up a look than a word. It’s easier to say the wrong thing than smile in the wrong way.

Perhaps it is not the fault of the words at all. Perhaps words are inadequate for the simple reason that the average person isn’t used to using them. Perhaps—dare I say it—people have chosen to value looks over words. If I’m right, and it is a choice, then maybe it would be possible to turn things around? Would it be possible to convince people that words are powerful tools—at least as powerful as eye contact? Maybe, maybe not. At this point, I just don’t know. But it’s an intriguing thought, isn’t it?

Maybe a picture is worth more than a thousand words … because you’re using the wrong words.

Please Watch Where You’re Going…Because I Can’t

Posted by

4

One of my favourite places to navigate is my university campus. People are reasonably polite. The place has a distinct community college atmosphere, which means there are few large crowds. Generally, fellow students respect the “stick to the right side” rule, so even heavy foot traffic flows quite smoothly.

Every now and then, though, someone will surprise me. I was climbing a near-deserted staircase, staying as far right as possible so I could follow the railing (I love railings, they make me feel safe and loved and whatnot). As I climbed, I heard someone approaching from above, though I found it odd that they were climbing down the left side rather than the right. Thinking that they were probably taking advantage of how empty the stairs were, I continued on my merry way (it would seem I’m always merry—who knew?). As she drew closer, though, I realized she wasn’t going to move. Rather than shift left a little—she was on the wrong side, after all—she chose to let us collide. Only as we did so did I notice a familiar clicking sound—she was texting. As I swayed, clutching the railing for dear life, I began an apology. Talking right over it, she said, “Watch where you’re going!” and stormed off. Well, darling, I would, but…

In an age when distracted driving is an epidemic and texting lanes are a thing, it’s becoming harder to trust that people will respect basic rules of foot traffic. I’ve always been used to bumping into people who refuse to move. That’s not going away. There will always be oblivious people who are too wrapped up in their conversations, or their phones, to notice what’s happening around them. Almost everyone I know has done this a time or two (I’m not blameless myself) but there are some who take it to extremes. Take a stroll through West Edmonton Mall sometime; you’ll see what I mean. Things are getting more dangerous, and I blame two things: mobile phones, and general apathy. People are so ready to assume that, if they’re not watching where they’re going, everyone else will compensate. As my city squabbles over bike lanes, I fling myself to one side as soon as I hear a cyclist approaching on the sidewalk. More than once, one of these cyclists has nearly knocked me over. No one is in such a tearing hurry that they can’t slow down for five seconds while they pass a pedestrian who can’t even see them.

“But Meagan,” you say, “people don’t always know that your blind! Most people can watch where they’re going, so how can you blame them?” I can blame them because of a little thing called visibility. If I’m standing around, sans mobility aid, then yes, I can understand people’s inability to recognize that I can’t see them. My eyes are relatively normal-looking, so it’s hard to tell that anything is wrong with them. They dart about in a frantic manner, but some people mistake this for extreme shyness. But if we are standing with canes out or dogs at our sides, there is very little excuse not to notice us. If people are paying attention to what is directly in front of them, they will definitely spot us. The girl who collided with me on the staircase was breaking an unwritten rule, and wasn’t aware of her own surroundings. This is a toxic combination. I do my best not to get into people’s way, and I apologize at least half a dozen times a day. It’s all the rage in Canada, don’t you know.

I have no problem with people bumping into me because it’s crowded, or because I accidentally cut them off. People bump each other all the time. It is not necessarily wrong or rude to do so. I’m not saying that people should throw themselves out of my path in case they brush my elbow. I am, however, saying that people could stand to pay more attention. If you know that you’re a bit distractible while texting, then move to one side, finish your text, and go your way. Don’t expect everyone—people who can’t see you, especially—to flow around you like an accommodating current.

Please, put your phone away and watch where you’re going…because I can’t.

Courage, Heroism, and Other Delusions

Posted by

4

Blindness is scary for anyone who hasn’t experienced it. Blindness is, for some people at least, the ultimate worst-case scenario. People have told me, to my face, that they’d rather be anything else—deaf, paralyzed, depressed—than blind. I always marvel at this shortsightedness (pun intended) but I understand it, too. If I went totally deaf tomorrow, I’d feel frightened and desperate. The thought makes me shiver, though I’d never presume that deaf people’s lives are abysses of misery. Even if I did, I’d never say it to their faces, because it’s one of the most insensitive ideas I can imagine.

Perhaps the worst thing to hear, though, is “I could never manage a life without sight…how do you do it?”

How indeed. As we all know by now, most blind people live successful, productive lives. Those who don’t usually have other factors to contend with; blindness, by itself, does not guarantee a hopeless existence. Certainly, it can be a struggle. I’m not going to gloss that over. I’ve spent the past year blogging about all the ways it can be difficult. I confess I’ve sometimes indulged in a little self-pity. Eventually, though, I just go back to my life, because what else am I going to do? I can’t wallow forever.

So, how do I do it? How do I live with this disability (or indeed my less visible ones)? I am going to tell you my secret. I am going to reveal to you the cornerstone of my continuous courage in the face of adversity. I can even tell it to you in four words. Ready? Here goes.
“I have no choice.”

Yup, that’s all there is, folks. I was born this way, and I’m going to stay this way indefinitely. I deal with blindness because it’s my constant companion. I surmount blindness-related obstacles because I have no alternative. I keep my head up because the only other option is to put it down and never lift it again. To not “deal with this” is to not exist at all, and that’s definitely not a viable solution. I mean, what would you do if you went blind tomorrow? What would you do if you had no other choice but to be the way you are? What would you do, kill yourself?

Actually, yes. Some people have admitted that they would at least consider it: “God, if I were blind, I’d be suicidal. I could never have your life. It’d be too hard. I’m not brave enough, or heroic enough, or strong enough. I’d give up completely.”

First, ouch! You think my life—or a life like mine—is so full of despair that I’d be better off dead? Second, how can you say this with any conviction until you’ve experienced it? Third … you think I’m brave? Heroic? Strong?

I hate to disappoint you, but I’m none of those things, at least in relation to my disabilities. There’s nothing like necessity to spur you on. There’s nothing like adversity to force flexibility. When enough pressure is exerted, you either bend or you break. I’ve managed to bend, that’s all. There’s nothing mystical or herculean about that.

I’m not brave because I cross the street without looking at the traffic. I’m not heroic because I advocate for my right to equitable treatment. I’m not strong because I haven’t folded yet. The human spirit is surprisingly supple—it can adapt to just about any situation. People carry far heavier burdens with more grace than I carry mine. Just because I seem brave, or strong, or heroic doesn’t mean I am. It just means I’m getting on with things.

So many people shoulder things that seem impossible to bear. They don’t do so because they want to display their courage. They do it because it happens to be what life has thrown at them, and now they’re making it work as best they can. And, if you had to do the same, I can just about promise that you’d make it work, too. There is no point telling someone how brave you think they are, and further telling them that you could never handle it. They’re not handling it out of a desire to draw attention to their mettle. They’re handling it because it’s the only way.

I’m not here to be an inspiration for others, and I’m not here to prove to myself that I’m a brave soul. I’m here because humanity went forth and multiplied, and I’ve been dealt an imperfect hand, just like everyone else. If that makes me heroic, then we’re all heroes—each and every one.

Baby, I Wanna Hold Your Elbow

Posted by

6

I was rushing through a mall (everything happens in malls), because I’d lost a friend and her guide dog. They’d left me behind in a cloud of dust, and I was trying to figure out where they’d gone. A stranger wanted to help, which was very kind of him. Unfortunately, his altruism took the form of grabbing the tip of my cane off the floor, raising it so that the cane was fully horizontal, and pulling on it as though to lead me by my own cane.

What else could I do? I trotted along behind him, asking him more and more frantically to put the cane down, please! He either failed to hear me, or ignored me, because he kept going until we reached my friend, at which point he let me go and went on his merry way. This, I thought wryly, should have been a teachable moment.

I’m a little shy, believe it or not, and I’m also a little too tolerant. Sometimes, people grab me and I just sort of plod along, wanting to object but not finding a polite way in which to do it. Most blind people are much more vocal than I am, and they have every right to be. After all, their safety is of utmost importance to them.

There are many ways to lead a blind person, and most of them are problematic. I won’t go so far as to say there’s a “right” way, but there is a way that is considered standard, and for good reason. The “standard way” is called sighted guide method, and it usually involves the blind person placing their hand on the sighted guide’s elbow. The grip should be light but firm, just in case something separates the two. The blind person should walk behind and a little to the side of the guide, so that things like steps, curbs, and doors will be easily detectable. In a perfect world, everyone would know this and use it, but of course this is anything but a perfect world. I won’t waste too much time going on about details; there are many sources that can teach you the ins and outs of sighted guide. I will, however, explain why it’s important and what can happen if other methods are used instead.

Alternative method: leading by the hand
Why it’s a bad idea: First of all, this is sort of weird. If I’m not familiar with you, I don’t want to be holding your hand no matter what’s happening. Cab drivers who approach out of nowhere and grab my hand frighten me just a little, I won’t lie. The main problem with this, at least for me, is that it traps my hand so that it’s harder to get free if I need to. If I’m resting my hand on your elbow, I can let go at any time. If something terrible happens to you, I can quickly escape before I meet a similar fate, after all. This goes for holding me by the wrist as well.
Possible consequence: I have been taught to twist my wrist as soon as someone touches it, so don’t be surprised if, when you grab for my wrist, I break your grip, hard, without even thinking about it.

Alternative method: leading by the shoulder
Why it’s a bad idea: People love to go behind me and push my shoulders, especially when navigating a narrow space. It makes me feel a bit uncomfortable—I don’t like to have people so close behind me, I’m paranoid—and it restricts my freedom of movement. Also…it looks kinda silly, yes?
Possible consequence: At best, I’ll admonish you and try to wriggle out of your grip. At worst, I’ll bump into something directly in front of me, because I had no way to protect my path. (This can be mitigated by carrying a cane during sighted guide—something not everyone does.) It’s much easier to move your arm behind you so I know it’s a narrow space.

Alternative method: guiding while insisting that I ditch my cane
Why this is a bad idea: My cane is my mobility tool. I have grown very used to having it around, and I quite like the confidence it gives me. I have had some awful sighted guides over the years, and I still don’t trust anyone to guide me without my cane. You could be the best guide in the world, and I’d still want my cane in my hand. I do my best to keep it out of the guide’s path, and it gives me that extra bit of tactile feedback I find so helpful.
Possible consequence: You could have an attention lapse, even for thirty seconds, and bash me into a pillar, stroller, car mirror, pedestrian, or doorframe, among other things. (Yes, people have run me into all of those and more.) Even if your guidework is perfect, I’ll still glare at you. Lots of people say, “…but I guide blind people all the time and they never use their canes. Trust me!” No. Unless it’s in your way, or otherwise inconvenient, I’m using it, and that’s pretty much that.

Alternative method: linking arms
Why it’s a bad idea: Okay…so…I’ve done this one. I cheat a lot, because I have friends who like to walk arm in arm and it’s all very companionable. Still, it’s technically a bad idea because it forces us to walk side by side, which means I have less warning for steps and curbs. It also traps my arm, which is always dangerous.
Possible consequence: If my arm is in yours and something happens to you—say, you slip on a patch of ice—I’ll be dragged along with you unless I can get my arm out of your grip in time. When being guided by a stranger, especially, I am very careful to keep full control of my arm and hand.

The best method? Ask. Some blind people prefer different variants of the same basic guiding style, so if you’re not sure, ask them to show you how they’d prefer to be guided. If you’re dealing with a blind child and you know their preference is patently unsafe, then you have the right to insist on a different way. Otherwise, please respect the individual needs and preferences of the blind person you’re guiding. They will almost always know best.

“I’m Not Prejudiced! Some of My Best Friends are Blind!”

Posted by

13

“I’m not racist! Some of my best friends are black!”
“I’m not bigoted! Some of my best friends are LGBT!”

This century-old defence is generally dismissed, especially on the internet. People try to claim that, due to the presence of minorities in their circle of friends, they are above reproach. They can’t possibly be prejudiced. Would a racist have black friends? Would a bigot have gay friends? The general consensus is yes! a thousand times yes! Your best friends don’t shield you from your biases, even if they are willing to ignore or even embrace them.

Several months ago, someone I respect very much (let’s call her Alison) made a stereotypical blind joke: “Shouldn’t ads for blind people be on the radio instead of TV?” or something to that effect. I took no issue with the joke’s complete lack of comedic value; your mileage may vary, perhaps? What I did take issue with was the inherent (and silly) stereotyping in the joke. A lot of people think we don’t enjoy TV or movies simply because we can’t see. Apparently, the dialogue is some trivial, peripheral aspect of the whole experience. As helpful as described video can be, it is still very possible for us to enjoy TV shows (and cringe at the ads). Her joke played on that ridiculous stereotype, and she made it very publicly, reaching a large number of people all over the internet.

I, in my infinite foolishness, wrote to her:
“You do realize that blind people can still watch TV, yeah?”
“Um, hello? Of course. Ever heard of a joke?”
“Well, yes…it’s just that this one plays on some very pervasive stereotypes that we spend much of our time fighting against. Please please try not to perpetuate it.”

After this exchange, some friend of hers chimed in: “Wow, chill, bitch! Some of Alison’s best friends are blind!”

Ah, here we go…the ultimate trap: if my blind friend says it’s okay, then it is. No question. This is immutable, right?

Noooooo! Not even close. Not for one second.

I found this whole conversation distinctly odd. Alison is a well-known and very vocal feminist who supports the rights of minorities. She despises stereotypical jokes about women, LGBT people, and ethnic minorities. She devotes much of her time to dispelling the myths and encouraging truth and inclusiveness. All wonderful stuff, and I like her a great deal.

Why, then, does all this stop applying when dealing with blind people? Suddenly, all the ethics and inclusiveness and open-mindedness disappear. Suddenly, for no discernible reason, it is acceptable to make ridiculous, condescending jokes about us that, if made about a gay or black or transgender person, would be reviled for the bigotry that they are.

Jokes among your friends are different from jokes made in public. I play along with blind jokes made at my personal expense with enthusiasm. Blind people, in fact, are very good at laughing at ourselves. I’ve always written my blog with my sense of humour at the forefront, so it’s not the jokes I have a problem with, not really. Alison’s joke is pretty harmless, at least on the surface.

What I have a problem with is the defence itself. It’s such an empty, futile argument. It appears to lay a steel trap, but is really just so much shrinking from all responsibility. Maybe you have a blind friend who thinks stereotypical jokes are hilarious, and that’s okay. Feel free to make them whenever you’d like … around and about them, that is. Just because your blind friend is okay with something, does not mean that the rest of us are okay with it. Furthermore, it doesn’t mean that it’s okay, period.

There will be a lot of people who assume, judging by this post, that I’m an exceptionally uptight person. I’m not. I am almost too tolerant at times—something my friends never tire of telling me. My issue isn’t with the individuals, like Alison, who tell these jokes and/or excuse behaviour that would be bigotry if directed at any other group. My issue is with the people who allow that argument to stand unchallenged. I could have six hundred gay friends, and they could all actively encourage me to tell prejudicial jokes or otherwise behave in a bigoted manner towards them. That doesn’t change the facts, though: most people, LGBT or otherwise, would find that behaviour generally offensive.

Maybe your blind friend is okay with bad TV jokes. Maybe she thinks it’s funny when you pet her service dog while its in harness. Maybe he erupts into side-splitting mirth when you steal his cane and hide it. (God, I hope I never meet your friend.) None of that matters in the grand scheme. If you tried any of that in the wider world, people would denounce it, and rightly so.

If your best friends are allowing you to go out there and act like a bigot without at least warning you … get some new friends.

“May I Pray For You?”

Posted by

14

“Excuse me …”
“Yes?”
“What’s your name?”
“Meagan…any reason you ask?”
“Yes. Meagan, would it be okay if I prayed for you?”
“Why…”
“Well, I’d like to ask Jesus if He might help you with your eyes.”
“Ah.”

This one. It happens to most of us at one time or another. I admit that I’ve heard about it plenty of times, but didn’t experience it myself until I was eighteen or so. I hear all kinds of derisive comments about the situation, even from religious blind people. They hate pity as much as I do, and they consider the prayers insulting, or at least misguided.

I tend to react differently, and I must say that my approach is very unpopular. No, I’m not wild about the idea of people asking God to fix me. I wager that He would cure me (or not) with or without entreaties from strangers. I fight the good fight where negative stereotypes are concerned—you all know this, dearest readers—and I discourage pity as often as possible. And yet …

There is something so earnest and genuine about these offers of prayer. The requests might be misguided, yes. The desire to see us cured is misplaced, certainly. In many cases, we’re at peace with our lives as they are, and a cure is potentially frightening to many of us. So no, I don’t actively encourage anyone, stranger or otherwise, to pray for or even wish for a cure.

On the very few occasions when someone goes out of their way to ask if they can pray for me, I do my best to respond with grace. I respect and appreciate their openhearted compassion, even if I wish there wasn’t a need for it in the first place. I know in my heart that they have the purest intentions, at least most of the time. And, while I generally take issue with the “good intentions” card, there are, in my mind at least, exceptions. Will my life change in any way if a stranger goes home and prays for me? I suspect not. Will it hurt me, though? I don’t see how. Will I gain anything by berating them for even asking? No. Will I further my own cause by being harsh with them? Definitely not.

I’m at a point now where I decline these offers of prayer as graciously as I can. I spend too much time battling the idea that we’re just waiting for someone—anyone—to “make the blind to see” as it is. Still … I have to celebrate the goodwill of these people. Society is apathetic and individualistic to such a degree that these small kindnesses, however I might feel about them, remain special to me.

If you must pray, then pray for me, by all means. I ask, though, that you pray for my well-being. Pray that my various issues remain manageable. Pray that I continue to cross paths with fortune.

Don’t pray for the blind girl. Pray for the girl.