Wednesday, 9 January 2013

Undateable - Labels Belong on Clothes not People

The Undateables. The second series started last night. I think the Undateables means well, maybe. Presenting people with disabilities in their quest to find lasting love and happiness. But really? Isn't the label "disabled" disabling enough without adding "Undateable" to it?

When I was six my year 2 teacher had concerns. I couldn't catch a tennis ball one handed. I even struggled with a basketball with two hands. I couldn't really run, and climbing just wasn't for me. Never mind the fact I could embroider, read, write stories, no she wasn't interested in that. I got sent to an "assessment centre" for months on end.

The "assessment centre" was, to all intents and purposes, a special school. It was like a holding pen for children that didn't quite fit in, whilst the education system decided what should be done about these misfits. I was labelled. Only back in the 1970s the label wasn't disabled. It was retarded. Fabulous.

I had a young student teacher assigned to be my one to one. I remember one day sitting with my friend in a corner. We were discussing Star Wars, which my grandmother had taken me to see. The time came for us to return to our lessons. I asked my one to one about this boy. She explained he had a condition called muscular dystrophy. She explained that he could walk with help now but one day he would need a wheelchair. She also told me that his muscles were weakening over time, and gently mentioned that it was likely he would die before he got to be very old. She also said not to be sad, and not to treat him any differently to any other person.

My one to one explained the brain wasn't a muscle and he was very clever. She explained that he was just like any other boy, and that I was just like any other girl, and she taught me that I was never to make assumptions about people, or label them. I learnt young and have lived by that ever since. I just don't "see" disability. I see need, clearly some people have specific needs that need support, but I don't see those needs as dis-abling. I certainly wouldn't see that boy as being Undateable.

My husband Corey has a disability. He too struggled to find love. People have a weird perception at times of what disability means. Yes he gets Disability Living Allowance and has an adapted car, but he has a job (do you hear that IDS and your ConDem cohorts) and is a husband and father. He isn't what I would call disabled as such, as much as he has arthrogryposis multiplex congenita.

But he too was considered by some Undateable. It's not helpful.

Surely in the 21st century we should be living beyond labels. Disabled and Undateable. Unhelpful.

Labels belong on clothes not people.



15 comments:

  1. I was always referred to as lazy, uninterested, a daydreamer and rubbish at PE and anything that required good coordinational skills. Turned out I am supposed to be dyspraxic and somewhat on the low end of the autism/aspergers scale. I still manage to have a good life and found a wonderful woman and now have two wonderful kids!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always tried really hard, so I think that made it worse for me. Tries hard, applies herself and still useless. I think we prove that labels are meaningless!

      Delete
  2. I think it's really interesting as whilst I wouldn't consider the people on the programme or others with disabilities undateable that the prevailing view in society seems to be the opposite.

    I'm disabled whilst I was dating if I ever mentioned any of the disabilities in passing (which I quickly learnt not to)I was clearly consigned at that point to the realms of the undateable. In fact one ex boyfriend told me exactly this on a day I had a fall and seriously damaged 2 vertebrae.

    It's scary that perception of disability is so negative (I know there are exceptions from the work that I do, but sadly my personal experience wasn't of this) I also worry that the changes to DLA, funded care and support opportunities, and welfare in general are only compounding this.

    Sorry, that ended up as a bit of a rant, but basically - not undateable in my eyes, but sad that so many people do label others in this way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes that's my concern is that these sort of programmes further reinforce this, rather than give the opportunity to bust the myths, and to present people in the best possible light.

      I too worry about DLA etc will further increase the divide, and it is a divide between disabled and non disabled however much I would like to believe that it doesn't exist.

      Thank you for your rant, I love rants!

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. Thank you Hayley and for the twitter chat last night too.

      Delete
  4. Can't believe they sent you to assessment centre for being a bit rubbish at PE - but the student teacher had a good attitude for back then.

    I agree labels don't help. One thing I noticed this series was the tone on twitter had changed, especially amongst young people. It was more positive, completely patronising in part but, definitely more positive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was a stupid bit of research doing the rounds between poor cordination and reading age. They tested my reading age on the insistence of the student teacher, found at 7 I had a reading age of 11 and restreamed me again!

      Have you ever seen an Aussie programme from the 80s entitled "Year of the Patronising Bastard?" It's amazing, it was about the Internation year of the Disabled Person, sadly not a lot has changed.

      I think programmes that get people talking are great, but programmes that change perception, and get people thinking in a positie way would be so much better.

      Delete
  5. I haven't seen the programme yet, but it seems depressing that they are running much the same stories they did in the first series -- the guy with Tourette's whose tics initially make things awkward but disappear when he feels more relaxed with his new girlfriend, the autistic male who can't relate to women and whose behaviour puts women off. If they're setting these men up with neurotypical women who don't have much experience of Asperger's, that's cruel to both of them. I actually know people with ASDs (male and female) who have long-term partners, sometimes each other. The best case I know is a lady with both Asperger's and long-term mental health problems who married a man with similar difficulties, then went down with ME which has got progressively more severe. She is currently bedridden and he is her sole carer. They should balance this by interviewing real disabled couples (both with one non-disabled partner and with both disabled) to find out how they deal with the situation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HERE HERE!!! They should look at people already in working relationships and offer some positive stories and encouragement, that would be awesome. Why don't you pitch it to a rival (ahem Channel 5 maybe?) broadcaster?? I think it would be awesome!

      Delete
  6. I haven't seen it but the concept seemed wrong to me. I saw 2 lovely ladies on this morning yesterday.they were both beautiful and confident and I thought it was such a cringeworthy show I wouldn't be able to watch the exploitation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The people they feature are beautiful, you wouldn't know they are "disabled" but you do now they have been national television. It is worth watching though, as it is interesting, and helps to confont your own prejudices too.

      Delete
  7. Very well said! Never heard of this program and yes I find the title offensive!

    xx

    ReplyDelete