Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Anomalocaris t1_jdbwgei wrote

Reply to comment by SamirSisaken in Barbie maker celebrates ‘power of representation’ with scoliosis doll by wol_75

serious question, how is "disabled people existing" and private corporations finding niche markets suddenly "woke"?

1

MrLumie t1_jdcfa44 wrote

Is it even a market? Yea, disabled people exist. Do they want disabled dolls? Do they even care about that kind of representation? Based on the comments, they don't seem to.

4

Anomalocaris t1_jdd01of wrote

I think many do, that's why they exist. and based on many comments, the ones that don't like it is because it didn't go far enough.

2

MrLumie t1_jdd1qlt wrote

Well, good for them, then. Personally, I find this a bit odd, as those with disabilities may not approach the concept of representation the same way as, say, people of a certain culture would. Like, if you've got African heritage, then that's something you take pride in, something you consider a part of your identity and want people to recognize you as. People with disabilities would like to just not be disabled. They don't particularly like being disabled, and many don't want to be treated and recognized as one with disability. In that regard, this kinda representation seems... more icky, I guess?

1

Anomalocaris t1_jdd45zl wrote

it's more nuanced that that.

many disabilities are permanent. and the healthy thing you can do is accept.

and look into the social model of disability. for example, a wheelchair bound person isn't blocked from the second for for lacking legs, bit rather because the building wasn't built to be accessible. having representation of disabled people will make them more visible and encourage more accessible infrastructure and actually making disabled people less disabled.

2

MrLumie t1_jden1ui wrote

>many disabilities are permanent. and the healthy thing you can do is accept.

Still, given the opportunity they would rather not be disabled. That's the difference. Accepting their disability is one thing. Taking pride in it, or wanting to be identified as their disability is another. The latter, I would say, is rather rare.

​

>having representation of disabled people will make them more visible and
encourage more accessible infrastructure and actually making disabled
people less disabled.

That's not quite true. Representation generally makes people more visible to the common person. The common person who is not in charge of deciding how the infrastructure is designed. That would be lawmakers. And the eye of the law neither ignores disabled people (there are tons of regulations about accessibility for building infrastructure), nor would it care about scoliosis Barbie. You're reading a bit too much into this.

1

Anomalocaris t1_jdf7pqv wrote

common people are definitely involved in your infrastructure is designed.

from electing officials who approve projects to whoever is in the design team.

plus, add the cirbcut effect, wherein accomodation for disabilities ends up being helpful and convenient to everyone.

and you are wrong about an absolutist statement of "they rather not be disabled". especially considering that in many aspects, it is society that disables them, and that can be fixed. but because of lack of representation, it is ignored instead.

1