My thoughts on my experiences with post-secondary education on having an equal and equity framework is that, in theory, it’s discussed and highlighted through media and throughout the Campuses with advertising and public speakers, but in implementing it and ensuring it’s supporting everyone who it’s designed for. Like, for example, para sports are often underfunded and lack visibility in comparison to Trent’s bigger sports teams, such as football, rugby, etc. This segregation from mainstream sports further reinforces ability inequity for all students and alumni who interact and are a part of Trent rather than addressing it. It sets a precedent that even with academic accommodations, it may legally be mandated. Still, the problem is it’s inconsistent in how it’s implemented and maintained, which is leaving disabled student in challenging situations regarding access to their education and future career opportunities.

I think it gives a perspective on the intersections of how ableism is part of other forms of oppression. For example, in sports, disabled women who are also of colour face multiple forms of discrimination. A highlighted example of this is the known case of Oscar Pistorius, who was a Paralympian who required technological advancements to participate, but was then publicly framed as having an unfair advantage. To further elaborate, disabled female athletes also receive minimal media coverage and funding for sponsorships, which reinforces gendered and ableist biases within society. This could also transfer to the topic in the course on transgender athletes who often face exclusion due to the construct of biological advantages in comparison to a cisgender competing athlete, where society’s normative standards are based on the constructs of hierarchy of abilities.

My choice of the Medical Model of Disability resonated with me for multiple reasons in witnessing the experiencing model within the medical system setting. It is the definition of perceiving an individual who is assessed to determine if they are normal or deviate outside of the framework as being impaired or with a medical condition. Where as a result the outcome is diagnosing, treating and rehabilitating the individual whos being under scrutiny through the lens of needing a solution. Where the solution is to cure or fix the disabled person rather than addressing underlying conditions that are affecting this person such as social and socio-economical barriers that would allow them to actively be a part of society. It leads further to policies and practices from medical professionals and policymakers intervening on what’s accessible, included or allowing free autonomy for individuals who are in question.

However, a con would be that it would still reinforce existing inequalities without integrating systematic changes within sports. As many sports are structured and designed for non disabled bodies, placing disabled individuals within mainstream competitions would put them at a disadvantage. So, as a way to rectify this, the deconstruction of the current classifications on matching competitors to ensure fair competition would need to be considered and accommodations implemented as need to ensure fair play in matchups.

Another aspect I found was that the documentary portrayed the players as glorified athletes. Extreme measures emphasize players’ toughness and resilience to perform at the elite level within rugby. Furthermore, it focused on the competitive rivalry between the USA and Canada, where it was portrayed as a battle of wills on strength and skill. This reinforces the idea that disabled individuals must prove their worth through extreme forms of exceptionalism in performance to be within sports rather than just participating. The documentary focused on how these athletes pushed their bodies to their limits and beyond. It is based on an ableist framework where physical excellence is the valid form of achievement for disabled people.

Additionally, the film plays into the presentation of being hypermasculine, which further reinforces the stereotype that the disabled are weak or “not man enough”. Examples were displayed in the engagement of the trash-talking amongst players against the competition team, where aggressive play and discussion amongst players about dating and sexual activities were forms of reinforcing the traditional ideals of masculinity. I noticed that for Mark Zupan and other players who explicitly discussed their sex lives, it may have challenged the perceptions of disabled men as being undesirable and having measures of self-worth, but overall emphasized male-dominating perceptions. Such as physical romance or aggression and competitiveness, which portrayed disability as something to be conquered in sports rather than accommodated, with themes of egemonic masculinity.

Furthermore, the film completely ignored the experiences of female and non-binary athletes within adaptive sports. After research where wheelchair rugby is a co-ed sport, “Murderball” still didn’t feature any other gender players within the sport. It reinforced the idea that sports are focused on strength and resilience, which is based on the traditional constructs revolving around male and masculine athletes. Any women who were shown were viewed as supporting and nurturing figures, being mothers, girlfriends and caregivers rather than athletes. Like the example with Zupans girlfriend who was in the documentary but her role was in supporting him and other male athletes. It displays the broader theme of traditional gender normativity where men are seen as the competitors while women are the nurturing passive supporters. In all its reinforcing traditional roles for portraying men as hypermasculine and excluding female and non binary athletes and focusing on exceptional athletisicms achievements trahter than including a broader icnluson of adaptive sports for everyone.