Ableism intersects with other forms of oppression because society often values certain abilities over others, reinforcing discrimination. For example, in sports, physical strength and endurance are prioritized, often leading to the exclusion of disabled athletes. This ties into racism and classism when considering how access to adaptive sports and healthcare is often limited for marginalized communities. Historically, intelligence and physical ability have been used to justify colonialism, slavery, and gender discrimination, with those in power deeming certain groups as “less capable” to maintain systems of oppression.

The social model of disability sees disability as caused by societal barriers, not a person’s impairment. It emphasizes inclusion, accessibility, and changing attitudes, environments, and systems. This model empowers people with disabilities, promotes equality, and pushes for social change, challenging the limitations created by discrimination and inaccessibility, not the individual.

1. Shouls sports be grouped by ability  or disability?

I believe sport should be grouped by ability rather than disability. Grouping athletes based on their functional abilities creates a more level playing field and focuses on what each person can do, not on their medical diagnosis. This approach promotes fairness, encourages diverse participation, and helps challenge stereotypes about people with disabilities. When we group by disability, we risk reinforcing labels and separating people unnecessarily. Grouping by ability is more inclusive and aligned with the social model of disability, which sees barriers in the environment, not the individual as the real issue. It allows athletes to compete or participate in ways that reflect their skill and performance, not just their impairment. This can also lead to more meaningful and empowering experiences for all athletes involved.

This paradox is very true and reflects the double standards many sportswomen face. They’re expected to compete fiercely and display traits like strength, aggression, and competitiveness, traits traditionally viewed as masculine. At the same time, they’re also pressured to maintain a certain level of femininity through appearance, behavior, or demeanor in order to be accepted as “real” women. This creates a no-win situation. If a woman is too strong or aggressive, she might be seen as “unfeminine”; if she focuses too much on her appearance, she might be accused of not taking the sport seriously. It’s an unfair balancing act that male athletes aren’t expected to perform. This paradox becomes even more complex for disabled sportswomen, who may face layered stereotypes around both gender and disability and have to work even harder to be recognized and respected.

Murderball presents a nuanced portrayal of disability that both aligns with and challenges the “supercrip” narrative. On one hand, the athletes in the film are depicted as highly competitive and physically powerful, which plays into the “supercrip” narrative. This narrative often frames disabled individuals as exceptional simply for overcoming their disabilities, positioning them as heroic figures who achieve extraordinary feats. In Murderball, the wheelchair rugby players defy traditional expectations by excelling in a physically demanding sport, which fits this model of extraordinary accomplishment. However, the film also complicates the “supercrip” narrative. While it showcases the athletes’ athletic abilities, it does not solely focus on their triumph over disability. The film gives viewers insight into the emotional and psychological challenges that the athletes face, highlighting their struggles, vulnerabilities, and dependence on teammates. This aspect of the film suggests that disability is not just something to be “overcome” but something that is part of a broader human experience, which cannot be reduced to a simplistic narrative of heroism. Gender plays an important role in shaping the “supercrip” narrative in Murderball. The film primarily focuses on male athletes, who embody traditionally masculine traits such as aggression, competitiveness, and physical dominance. This representation reinforces certain aspects of the “supercrip” narrative, where disabled men are expected to prove their strength and masculinity by excelling in physically demanding activities. At the same time, the film challenges these gender norms by showing the athletes as emotionally complex individuals who also express vulnerability, creating a more nuanced portrayal of masculinity that is not confined to traditional expectations. However, the exclusion of female athletes in Murderball highlights how the “supercrip” narrative is still largely shaped by dominant ideas of masculinity.

3)

Murderball provides a strong example of resistance to both disability and gender norms by showing wheelchair rugby players who challenge conventional ideas of what people with disabilities and men can do. The film resists the common stereotype of disabled individuals as weak or passive by presenting athletes who are physically strong, aggressive, and skilled at a highly demanding sport. Their participation in wheelchair rugby shows that disabled people are capable of more than society often expects, resisting the notion that their bodies are fragile or incapable of strength. In terms of gender, Murderball challenges traditional views of masculinity. The athletes exhibit traits typically associated with masculinity, such as aggression, competition, and dominance. However, the film also highlights the emotional depth and vulnerability of the players. They express frustration, pain, and dependence on their teammates, challenging the stereotype that men must always be stoic and emotionally self-sufficient. By showing these athletes as complex individuals who embrace both strength and vulnerability, Murderball offers a more diverse and inclusive understanding of masculinity. The athletes in Murderball also redefine societal expectations of strength and independence. Traditionally, strength is often defined in terms of physical power, while independence is seen as the ability to function without help. In the film, however, strength is shown not only as physical but also emotional resilience. The athletes demonstrate that strength involves overcoming personal challenges, relying on others, and working as part of a team. This redefinition of strength and independence subverts traditional views, showing that true strength is about resilience and mutual support, not just individual achievement.