Fitzgerald and Long identify a number of barriers to inclusion such as inaccessible transport, buildings and amenities, as well as lack of opportunity and prejudicial attitudes. The first three barriers in the list seem like they can and should be able to be fixed without too much difficulty. On the surface. But then we have to add the financial and geographical barriers to making those three things happen.

In reality, those first three are about accessibility, which is very different from inclusion, although the two terms are often conflated. They are not the same.  We can create accessible spaces, but still not have inclusion. Building accessible facilities and amenities is a permanent structural fix and is something that is required to a certain extent, but may not meet all needs. It’s a financial cost that must be built into the cost of establishing those facilities in the first place.  Accessible transportation is another story altogether. Accessible public transportation is far more likely to be available in high population areas, whereas it is more likely to be a personal responsibility in less populated areas.  Along with the transportation factor is the distance between facilities in areas of lower population density. It’s great to have the accessible facilities if they are close enough to get to. Providing accessibility is a problem of the head.

Inclusion, on the other hand, is a problem of the heart. Willingness to provide opportunity and to change prejudicial attitudes is not a financial issue. As I was reading, I was thinking about how unwilling we seem to be to accommodate within sport, when we may be willing to accommodate in other aspects of life. Perhaps it is the competitive nature of sport and our need to win.  If we want to win, we need the fastest, the most powerful people on the court, on the track, on the field. We need to be able to see past that attitude to the importance of allowing participation and building self-esteem.  We don’t want to adapt what we are doing, what we have always done, the way we always do it, don’t change the rules – in sport.  The Arora and Wolbring article talks about the need to change our approach to teaching phys. ed. in schools and I think this would go a long way to supporting inclusion of those with disabilities in sports. I really like the idea of a league where everyone plays in wheelchairs, whether they need them on a regular basis or not. Done the right way, leagues like this can be very beneficial.

I think a very important part of inclusion is making sure we don’t go to the statement that things will be fine if we just don’t “see” disability, similar to the statement that someone doesn’t “see” colour.  We NEED to see colour and we NEED to see disability because otherwise we are ignoring them and pretending they have the same privilege as non-disabled white people. They do not have the advantage of that privilege. So, how do we see disabled people in sports? Well, first and foremost, name it, let it not be a negative, let it not be something that needs to be fixed, let’s look at it not from a deficit model. And then, let’s ask and give a voice to those with disabilities, with the wide range of disabilities that exist.  Let’s not treat everyone the same because they are not. And let’s honour and respect that voice and not talk over top of it as if we know better/best. There is nothing wrong with providing separate competitions if that is what is desired.  There is nothing wrong with providing inclusive competitions if that is what is desired. We can be accommodating and we should be accommodating. We can change our thinking and we should change our thinking.

Note:  This response answers the initial question above, as well as the additional extra credit question.

The narrative changes. At first glance, I would say that Murderball plays not so much into the supercrip narrative as it plays into the supermasculinity narrative. So much of what I saw in a good part of the movie was men demonstrating their extreme masculinity and proving that their disability did not in any way impact their ability to perform sexually, right down to the focus on how and where they all met their “women.” The narrative was about being the big tough guy who can do anything he wants. Building an indestructible wheelchair and getting on the court with other man to prove that you can’t be injured any further than you already have seemed more about masculinity than anything else. Looking at what Ben Mattlin has to say, though, I see that as the supercrip narrative.  The rugby players are beefed up, they are competitive, they are willing to put themselves in a position where they could, conceivably, get hurt, just to win. The question is – do I consider that “inspiration porn,” as Mattlin defines it? Am I inspired by these men who also define themselves as super masculine and are also mysoginistic? I’m not forgiving someone for that attitude just because they are in a wheelchair and have had to overcome adversity.

At the same time, it’s about being able to continue doing something that was very important in your life. The young man whose story they were following who had only recently become paralyzed from a motocross accident was looking for that physical outlet that he enjoyed prior to his accident. I don’t think the athletes themselves portrayed themselves as superhuman. They portrayed themselves as super masculine. Right to how they portrayed Joe, who to honest, I really don’t like, he is not a likeable person. The way he treated his son and how he looked down on his achievements because they were not athletic achievements was not endearing.  Sure, it seems like he came around after his heart attack, but the damage to his son by that point was pretty substantial.

I think some of the athletes would agree with the statement made in the blog about comments made when people see someone out in a wheelchair, about how great it is that they are getting out there. The athlete in Murderball talking about going to the grocery store and having people ask if he needs help to get back in the car is a similar type of sentiment. “No, I’m just going about living my life. I just happen to also have a wheelchair.”

I am far more inspired by the change in narrative at the end of the movie when Mark Zupan is taking his message to young people in wheelchairs and encouraging them to get involved, because that message is going to both young men and young women.  You can see the enthusiasm in the eyes of the young woman in the group. We have Olympians come and speak to schools; why not have Paralympians speak to people who could follow in their footsteps? That’s the real inspiration, not in being super-masculine, but in saying to young people that there are sports they can get involved in that can be fun.