11 Module #5 Notebook

Prompt (1): The authors also observe that “Ableism not only intersects with other forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, ageism, and classism, but abilities are often used to justify such negative ‘isms’. What do you think this means? Provide an example.

In all areas of life, we are sorted and evaluated solely by our abilities relative to others. For essentially the entirety of human history, we have discriminated against one another for simple and often non-ability-based illogical discourse such as racism and sexism, so it shouldn’t be surprising that we still reinforce that behaviour in all aspects of life. The NBA discriminates by existing as those who are not the 0.1% in height and athleticism don’t stand a chance at success further reinforcing the idea. Though disabled people may not qualify for others’ views of success, it should never allow an individual to accept they cannot accomplish anything and instead give it their all to ensure if they fail, it is out of their control. “isms” tend to refer to forms of discrimination (class, race, gender etc.) aimed at differentiating people from one another; dating back to ancient society the “isms” debate was still occurring just surrounding different criteria. In the Roman Republic, if you were not born to a Patrician, your chances at a political career were virtually zero. Its bias is rooted in the initial senators that Romulus granted senatorial status upon Rome’s founding. All this to state bias and discrimination existed throughout all time, and humans have changed very little genetically over the last 10,000 years, however far we progress socially.

Prompt (2): Did anything surprise you about the results of the test? Please share if you’re comfortable OR comment on the usefulness of these kinds of tests more generally.

I found the test a little ineffective as it mainly focused on my responsive answers and correlating those responses with a result, and though I understand the purpose I found that when I went slowly through the test I made far fewer blunders and found that it positively correlated with results. Where the result “Your responses suggested a slight automatic preference for Physically Abled People over Physically Disabled People.” seems less a  scientific result and more a basic conclusion as it failed to ask me  question regarding personal details and made assumptions based on general statistics not getting down to how a person truly feels. Personally I don’t believe that aligns with my view as all people are given the same treatment and entitled to respect, I’ve never put much stock into how a person looks or displays themselves as the personality often makes or breaks a friendship in the end not the appearance or abilities. I often find that what a person values is what  they seek in others, but I find a person who can’t weight a personality overall lacks the context between a good and a bad person. Though I fall into the slight category I find it incredibly troubling a large group (37%) so openly disregard personality in favor of base understanding.

Prompt (3): What do Fitzgerald and Long identify as barriers to inclusion and how might these apply to sport in particular?

subset barriers such as Attitudinal, Structural and Cultural are identified and discussed by Fitzgerald and Long. Structural barriers usually consists of lack of access to sports facilities, limited opportunity for integration and financial constraints (limiting the access for disabled athletes). with a lack of structure in place it becomes difficult to compete and motivate new  athletes to participate. Attitudinal Barriers consist of low expectations, stereotyping/stigma and personal liability. Setting low expectations and allowing for generalizations to dominate your views on specific athletes are pretty straight forward in their unhelpful nature yet personal liability is unique as it stems from the idea that disabled people should be treated differently than “normal” people which can be seen a heavily discriminative. Lastly, Cultural barriers reflect a lack of representation in leadership and marginalization via media. Very few disabled people how positions of authority in sports which can lead to a lack of understanding or representation whereas media’s heightened focus on mainstream “normal” sports doesn’t allow for proper representation and normalization of a group in the public scope always holding a group or people in their own category further separating them from the general populas. Some of the ways this occurs in sports is through discrimination vs integration or training gaps leading to limited skill development for disabled athletes. Long and Fitzgerald argue that systematic change is required for true inclusion.

Prompt (4): Is sport for participation or competition?

Sports in it’s most uncomplex form is mainly for the participation element yet as we have seen as sports grow in popularity and become companies in place of inclusive sports we hit a  point where exclusion becomes normalized through deviation; For example Victor Wembanyama is an NBA player drafted a couple years ago who without his genetic advantages wouldn’t likely be in the position he is in. Not that to say he is without talent, just that life is in nature not fair. We are all born with advantages and disadvantages that are immutable and though sports can be inclusive and participatory we are competitive in nature. When you look at the history of sports they did not exist to be inclusive they at their heart we’re designed for the athletic which in itself leaves the 99% out with no way past a given barrier. This not to say that equality and compassion can not exists in sport just that sport exists by finding those that deviate from the norm and only allowing small subsets at each level to succeed. Sports are the most competitive they have ever been mainly due to the monetary wealth that can be derived from skill or ability at given tasks; in the ancient world athletes were more normal people and as they have been prioritized to where sports now reflect wealth and power not inclusion and comradery.

Prompt (5):

1) Do you agree with the critique of the “supercrip” narrative in this video? Why or why not? Find an example of the “supercrip” Paralympian in the 2024 Paris Paralympics or Special Olympics coverage and explain how it works.

2) Does the film Murderball play into the supercrip narrative in your opinion? How does gender inform supercrip  (read this blog for some ideas)?

(1) I agree with the critique of “supercrip” because it reduces disabled athletes to inspirational figures singularly based around their disabilities, rather than identifying their skill and dedication as top tier competitors. This view can be patronizing and framing disability as a tragedy to overcome rather than a natural part of diversity.

(2) Murderball largely bypasses the “supercrip” narrative via portraying it’s athletes as competitive, complex and even flawed individuals, not just inspirational figureheads. The film aims to resist against the typical “heroic disabled” stereotype through means of highlighting their rivalries, personalities and aggression. Men with disabilities are usually framed as aggressive or hyper-masculine, to-which murderball leans into with it’s primary focus on physicality and rivalry. Women are often portrayed as “pure” inspirations lacking the male agency; Murderball’s emphasis on masculinity collectively challenge and reinforce stereotypes, rejecting pity but plays into the belief that disabled men must prove toughness to be respected. A female Paralympian, to contrast, is  seen as delicate or brave based on gender based appropriation surrounding percived gender norms.