The Undatables: A Failed Journalist’s Opinion

Wednesday 25 January, 2017

(I originally wrote this at some point following a bunch of conversations I was part of over twitter and facebook. Much thanks to Good Pal Lynsey for reading my word-vomit and editing it up for me so it was more coherent. I’ve become aware that sometimes my long winded sentences only make sense to me, and not much to other people!)

**

I’m going to talk about the Undateables. Why? Well, it’s come up again in the disabled community and I’ve had these thoughts floating around for a while, and I thought it was time to put all my thoughts about it in one place.

I think it wouldn’t surprise anyone to hear (or read) that I do not like the show. I don’t like the premise and I don’t like the tone. Yes, I have seen one episode of it, and I’ll never watch it again. No, that’s not because I’m as romantic as a rock (I can be romantic, I just never am. Let’s not go down this road. Anyway…)

The reason why I don’t like the show is because it is a beacon for inspiration porn. What is inspiration porn, you might ask? Well, it’s using the existence or circumstance of a disabled person to inspire able bodied people to feel better about themselves. It comes out in many forms and disabled people see, hear and feel it every day. When someone on the bus congratulates a wheelchair user for getting out and about, that’s inspiration porn. When someone shares a picture of a disabled bride walking down the aisle, that’s inspiration porn. When someone shares a picture of a bride in a wheelchair going down the aisle and the words “good for her!” are the caption, that’s inspiration porn. When a big fuss is made of an able bodied person going to the prom with a disabled person, that’s inspiration porn. When a Paralympian athlete is photographed at a training session and there’s a big caption over the photo saying “If this person can do it, you’ve got no excuse!” that is inspiration porn.

Yes, some disabled people indulge in it, but I’d say the majority of us dislike it and want rid of it. It’s only inspiring because these things are seen as exceptional, but when you come to understand disabilities beyond the “disability binary” then you come to realise that most wheelchair users can get up and walk (a bit, relatively speaking. When I get out of my wheelchair, it’s usually to make it easier to put my coat on or to go to the bathroom with crutches). You also realise that a lot of wheelchair users get on the bus to go about their fairly unexceptional day (when there’s not a sodding pram in the wheelchair space!) and a Paralympian athlete is just like any other athlete. They are fitter and stronger than the average joes of the world. Do people point at Jessica Ennis-Hill, Mo Farah, Gregg Rutherford or Rebecca Addlington and say “If these athletes can do it, you’ve got no excuse!” ? No. Because first of all, people would probably assume you’re implying that black people and female athletes are somehow less capable in the first place than white male athletes, and also implying that having ginger hair impedes a person’s ability to be good at sports. Second of all, because in this enlightened day and age, you know that these able bodied athletes are at the top of their game, because that’s where their training and hard work got them. Disabled athletes train to be athletes all the same. You’ve got “no excuse” regardless of whether Tanni Grey Thompson is doing a marathon or not. We are not a measuring spoon for how capable able bodied should feel about themselves.

So that’s inspiration porn summarised for you.

And that’s what Undateables wreaks of. That show is presented so that people go “Look at all those disabled people, bless em, they want true love, isn’t that sweet?”.

My other problem with it is this “have your cake and eat it too” notion from the makers of the show. Channel 4 have said this show is to highlight disabled issues, and to normalise disability. They say it’s a show for disabled people to connect with, but if you ask on Twitter, most disabled people will reply saying they’ve felt alienated watching the show by the way the editing process and undertone treat the people who go on it.

Normalising disability actually means treating it as if it’s so unexceptional that you take it as just as normal as seeing able bodied people everywhere. We once thought the Spork was amazing, now it’s an everyday item we eat salad with, and new generations wonder what all the fuss was about back in 2003.

Channel 4 are not going to achieve “normalisation” with a whole show dedicated to only disabled people in a dating show, usually being set up on dates with other disabled people, edited to highlight how bizarre and weird (*cough* undateable *cough*) a person’s disability makes them. There’s a thin line between recognising perseverance through adversity, and pointing at the freak of the circus and saying “Dear God what is that thing!”, and I think this show skates firmly past the line into the latter.

I think if Channel 4 really wanted to achieve normality for disabled people, they’d ditch the show and accept more disabled people on to their other dating shows. I believe there’s a show called First Dates, and that that has, on the odd occasion, featured a disabled person looking for love. Now I’ve not watched that show and I don’t know how they treated that person, but I imagine there was less of turning a disabled person into a freak show and more of drink, food and awkward conversation that the rest of the participants also go through.

Keeping disabled people to a speciality show is segregating us from mainstream programming, it is that simple. People will categorise it as a special needs show, and they’ll either not watch it because they don’t want to watch disabled people, or they do watch it because they want to get teary-eyed and warm-hearted over it. It is plain to see who these shows are made for, and it is for the able bodied community. It is a narrative of disabled people skewed so people can lap it up and weep over. And you might ask yourself what the difference is when people do that for the Undateables and when people do that for First Dates. The answer is tone.

Which brings me on to my third point. The show makers keep defending that the name of the show, the “Undateables”, is irony. It’s a nod to the culture that says disabled people aren’t dateable by showing that is an untrue stereotype. As in, they’re not undateable, because they’re on the show to go on date! (YAY~) Skimming over that, I just don’t see them destroying this stereotype via the content of the show. It’s obvious that the subtle irony is lost on most people who watch it.

Look on Twitter, look on Facebook. Read the reactions. It’s The Feels coming from a place of ~Feels~. Because, again, if dating and disability were normalised, I don’t think we’d see as much of a maternalistic reaction as we do now. How do I know that? Because First Dates doesn’t get those same reactions.

And worse is the mockery. There’s a meme that goes around on Facebook and Twitter where people announce that they’ve got through the selection process to appear on The Undateables, with the joke being that of course they’re not “retarded” to go on “that show”. There’s people who live tweet and make horrible comments and jokes about the participants, about the way they look and how they act. There’s people who call other people names of memorable participants. And it doesn’t matter what defence they use, they follow the same formula, and don’t let pathetic reasons tell you otherwise. They’re not calling someone Tourettes Adam* because of a facial feature or personality trait that they admired in the participant who had tourettes, they are using tourettes as an insult towards these other people.

Americans love this defence, it’s called the “But it means something different here and they’re not even disabled”. It doesn’t matter what you say your intentions are, if you are making fun of someone by using an aspect of disability (such as retard, spaz, mong), then you are making fun of disabled people. You are saying that this aspect of disability is bad, it’s something to mock. And the same goes for when people on twitter call their mates “Tourettes Adam*”. They aren’t making fun of JUST their mate, they are making fun of someone with Tourettes.

And for the record, Retard, Cretin, Spaz, Mong, and other such words, were born from use against disabled people. It doesn’t matter if your chair is fire retardant and that that meaning is something different in that context, no one is telling you not to call your couch fire retardant. We are telling you that using the word retard (or the other words) in a context where you are making fun of someone for an aspect you would find in a disabled person, who is less able than you in some way, or not as smart as you academically, then it goes right back to the disability slur. Yes, even if it’s because your friend got a D in their Maths GCSE when you got an A. There is no defence in using these words.

So, back to The Undateables. With all those reasons combined, Channel 4 are not kidding me, nor many other disabled people.

It’s up to you if you keep watching, but I hope after you read this you question why you watch it. I hope you compare it to other dating shows and see the differences that we can see, and think about how each show makes you feel. If you know there’s a difference in how you feel watching it, then you know there’s a difference in how and why they make it.

And I hope you come around to our way of thinking and realise that the show, and the way it makes you feel, is hurting disabled people. It is not helping us, it is definitely not normalising dating and disability, and with that in mind I hope that you eventually stop watching it.

This has been AFJ.

Please come back soon!

*- Tourettes Adam does not exist, as far as I’m aware, however I have seen a similar nickname be thrown around on twitter and I did not feel right about using it.

Advertisements

An Open Letter To The Majority of Shops

Saturday 14 November, 2015

Dear Almost Every Shop,

I am a twenty-something year old adult. I’ve been in charge of my own money since I was ten, I’ve understood the value of money since I was even younger. I would really like it if I was afforded the respect I deserve in being allowed to handle my own money

I understand that shops are just designed the way they are, and that a majority of people see no fault with it, so nobody feels like they need to change that. After all, why go through all that fuss and spend so much money on some sort of radical redesign? Here’s why: Because many people are stopped from going shopping at all because of badly designed shops.

It’s not all about the stepped entrance, although, yeah, that’s the biggest hurdle. I can’t really complain about the design of a shop or the placement of the till if I can’t even get in the place. But people think that just because there is step-free access to shops, that that makes them perfectly accessible. It doesn’t.

There’s aisle space to consider, there’s manoeuvrability to consider, and then the last hurdle is the tills.

Card shops are the worst, without a single doubt. The till and till person is about three foot above the floor, there’s display items and shelving sticking out on the customer’s side of it. I can neither hand my items and money over facing forwards to  the cashier, like everyone else expects to be able to, nor can I even get close enough sideways along to hand them over that way. So I have to hand it to my support worker, my support worker hands them over to the till person, this usually invites the idea that I am non compos mentis, and conversations happen, quite literally, over my head.

But things don’t have to be so awkwardly designed, nor offensive. If a bit of thought went in to these things, the following offence would never have happened.

Sometime a go, I was in Home Bargains (or as we say in Scouseland, Home AND Bargains). I’m sat 90 degrees to the cashier, because apparently people in wheelchairs don’t deserve to be able to interact with people face to face, the till is to my left, which is the worse of my two sides, and I smile and nod and say something something like “Hiya”, because the till worker has smiled and nodded to me first. It’s how we, quite literally in some cases, roll in Liverpool.

I pay my money before the plexiglass, with my right arm, because it’s easier and the person is nearer to me to reach over to pay. The cashier puts the money in the till, starts to hand me my change, and then in a sudden twist of fate, turns around and hands my change to my support worker, who had been packing up my items, and thanks her.

I was too surprised and confused to say anything, but I gave her a look. A confused look, which I then directed to my support worker, and back to the till worker. She says nothing to me, smiles at me… and I said something like “Well okay then…” and moved up and around and got my change off my support worker, threw it in my purse, threw my purse in my bag and left the shop.

I don’t know if that was prejudice at work or a brain fart, and I know I should have said something, but it’s clear that this situation wouldn’t have happened at all if tills were easer to navigate. Or if it did, I certainly would have been able to tell the reasoning behind it. Can’t exactly feign the possibility it’s easier to hand my money over to someone who is not me if the other person is further away than I am.

For as long as I have the mobility to, I want to be able to handle my money. I don’t see what’s unreasonable about that. I find it unreasonable that shops continue to force disabled people to twist their bodies around, painfully, in order to obtain the verges of the same service as able-bodied people recieve.

This might surprise everyone, but the only place I’ve shopped in which has deemed me human enough for face to face interaction, is Primark, with their wheelchair accessible Fast Track counters. Everywhere else does wheelchair accessible counters wrong. I still have to be sideways, and in places like post offices and banks, the wheelchair accessible counter comes with a lower counter on the customer side, but the person the other side is still a foot higher in the air than I am, with a card machine higher than I can reach, and the speaker hole a foot above my head.

But Primark, for all it’s ethical problems, actually does this one thing right. It does wheelchair accessible changing rooms wrong, but the tills? Can’t praise them enough. When there’s a member of staff on them, that is. There is a flaw in the system, and I’ve waited at the accessible till only to be asked to come to one further down the queue.

I’ve been thinking of putting a sign up above my headrest but apparently “If you expect me to twist around, I’m going to expect you to to do the splits” is both unreasonable and too long for a sign. There’d be some logistical problems, especially in the smaller shops.

I guess i’ll have to settle for risking injury to myself and then suing the shop’s arses off for compensation, to teach them that way.

Edited on the 18th of November, 2015:

I hardly ever update a post once it’s up, but a similar incident happened today at the till as the one I mentioned above.

Again, I was waiting before the plexiglass at the till. My mum was at the far end of the till packing my items in a bag for me, and the till guy turns to my Mum and tells her the total. Understandable, It’s not like I’ve announced that I’m the one actually paying for the items, he doesn’t know they’re mine.

We have a phrase up here in Liverpool, it’s “here’ya”. As in “here you go”, pronounced “ee’yar”. The polite use of it is “Oh, here’ya!”, with a friendly smile. And that’s exactly what I did, with my money in my hand. He ignores me, and stays looking at my mum, who nods at me. He looks at me, then at my hand with the money in it, and turns back to my mum…

I only got out an “Erm, well-” when my mum then said to him, “No, she’s paying. It’s her money!” and makes a joke. But, this guy had heard me, saw me with my money… and ignored me!?

What did he think, i was just a randomer trying to pay for someone else’s items, like a good friendly little wheelchair user who doesn’t know how the procurement of groceries work!? I mean this does feel like a heavy dose of pre-determined “Aw bless, she’s being friendly”. I can’t see why else this person would ignore me and my money, and then need reassurement from my MUM that yes, these ARE my items and I am paying for them. He saw us approach the till at the same time and talk to each other.

Next time maybe I’ll go around with a sign on my headrest that says “It’s okay, my Mummy has given me permission to pay for my items”.

For crying out loud!


The Wheelchair Accessible Hy-Pee-Thetical Universical Supposition.

Sunday 28 June, 2015

Before you even ask: Yes, I did struggle with a title for this one. But let us go forth, regardless!

Feminism, which I’m sure you will agree, is a wonderful thing. Without feminism, we women wouldn’t have the vote. We wouldn’t even be allowed to wear trousers. The worth of a woman would still be dependent on, and used in, the property contracts between male family members and would-be husbands. We would, without a doubt, be passed between father to new-husband as nothing more than a valuable object to solidify an agreement.

So, yes, feminism is good. And it is needed. Sadly, oh how it is still needed…

And it is in that regard that I also say the fight for disabled rights is needed. Now, it feels, more than anything.

And here i will use a comparison to feminism to explain why:

Let’s say you were a woman (and if you’re already are a woman, please bear with me…) and that you lived in a world where everything was controlled by a credit card-esque pass key.

That card is what opens all doors, starts cars, pays for items, flushes toilets, sharpens your pencil at work, makes fold up seats unfold, everything. You name it, this card gives you access to it. In theory.

And let’s say there was a cited capacity as to how many women could get on a bus, work in workplace, learn in a classroom and sit in a cinema, to give a few examples. Now, let’s say, to get to the crux of my comparison, that in this futuristic alternative universe of a world, you needed to use the toilet.

In theory, you swipe it over the box, the light changes, the door opens, you’re good to go (if you’ll pardon the pun). But in this world, which is very much a Man’s world, there is one toilet to every five of a Man’s. And, even worse, men will use the women’s toilets if they feel the men’s queue is too long. After all, it was empty. And hey! They’ll only be a minute!

But oh no. You’re bursting for the loo! Your card won’t give you access to the men’s, there’s a man in the women’s! The queue is going down for the men’s, and you’re just stood there like a lemon. A lemon that really, really needs to pee.

You’ve argued to the local council about the lack of women’s toilets, but the only response was from a man who told you there wasn’t enough money for any more.

He says If you’d have called ahead, an attendant could have kept it free for you. But, who schedules their peeing times? Men don’t have to schedule their peeing times! Men can just go to the loo whenever they want (bodily requirements withstanding, of course). It’s hard enough to find a woman’s toilets in the first place, and sometimes the card scanner has been broken, sometimes they toilets have not been cleaned. Because men believe they’re hardly used anyway. You, understandably, don’t want men to use the only working clean toilet you can use.

You’ve argued with men over this time and time again. They say it was empty at the time, that there’s no sign saying that they can’t use the toilet. If the card works, then Men must be allowed to use it, right?

And as for being broken and lack of cleaning, you’re met with a shrug. Who can prove who was responsible for that? And scanners are expensive to replace, and it’s not the council’s fault the general public don’t treat the facilities right.

The bottom line is, Men don’t have to put up with any of that. And they have Five times the amount of toilets.

Most men, and some women, think that if you have that much of a problem with “being a woman”, maybe you’re just not cut out for this world. Some even think that maybe you should just undergo a “sex change”.

Except in this hypothetical world, it wouldn’t be called a sex change, it’d be called a “sex correction”.

As in, the problem lies with you for being a woman, not with society and it’s attitude to women. In their men’s minds, it’s not how they treat you that’s wrong, it’s the fact you exist in the first place. So they will help you fix the problem and turn you into a man. Then you’ll be free to get the bus anytime you like, you don’t have to ask someone to open the door for you when you enter a shop, and even better you can pretty much go anywhere you like! Your card can work everywhere! What’s not to like about that?

Because of course, you’ve spent your life complaining about those things! Trains stop letting women on them passed ten o clock at night, because there’s no attendant on the station to let them through the men only doorways. Some shops won’t even sell to you unless you have a man present at the point of sale!

Instead of agreeing that these things are easy to change, that these shops could just remove or disable the card activated doorways, everywhere says it would cost too much money. Some of those doorways have been up for 200 years! They’re part of history. How selfish are you that you want to destroy a relic of history just to get home at night?
Yes, it’s a shame that you can’t use the train past ten or clock, but that’s what taxis are for. Besides, nobody else has complained! All the other women are home before 10 o’clock. The male station manager can’t conceive why a woman would even be out past ten o clock, anyway. Don’t women get tired easier and have to go to bed earlier?

So, it’s just so much easier if you became a man.

And then you can go the toilet and travel on the train whenever you like!

But of course, you don’t want to become a man. You want the world to accept you as you are. A woman. You don’t need to be fixed and corrected. You certainly don’t need the government’s suggestion that you undergo the therapy and operation to become a so called respectable member of society, or their awfully high fines for “acts of uncooperation”.

It’s society that needs to change, accept and adapt.

If society got rid of those doors and the card system, nobody would need to employ anyone extra to open the ancient Men Only doorways whenever a woman wishes to use the same service. It’s society that needs to stop saying “but this is how it’s always been”.

That alternative universe’s society clearly isn’t working. Not for the women. Just like our society is failing the disabled.
Every time we get something, after fighting and fighting, the ignorant majority think they are well within their rights to use it. Like disabled toilets and changing rooms and bus spaces.

And the reason is always “nobody was using it at the time”.

But that lies on the assumption that, like the men in that alternative universe think, nobody Will need it. The majority of able-bodied people assume, just like those men assume about the women, disabled people are so few and far between that you’re not actually going to inconvenience anyone, and if you did, it’s not that big of an inconvenience. Except that’s blatantly not true. If able bodied people registered the amount of times their misuse of disabled facilities actually inconvenienced disabled people, and how much of a negative impact that inconvenience was, just like us disabled people do, you’d (hopefully) find the regularity shocking.

There is an attitude in this world that if disabled people just underwent the right surgery, more physio, see better doctors, did this, did that, they wouldn’t live such difficult lives. Instead of accepting that disabled people exist and require equality, this society says THIS is our society and, although sympathetic to the plight, why change something when it’s needed less than the way it already is?

And as for the Listed buildings problem, which is a time honoured excuse for not even bothering with adaptations; I say this as a fan of history, does anyone think that our ancestors, who gave us language, paper, everything that came out of the industrial revolution, vaccinations, medications, democracy, would want our progress stagnated for the sake of what is an over appreciation for what has been?

There are ways to preserve things, and there are ways to adapt. These things are not mutually exclusive. I will give you an example.

I live in Liverpool, and we have The Albert Dock. Most of the Albert Dock is paved with cobblestone, and it’s absolute murder on my back. I have friends who have it worse, some not even in wheelchairs. When I asked why they couldn’t be changed, being such a health hazard, I was told that actually, the cobblestones are part of the Listed/Graded system. They are a piece of history. They are to be preserved for as long as possible. I’m not  exactly sure how that’s going to work with people walking and rolling and driving and whatever else-ing over them, but either way, the cobblestones are there to stay. For the sake of history!

And fair enough, they are a wonderful, beautiful piece of history.

But why then, can’t textured/griplined but mostly see-through plexiglass or similar covering go over them? It would serve two purposes:

  1. Assist in preserving them longer by protecting them from being walked on
  2. Give a much needed smoother service for wheelchair users like myself

I didn’t hear back from my suggestion. I have a horrible feeling they looked at my suggestion in horror and threw it straight into a fire, like the satan-worshipper they no doubt assume me to be, because nobody good and pure could possibly suggest such a thing! Cover the cobblestones with plexiglass!? How DARE I.

Society needs to stop feeling like it will lose something in return for including a large part of our society. It needs to stop seeing adapting things as a waste of time and money.

I am disabled, and whether you believe it or not, I am here to live, just like everyone else. And like many other disabled people, I will get on the train, I will go into shops, and yes, on the odd occasion, I will need the loo.

Don’t be like those Men in the Alternative Universe. Have respect, not only for the people who might potentially share your day, but also for the people who fought so hard to get the minimum we’re clinging on to. Nipping in the disabled loo for your own convenience isn’t just some sort of backwards bid for equal rights, it’s shitting on the disabled campaigners of the past who actually gave us those disabled toilets in the first place.
And, for anyone who might point out this sad fact, I am aware that what happens in my hypothetical alternative universe is a lot like how women are treated in some countries and communities today. All I can say to that is, let’s not go down a route of heirarchy here. My whole entire point is that injustices against women and injustices against disabled people are BOTH injustices that we have to fight against.


Beware the man in the wheelchair with worn out shoes

Thursday 8 May, 2014

I keep seeing that phrase thrown around twitter, and it really winds me up. I’ve seen various versions of it as well, each more offensive than the next. Sometimes it’s aimed at fictional characters on telly, disabled characters played by able-bodied actors, and sometimes it’s aimed at wheelchair users who don’t always depend on a wheelchair. There’s sexist versions, homophobic versions, racist versions. The ignorance in this one ignorant comment is horrific and worrying, quite frankly.

No matter how it’s said or who it’s aimed it, it doesn’t matter, it’s a saying that needs to stop. It’s offensive and it’s incorrect. It comes from the belief that every wheelchair user is always in a wheelchair, and it further perpetuates the belief that if you use a wheelchair and are then seen standing up or walking, you are faking, lying and downright untrustworthy.

Honestly, disability is not that plain and simple. Yeah, able-bodied actors playing disabled characters annoy me, because there are plenty of disabled actors out there, who maybe could add a bit of insight to the role, and they don’t get a look in. Why? I’ve never heard of one decent reason yet. But, the way people point out able-bodied people’s portrayal of disabled characters because they happen to see legs moving, feet tapping, is also wrong.

Not all forms of paralyses mean that a person can’t moved affected limbs completely, it also doesn’t mean that the affected limbs are numb to sensations, and it goes without saying that not all wheelchair users are in a wheelchair because they’re paralysed, and not all wheelchair users are wheelchair dependent. Here’s an interesting fact: Some people use wheelchairs because other parts than their legs don’t work! Their legs might be fine and functional, but it’s their backs that don’t work, they might have a heart condition, they might have chronic fatique syndrome. Even some severe forms of tourettes can affect a person’s mobility so much that they need to depend on a wheelchair.

And, for those of us who consider ourselves wheelchair dependent, it still doesn’t mean we’re in our wheelchairs all day, every day. How do you think some people get into their wheelchairs? Magical bubbles lifting us from our beds into our chairs? I use crutchers, some of my friends side transfer, some use a hoist.

All variety of disabilities and mobility aids have their own ways of wreaking havoc on shoes. Don’t believe me? Have a look at these!

my pair of old grubby trainers
These are my shoes, and they’ve been my shoes since 2009. I couldn’t get a decent photo of the tread underneath, but the worst looking shoe from the top is also the most worn out shoe from underneath.

If you’re not the type to think it’s proof of a lack disability, you’d probably think that that’s the shoe for my good leg, and maybe even that it’s all wrecked from having to put my best foot forward everytime I walk. Ahhh, if only I actually had a best foot to put forward! It’s more like not-as-dead-as-my-other-leg!foot Vs the-actual-dead-leg!foot.

Some people who understand the complexity of mobility issues might even assume that it’s all marked at the side from me crossing one leg over the other, or maybe tapping my leg against my chair or crutchers, or maybe even standing on the sides of my feet.

Well, you or that person would be wrong. Cos the worst shoe actually belongs to the foot of the leg that hardly ever moves. The whole leg is practically a dead weight, it catches on the underside of my footplate when I’m lifting it up onto the footplate, it’s constantly rubbing against the holding bar of the footplate as I merrily go along my day. It’s the foot that lands heavily on the ground, I’ve never lifted my feet properly but my knees are now buckled since my hip operation and I’m sure that has made my weight bearing even worse, from a functional viewpoint, so the underside of my shoe takes a bit of a beating.

I’ve seen shoes of the friends who use hoists, and their shoes end up in much the same state, and usually a lot quicker. I’ve seen the treads of the friends who side transfer, and the tread is always worn down, marked, marred or bobbled on the side of the shoes that hit the footplate bar. Same goes for those who use platform footrests and the metal holders.

Honestly, any comments like that are so… stupid and offensive! I can’t even believe people say it. I’ve had these shoes for 5 years, and yeah they’re the longest lasting pair of shoes I’ve had, but look at the state of them! Look at the left shoe! You can’t see it from this angle, but a small bit of stitching has come undone by the heel, it’s only because I don’t walk that that those shoes are still holding together. I imagine if I started miraculously walking everywhere tomorrow, I wouldn’t get very far before the stitching undoes completely and the heel starts coming apart.

Please, next time anyone says it, tell them how wrong they are. Or better yet, point their ignorant faces in this direction. If they want to carry on believing wheelchair users have perfect, pristine, unmarked, unworn shoes, they’ll have to keep me and every other wheelchair user in supply of new shoes every few months!

Oh, that’d be too expensive for them? Well, then they’ll just have to learn and accept the diversity of disability then, won’t they?