After reading, "Disability" by Nancy Mairs, it did make me think about the poor view society has given to disabled people. That the media or society does not truly portray them correctly or give them equal treatment. But after really digesting the story and after a another reading, the piece came off more as a nitpicky rant about how she feels looked down upon. Sure no one wants to look lesser or lower around other people, but the claims that Mairs makes seem a little far fetched and make her come off as a brat.
First, Mairs picks apart a how a television show portrays a character with the same disability as herself. She tells of how the character is diagnosed, and while she is still able-bodied, she decides to go to Kenya. But ultimately, decides to stay back for her doctor, who presumably was a love interest. But Mairs, claims "she succumbed to his blandishments and fled the taxi into his manly protective embrace" (Mairs 14). Mairs' "problem" with this is a disabled woman can't do something good for herself, so she must retreat to a man. Ultimately showing, that a disabled person, is not really a person, in her mind. But its obvious why this point is so invalid, and its because this a television show. A show is not going to completely portray real life and real decisions. If it did, then what is the point of watching a show? Shows and films are made to extend on fantasies of life, to make them more exciting. There is something in the film business called the "Suspension of Disbelief" which can be defined as "willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe the unbelievable." So if you are going into a show or movie and not ready to see some "unrealistic" things, then its your problem.
Also just on a quick side note, this article was published in 1987, and she really expected a female character to have a strong role in a show? It wasn't until last year the world saw the first big female lead superhero film. Mairs is expecting way too much.
Secondly, she criticizes a local advertiser's answer for why disabled people aren't represented in advertisements. The advertiser's answer is that they don't want to give the image that the product is just for the handicapped people. Which isn't the best answer, but Mairs' point is still completely absurd. Mairs counters by asking "But tell me truly now: If you saw me pouring out puppy biscuits, would you think these kibbles were only for the puppies of the cripple?"(Mairs 14). But Mairs is so impractical here and it's almost funny. The point of advertisements is to get people to buy the product. So the advertisements must reach out to the mast majority of people who would be willing to buy the product. There are around 7 billion people in the world, and out of that number, there are 1 billion with a disability. And its obvious that people who don't have disabilities are the majority of population in the world. So of course, companies are going to market toward bigger groups for bigger profits.
I'll admit, Mairs has a point on how society views people with a disability in a negative way. And as people, we should treat them the same way. But what Mairs fails to see the logical and more practical approach to her stance.
First, Mairs picks apart a how a television show portrays a character with the same disability as herself. She tells of how the character is diagnosed, and while she is still able-bodied, she decides to go to Kenya. But ultimately, decides to stay back for her doctor, who presumably was a love interest. But Mairs, claims "she succumbed to his blandishments and fled the taxi into his manly protective embrace" (Mairs 14). Mairs' "problem" with this is a disabled woman can't do something good for herself, so she must retreat to a man. Ultimately showing, that a disabled person, is not really a person, in her mind. But its obvious why this point is so invalid, and its because this a television show. A show is not going to completely portray real life and real decisions. If it did, then what is the point of watching a show? Shows and films are made to extend on fantasies of life, to make them more exciting. There is something in the film business called the "Suspension of Disbelief" which can be defined as "willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe the unbelievable." So if you are going into a show or movie and not ready to see some "unrealistic" things, then its your problem.
Also just on a quick side note, this article was published in 1987, and she really expected a female character to have a strong role in a show? It wasn't until last year the world saw the first big female lead superhero film. Mairs is expecting way too much.
Secondly, she criticizes a local advertiser's answer for why disabled people aren't represented in advertisements. The advertiser's answer is that they don't want to give the image that the product is just for the handicapped people. Which isn't the best answer, but Mairs' point is still completely absurd. Mairs counters by asking "But tell me truly now: If you saw me pouring out puppy biscuits, would you think these kibbles were only for the puppies of the cripple?"(Mairs 14). But Mairs is so impractical here and it's almost funny. The point of advertisements is to get people to buy the product. So the advertisements must reach out to the mast majority of people who would be willing to buy the product. There are around 7 billion people in the world, and out of that number, there are 1 billion with a disability. And its obvious that people who don't have disabilities are the majority of population in the world. So of course, companies are going to market toward bigger groups for bigger profits.
I'll admit, Mairs has a point on how society views people with a disability in a negative way. And as people, we should treat them the same way. But what Mairs fails to see the logical and more practical approach to her stance.
I love that you took your blog outside of the discussion we had in class by bringing up the eocnomical side of disabilities. Guess AP Econ is really getting to you!
ReplyDelete