Christopher Reeve is dead.
Oct. 11th, 2004 02:44 amThis has lead to a number of posts on my friends page, causing me to ask two questions:
1. Why is it "so sad" that he died? I mean, yes, it's sad for the people who knew and loved him, but since most of you do *not* fall into that category, why do you actually care? I'm honestly curious.
2. In some communities, his death is leading to people saying that Bush is evil because, of course, Christopher Reeve might've been walking (and possibly still alive) if Bush had allowed more stem cell research.
A. I don't think stem cell research would've led to any cures so early.
B. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. I'm not in a wheelchair or anything, so I might be mistaken... but instead of waiting on the cureall of stem cells, wouldn't it be more effective to, um, have more buildings be accessible? And public transportation (I know that the NYC trains are essentially non-accessible)? And more strictly enforce handicapped parking laws? You know, that sort of thing? I mean, homes are still being built that aren't accessible, aren't they? That seems to be the impression of family friend Mr. Steve, who had a nice lovely debate about the cost of building accessible homes with my mom last time he visited, and how that's why people don't build homes to be accessible. My grandmother's fairly new home has a step in front of it, a completely pointless accoutrement. That's not accessible, right?
Seriously, for Bush to turn around on stem cell research, this would not come close to redeeming him in my eyes. That's nice, but I don't think it's particularily helpful to anybody living right now.
Edit: I think I've identified what's annoying me! It's what several people have said: he deserved to walk again. As one person put it "He might have gotten to walk again. The man deserved it. He worked SO damn hard." I don't know. Mihi, that's a lot like saying "some people don't deserve it. They just didn't work hard enough!"
I'm definitely going to bed. I'm taking this all way too seriously. If I sleep, I'll feel better, and I'll stop reading things wrong like that. Djusk' a.
1. Why is it "so sad" that he died? I mean, yes, it's sad for the people who knew and loved him, but since most of you do *not* fall into that category, why do you actually care? I'm honestly curious.
2. In some communities, his death is leading to people saying that Bush is evil because, of course, Christopher Reeve might've been walking (and possibly still alive) if Bush had allowed more stem cell research.
A. I don't think stem cell research would've led to any cures so early.
B. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. I'm not in a wheelchair or anything, so I might be mistaken... but instead of waiting on the cureall of stem cells, wouldn't it be more effective to, um, have more buildings be accessible? And public transportation (I know that the NYC trains are essentially non-accessible)? And more strictly enforce handicapped parking laws? You know, that sort of thing? I mean, homes are still being built that aren't accessible, aren't they? That seems to be the impression of family friend Mr. Steve, who had a nice lovely debate about the cost of building accessible homes with my mom last time he visited, and how that's why people don't build homes to be accessible. My grandmother's fairly new home has a step in front of it, a completely pointless accoutrement. That's not accessible, right?
Seriously, for Bush to turn around on stem cell research, this would not come close to redeeming him in my eyes. That's nice, but I don't think it's particularily helpful to anybody living right now.
Edit: I think I've identified what's annoying me! It's what several people have said: he deserved to walk again. As one person put it "He might have gotten to walk again. The man deserved it. He worked SO damn hard." I don't know. Mihi, that's a lot like saying "some people don't deserve it. They just didn't work hard enough!"
I'm definitely going to bed. I'm taking this all way too seriously. If I sleep, I'll feel better, and I'll stop reading things wrong like that. Djusk' a.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-11 09:54 am (UTC)One is that he was a celebrity, so a lot of people feel like they knew him, even ones who never met him.
Another is that he appeared to overcome incredible odds. He could have become a recluse, not wanting people to see him when he was in a wheelchair. Instead he became a very public advocate for spinal cord research, and he also directed movies and continued to act.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-11 12:07 pm (UTC)You know, most people I know who use wheelchairs do leave our houses and aren't reclusive unless either (a) we're natural recluses, (b) we have some kind of emotional problem unrelated to physical disability, (c) we're being forcibly confined to the house by other people or by the architecture, or (d) we have a condition that causes us to have very little stamina.
It's actually exactly the attitude that leaving one's house is somehow amazing that a lot of disabled people disliked about the way the media portrayed him (and he portrayed himself). Imagine if people told you it was amazing you left the house at all and that you were really really brave, because you happened to drive a car (and most chair-users I know see a wheelchair as like a car or a bicycle). It gets old really fast and is only prolonged for the rest of us when someone leaving their house gets hyped.
Also, most people get on with their jobs when they become disabled, after they've had time to do whatever's necessary to learn new skills to do so. That is, if they haven't gotten fired (which is common) and if they can still do whatever kind of work it was (or something else in the same field). Portraying this as extraordinary or as requiring any sort of special amount of courage or something only makes the ordinary run-of-the-mill disabled person look artificially worse (because it's assumed that we somehow wouldn't do this).
A lot of disabled people (including many, many quads, who are actually pretty near the top of the hierarchy in the American disability community) have been trying for a long time to get the image of disability changed, and unfortunately Reeve's attitude toward disability in particular set things back a ways.
The media's focus on it — and the amount of wealth he had — actually allowed him to remain in fantasy-land about what disability means for much longer than most disabled people do. Many disabled people do initially harbor the standard prejudices and stereotypes about disability, but get over them with time. Reeve was allowed, by virtue of his position, to retain them and spread them. He actually appeared to remain, from his comments, in what for most people is only the first few stages after becoming paralyzed. Which is hardly a wonderful example that most disabled people want to follow.
I'm not trying to say he's a bad actor or that people shouldn't be sad, but disability inspiration is generally for the benefit of the able-bodied, and often masks and maintains a very disturbing set of prejudices.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-11 12:14 pm (UTC)