The Effects of Being a Women and Having a Physical Disability

Women are affected by policies much differently than other populations. In the article Income support policy in Canada and the UK: different, but much the same Claudia Malacrida pointed out how keeping women dependent on the state is built into the social construction of society, especially for women with physical disabilities. She said this was a result of “their unequal access to education, their difficulties in obtaining adequate employment and their higher likelihood of living in poverty” (2010, p. 674). Even though the prevalence of a patriarchal society is lessening, the restraining nature of the social world is clear in policies that affect women. As noted by the government of Canada (2003) “. . . women who are disabled find fewer work opportunities at lower pay than men with disabilities . . .” (as cited by C. Malacrida p. 674).

So how are policies worsened for women with physical disabilities you ask? Since, a lot of the time women have pressure on them to be the main caregivers of children, finding childcare usually falls into their hands. In many senses this is a disablement in itself for women with physical disabilities. Using the internet for example, is a dilemma on its own (Income support policy in Canada and the UK: different, but much the same, 2010, p. 678). Consider this: if a woman is unable to afford childcare she has no choice but to take her child with her to find internet access which, in most cases, requires she leave the house, keeping in mind many women in similar situations cannot enjoy the luxury of their own internet. If moving around wasn’t already hard enough, supervising a child while doing so would be challenging to say the least.

The lack of access to good paying jobs leaves women very little money, if any, for childcare. In the event childcare can be obtained through a subsidy for example, sustaining or obtaining any other benefits one is entitled to becomes a struggle. Underlying rules pertinent to income support policy usually restrict use of other financial supports. Basically, a hidden requirement for any benefit, if they can even be called that, is little or no attachments to other benefits. This means you must have a minimum source of income and are therefore destitute.

Women are even questioned on the basis of their partner’s current financial situation. Any money being received besides income support, must be acknowledged by providers of programmes (Income support policy in Canada and the UK: different, but much the same, 2010, p.679). Sometimes women’s benefits are even taken away when job changes, and/or additional physical disablements of family members arise.

In the midst of all these policies, how can women with physical disabilities succeed at life? The blunt answer is they cannot. When we step back and look at the experiences of women with physical disabilities we can see how policies maize-like features, do not permit women flourish. In fact, the policies themselves are made for able-bodied people and paradoxically ignore the discrepancies that limit these people in the first place. Trying to obtain all the benefits you qualify for can stigmatize you as someone “cheat[ing] the system” (Malacrida), when in actuality one may just be hoping to meet their subsistence needs for the time being (2010, p.682). In this sense, if you are not able bodied you are punished and are in a state of perpetual scavenging. As Ben Mortenson notes in Ready to roll? Mobility and social participation among wheelchair users in residential care, similar to senior citizens, many of these people did not choose to have a physical disability and would like to be able to move around freely (2010).

Herein, I find it critical that professionals develop ways to facilitate women with physical disabilities into society. Collaborating with this population and passing on new information that arises in policies is one way persons with physical disabilities can be aware of their entitlements. I hope In the future, a need to dodge policy restrictions won’t be necessary. Rather, I hope more inclusive policies will dominate Canadian society. Here is to wishful thinking.

References

Malacrida, C. (2010). Income support policy in Canada and the UK: different, but much the same. Disability & Society, 25: 6, 673-686.

doi: 10.1080/09687599.2010.505739

Mortenson, B. (2010). Ready to roll? Mobility and social participation among wheelchair users in residential care. Seniors’ Housing Update, 19; 2, 10-12.

                ISSN: 1188-1828

-Brooke D.