You are right about one thing: if you are living with a disability you have to adapt, and accept the situation you are in. If you don't you will most likely have a very hard time with it. But that is absolutely not the same as accepting and adapting to i.e. other people's ignorance, prejudice and stupidity, and it's not the same as accepting being discriminated against or not being equal to other people. You can still accept the situation you're in, but fight for your rights and to be treated as an equal. If none of the people living with disabilities had done that through the years, we would not have gotten to the point we are at at this time in history. And we are still not at a point where we are being treated as equal in every respect, or where none of us are being discriminated against or even harassed, or being victims of hate crime (yes, it's true - even if it's on society's agenda). This is the reality, and choosing to fight against it is the only thing that will make things go forward. No-one has ever or will ever just hand us equality. It is we who are living it that have to actually TAKE it. Many people have been fighting for years to get us this far, and thankfully many continues. That has nothing to do with not accepting ones situation, it's about not accepting society's standards when it comes to universal design and equality. There's a huge difference there.
Speechless is showing some of the ignorance that a lot of people with disabilities are living with every day, and it's among other things for that reason so many people with disabilities, and family members, partners and so on, like the show and see so much familiarity in it. Although, we must remember that this is a tv-show, and that it's a comedy, so there's a lot of room for growth for the characters, and as it is a comedy it's also a bit satirical just to get the point across, and of course to make it funny at the same time.
Also, the creator of the show, Scott Silver, has a brother who has CP, which is why he has wanted to make a story about a family like this one for many years. Undoubtedly he and his brother has seen and lived many of the things this show deals with over the years, and it's been very important for him to portray disability, and what people with disabilities and their families encounters, in the right way. Clearly, many people with disabilities and many who are family or partners to people in such a situation, feels he has succeeded in doing just that.
The show clearly doesn't resonate with you, but that doesn't mean it should be cancelled just because you don't find any of it familiar, and because you can't relate to it. As a person who has lived with a disability all my life, I definitely can, and there are many of us who do.
reply
share
walsh90210
8 years ago
I know a few disabled people. I agree that not everything in my area is accessible because of "grandfather law". It was good to see ABC try to add a disabled character to the very successful programming line up. But between this and The Goldbergs, I'm sick of loud mouth nagging mothers. I understand the Minnie Driver character is rightfully concerned and protective, but she comes off as super obnoxious looking for lawsuits in hopes of winning a lottery.
I don't know how much creativity the show is going to have. It says next week's episode is Driver gets a homecoming bonfire canceled because it's not wheelchair accessible and her son gets backlash because of it. So is that what it's going to be every week? Her complaints and threats of lawsuits? No thanks.
reply
share
Motorazor
8 years ago
I'm not familiar with "The Grandfather Law" since I don't live in the US. I live in Europe, and we still have a long way to go when it comes to accessibility here as well. It is quite possible to do something about in very many areas though, and thankfully it's moving along slowly.
I think this show could have a lot to go on. And I also think it could have a lot to go on when it comes to character development, especially for the mom character. We're already seeing that she's capable of evolving, and I think she will be learning a lot through this season, i.e. adapting to the new situation for JJ, the fact that he has gotten an assistant, and the fact that he is a teenager that needs to go out into the world and do his own thing. She's got to learn to be less over protective, and accept that her son is becoming a young man who can't have his mother running around after him every second. That's one story line I can see developing through this season.
reply
share
oneofthegoodones
8 years ago
Grandfathering refers, in this case, to the American Disabilities Act (ADA)
The simplest explanation is that the requirement that public buildings and facilities be usable by disabled people, e.g., a ramp for wheelchairs to allow them access to a building, applies only to buildings and facilities built after the law was enacted. It's a matter of fairness to builders and owners who acted on the laws as they existed when they built them. It's also a matter of logistics. To retrofit buildings would be economically impossible and lawyers would pounce on every building ever built before the ADA was enacted.
It's a lot more complicated than that but that's the basic principle.
Grandfathering is a common thing here and can be found in countless areas of law.
caution: posts may contain sarcasm
reply
share
Motorazor
8 years ago
Wow. A law like that will definitely make it next to impossible to make society universally accessible for everyone in any near future. Were I live we technically HAVE the laws that all buildings that are used for the public, whether it be buildings owned by the government/the country's areas etc. or privately owned buildings which is used for shops, restaurants, pubs, cafes and so forth, and so on is legally required to be made accessible, but laws aren't upheld very well at all. Which means it doesn't always make a difference. My country doesn't have a culture of filing lawsuits and people getting monetary compensation etc. either, so even though the laws are actually in place it's limited how much one can do to actually make sure people uphold those laws. New buildings meant for the public are more likely to be made sure that they uphold the standards that are in the laws. But I think it will be quite a while, even here, before the rest is starting to come after. Of course there are people fighting for these things as well, and one can only hope that society will eventually think that universal accessibility for everyone is as important as it should be. Not just for people in wheelchairs, but for people with hearing and eyesight disabilities as well, and even trolleys for babies and so on. Also, a larger portion of inhabitants will be older in the years to come, which means even more people will have problems walking, or trouble with eyesight and hearing etc. just on account of being old. Which the now younger generation ought to think about, because it is likely that the lack of universally accessible societies will begin to affect themselves as well as soon as they grow older, or at the very least people close to them.
reply
share
readerf61
8 years ago
Tbat is true, to a point. If they have any work done on the building, then the rest of the building must be made so that it is up to all existing codes. Any time city building inspectors check work completed, they won't sign off until the building is completely up to code, and that means all ADA requirements.
It is hoped that all buildings, over time, will be in compliance.
reply
share
Motorazor
8 years ago
Aha. That makes things a little bit different, then. At least that way it will be a chance that over time the accessibility in even the older buildings will improve. Otherwise it seemed like a never ending project.
reply
share
shelwood46
8 years ago
Just to clarify the US ADA rules: It was enacted in 1991. Any building built after that that is accessible to the public (stores, offices, etc) and certain multi-family buildings must be accessible. All government buildings (all levels of gov, including schools) had a phase-in date and should all be accessible by now. Renovations on older pre1991 buildings that redo more than a certain percentage of the building (around 10%, I believe) require the entire building be retrofitted for accessibility (occasionally waivers are granted for historic structures). Current building codes include accessibility . Oh, and those "ADA lawsuits" are not a big payday for disabled people, at least on the federal level -- ADA suits mean a business/property may pay a fine *to the government* and have to change whatever needs to be changed to be in compliance if they are found to be in violation. Private citizens don't get a payout unless they are suing because they were actually injured or provably lost money because of the lack of compliance, and that has to be filed as a personal civil suit. The idea that people are getting rich from suing businesses/schools/whatever for US ADA violations is an urban myth (aka a lie).
reply
share
Shimmer_Me_Timbers
8 years ago
I understand the Minnie Driver character is rightfully concerned and protective, but she comes off as super obnoxious looking for lawsuits in hopes of winning a lottery.
You're misunderstanding the purpose of her lawsuit threat. She's not looking for money, she just knows that the best way to spur companies or organizations into action is to sue - both costing the organization money and tarnishing their reputation.
reply
share
acter
8 years ago
Motorazor, a quiet "bravo" to you. Or "brava".
Just really well said.
Acter
reply
share