I mentioned not long ago in a
previous post that children with disabilities have few options when they are
seeking toys that look like them. This seems like a silly thing to be worried
about, but think about it. The products available on the market reflect what we
as a culture find important. For underrepresented groups who may not be visible
to many, the images on the market are often the sole exposure that some have to
such groups. When certain identities are excluded from something as simple as
the toy business, it’s a reflection that they are excluded from society, and
deemed unworthy to be made visible.
Furthermore, toys are for children,
and children’s minds are those that can still be shaped. When we have no dolls
or other toys with disabilities, our message to them is implicit but
undeniable: people with disabilities don’t matter, or at least not enough to be
brought to your attention. This was the case with Becky, Barbie’s friend with a
manual wheelchair. Becky, formally called “Share a Smile Becky” was selling
well when she was released in 1997. Then, a 17-year-old girl with cerebral
palsy pointed out that the “Barbie Dream House” was not accessible to Becky.
Instead of redesigning the house to help accommodate her, Mattel made a choice
that is the embodiment of the real-life struggle for people with disabilities.
Becky could not fit into the house or many of the other Barbie accessories such
as the car. But no “ADA compliant dream house” followed. No car with a lift hit
the shelves. Becky was simply discontinued.
That choice is reveals the
unsettling truth that even in the doll world, people frequently can’t be
bothered to make structures accessible. This thinking blames the disabled
person for being different, for not fitting the expected mold for the “normal
body”. The real problem lies in the fact that the structure was designed to
accommodate one type of person, when in reality, people are from many varying
paths of life. It is troubling that even as the increased consciousness about
diversity reaches the media, people with disabilities seem on the outskirts of
even the diversity discussion. If Mattel did not care to create a world where
Becky could remain part of the product line, what does that tell children about
the need to be accommodating in the real world? Children who play with toys
eventually become adults who build homes, write laws, draft policy, and hire
employees. When we don’t give a disabled doll a place in their imagination, our
hopes of them giving a place to disabled people in their real world sharply
decline. The reality is that too many people with disabilities face
discrimination in housing and public accommodations. The barriers they face
look eerily similar to Becky’s, and the lack of access to “the dream house”
becomes a sick metaphor for the continued prevalence of ableism in the world.
The case of the disabled toy that
was not worth the effort to accommodate translates into the adult attitude that
inclusion should not be valued. This attitude shifts responsibility for access
away from society and makes disabled people, not their second-class status, the
problem. If there is a place to start with changing hearts and minds, that
place is with our children, who have the power to unlock a future that is
better, brighter, and more loving for all people. If people with disabilities
belong on their TVs, in their stories, and reflected in their toys, they learn
that people with disabilities belong in their communities. The issues are much
bigger than the Becky doll, but finding a place for her in games of pretend and
Barbie tea parties is a start to creating true equality.
People with disabilities are real.
We are here, and we are not going away. Becky was discontinued, and that should
make you think about how much value we place on the real-life people Becky
represents. I was the child, and I am the adult, for whom Becky was rendered. I
am a person, and my identity cannot and should not be discontinued. Disability
rights matter, and they truly exist when they are embedded in our cultural
practices. My rights matter, and when you take all that reflects me out of the
public consciousness, you effectively take me “off the shelf”. Think about
that, and change your attitude, because unlike Becky, I will not accept a quiet
exit.
Excellent post... I didn't have a Becky until fairly recently, as she wasn't sold in the UK, but I'm sad to hear she was discontinued.
ReplyDeleteI tended to use my imagination in relation to my disabled dolls - in particular the wheelchair users (not barbies, but playmobil etc) had levitating chairs. Even 'normal' barbies were actually disabled, as they couldn't stand up without help, and there were some dolls with limb loss or joint problems.
I'm not sure whether non-disabled children's imaginations would necessarily stretch that far, though, and magic accommodations aren't realistic, although they were good for inclusion in my imaginary world, so an opportunity was definitely missed to create accessible products...
Thank you for writing. It is true that a nondisabled child may not have his or her imagination stretch that far, but representation is still important and I think seeing a doll with a disability would at least create some visibility for our community and put us on the radar as a kind of "normal"
DeleteThank you for writing this! Even though you were speaking about physical structures, I've encountered the same attitude many times as a developer when pushing for web accessibility, too. Including everyone is important! When we don't make room for people with disabilities to participate, everyone loses.
ReplyDelete