5 Comments

In my experience both have merit, but it depends on which frustrations you have capacity for while in the process. Fighting against existing structures was so demoralizing, but then the changes, even small, do make an immediate impact, though still within the bounds and rules of the institution. I got burnout out in those spaces, because I’d often have to watch the changes I fought for get eliminated after a year or two. Creating something new left space for something more truly access-centered, but was such a long start-up cost of money, time, spoons, etc. However, the end result was so rewarding, and there was more autonomy in all parts of the process.

Expand full comment

my personal preference as of late has been to build things specifically by/for disabled people, but mostly because it's sometimes totally demoralizing to try to make existing stuff more accessible (especially alone, if it's more of a shared burden then it might be less exhausting, just my personal experience). both ways are important i think!

Expand full comment

It’s hard to choose because both have merits and should be done at the same time but it’s too much of a work for one person. Parts of me says that it’d be better to have existing spaces become accessible so that everyone can attend, disabled and non, but another part wouldn’t mind having a space just for disabled people, like one of those spaces where I can go without being stared at 😅

Expand full comment

Oh, yes. Definitely. Getting to see everyone together and just share the moment, having my friends participate in things they usually can't, having the opportunity to hear everyone's story... It's so worth it.

Expand full comment

Yes, most definitely! That sounds like a super compelling project; you should pursue it. ✊

Expand full comment