“We don’t need disability in our face.” -Candace Owens
It’s true, disabled people wear underwear. Wild. I know. (Who let us out of the cage?)
Recently, political commentator Candace Owens went on an angry rant, demanding an explanation on why a disabled model is featured in a Skims underwear ad, and how ridiculous and over the whole inclusivity thing she is, calling it stupid while mocking disability. (Click here to view my stitch reel of this on my YouTube channel)
There are several signals here, the most prominent is her mirroring the pervasive thought society has about disabled people: we’re better not seen and we don’t deserve to live or have the same access non disabled are privy to.
The next one, Candace’s overall media personality schtick of being anti “woke” and anti-inclusion…because this is the biggest issue facing humanity right now.
Every generation reevaluates the times and all we’re saying is for a very long time only one kind of person, one kind of race, one king of body and a dominant gender was depicted in all media for generations; hardly representing what humanity actually looked like while pushing arbitrary standards impossible to live up to.
What we see, is what we know (our daily media intake is like subliminal messages), and what we don’t know—the bubbles we purposely keep ourselves in—and lack of exposure can feed unnecessary fear, misinformation and harmful stigmas. This is why representation matters, and why, Candace, as a black woman, gets to be on public media because a bunch of “woke” black citizens said, “Hey, segregation because of skin color is F’d up…start including us!” Or the reason why women get to vote, because a bunch of “woke” women said we deserved more than only being allowed to be barefoot and pregnant.
But this is about more than representation, it's functional.
A million things in a day can make being disabled difficult, from putting on clothes to brushing teeth to opening doors. But we adapt and we do our best in a world not built for us. We deal with a public society that is inaccessible. We deal with discrimination, stares and downright rudeness. But I have to ask, why are we such an inconvenience? Why is including us such a crusade? What is wrong with us?
Even if this skims adaptive undergarment line was only about representation, who cares! If a company wants to make one little thing easier for us, then why are you such an angry, miserable person to the point that your fury with this tilt of perspective of a disabled woman modeling underwear, to the point of positioning adaptive clothing, or featuring a disabled person, as some kind of “radical woke” move? That’s so sad but also dangerous, because what this is really about is stoking outrage where there doesn’t need to be any.
Non disabled people don’t realize everything that has been designed was adapted and created for them, like how we put a bra or pants on. This process was designed along decided parameters of how a typical 2 legged mobile human puts clothes on. The problem is, this doesn’t work for everyone. For example, some disabled people have dexterity issues so it’s easier to clasp underwear from the side rather than pulling them up. This even helps caregivers or partners like my husband. Or putting a bra on that clasps in the back being difficult for those with limited arm/hand mobility or limb differences.
I’m not a Kardashian fan. I don’t buy their products. But the real reason Skims chose to do this is because it makes dollars and cents/sense. The adaptable fashion industry is ALREADY a multi-hundred billion dollar business, so it’s not just “scary” inclusion. There are 1 billion disabled people in the world. As the largest and fastest minority group worldwide, we have major purchasing power. It’s not “ridiculous”, it’s smart business. Candace would know that if she did any research.
As a disabled industrial designer, it should also be noted that the fashion industry doesn’t need to actually create separate fashion lines for disabled people. It’s not like a non disabled women, for example, would be outraged that they now have the convenience of putting a bra on from the front instead of the back, which is difficult for everyone, disabled or not (for those putting on and taking off a bra 😉)
Don’t view design as segregation, rather possibly reinventing the way we interact with our clothes, products and environment that anyone can use. Most fail to realize a disabled perspective can promote innovation, like curb cuts and elevators (used more by non disabled) or the fact that texting and touch screens were created for disability first but now a worldwide cultural staple. People will accept a new way of putting shoes or pants on, if presented. Plus, we’ve been doing it the same for forever, why not shake up the possibilities?!
My last point is, disability is not partisan. It’s neither reserved for conservatives nor liberals. Anyone can become disabled.
There is so much more to the story than overly simplified partisan terms like “woke” created to incite division, fear and anger. The greatest issue of our time in this country is not, gawd forbid, a disabled woman being hired to model undies, nor is it inclusion. What this is really about is the strategy of creating a boogey man where there isn’t one. Create fear over here, instead of over there on issues that actually affect humans, like affordable access to healthcare, access to safe spaces for our children to learn, jobs, access to affordable housing and clean water and food with safe environments that help a society become stronger and better.
Do I think there are aspects of cancel culture that are unhealthy, and do not promote conversation and asking questions without fear, and instead provoke defensiveness rather than understanding? Yes. Absolutely. But people also need to remember, one does not go to school to be an advocate, and some may advocate in a way that is only combative, not conversational or presented right. But this doesn’t mean the underlying issue at heart doesn’t deserve exploration and understanding of those who actually live the perspectives we don’t.
People like Candace are grifters, who often don’t even believe the things they say because this position comes with zero accountability. As long as it keeps getting ratings is the priority, as we’re seeing played out now in the Court trial with foxy hosts like Carlson and Hannity knowingly pushing lies for ratings.
The reality is, these celebrity media “reporters”, like the Carlsons, the Hannitys, the Alex Jones, get paid tens of millions (touting their “against” the elites and anti mainstream…while being a mainstream elite) to soak division, fear and controversy with the sole job of maintaining high ratings because more views equals more money, and more views is possible through fear mongering, dramatization, polarization, and propaganda. These are adult bullies.
Candace and others like her selling that being aware is an extremist way to be, is dangerous. She has since posted a rebuttal to the education from disabled people that she requested and doubled down with her supporters citing horrible comments and threats, like disabled people need to die and stay inside or be r@ped. This is how we connect now. THIS, behavior like this, is what is radical. We’re cruel and inhumane over nothing.
Politicians have politicized “woke” when it’s not a political issue, it’s a culture one…but people feel enraged, created by the divisiveness of politics, and justified to say horrific and things. It’s really sad. People like Candace don’t want to be educated, she wants her own little echo chamber with a following that’s constantly angry, so they keep tuning in.
Whose the “sensitive” cancel culture snowflake, when you’re the one upset over a company choosing to show a disabled person in their clothing? The irony is the group labeling “woke” as radical and overly sensitive, are the same ones upset by seeing disabled people in ads and banning books and cultural behavior they don’t agree with. For a side that is allegedly against government involvement, they’re into banning and canceling anything they don’t agree with.
I went back and forth about wasting time on creating a response to such an unreasonable and obvious huckster personality. I don’t normally provide this kind of commentary on my public spaces because I want my shares to be more about what unites us and being human rather than what divides us (I do love sociopolitical discussion and analysis, though). But I thought this was a good example of how the general society perceives and treats us.
oh, and how far are we taking this inclusivity thing? All the way, baby. 😎
*Please, don’t send hate to Candace. That is not why I’m sharing. I’m using this controversy to explain why it’s wrong. That’s all. Don’t use hate to fight hate, it’s unproductive and no better than the bully’s behavior.
More #KamsWheelsTravel @ Instagram.com/kamredlawsk