People with disabilities face many obstacles in their struggle for equality. Although men and women with disabilities are subject to discrimination because of their disabilities, women with disabilities are at a further disadvantage because of the combined discrimination based on disability. This article examines the lives of women with disabilities and explores the effects of this double discrimination.
Women with disabilities have historically been neglected by disability studies and feminist scholarship alike. Almost all research on people with disabilities has assumed the irrelevance of gender as well as other social dimensions such as race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. "Having a disability presumably eclipses these dimensions of social experience. Even sensitive students of disability...have focused on disability as a unitary concept and have taken it merely the `master' status for disabled people" (Asch & Fine, 1988: 3). Disability studies have traditionally used a gender-blind approach and have neglected to explore the influence of gender in the lives of men and women with disabilities. The field of disability has not yet recognized the combined discrimination of gender and disability experienced by women who have disabilities, and policies and practices in the field have not been designed to meet their specific needs.
In addition to being ignored by those concerned with disability, women with disabilities have been ignored by the feminist movement. Feminists with disabilities have criticized feminist scholarship for excluding the experiences of women with disabilities from feminist analysis (Fine & Ash, 1988; Hammaford, 1985). Even feminist scholarship that has most thoughtfully attempted to integrate the diversity of female experience based on race, class, sexual orientation, and other social dimensions (e.g., Einsenstein & Jardine, 1985) has excluded women with disabilities. Recent criticism of exclusion in feminist thought and calls for accounting for differences among women continue to ignore and exclude women with disabilities (e.g., Spelman, 1988). Published writings about women with disabilities have not received attention from feminist scholars, "...instead they have joined men in relegating women with disabilities to a realm beneath their intellectual and political ken" (Asch & Fine, 1988: 4).
Anyone looking for materials about women with disabilities a few years back would have found little to read. Although there is still much to be learned about the particular situation of women with disabilities, the past decade has been characterized by vigorous writing, mostly by women who themselves have disabilities. This section will provide a brief overview of some of this new and growing body of literature.
The major characteristics of the literature on women with disabilities is its diversity, crossing disciplines and policies, and often interdisciplinary in nature. It reflects the diversity in the lives of women with disabilities presented by the type and severity of their disability, the wide variety of issues it addresses, as well as diversity along social dimensions such as class, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
The largest part of the literature about women with disabilities has been written by themselves and a substantial part consists of their personal accounts of being female and having a disability. (Browne, Connors, & Stern, 1985; Matthews, 1983; Rousso, 1988). Some speak out in anger and bitterness of the isolation, despair, poverty, and powerlessness, while others celebrate achievements, strength, happiness, and fulfillment, despite their struggles.
Although research in this area is relatively new, the writings of the past decade have provided research-based information about the social, economic, and psychological circumstances of women with disabilities along with theoretical analysis providing a framework to understand and interpret their lives and experiences (Deegan & Brookes, 1985; Fine & Asch, 1988). Much of the scholarly writing has been devoted to identifying the barriers women with disabilities face in today's society and has documented that they fare less well, than both men with disabilities and non disabled women, in education and employment in receiving economic security and social support, and in their access to sexuality and intimacy.
The major factor unifying the scholarly writings is the conceptualization of women with disabilities as a group with a multiple minority status (Deegan, 1985). This scholarship typically combines disability studies and feminist studies to explore the combined discrimination based on disability and gender. Some authors have characterized women with disabilities as "roleless" because of the limited social roles available for them and the absence of institutional means to achieve valued adult roles (Fine & Asch, 1981). Women with disabilities are not seen as fit to fill the traditional roles of mother, wife, homemaker, nurturer, or lover and economically productive roles are not seen as appropriate for them either.
The existing literature on women with disabilities is somewhat limited in scope because, with few but significant exceptions, it has been overly focused on women who have physical disabilities. Women with developmental disabilities and mental health problems have been under-represented in the literature. In addition, despite an attempt to incorporate diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, and class, women of color still remain under-represented. Although somewhat limited, this new and exciting body of literature provides the basis for further advances, more refined theoretical analysis, and a better understanding of the lives of women with disabilities.
The remaining sections will examine three major areas of life and how women with disabilities fare within these areas, compared to women without disabilities and men with disabilities. These three areas are the (1) traditional female sphere of reproduction and nurturing, which is included in Part I of this article and (2) education, and (3) employment, which will be continued as Part II, in the November issues of the Newsletter.
Women's traditional roles as nurturers, mothers, wives, homemakers, and lovers are usually not seen as appropriate for women with disabilities. While the ability to acquire women's most traditional roles is usually not regarded as the best measure of women's social success, examining the limitations women with disabilities face within this traditional women's sphere provides valuable insights into the restricted social options available to them.
Compared to both men with disabilities and non-disabled women, women with disabilities are more likely to never marry, marry later, and be divorced if they do get married (Simon, 1988). While 60 percent on non-disabled women and men with disabilities are married, only 49 percent of women with disabilities are married (Bowe, 1984). Asch and Fine (1988: 15) report only one group of women with disabilities that is more likely to be married than men of the same disability group. This group is women with mental retardation.
Non-disabled women often feel trapped in unfulfilling or abusive relationships because they cannot imagine how they will survive economically on their own. This may be even more true of women with disabilities who often may have to put up with abusive or exploitative relationships because of their limited social and economical means or because the only other alternative may be a life in an institution. In addition, Asch and Fine (1988) report that women with disabilities may return to abusive relationships because it may be the only intimate relationship they ever had and they may judge it better to have a bad relationship at all.
Many women may not see marriage as a preferred status, nor may they regard the most traditional female roles as desirable. At the same time, non-disabled women are more likely than women with disabilities to have the possibilities to choose between traditional and nontraditional life-styles. Women with disabilities rarely have the same options and their access to even the most traditional female roles is very restricted.
Although the traditional image of the mother as the sole caretaker and nurturer of her child is in the process of change, it is still the image society uses as its reference point. Since women with disabilities are seen as childlike, helpless, dependent and in need of being taken care of, it is difficult for many to imagine how a mother with a disability can fill the caring and nurturing mothering role (Shaul, Dowling, & Laden, 1985).
There are only scattered accounts of motherhood as experienced by women with disabilities. These accounts have mostly been written by women who have physical disabilities (Anderson, 1985; Hyler, 1985; LeMaistre, 1985), or based on interviews with this group of mothers (Shaul, Dowling, & Laden, 1985). Mothers with mental retardation have not been represented in this literature, and as a result these mothers are even more invisible than other mothers with disabilities and very little is known about their lives and struggles. The limited information available has been written by professionals who tend to discuss mothers with mental retardation in terms of the problems they pose for the social welfare services that encounter them (Budd & Greenspan, 1985; Whitman & Accardo, 1990). Few, if any, resources are available that present their own point of view and how they experience motherhood. One of the few resources available about this group of mothers found that 25 percent of them had had their children removed from the care (Whitman & Accardo, 1990).
Although society's fears that women with disabilities will produce defective children are for the most part groundless, because the vast majority of disabilities are not hereditary, these fears have resulted in severe discrimination against women with disabilities in general, and women with mental retardation in particular. Around the turn of the century, what was then referred to as "feeble-mindedness" was considered a major threat to society. As reflected in the following quotation from 1908, it was generally believed that feeble-mindedness was hereditary: "No feeble-minded mother will ever have a child absolutely normal in every respect" (Johnson, as quoted in Wolfensberger, 1975: 38). More important, these women were thought to lack moral restraints concerning sexual activities, and it was believed that as a consequence they would produce a large number of illegitimate and deficient children. The preventative measures taken against this threat included large scale forced sterilization and establishing institutions for "feeble-minded women of child-bearing age, "where women with mental retardation were segregated from society as well as from men with mental retardation. In 1960, 26 states still had sterilization laws and as late as 1980, 33 states still had laws that prohibited people with mental retardation from marrying (Scheerenberger, 1987). No group of women with disabilities has been as severely discriminated against in terms of their reproductive rights as women with mental retardation and some of the myths surrounding women with mental retardation, such as the myth of their uncontrollable sexuality, are unfortunately still very much alive today (Sank & Lafleche, 1981).
It is widely documented that women with disabilities are typically seen as asexual (Finger, 1985). This is true of society in general as well as of most professionals with whom women with disabilities come into contact. Because women with disabilities are seen as asexual they are not seen as in need of information about birth control or what is possible in terms of having a sex life and children.
Sexual abuse of women and children with disabilities is an area that has received growing attention in recent years (Sobsey, et al., 1990; Watson, 1984). Much of the literature in this area is based on studies which show that women with disabilities ar at a much greater risk of being sexually abused than other women (Senn, 1988). This is true in society in general, and within residential facilities in particular.
It may seem like a contradiction that women with disabilities are not seen as sexual beings at the same time they are at a much greater risk of being sexually abused. Those who have studied sexual abuse, for example Cole (1984), have documented that sexual abuse has more to do with oppressive use of power than it has to do with sex. Based on their work with sex offenders, Longo and Gochenour (1981) report that sexual abuse is more related to issues of control and power than to sex. They claim that abusers look for and use vulnerability to create the opportunity to rape. This vulnerability is increased in people who are marginalized, dependent, and in need of affection. Thus, the more vulnerable and powerless people are, the more they are at risk of being sexually abused. Existing studies have documented that women with disabilities are at a greater risk than any other group of women of being sexually abused. Yet, professionals within the human service system continue to ignore this widespread abuse. These chilling realities have led Asch and Fine (1988: 23) to wonder "...how many of these same women have been sterilized to keep the effects of rape from the public eye."
Anderson, L. (185). The Lois Anderson story. In S. E. Browne, D. Connors, & N. Stern (Eds.), With the power of each breath: A disabled women's anthology. Pittsburgh, PA: Clies Press.
Asch, A., & Fine, M. (188). Introduction: Beyond pedestais. In M. Fine, & A. Asch (Eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Bowe, F. (1984). Disabled women in American: A statistical report drawn from census data. Washington, DC: President's Committee on Employment of the Handicaps.
Browne, S. E., Connors, D., & Stern, N. (Eds.). (1985). With the power of each breath: A disabled women's anthology. Pittsburgh, PA: Cleis Press.
Budd, K. S. & Greenspan, S. (1985). Parameters of successful and unsuccessful interventions with parents who are mentally retarded. Mental Retardation, 23 (6), 269-273.
Deegan, M. J. (1985). Multiple minority groups: A case study of physically disabled women. In M. J. Deegan, & N. A. Brookes, (Eds.), Women and disability: The double handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Deegan, M. J., & Brooks, N. A. (Eds.). (1985). Women and disability: The double handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Elsenstein, H., & Jardine, A. (Eds.). (1985). The future of difference. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Fine, M., & Asch, A. (Eds). (1988). Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Finger, A. (1985). Claiming all of our bodies: Reproductive rights and disability. In S. E. Brown, D. Connors, & N. Stern (Eds.), With the power of each breath: A disabled women's anthology. Pittsburgh, PA: Cleis Press.
Hannaford, S. (1985). Living outside inside: A disabled woman's experience: Towards a social and political perspective. Berkeley, CA: Canterbury Press.
Hyler, D. (1985). To choose a child. In S. E. Browne, D. Connors, & N. Stern (Eds.), With the power of each breath: A disabled women's anthology. Pittsburgh, PA: Clies Press.
LeMaistre, J. (1985). Parenting. In S. E. Browne, D. Connors, & N. Stern (Eds.), With the power of each breath: A disabled women's anthology. Pittsburgh, PA: Cleis Press.
Longo, R. E. & Gochenour, C. (1981). Sexual assault of handicapped individuals. Journal of Rehabilitation, 47, 24-27.
Sank, C., & Lafleche, E. (1981). Special sisters: Health issues for mentally retarded women. Off Our Backs, 11(5), 26-27.
Scheerenberger, R. C. (1987). A history of mental retardation: A quarter century of promise. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Senn, C. Y. (188). Vulnerable: Sexual abuse and people with an intellectual handicap. Toronto, Ontario: G. Allan Roeher Institute.
Shaul, S., Dowling, P. J., & Laden, B. F. (1985). Like other women: Perspectives of mothers with physical disabilities. In M. J. Deegan & N. A. Brooks (Eds.), Women and disability: The double handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Simon, B. L. (1988). Never-married old women and disability: A majority experience. In M. fine & A. Asch (Eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Sobsey, D., Gray, S., Wells, D., Pyper, D., & Relmer-Heck, B. (1990). Sexuality, Disability, and Abuse: An Annotated Bibliography. Edmonton, Alberta: The University of Alberta, Severe Disability Program.
Spelman, E. (1988). Inessential woman: Problems of exclusion in feminist thought. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Watson, J. D. (1984). Talking about the best kept secret: Sexual abuse and children with disabilities. Exceptional Parent, 14, 16-20.
Whitman, B. Y., & Accardo, P. J. (1990). When a parent is mentally retarded. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Wolfensberger, W. (1975). The origin and nature of our institutional models. Syracuse, NY: Human Policy press.
This article is based on a longer information package prepared under the auspices of the Research and Training Center on Community Integration. Center on Human Policy, Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Syracuse University, with support from the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, through Cooperative Agreement No. G0085CC03503. No endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of the opinions expressed herein should be inferred. The original report, Information Package on Women with Disabilities is available from the Center on Human Policy. To order, please write to Rachael Zubal, Center on Human Policy, 805 S. Crouse Avenue, Syracuse, NY 13244-2340.