PART I

OBSTACLES TO EQUALITY:
The Double Discrimination of Women with Disabilities

Overview Article

by

Rannveig Traustadottir
Center on Human Policy

July 1990

INTRODUCTION

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 gender and discrimination based on disability. This paper examines the lives of women with disabilities and explores the effects of this double discrimination. It demonstrates how women with disabilities have been neglected by the disability field and the feminist movement alike and reviews the existing literature on women with disabilities, most of which has been written within the last decade. The paper will also 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 (1) the traditional female sphere of reproduction and nurturing; (2) education; and (3) employment.

HISTORY OF NEGLECT

Women with disabilities have historically been neglected by disability studies and feminist scholarship alike and issues of importance to women with disabilities have, for the most part, been ignored by the disability rights movement as well as the women's movement.

The Disability Field

Almost all research on people with disabilities has assumed the irrelevance of gender as well as other social dimensions such as social class, race, 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 to be not merely the "master" status, but apparently the exclusive status for disabled people" (Asch & Fine, 1988: 3).

Disability studies have traditionally used a gender blind approach to examine the lives of people with disabilities 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 the specific needs of women with disabilities (Asch & Fine, 1988; Kutza, 1985; Mudrick, 1988).

The disability rights movement has also ignored issues of importance to women with disabilities and many feminists with disabilities have complained about its male domination and male orientation (Blackwell-Stratton, et al., 1988; Toews, 1985). Deegan and Brooks (1985: 1) have criticized the disability rights movement for directing most of its attention to male concerns while women's issues, such as child-bearing problems, have received little attention. They point out that, "Like many other social change movements, the disability movement has often directed its energies toward primarily male experiences." This makes many feminists with disabilities uneasy members of the disability rights movements, for example, Israel and McPherson (1983: 20), who describe how "Disabled feminists...feel uncomfortable in the disability movement because it is often male dominated and at times blatantly sexist."

The Feminist Movement

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 & Asch, 1988; Hannaford, 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., Eisenstein & 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).

Women with disabilities have described their exclusion from the women's movements because meetings and conferences are typically held in inaccessible places (Israel, 1985). In addition, materials are usually available in print only, not in Braille or on tape, and sign language interpretation is rarely offered. Mary Jane Owen (1986; 1988), a scholar who became blind in adulthood, has written sarcastic accounts of her frustrations when the feminist scholarship she was used to reading was no longer available to her because it did not exist on tape or in Braille.

Not only has the women's movement been criticized for being physically inaccessible to women with disabilities, it has also been criticized for ignoring the issues facing women with disabilities in general (Blackwell-Stratton, et al., 1988; Davis, 1987; Finger, 1985) and women with mental retardation in particular Boyle, et al., 1988; Sank & Lafleche, 1981). Some feminists with disabilities have found the lesbian movement to be more accepting than the women's movement in general. For example, Israel and McPherson (1983: 21) claim that within the feminist movement, "Nondisabled lesbian feminists have been more sensitive than heterosexual feminists...in responding to the needs of disabled women at their conferences and events."

Women with disabilities are typically seen as helpless, childlike, dependent, needy, victimized, and passive. They therefore reinforce traditional stereotypes of women. Asch and Fine (1988: 4) suggest this may be one of the reasons why women with disabilities have been excluded from the women's movement. They suggest, "...non-disabled feminists have severed them from the sisterhood in an effort to advance more powerful, competent, and appealing female icons."

A DECADE OF WRITINGS

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 overwhelming majority of the writings on women with disabilities have been published within the past decade. The year 1981 was a turning point. That year a number of publications addressed the lives of women with disabilities, among them a British anthology edited by Jo Campling (1981) containing the writings of 23 women with disabilities describing their lives and experiences of being female and having a disability. The same year, Duffy (1981) published a book about the sexuality of women with disabilities that is still hailed as one of the best writings on the subject. In May of 1981 the feminist journal Off Our Backs devoted a whole issue to women with disabilities and later the same year the Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare published an issue devoted to the theme "Women and disability: The double handicap." This issue included an article by Fine and Asch (1981), "Disabled women: Sexism without the pedestal." Their conceptualization of women with disabilities as "roleless" has had a significant influence and gained much note in subsequent literature.

In 1983 another scholarly journal, the Journal of Visual Impairments and Blindness, devoted an entire issue to women with disabilities. The same year a book based on interviews with 45 women with disabilities was published in Canada. The author, Gwyneth Matthews (1983), has a physical disability and the book is a mixture of her autobiography and the interviews. In 1984 the President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped published a report (Bowe, 1984) containing statistical information about women with disabilities that clearly demonstrated the disadvantaged status of women with disabilities in terms of education, employment, and income, compared to both their male counterparts and non-disabled women. An edited volume addressing the major issues for women in mental health was published in 1984 (Walker, 1984) and two feminist books focusing on health issues included women with disabilities. The new our bodies, ourselves Boston Women's Health Book Collective, 1984) was published in a new edition which incorporated a disability perspective into most chapters and an edited volume on reproductive technologies, Test tube women: What future for motherhood? (Arditti, Klein, & Minden, 1984), which included chapters by women with disabilities where they discuss, among other things, the moral dilemma between disability rights and reproductive rights.

In 1985 the first major collection of scholarly writings about women with disabilities was published (Deegan & Brooks, 1985). The eleven chapters in this volume focus on the double minority status of women with disabilities, the lack of information about their lives and experiences, and the need to change the conditions that perpetuate the structural inequality women with disabilities experience. The book's conceptualization around women with disabilities as a multiple minority group has had significant influence on other people's thinking and writing. The year 1985 also saw a collection of essays written by Susan Hannaford (1985), a feminist and disability rights activist, and a collection of essays, poetry, and first-person accounts by women with disabilities (Browne, Connors, & Stern, 1985). In 1987, Saxton and Howe edited an anthology of literature by and about women with disabilities with more literary ambition than previous anthologies, resulting in a collection of writings of high literary quality.

In 1988, a second edited volume of scholarly writings about women with disabilities was published. The authors of this volume, Fine and Asch (1988), have been among the leading scholars in this area and their volume is the most comprehensive edited collection of scholarly writings about women with disabilities to date.

Disabled, Female, and Proud!, a book providing positive role models for women and girls with disabilities was published in 1988. The book is edited by Rousso (1988) and contains stories of ten contemporary women with disabilities who have "made it" and can serve as role models for other women with disabilities. The first comprehensive book on sexual abuse of women and children with mental retardation was published in Canada in 1988 (Senn, 1988) documenting the extreme vulnerability of this group and high incidents of abuse. Also published in 1988 was, Why can't Sharon Kowalski come home? (Thompson & Andrezejewski, 1988). The book tells the story of a lesbian couple, one of whom becomes disabled in a car accident, and has directed attention to the vulnerability of lesbian women with disabilities because of the combined oppression of handicapism, sexism, and homophobia.

Characteristics of the Literature

The major characteristic of the literature on women with disabilities is its diversity. This literature crosses disciplines and politics, and is 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. 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. 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. 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. Women with disabilities are not seen as fit to fill the traditional roles of a 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 a 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 underrepresented in the literature. In addition, despite an attempt to incorporate diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, and class, women of color still remain underrepresented. 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 traditional female sphere of reproduction and nurturing; education; and employment.

MARRIAGE, NURTURANCE, SEXUALITY, REPRODUCTION

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.

Intimacy and Marriage

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 (Asch & Fine, 1988; Hannaford, 1989; Simon, 1988). While 60% of non-disabled women and men with disabilities are married, only 49% of women with disabilities are married (Bowe, 1984). Comparison of divorce rates of women and men with disabilities seem to suggest that women with disabilities are more likely to be left alone than men (Fine & Asch, 1981) and when disability occurs after marriage men are much more likely to divorce their wives who become disabled, while the marriage rarely breaks down if it is the man who becomes disabled (Hannaford, 1989). These realities are reflected in the writings where women with disabilities describe their lives. For example, only five of the forty-five women interviewed by Matthews (1983) were married and there is hardly a mention of marriage in a collection of first-person accounts written by more than sixty women (Browne, Connors, & Stern, 1985). 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. Hannaford (1989) suggests that 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 than no relationship at all.

Although non-disabled lesbians have been reported to be more accepting of women with disabilities within their meetings and conferences (Israel & McPherson, 1983), the literature seems to indicate that lesbians with disabilities have the same difficulties as heterosexual women with disabilities in establishing intimate, long-lasting relationships with a partner (Asch & Fine, 1988).

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.

Motherhood and Nurturance

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 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). The widespread belief that women with disabilities cannot and should not bear and raise children has made it difficult for pregnant women with disabilities to find doctors who will accept them. They have also found it problematic to gain access to information and services related to their special needs (Finger, 1985; Women and Disability Awareness Project, 1989). When women with disabilities do become mothers they encounter many difficulties because the non-disabled world assumes that the disability makes them unfit to be mothers. Many lose custody of their children in divorce while others may have their children removed from their care by social welfare agencies, solely on the grounds that they have a disability (Corbett, 1989). Not only have women with disabilities reported difficulties in becoming biological mothers and keeping custody of their own children, they have also encountered discrimination if they have attempted to adopt children or become foster mothers (Asch and Fine, 1988; Finger, 1985). If they manage to keep their children they may encounter further difficulties in dealing with early childhood programs that traditionally have neglected and ignored the needs of mothers with disabilities.

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; Roth, 1981), 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; Shilling, et al., 1982; Whitman & Accardo, 1990). Few, if any, resources are available that presents their own point of view and how they experience motherhood. One of the few resources available about this group of mothers found that 25% of them had had their children removed from their 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 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 (Simmons, 1982). The preventative measures taken against this threat included large scale forced sterilization (Scheerenberger, 1987) and institutions for "feeble minded women of child-bearing age" were established, 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).

Sexuality and Sexual Abuse

It is widely documented that women with disabilities are typically seen as asexual (Asch & Fine, 1988; Finger, 1985; Matthews, 1983; Shaul, Dowling, & Laden, 1985; Waxman, 1989). 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. Some women with disabilities have criticized the disability rights movement for not addressing sexuality as a political issue similar to housing and transportation. For example, Waxman (1989: 2) claims that many people with disabilities consider sexuality to be the area of greatest oppression: "We are more concerned with being loved and finding sexual fulfillment than getting on a bus." Some authors have speculated about the pervasive stereotype of women with disabilities as asexual, for example Finger (1985), who suggests that at least part of this stereotyping stems from seeing people with disabilities as eternal children. Others (Shaul, Dowling, & Laden, 1985) have suggested that people without disabilities tend to view sex as an acrobatic activity which makes it difficult for them to imagine how people with physical impairments can be sexually active.

Sexual abuse of women and children with disabilities is an area that has received growing attention in recent years (Watson, 1984). Much of the literature in this area is based on studies which show that women with disabilities are at a much greater risk of being sexually abused than other women (Craine, et al., 1988; Musick, 1984; Senn, 1988). This is true in society in general, and within residential facilities in particular. One author reports that sexual assault and battering may be two or three times higher for women with disabilities than for other women (O'Toole, 1990). Others report that women in institutions are at a much greater risk of being sexually abused than other women with disabilities (Musick, 1984; Stefan, 1987).

It may seem like a contradiction that women with disabilities are not seen as sexual beings and 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."

Reproductive Rights and Disability Rights

The area of reproductive rights has been problematic for many women with disabilities and has been a source of tension between feminists with disabilities and the women's movement. Feminists with disabilities have criticized the reproductive rights movement for ignoring the forced sterilization of women with disabilities; for failing to address the denial of reproductive rights to women with disabilities; and for exploiting fears of disability when it argues for abortion (Fine & Asch, 1982; Finger, 1985). Many of those who struggle with the moral dilemma between disability rights and reproductive rights are feminists with disabilities who are pro-choice, but argue against selective abortion of "defective" fetuses (Asch, 1986; Saxton, 1987). They argue that the disability rights movement and the reproductive rights movement share a tradition of commitment to women's control over their lives and bodies. They see the battles of these two movements as intertwined; one movement should not try to further its cause at the cost of the other and women's equality with men should not be obtained by subverting the equality and potentiality of people with disabilities. The current trend of prenatal screening and abortion of fetuses identified as disabled has also been criticized, and feminists with disabilities challenge the assumptions about disabilities that underlie these practices (Asch, 1986; Saxton, 1987). They have demonstrated how oppressive attitudes against disability dominate the counseling given to pregnant women and have challenged the assumption that the world would be a better place without people born with disabilities (Saxton, 1987). While the vast majority of writings on the moral dilemma between disability rights and reproductive rights have argued that these are compatible rights, at least one author has taken a different standpoint. Davis (1987) argues that disability rights and reproductive rights are incompatible and that abortion is far from being a right. Instead, abortion underlines women's oppression and is counter-productive to women in general and to women with disabilities in particular.

EDUCATION

Access to education still remains a major problem for people with disabilities, not least for women with disabilities. This section will examine some of the educational barriers experienced by women and girls with disabilities.

The Statistics

When it comes to education, women with disabilities are likely to report less education than both non-disabled women and men with disabilities. Women with disabilities are five times as likely as women without disabilities to have less than eight years of formal education; 17.4% of all women with disabilities have less than 8 years of formal education as compared to 3.5% of non-disabled women. Only 16% of all women with disabilities are likely to have any college education compared to 31% of non-disabled women and 28% of men with disabilities (Bowe, 1984).

Special Education Placement and Gender

Children with disabilities have traditionally been educated in segregated special schools or segregated classes within regular schools and their education has been vastly inferior to the mainstream regular education. Past decades have seen progress toward integrated education for students with disabilities, mostly due to a federal initiative in the form of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, also known as PL 94-142. This law was enacted in 1975 to guarantee children with disabilities free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. Despite the progress most students with disabilities are still educated in segregation from their non-handicapped peers.

Most studies indicate that boys are more likely to be identified as needing special education than girls. While boys count for 51% of all students in elementary and secondary schools, they can count for up to 75% of students in special education classes (Russo & Jansen, 1988). Researchers have speculated why boys are more readily identified as needing special education. Some authors have suggested that this reflects discrimination against boys with disabilities and deprives them from the benefits of regular education. They suggest that boys are more readily labelled as having a disability and channeled into special education on the grounds of disruptive behaviors. Others have suggested that the overrepresentation of boys in special education reflects the view that educating boys with disabilities is regarded as a priority; they are seen as in need of special education services in order to develop the skills to be able to support themselves and a family later on (Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, 1983; Russo & Jansen, 1988).

Research also indicates that boys labelled as having mental retardation have higher IQs than girls with the same label. Gillespie-Silver and Heshusius (1981) have suggested that the reason for this may be that the stereotypes of a female and a person with mental retardation are very similar, both are seen as illogical, dependent, emotional, and needing protection. Girls may therefore not be labelled as having mental retardation unless they have significantly low intelligence.

Although the overrepresentation of boys in special education is one of the best documented gender-influence on special education placement, at least one study has reported girls as overrepresented in certain types of special educational programs. In their study of 8,000 people with disabilities, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (1983) found among other things that girls with physical disabilities were more likely to be placed in segregated special schools than boys with physical disabilities. The authors suggest that these differences stem from the assumption that males must support themselves and a family and therefore need a better education.

The influence of gender on labelling and special education placement is further complicated by the influence of race and class. It has been documented that children, especially boys, of minority races are grossly overrepresented in special education programs, especially programs for students with mild mental retardation (Jones, 1976; Mercer, 1973; Tomlinson, 1982).

A Complicated Picture

Research clearly indicates that boys and girls with the same disability often receive different kinds of education (Women and Disability Awareness Project, 1989). This suggests that gender may play a significant role in how students are identified for educational services. At the same time, studies that have examined the relationship between gender and special educational placement seem to report conflicting findings. We do know that gender can influence special educational placement but we do not know how. Some of the research seems to indicate that the influence of gender may vary between disability groups. In addition, the interaction between gender, disability, and race complicates the picture. It seems safe to conclude that there is a need for more research in this area in order to understand the relationship between special education placement, disability, gender, class, and race.

Special Education and Sex-Role Stereotyping

While all students, males and females, with and without disabilities are subject to sex-biased assumptions in most schools and curriculum, research seems to indicate that sex-role stereotyping may be even more pervasive when students have disabilities. For example, Gillespie and Fink (1974) found that sex-role stereotyping seemed to be especially pervasive for children who have mental retardation or behavioral problems. They report that these students tended to be taught traditional sex-role modes of behavior because that would supposedly enable them to better adjust to society. The authors also found that schoolbooks for children with disabilities tended to include stories and illustrations that were deliberately sex-role stereotypical in order to foster this adjustment.

Higher Education

Higher education continues to be a challenge for women with disabilities. Like men with disabilities, they face accessibility problems; unwillingness on behalf of educational institutions to provide accommodations for disabilities; and lack of special services such as readers for blind students. In addition to the problems women with disabilities share with their male counterparts, they face additional barriers. Like non-disabled women, women with disabilities are channeled into traditional female fields by school counselors and they are likely to encounter even greater obstacles than non-disabled women if they attempt to pursue a career in male-dominated professions (Russo & Jansen, 1988). In addition to being channeled into traditional female fields by educational and career counsellors, women with disabilities often receive pressure from such counselors to pursue a career in disability related fields such as rehabilitation counseling or special education (Davis & Marshall, 1987). Russo and Jansen (1988) suggest that the combined effects of gender and disability stereotyping tracks women with disabilities into the most traditional female roles. As a result, women with disabilities are unlikely to have the educational opportunities that will allow them access to highly valued, well-paying professional positions.

EMPLOYMENT

This section examines the specific employment barriers women with disabilities experience and compares their situation to non-disabled women and men with disabilities.

Comparing Men and Women with Disabilities

While men with disabilities have serious employment problems, women with disabilities are significantly worse off and this seems to be true for all types and levels of disabilities. Men with disabilities are almost twice as likely to have jobs than women with disabilities. Almost 42% of men with disabilities are in the labor force (meaning that they either work or are actively seeking work), compared to 24% of women. In addition, while more than 30% of men with disabilities work full-time jobs, only 12% of women with disabilities have full time employment (Bowe, 1984). Women with disabilities are also significantly poorer than men with disabilities, partly due to the fact that they are more likely to be unemployed and partly due to the fact that when they work they receive considerably lower wages than men with disabilities. Women with disabilities who work full-time earn only 56% of what full-time employed men with disabilities do (Bowe, 1984).

Gender-Biases in Rehabilitation Services

A handful of studies have been conducted to examine and explain the unequal employment status of women with disabilities as compared to men with disabilities. In a study of gender equity in access to rehabilitation services, Menz, et al., (1989) found that nationally, women represent less than one-third of the population in rehabilitation programs. They also found that women were more likely to be "successfully rehabilitated" into part-time jobs or to a homemaker status, while men were more likely to enter full-time jobs in the labor force. The authors suggest that the reasons for these differences are gender-biased assumptions about women, men, and work: "Women with disabilities face 'double jeopardy' based on both their disability and their gender... The stereotypes ascribed to people with disabilities and women, in general, condones passivity, dependence, helplessness and failure" (Menz, et al., 1989: 32). These attitudes seem to be shared by the general public and rehabilitation counselors, the result being that women with disabilities are less likely to be referred to vocational training; have a harder time gaining access to rehabilitation programs; are less likely to get quality training; and are more likely to be "successfully rehabilitated" into non-employment.

Women with Disabilities and Disability Policy

The impact of disability policy on women with disabilities has been the focus of a small number of studies. For example, Kutza (1985) examined the impact of current U.S. disability policy on women with disabilities. She demonstrates how the major programs designed to assist people with disabilities, such as supplemental security income, disability insurance, workers' compensation, and vocational rehabilitation, disadvantage women because of their relationship to labor market participation. The study found that not only did women receive fewer benefits than men, they also received lower benefits. Thus, these programs do not protect women with disabilities from the economic threats associated with disability to the same extent they protect men.

A similar study of the influence of income support on the lives of women with disabilities was conducted by Mudrick (1988). She found that compared to men with disabilities, women with disabilities received less from public income support programs, despite their often greater need. Mudrick demonstrates how crucial income support is to the livelihood of women with disabilities. At the same time, income support is usually both less accessible and smaller for women with disabilities than for men with disabilities. Mudrick suggests the reason for this is partly due to the misfit between women's work patterns and the design of the programs, and partly rooted in the stereotypical attitudes toward women's economic roles and women's family roles, as well as attitudes toward people with disabilities.

Women with Developmental Disabilities

The studies reviewed above have mostly been conducted with women who have physical impairments. Women with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities have traditionally been neglected by those who have examined the employment situation of women with disabilities. The developmental disability field has recently devoted increasing attention to the importance of employment and a new federal initiative, supported employment, has been developed to assist even those with the most severe disabilities to get and hold a job. The newly found emphasis on employment in the field of developmental disabilities recognizes the importance of productive work as a means to achieve social equality and financial independence, and supported employment programs are now being developed across the country. Despite a wealth of recent writings on employment for people with developmental disabilities, the specific barriers women with developmental disabilities face have basically been ignored. It appears as though those who write about employment for people with mental retardation assume that gender, as well as class, race and other social dimensions, are irrelevant. Having mental retardation is seen as such an overpowering characteristic that it makes all other social dimensions irrelevant. A search through the literature on employment for people with developmental disabilities only brought two resources that mention sex differences. In their study of employment outcomes for young adults with mental retardation Kregel and Wehman (1989) make a passing remark about sex-differences. The study focused on a group of 186 adolescents with mental retardation, between the age of 18 and 22, who had been placed in competitive jobs through supported employment programs. Among other things, they found a "...disproportionate representation of males (68 percent male to 32 percent female) in the population of placed consumers" (Kregel & Wehman, 1989: 265). In an earlier study Hill, et al (1985) found a similar trend among a group of 155 people with mental retardation between the age of 16 and 66. This was a long term study of people who had been placed in various competitive jobs by one supported employment program and focused on, "client and family demographic characteristics in relation to a successful vocational outcome defined as retention in employment six months after the date of first placement" (Hill, et al., 1985: 69, emphasis in original). Among the findings of the study were that the majority of people being placed through the program were males, or 66%, while females represented only 34% of those who received jobs through the program. The study also showed that males were more likely to reach the successful retention rate of 6 months, or 70%, compared to 55% of the females. A significant number of the 155 people in this study had a secondary handicap, in addition to the label of mental retardation. Thus, 24% are reported to have had behavior disorders; 10% had cerebral palsy; 12% had mobility impairments; 5% had impaired hearing; 10% had visual impairment; nearly 10% had limited use of arms or hands; and 5% had schizophrenia. One of the interesting findings of this study is that, except for the people who were identified as having schizophrenia, the secondary handicap did not seem to influence the retention rate. That is, people with secondary handicaps, in addition to the label of mental retardation, had either the same retention rate, or slightly higher retention rate than the general mental retardation population. These findings seem to indicate that, when it comes to employment of people with mental retardation, being a woman may be a greater handicap than having physical, sensory, or behavioral handicaps. Only schizophrenia seems to be as severe a handicap in terms of getting and keeping a job as being female. This study is perhaps the only study which has examined gender inequality in employment services for people with developmental disabilities. The findings of the study seem to indicate that women with mental retardation face the same physical discrimination as other women with disabilities.

Comparing Women With and Without Disabilities

A comparison between women with disabilities and non-disabled women also reveals the disadvantage of women with disabilities. The past few decades have seen a revolutionary increase of women's participation in the paid labor force. Especially noticeable has been the increased number of working mothers (Berg, 1986; Fox & Hesse-Biber, 1984). In 1970, 45% of non-disabled women were in the labor force, while by 1982, 64% of women participated in the labor force and more than 51% of mothers with preschool children were working (Berg 1986; Bowe, 1984). Women with disabilities have not been a part of the women's employment revolution. In 1982 only 20% of women with disabilities had jobs (Asch & Fine, 1988; Bowe, 1984; Russo & Jansen, 1988). Employment policies have devoted little attention to the disadvantaged employment status of women with disabilities. This seems to hold true of both the generic state and federal employment policies as well as the employment policies directed specifically towards people with disabilities.

The evidence available to date leads to the conclusion that the economy in general, and the specialized services in particular, restrict the employment opportunities and lives of women with disabilities.

Women, Work, and Mental Health

The increase in women's labor force participation, and especially the dramatic increase of working mothers, has led to some speculation about the possible negative effect on women's mental health because of the added stress employment may bring to women who already have the primary responsibility for childrearing and other demands within the family. In a study of the relationship between women's work and women's mental health, Sales and Frieze (1984) found that the influence of women's increased employment participation is primarily positive and very few negative effects have been found. Their study indicates that work is a source of self-esteem and satisfaction for most women and, as a central contributor to adult adjustment, participation in the labor force may be health enhancing for women. They also report that the group of women who is most at risk of having mental health problems are non-white, non-married, non-employed women, and women who live in social isolation with limited social roles. This suggests that women with disabilities may be at greater risk than most other women of having mental health problems as a result of their social isolation and the limited social roles available to them, including their limited access to labor force participation.

CONCLUSION

Women with disabilities have historically been neglected by those concerned with issues of disability as well as the feminist movement. It is only within the last decade that serious attempts have been made to identify and understand the forces shaping their lives. These attempts have mainly focused on understanding how being female and having a disability interacts and how women with disabilities view their experiences. This decade of writing has provided us with rich personal accounts as well as research-based information about the social situation of women with disabilities and a long awaited theoretical framework to understand and interpret their lives and experiences. This new and emerging scholarship is somewhat limited and much remains to be learned about women with disabilities. At the same time this scholarship provides the basis and the promise for future advances. Women with disabilities are one of the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in today's society. We need to develop a better understanding of their lives in order to remove the obstacles that still remain in their way to equality.

REFERENCES

Anderson, L. (1985). 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: Cleis Press.

Arditti, R., Klein, R. D., & Minden, S. (Eds.) (1984). Test tube women: What future for motherhood? Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Asch, A. (1986). Real moral dilemma. Christianity and Crisis, 46(10), 237-240.

Asch, A., & Fine, M. (1988). Introduction: Beyond pedestals. In M. Fine & A. Asch (Eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Being blind, being a woman. (1983). Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 77(6) [Special issue].

Berg, B. J. (1986). The crisis of the working mother: Resolving the conflict between family and work. New York: Summit Books.

Blackwell-Stratton, M., Breslin, M. L., Mayerson, B. A., & Bailey, S. (1988). Smashing icons: Disabled women and the disability and women's movements. In M. Fine & A. Asch (Eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Boston Women's Health Book Collective. (1984). The new our bodies, our selves (Revised ed.). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Bowe, F. (1984). Disabled women in America: A statistical report drawn from census data. Washington, DC: President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped.

Boyle, G., Rioux, M., Ticoll, M., & Felske, A. W. (1988). Women and disabilities: A national forum. Entourage, 3(4), 9-13.

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.

Campling, J. (Ed.) (1981). Images of ourselves: Women with disabilities talking. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Cole, S. S. (1984). Facing the challenges of sexual abuse in persons with disabilities. Sexuality and Disability, 7(3/4), 71-88.

Corbett, K. (1989). Disabled mom loses kids. New Directions for Women, September/October, 1989, 4-5.

Craine, L. S., Henson, C. E., Colliver, J. A., & McLelan, D. G. (1988). Prevalence of a history of sexual abuse among female psychiatric patients in a state hospital system. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 39(3), 300-304.

Davis, A. (1987). Women with disabilities: Abortion and liberation. Disability, Handicap & Society, 2(3), 276-284.

Davis, M., & Marchall, C. (1987). Female and disabled: Challenged women in education. Perspective, 5(3), 39-41.

Deegan, M. J., & Brooks, N. A. (Eds.) (1985). Women and disability: The double handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. (1983). The disabled women's project: Report of survey results. Washington, DC: Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund.

Duffy, Y. (1981). All things are possible. Ann Arbor, MI: A.J. Garvin Associates.

Eisenstein, H., & Jardine, A. (Eds.) (1985). The future of difference. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1981). Disabled women: Sexism without the pedestal. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 8(2), 233-248.

Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1982). The question of disability: No easy answer for the women's movement. The Reproductive Rights Newsletter, 4(3), 19-20.

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.

Fox, M. F., & Hesse-Biber, S. (1984). Women at work. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Gillespie, P., & Fink, A. (1974). The influence of sexism on education of handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 41(3).

Gillespie-Silver, P., & Heshusius, L. (1981). Mental retardation: A double standard for the sexes. Equal Play, Winter/Spring 1981, 16-18.

Hannaford, S. (1985). Living outside inside: A disabled woman's experience: Towards a social and political perspective. Berkeley, CA: Canterbury Press.

Hannaford, S. (1989). Women, disability and society. Interface, June 1989, 10-12.

Hill, J. W., Hill, M., Wehman, P., Banks, P. D., Pendleton, P., & Britt, C. (1985). Demographic analysis related to successful job retention for competitively employed persons who are mentally retarded. In P. Wehman & J. W. Hill (Eds.), Competitive employment for persons with mental retardation: From research to practice (Vol. I). Richmond, VA: Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, Virginia Commonwealth University.

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: Cleis Press.

Israel, P. (1985). Editorial. Resources for Feminist Research, 14(1), 1-3.

Israel, P., & McPherson, C. (1983). Introduction. In G. F. Matthews, Voices from the shadow: Women with disabilities speak out. Toronto, Ontario: The Women's Educational Press.

Jones, R. L.(Ed.) (1976). Mainstreaming and the minority child. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Kregel, J., & Wehman, P. (1989). An analysis of the employment outcomes of young adults with mental retardation. In P. Wehman & J. Kregel (Eds.), Supported employment for persons with disabilities: Focus on excellence. New York, NY: Human Sciences Press.

Kutza, E. A. (1985). Benefits for the disabled: How beneficial for women? In M. J. Deegan & N. A. Brooks (Eds.), Women and disability: The double handicap. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

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.

Matthews, G. F. (1983). Voices from the shadow: Women with disabilities speak out. Toronto, Ontario: The Women's Educational Press.

Menz, F. E., Hansen, G., Smith, H., Brown,C., Ford, M., & McCrowey, G. (1989). Gender equity in access, services and benefits from vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Rehabilitation, January/February/March, 31-40.

Mercer, J. R. (1973). Labelling the mentally retarded. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Mudrick, N. A. (1988). Disabled women and public policies for income support. In M. Fine & A. Asch (Eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Musick, J. L. (1984). Patterns of institutional sexual abuse. Response to Violence in the Family and Sexual Assault, 7(3), 1-11.

O'Toole, C. J. (1990). Violence and sexual assault plague many disabled women. New Directions for Women, January/February, 1990, 17.

Owen, M. J. (1986). Women's studies. The Disability Rag, July/August 1986, 28-29.

Owen, M. J. (1988). Women's studies revisited: An immodest expectation. Kaleidoscope, Winter/Spring 1988, 20-21.

Roth, W. (1981). Brenda Clark. In W. Roth (Ed.), The handicapped speak out. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Rousso, H. (Ed.) (1988). Disabled, female and proud! Ten stories of women with disabilities. Boston, MA: Exceptional Parent Press.

Russo, N. F., & Jansen, M. A. (1988). Women, work, and disability: Opportunities and challenges. In M. Fine & A. Asch (Eds.), Women with disabilities: Essays in psychology, culture, and politics. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Sales, E., & Frieze, I. H. (1984). Women and work: Implications for mental health. In L. E. Walker (Ed.), Women and mental health policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sank, C., & Lafleche, E. (1981). Special sisters: Health issues for mentally retarded women. Off Our Backs, 11(5), 26-27.

Saxton, M. (1987). Prenatal screening and discriminatory attitudes about disability. GeneWATCH, January-February, 1987, 8-10.

Saxton, M., & Howe, F. (Eds.). (1987). With wings: An anthology of literature by and about women with disabilities. New York: The Feminist Press.

Scheerenberger, R. C. (1987). A history of mental retardation: A quarter century of promise. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Senn, C. Y. (1988). 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.

Shilling, R. F., Schinke, S. P., Blythe, B. J., & Bart, R. P. (1982). Child maltreatment and mentally retarded parents: Is there a relationship? Mental Retardation, 20(5), 201-209.

Simmons, H. G. (1982). From asylum to welfare. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation.

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.

Spelman, E. (1988). Inessential woman: Problems of exclusion in feminist thought. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Stefan, S. (1987). Women in the mental health system. Update: The Mental Health Law Project, 6(4/5), 4-5.

Thompson, K., & Andrezejewski, J. (1988). Why can't Sharon Kowalski come home? San Francisco, CA: Spinsters/Aunt Lute.

Toews, C. (1985). Two battlefronts: The women's movement and the disabled consumers' movement. Resources for Feminist Research, 14(1), 7-9.

Tomlinson, S. (1982). A sociology of special education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Walker, L. E. (Ed.) (1984). Women and mental health policy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Watson, J. D. (1984). Talking about the best kept secret: Sexual abuse and children with disabilities. Exceptional Parent, 14, 16-20.

Waxman, B. F. (1989). The politics of sex and disability. Disability Studies Quarterly, 9(3), 1-5.

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.

Women and disability: The double handicap. (1981). Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 8(2) [Special issue].

Women and Disability Awareness Project. (1989). Building community: A manual exploring issues of women and disability. New York, NY: Educational Equity Concepts.

Women with disabilities. (1981). Off Our Backs, 11(5) [Special issue].

Return to Table of Contents

More About the CHP

What's New

CHP Activities

Publications and Resources

Other Disability Links