The problem is that overnight he was the most important and famous disabled person in the world, and even though the whole world was listening to what he had to say, he did not speak for the majority of disabled people.

He got this attention immediately after a life-shattering accident, which understandably has an emotional process to it, yet his early feelings and opinions, which least represent what even other people with his exact injury feel years later as they go about their lives, are what ended up being the story about disability.

He and his cause got the attention and even some money that might otherwise have gone to helping disabled people with more immediate day-to-day needs.

He was rich and famous enough that he didn’t experience many of the barriers the rest of us face, so he could afford to say access issues aren’t important. He had a job to return to. He didn’t appear to lack medical care because of fiancial concerns. He wasn’t by any means a typical representation of the life of a quadriplegic person, yet he was represented as such.

He refused to publicly engage with the criticism of his disabled peers. But more importantly, he was used by the media — and many have suggested by the scientific community that stood to gain million of research dollars from any momentum he could create for them — in such a way that possibly even kept him in that bubble of hope other quads say they move on from eventually in order to live their lives.

More simply, he was a symbol unfairly thrust upon disabled people. He impacted the quality of our lives by not representing us accurately. And much of that wasn’t his fault.

From looking over some of this, it seems that

1) Christopher Reeve, having become disabled, put a lot of effort into raising funds for a cure for his disability.
2) He put no effort into trying to change laws and culture to make our society more compatible with the needs of disabled people.
3) There are a number of eloquent disabled people who are not happy with this?

Do I have that right? Do I oversimplify? And if I’ve got it right, what’s the problem with what the man did?

In my experience, while there is a disability community, most disabled people are not part of it and do not want to be - and here I am not talking about simply not wanting to be disabled, I mean they have no particular interest in either their social life or personal identity being centered around their disabiltiy.

I’d agree with this, except that while some have no interest in either the social life (?) or personal identity, some don’t even know there are a group of people out there that they might really relate to and have political goals in common with. I think most disabled people are very isolated from other disabled people. And when they do meet up, the societal idea that disability is all negative makes them ashamed to make a positive connection through that identity.

FWIW, I don’t find the Barney Frank analogy to be a very accurate one, it’s part of a piece showing the tradition of critiquing public figures with disabilities who don’t speak for all of us. But it does present something interesting to think about.

Imagine the black civil rights movement only having MLK, Jr. and not Malcolm X too, or feminism having Susie Bright without Dworkin. It would really skew the perception of what those political groups want and need. Having only Reeve is/was the same way. It’d be a great luxury to have the media’s attention on disability rights enough that there didn’t need to be some inaccurate binary division of what such a diverse group of people want, need, and are about.

Is there legitimate criticisms? Yes. To the extent that Reeves put down the DRA reponse, he can be criticised on the same grounds for which I am criticizing DRAers who criticize his approach. More importantly, society and the media can be criticized for emphasizing only one type of response over another, or for assuming that any disabled person speakseither for all or most disabled people or the “disability community”. In my experience, while there is a disability community, most disabled people are not part of it and do not want to be - and here I am not talking about simply not wanting to be disabled, I mean they have no particular interest in either their social life or personal identity being centered around their disabiltiy.

Most members of what could be called the disability community are DRAers. Advocating for group rights is a natural outcome of forming a group, and the focus of DRAers is positive and neccesary. But the disbility community should not presume to speak for all disabled persons anymore than a particular disabled person should presume to speak for the disability community.

To respond to the analogy of a “Barney Frank foundation to cure homosexuals”, let me propose an analogy: Consider people experience social and psychological pain because they are psychologically feminine but biologically male. There are three possible solutions:
1. They can attempt conseling and personal growth to become more psychologically masculine.
2. They can have surgical operations and hormone therapy to become biologically female.
3. They can attempt conseling and personal growth to accept and be comfortable with being a feminine person in a male body.
Now, I personally do not believe that any one of these choices is “wrong”, nor would I criticize anyone in such a position for advocating any of these as a way to deal with their situation. #1 is the most problematic, as it conforms to society’s expectations, and could therefor be seen as a pasive attack on #2 & #3, and so I might want a person advocating that one to declare at reasonable intervals non-oposition to the others, but I do not see why a person avocating for either #2 or #3 should be criticized for not spending time extoling the virtues of either of the other two.

I guess, applying this analogy, I can see how Reeves’ advocacy conformed to society’s prejudices more, and it might be legitimate to criticize him for not acknowledging the neccessity of disability rightd periodically. But I still cannot see that he should be criticized for not making disability rights his focus, or for spending his entire life as a disabled person advocating and hoping for The Cure.