#and i dont think some abled siblings are workong through their abelism when they talk about this

[spacexfucker]

Theres something weird to me about the "glass child" stuff and while I do totally believe that parents can emotionally neglect other children in favor of kids who need more focus, I also feel like it removes framing of disabled children and the fact that their needs are frequently more intensive than non disabled children.

My parents played favorites growing up and frequently forgot to even notice if I was home for days at a time. So I get the inherent negatives of emotional neglect. But the way I see some frame being a glass child online specifically in relation to a disabled sibling comes across as super abelist sometimes.

In relation specifically to time spent and accommodations. Like, a parent may have to spend double the amount of time with their disabled child for things like appointments or to be a carer for feedings and bathing etc but that doesn't automatically display neglect. A disabled child receiving more complex care doesn't mean neglect is taking place.

Disabled children do often need more care and time than other non disabled children do. And as long as emotional needs are met and time is still being spent, parents needing to reschedule events or spend more time with their disabled child isn't inherently bad. It's necessary.

I think it makes me uncomfortable because some of the ways I've seen people talk about this comes across as if the disabled child came out on top or benefited. Which just isn't the case? By nature of being disabled, the disabled child has no say in how their lives play out nor in what their parents do. I promise disabled children don't typically relish in the many different appointments and procedures and the dependency they have that goes beyond dependency of nondisabled kids.

There's obviously nuance here. I'm not makings sweeping statements. I'm just a little wary in general because abled people have a tendency to make disabled people's disability a personal trial. Where parents or siblings act like the disability impacts them more than it impacts the actual disabled person.

In a lot of those conversations I see a lot less of "my parents didn't make time to make sure I was ok" and more "due to having to take care of a disabled sibling, my parents didn't have time to make sure I was ok" which moves framing off the parents in terms of responsibility and onto the disabled child for existing. The implications being that if the child hadn't been disabled, things would have been different. When it should be that parents are responsible for fixing their shortcomings.

The fact of a family having a disabled member is not the defining factor of parental neglect. Because parental neglect can happen without disability being present. The neglect felt from parents who happen to have a disabled child is not due to having a disabled child. And in fact, would likely have occurred with any other additional stressors like finances, community, living situations, etc.

But a disabled child is not responsible for the neglect that parents inflict. And frequently, parents are neglecting both the abled child and the disabled child. Rates of abuse with disabled people is so high.

Framing this neglect would be best done with the full condemnation on the parents. Disabled children do not ask to be disabled and they do require more focused care. It's the parent's job to balance that with caring for their abled children.

I've seen a lot of these conversations steer into "my poor parents" territory. Using disabled children as a boogeyman that turned your mom into a forgetful wisp. But that's not true. The mom was always a forgetful wisp who couldn't support all her children under any additional pressures. The dad is still the asshole for failing to play catch enough.

As someone who was also neglected, I don't blame my siblings who were favored. I have other qualms with them due to interpersonal issues. But the favoritism and neglect were parental functions. Subsequently, I only blame my parents for those things.

Up until fairly recently (and to a slightly lesser extent now (but still prevelant)), disabled children very frequently were and are just removed from their homes and put into institutions. Disabled people to this day have to fight against that harm and fight for disabled people to take up space. It's the actions and beliefs of abled people that crafted the way things currently work. And that system makes caring for disabled people harder (due to lack of funds or research or accommodation etc).

And so sometimes I think someone may see a disabled child getting more time spent as unfair *even when it's medically necessary time. Or see rearranging events for disabled children as proof of favoritism. And while feeling are valid in the sense that it's ok to have them, it's important to acknowledge that disabled people in general need those things. Disabled people with carers or underage disabled people need more time spent for appointments and hygiene and feedings etc. Disabled adults will also have to move around events when possible to make their participation possible. A disabled child needing those things isn't bad. It's bad when the parents do nothing to pivot to their abled child to check in and spend personal time.