More assertion than question, it seems to me… generalizing and suggestive.
Therefore: No, in my experience this is not the case.
The only people with disabilities who are systematically patronised are people for whom care has been requested.
Very nicely described here (http://www.dgvbv.de/html/betreuu…), quote:
“People who are no longer able to take care of their affairs alone, for example due to a disability, physical or mental disability or their old age, receive legal support.
This is no longer a complete “incapacitation” as in the past, but care is only arranged for those parts of life that people can no longer provide for themselves (examples: transport with public authorities, health care, wealth care).Nor does care mean that the carer can no longer do anything in the relevant areas; a reservation of consent of the supervisor is only ordered in serious cases. Nevertheless, the supervisor is given very wide-ranging powers and can make decisions in place of the supervisor within the scope of his remit.”
I myself have bad eyes.If someone in the supermarket reads me the ingredients of a baking mixture because I forgot my magnifying glass, then that is very helpful and I am happy about its attention.
Basically, the fewest are trained in dealing with people who are in some way restricted, conspicuous or otherwise “special”.
A situation can quickly arise in which one is more presumptuous than he or she may be entitled to, and the other appears to be ganged, instructed or patronised.But this is not only the case for disabled people, but also for those who speak poor German, for example, or who look young, or who are only sclecht in unspoilt surroundings.
It seems quite normal to me that all such situations can easily lead to misunderstandings.It also remains unclear in your question from whose point of view the supposed paternalism actually occurs:
- Was this really meant by the insinuating patron, or was he or she perhaps just a little clumsy?
- Was this really perceived by the underponceiated patronising as condescension, or perhaps as a willingness to help?
- Or perhaps someone outside here makes a hopeless and presumptuous attempt to interpret a thoroughly subjective experience as an “objective” paternalism?
I am not saying that there is no paternalism towards other people, whether disabled or not.But in these cases, disabled people will have to be as reluctant to do as they do, just as I hope any other person who kicks the slips will do.
What I want to say is that outsiders should not be leading this discussion.
If they do so anyway, it is precisely this circumstance, namely that they consider to be called upon or even obliged to interfere, to be perceived by those directly involved as a prime example of paternalism.