In a world still healing from the isolating grip of a global pandemic, a small local group strives to rebuild connections and bring people together through simple, joyful gatherings. Their mission is clear: to spark hope and companionship in the hearts of adults seeking to break free from solitude, one event at a time.
Yet, amid their well-meaning efforts, a poignant moment surfaced—a reminder of the challenges that remain unseen. When a member asked if their hiking and picnic day was wheelchair accessible, the group faced the harsh reality that inclusion isn’t always easy, and sometimes, despite the best intentions, not everyone can be reached equally.
AITA for planning a hiking and picnic event that wasn’t wheelchair accessible?
Dr. Brené Brown, known for her extensive work on vulnerability, shame, and belonging, often discusses the difference between fitting in (changing oneself to belong) and true belonging (being accepted as you are). In this scenario, the member posting about accessibility is demanding inclusion that feels authentic to their needs, framing the current event structure as exclusionary. The organizer, however, perceives this demand as an attack on their good intentions and the established group dynamic.
The core conflict here involves boundary setting, communication effectiveness, and emotional labor management. While the organizer’s frustration regarding the snarky response is understandable—especially given the effort put into the group and the fact that past events were accessible—retaliating with sarcasm (“hammer and chisel”) escalated the situation significantly and positioned the organizer defensively, eroding their leadership neutrality. A key issue is the expectation management: the member felt entitled to accessible options without acknowledging the logistical reality of hosting specialized outdoor events. Conversely, the organizer failed to manage the backlash proactively, defaulting to defensiveness rather than reinforcing the group’s values.
The organizer’s actions leading up to the conflict (providing basic information when asked late) were reasonable for an existing plan, but the subsequent reaction was unproductive. Moving forward, the constructive recommendation is to apologize solely for the rude retort, validating the member’s underlying need for inclusion without conceding on the event itself. For future planning, the group should adopt a clear policy: clearly label events (e.g., ‘General Social,’ ‘Physically Active/Limited Accessibility’) and rotate event types to ensure a variety of options are presented over time, thereby balancing diverse interests and capabilities.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
“That’s when everything blew up. The member started calling us ableist and an asshole for not thinking of them”
Not everything is about you and sometimes, you’re not going to be able to participate.
There was no need to make these comments. This makes you look ableist and insensitive.
![[deleted] NTA. I was chatting to an organizer of a...](https://animalstrend.com/wp-content/uploads/wp-img-cache/c4fe43d420f0e2624be3043096143d12.png)
The organizer deeply values the community they built but is caught between the desire to host varied activities and the immediate, strong reaction from a member feeling excluded due to lack of accessibility planning. This situation highlights the tension between catering to the existing, regular attendees and ensuring comprehensive inclusion for all potential members, leading the organizer to feel attacked for trying something new.
Given the recurring conflict between activity planning variety and universal accessibility, should community organizers be held to a standard requiring every single event to accommodate all potential physical needs, or is it reasonable to occasionally host specialized events, provided notice is clearly given beforehand?
