Myth Busting Monday: “You just have to advocate for yourself.”

Myth:
You just have to advocate for yourself.

This phrase is often offered as encouragement. It appears in healthcare settings, workplaces, and benefit systems — a reminder that speaking up, asking questions, and pushing for what you need can lead to better outcomes.

And in many cases, that’s true.

But the idea that self-advocacy is the primary solution assumes that systems are fundamentally responsive — that if someone communicates clearly and persists long enough, they will be heard and supported.

That assumption does not always hold.

Advocating for yourself requires time, energy, knowledge, and confidence. It often involves understanding complex systems, navigating unclear processes, and repeatedly explaining personal circumstances to different decision-makers. It may require challenging authority, escalating concerns, or continuing to engage after initial denials.

For people who are already managing illness, disability, financial strain, or caregiving responsibilities, those demands can be significant.

Self-advocacy is not equally accessible.

Some people have prior experience navigating systems, strong communication skills, or external support from family, professionals, or advocates. Others may be encountering these systems for the first time, without guidance or resources, while already under strain.

When outcomes depend heavily on self-advocacy, systems begin to reward persistence and familiarity rather than need.

This shifts responsibility away from system design and onto individuals. It frames access as something earned through effort, rather than something built into the structure itself.

Encouraging people to advocate for themselves is not inherently harmful. It can be necessary in systems that are difficult to navigate.

But it is not a substitute for systems that function clearly, consistently, and equitably.

When self-advocacy becomes the expectation, rather than the exception, it signals a design problem.

Understanding that distinction matters. It allows us to support individuals in navigating systems while also recognizing that the burden of access should not rest entirely on them.