> 'with people who are like this' is an interesting comment. 'Nice',
> 'Ordinary' people think 'not nice' and 'extrodinary' things. That doesn't
> make them worth ostracising! If we did that surely our own attitudes may be
> worth challenging!?
This is a complete misreading of what I was saying. I was making the point
that the problem isn't simply one of an unpleasant joke surfacing at a
lunch, but the wider issue of having to work in a context which is
emotionally alienating and unsupportive. Some people have the energy to do
this and to work for change, some will only do feel able to do it for a
limited time, and others prefer to retreat to environments where they know
that they can be heard as individuals and that discrimination
can be challenged.
I certainly was not contrasting 'nice, ordinary, pc' people with 'nasty'
ones. I was talking about being emotionally honest and having respect for
oneself and others.
I started my responses off by making a joke, which is often, it seems, a
bad idea on this list. Having to mail and re-mail to explain one's
comments is a waste of precious energy and, to me, barely worth it.
Heloise
On Mon, 29 Mar 1999, Gill Dixon wrote:
>
> I have often been in the company of people who know 'me and mine' well but
> who make derogatory comments about 'special needs children' although my
> child falls into that category in societies eyes.
> I truly believe that their attitudes are unconcious. They know me, and judge
> my children on their knowledge of me, and not on their pre conceptions of
> 'the label.'
> When I remind them that actually 'my son is one of *those* children they are
> really taken aback, as they didn't realise they knew *one*.
> They stop, go red, feel a little uncomfortable as they should, and hesitate
> before making similar remarks. They may only hesitate long enough to check
> that I am not in the room, but the hesitation is a thought, and that in
> itself is a change.
> As a teenager I thought everyone who try to kill someone else was mad or
> bad, until someone dear to me did just that. Boy, a rapid change in attitude
> took place then! I hadn't given the issue any real thought you see, and was
> content to go along with the 'aceptable norm'. So many of us are,until
> someone or something makes I think or feel differently.
> Keep on challenging I say!
>
>
> Gill.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of HJ Brown
> > Sent: 27 March 1999 17:52
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: attitude change
> >
> >
> >
> > "Duh" to what, exactly? I really find it hard to believe (am I just
> > naive?) that the joke was aimed *at* "handicapped" men in particular,
> > rather than men in general. I do of course accept that it was using
> > conceptions of "handicapped" and what that means in a totally unacceptable
> > way, and therefore the obvious response is to inform the 'joker' that
> > doing this - juxtaposing emotional and what society would recognise as
> > physical or behavioural 'handicaps' - is not funny.
> >
> > My second response was based on the fact that (a) h parking places are
> > always in the most convenient spots and (b) being in a relationship with
> > someone who is registered disabled, I would far rather be with him than
> > going out with the kind of prat who tells jokes like this.
> >
> > Which brings me to the point - maybe I've spent too long wrapped in
> > politically-correct cotton wool, but I can't imagine being in the kind of
> > scenario you describe your wife being in. If you're surrounded by people
> > who don't even think before making jokes like this, then the problem isn't
> > just a question of whether to speak out against it, but the much bigger
> > one of being stuck in an environment with people who you don't trust on an
> > emotional (or dare I say, moral?) level. This is a much worse problem than
> > having to deal with stupid jokes.
> >
> > So the upshot is, it depends on whether your wife estimates that these
> > people can be changed. Some people can, some just can't. Either way, if
> > she speaks out at least she doesn't have to listen to it any more. But she
> > maybe will end up having to ask herself if she wants to work with people
> > who are like this.
> >
> > Heloise
> >
> > On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Henry Cullihall wrote:
> >
> > > What are you trying to say? DuH?
> > >
> > > HJ Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > > My initial response to this was that it implied men with emotional
> > > > handicaps (i.e. commitment phobes, which would explain why they're not
> > > > already 'taken'), and therefore the offence is mainly at the
> > use of the
> > > > 'h' word. (I'm not going to start another terminology debate, though)
> > > >
> > > > My second response is that the good ones *are* the handicapped ones.
> > > >
> > > > Heloise Brown
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Henry Cullihall wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Q. How are men and parking lots similar?
> > > > > A. Most of the good ones are taken. Only the handicapped
> > ones are left.
> > > > >
> > > > > This was a joke my wife heard at work around a luncheon.
> > My wife courageously
> > > > > stood up and said, "I really don't appreciate those kinds
> > of jokes." "My
> > > > > husband is disabled" She described how many came to her
> > after and apologized.
> > > > >
> > > > > My point. Attitudes do not change.
> > > > > My wife's point. Attitudes can be changed. She argues that
> > her stance "sows
> > > > > seeds for change" in that when the same people plan to tell
> > these jokes again
> > > > > they will remember her and be forced to wrestle with their
> > conscience.
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think? Anyone?
> > > > >
> > > > > Henry
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|