Good morning all,
I believe that frequently we associate willingly, unwillingly, or of
necessity with individuals and groups who are not necessarily against,
confrontational, agro, or malicious in relation to disability. They just
have never thought about it because they have never had reason to think
about it. With people and groups like that I try to be very careful,
which may seem uncharacteristic of a guy who tends to lob a few
handgrenades from time to time.
I believe that they offer a blank page for someone to start writing on.
If I am the first one to put my pen to their paper it better be good, so
I try to connect with what they know, and that way give them some
'emotional equity'.
Have a wonderful day,
rgds John
HJ Brown wrote:
>
> > '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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|