'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!?
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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|