posted
This evening my husband and I went out to the movies. I was standing on the (snaking around through the ropes, amusement park-style) line, while my husband was waiting up front at the side of the ticket counter, since his wheelchair doesn't gracefully maneuver through the maze.
Now, my husband is a pretty crippled-looking cripple. Besides the big power wheelchair, which he operates with a straw stuck in his mouth, he also breathes using a ventilator which attaches via tubing to a tracheostomy (kind of like a spigot in his neck). And his body is kind of twisted in an interesting, asymmetrical kind of way.
After I got to the front of the line and had bought our tickets and rejoined my husband, the manager, who had been loitering around the ticket counter, approached us and asked me "Are you with him?" I said that I was. He asked if he could see our tickets, so I handed them to him, and asked why. He opened the cash register, gave me back the money for the tickets, and printed out two complimentary tickets for our movie.
I asked him why he was doing this, and he said that he just wanted to, the movie was on the house for us. I thanked him, but told him that it wasn't necessary, but he insisted that he wanted to do this.
I'm uncomfortable with the whole situation, but I didn't want to make a fuss, and I certainly didn't want to embarrass anyone. I turned to my husband, and asked him if he was alright with this. He kind of half shrugged and half nodded, so I thanked the manager again and we went in to see the movie.
I resent being the object of his charity. There are certainly charities more deserving than us! It seems like he just picked out the most pathetic-looking "case", and decided to brighten our day with a good deed. I'm sure the manager was well-meaning, but in this instance, I think his good intentions were inappropriate. If he really thinks that the disabled deserve a break in his theater, he can adjust the pricing policy to be in line with some other theaters in the area, that give discounts to Senior/Disabled, or that allow a person requiring assistance to have an attendant accompany him for free.
My husband has long argued that he shouldn't have to pay anything to go to the movies, since he isn't taking up one of their seats. I wouldn't object to the policy of free admission for wheelchair users, as long as it was applied to all attendees, not just those who look especially forlorn.
Am I wrong? Or was the cinema manager?
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the manager was wrong to do this, because I'm sure he just thought he was being nice, but how he went about it does make him seem like a bit of a doofus. Any of your suggestions in the last bit of the post would have been better, since they'd be a policy change instead of singling someone out and potentially making them uncomfortable.
posted
I think you have just found at least one person at that particular movie theater who would be a positive audience for your ideas. Why not write a thank you letter and suggest that they have special pricing for seniors/ disabled? You could include a bit that makes it clear that you while you were impressed and appreciative of the manager's obvious wish to do something positive for the disabled, sometimes people who are singled out feel a bit uncomfortable.
On a personal note, I'm sorry to learn of your husband's condition. Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is possible that the gesture wasn't about you and your husband, but was about the manager giving a gift to himself or to a friend who wasn't present. If this is the case, I know that I have been guilty of the same acts.
This doesn't mean that you should be silent if you were made to feel uncomfortable. I would let the manager know how he could have *best* made your night out more enjoyable. I like Samarkand's delivery style for your ideas.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not wrong that he comp'd your tickets, but if he did it out of pity (which seems likely) I think it's misguided sentiment. Granted, I don't have much firsthand experience with this but if I were your husband I wouldn't appreciate, or tolerate, pity.
But I can't fault the manager for doing a good deed, even one that's a bad idea.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I can see your point, the first thing that came to mind was "how is this any different than holding open a door for an elderly couple or a mother struggling with some bags and a small child?".
As JT said, if it was out of pity, I think his urge to help was misguided, but if his intentions were to bring some happiness to one the HE views as possibly not having much, I think it was quite gracious of him.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard of wheelchair users and one companion getting in to movies free, routinely. Maybe they had that policy, and since you bought the tickets, the salesperson didn't know.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't think he did anything wrong, but he clearly did make you feel uncomfortable so I think a letter (as suggested by samarkand) is the right way to go.
On the other hand, I would sympathise with the owner is he didn't want to create a policy of 'generosity' but would rather feel moved to be generous.
Policies of generosity, in my mind, a rather stale. it seems a way of looking generous without actually having to be generous as the rational choice is made up front and doesn't require heart to follow it though. Can you see what I'm trying to say?
Perhaps, he didn't look at you and your husband with pity? Maybe he looked at you both and thought, WOW, what a couple, clearly so loving despite having been dealt a rotten hand and I want to acknoledge that.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can see why it made you uncomfortable; it would make me feel the same way, because I just hate being singled out for special attention.
Pretty much what firebird said. Just as Christopher Reeve and Stephen Hawking touched our hearts, I'm sure the sight of you and your husband out at the movies did something to the manager's heart and that was the only way he could think of to respond. Like firebird, I figure it was probably admiration rather than pity--but his response was not so well thought out. All you wanted was a nice night at the movies w/ your husband. I will remember this example and try to be sure that I'm not making others uncomfortable when I respond impulsively to a given situation.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We both work full-time, and I'd bet that we earn more than the cinema manager. We don't need his charity, and it is insulting to be treated as though we do. It puts us on unequal footing, with the giver being in the superior position and the receiver being an object of pity.
I hold the door for anyone laden with packages, babies, strollers or assistive devices (canes, walkers, wheelchairs) because it is harder to get through a door while so burdened. For everyone else, I hold the door if I get there first. (The custom in this part of the country is to go through the door and then hold it open for the person behind you. Getting to the door first and then holding it to allow the person behind you to enter first is an unusual act chivalry). Holding a door is not comparable to shelling out $18.50 for movie tickets.
There is no need to feel sorry about my husband's condition. He does quite well for himself, and better than quite a few "able bodies" people that I know.
I know for a fact that this cinema does not have a policy for discounts for the disabled. Because I know the ones that do. All things equal, we would patronize the theatre where they offer the best deal. But in practice, we go to the one where they have the most convenient show times, or the movie that we want to see. But we prefer to patronize the theatre that we choose, and we prefer the theatre not to patronize us.Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am uncomfortable with the idea that someone on the receiving end of charity somehow then owes the giver more than just basic standard courtesy (which should include the power to decline -- graciously, of course).
That is, I don't think that offering something which cannot be declined is charity. It's more like buying somebody.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I worked in a very small theater for four years run by a husband and wife. They had built the place in the 1940s and were quite dedicated to it. He ran a shoe store next to the theater. They were a nice old couple to the right people.
We were told to always let in people in wheelchairs free. I do not recall what we did about their spouses/friends/family. However I CAN say that in his case he was guided by pity or something even worse and it made me very uncomfortable. I hated it. We routinely had some really nice deaf motorcyclists coming in. Big smiles, waves, exaggerated hand signals. THEY had to pay. We had a halfway house for mentally handicapped adults. The house would come, maybe six or eight happy adults with their employees, they had to pay. I thought letting them in free would have been a nice gesture, kind of like a donation. Furthermore, the actions of the owners behind the secenes were disgusting. They grumbled every time the halfway house came and made us put away the donation box that was usually sitting out, just in case they tried to take it. One time a strapping young man came in with a woman in a wheelchair. The owner actually went behind to the back of the concession area to spit, he said seeing that man waste his time on her was "disgusting." Don't even get me started on his racism.
You'll never know what that man was really thinking. It very well could be some sort of policy he didn't even agree with. Or pity. Or something else.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I had been the manager, I would have done the same. 1) It would have had nothing to do with pity. 2) It would have had nothing to do with charity. 3) It would have had nothing to do with doing a "good deed". I would be embarrassed if anyone interpreted my actions were for either of the first two, and irate if anyone suggested the last.
It would have been strictly a matter of common courtesy. Or rather the fact that I had failed to extend common courtesy. Admittedly, the failure wasn't purposeful. But nonetheless, the fault is mine as the manager of a public accommodation. And as a matter of business etiquette, my customer should be compensated for a failure on my part. If it had been a night club, the first round of drinks would have been on the house. If it had been a restaurant, I would have offered free appetizers or free desserts. Since it was a theater, complimentary tickets. And I assure you, my offer of complimentary tickets this time in no way implies that tickets will be free in the future.
Now assuming that I had been the theater manager, anyone wanna guess what breach of common courtesy that I would have perceived myself as having had committed against TanteShvester and her husband?
posted
I'm sorry to hear that your hubby is in such a condiction, Tante =( I can't imagine how difficult that must make things for him and those who love him.
However, I have to disagree with you. The manager obviously thought he was doing what was right and good. I don't think we should discourage charity and good deeds by questioning the giver's motives.
I'm positive he didn't do it to make you feel you owed him anything. That would be ridiculous. I'm sure he just saw a chance to be nice to a fellow human being and took it.
Personally, I'm glad that the good feeling we get from helping people is at least as strong as the schadenfreude we get from watching others suffer. (for most of us anyway)
posted
aspectre, why would comping our tickets be a matter of common courtesy? I honestly don't get it.
My rule of thumb on how to treat other people is to treat everyone with the same courtesy, about how I would like to be treated.
I deal with people in wheelchairs every day, both personally and professionally. It has been my experience that they want to be treated like everyone else. Well, they want to be treated nicely, but then again, who doesn't?
The best way to deal with people with disabilities is to treat them the same way you would treat anyone else. So, no special favors based on their handicaps, but also no special discrimination. Any reasonable accommodation should be made to allow them to live as equals with the able-bodied. I would be in favor of an amusement park that had modified their attractions to be accessible to people with disabilities. I would be in favor of allowing people with disabilities a discounted admission if the park was not accessible. But I would not think it right to have the park accessible and to charge discounted admission.
The movie theatre has handicapped parking spaces. They have curb cuts allowing easy access. They provide handicapped stalls in the bathroom. They have seating areas where a wheelchair can sit next to someone in a regular movie seat. That is appropriate and right. And if they didn't have those reasonable accommodations, we would have cause to complain.
Free admission is not appropriate.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I open doors for people, men and women, all the time, and people of both sexes do so for me fairly frequently. It seems like common courtesy to me. Maybe that's a midwestern thing. But wait, aren't you in the midwest too Theca? Hm. Maybe it's more regional than that, and Kansas and Ohio just happen to be pockets that have the same behavior standard in common.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it's only certain times and situations where i don't like the door being held. If I am given equal chances to open doors, then that's fine. Btw, I grew up in Texas.
Posts: 1014 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is in a way similar to me arguing with my father about who pays for dinner.
Hear me out....
I know my father makes/made MUCH better money than I do, and while I appreciate the fact that he likes doing things for me that his parents were unable to do for him, it still makes me uncomfortable. I use to feel offended, like he was implying that I was unable to afford even paying for my own meal, let alone taking them out to dinner once in a while.
I finally voiced this to my mother, and she got offended. They didn't intend to imply anything of the sort, ever. They just like being able to do take care of things like that, at least in part because no one had done that for them.
I understand that the two situations...your recent movie situation and my relationship with my parents... are not exactly the same thing. I had a relationship with my parents, of course, and being parents they are always looking out for me when they can. The manager was a complete stranger, to you and your husband. There were other differences as well, of course...
But perhaps you were reading too much into his actions. I have had people yell at me for holding the door for them, saying I was only doing it because I felt they were unable to do it for themselves, when in reality I do it for lots of people, both at work and when I go to the mall on my own time. It is how I was raised, and when I can spare the time it is what I do.
I have been on a date where a woman did the same, saying I "obviously" thought she was incapable of doing anything on her own. Here I thought I was being polite.
He was more than polite, but perhaps he just felt like doing something good for someone, and you were in the right place at the right time. Perhaps he thought that he was being nice and giving service above and beyond what most people would have done.
If you do say something, either in a letter or in person next time, I liked the suggestion of a polite letter thanking him, but explain how being singled out makes you feel at times. Don't place any blame on him, or assume you know why he did that, but rather focus on what you felt about it, without being too critical if possible.
BTW, I never asked that girl out again...and she had the nerve to complain about it! Some people have no clue at all, uh? Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is is permissible to politely decline such an offer? How would one decline graciously, if it was insisted on?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, just be sweetly honest. "I'd really feel more comfortable if you allowed me to pay for my half of the meal. It's just a silly quirk of mine, but it would make me feel so much better." And smile. Sweetly.
Actually what I usually do is make a point to offer to pay for my half and then say something like "Well, you'll have to let me buy dinner next time." It lets the person know that you really appreciate what he or she is doing, but you don't need him or her to do it, and you'd like to return the favor down the road. I think women who assume that a man is going to pay come off as rather rude in today's day and age, but I also think that refusing someone who genuinely wants to to do something nice for you (like paying for dinner) needs to be done carefully so as not to have hurt feelings. It's a gift; how would you feel if someone turned down a gift you gave them? Or didn't say thank you.
Tante, I can tell the movie theater situation is still bothering you. Is it possible that you picked up on something that the manager said/did/looked that makes you suspect his motives? I still tend to lean toward writing a letter; if he was acting out of pity it might serve as a wake-up call. All this talk of movie theaters makes me want to make a list . . . what did you two see? And was it any good?
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I won't be writing any letters to the manager. I talked to my husband, and he is inclined to let the whole thing drop. So I will.
We saw "Good Night, and Good Luck". Synopsis and recommendations for other films on this thread.
Thanks, everyone, for your insight and support. I may be overly sensitive about this. My Joe is a terrific guy, but lots of people just can't see beyond his disabilities. I get irked.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all honesty, lots of people just can't see beyond [disabilities, religion, skin color, sex, age, the end of their own nose]. It happens, a lot.
Tante, I can understand why you were initially upset, but I can also understand why someone might do what the manager did.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya know, there's worse ways to react to not being able to see beyond stuff like that than giving out free movie tickets. I understand your emotions, but aren't you glad they didn't deny him access instead? (That's happened to my aunt, who's in a wheelchair.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Esther, I thought you would be amused to know that this incident was useful in the discussion at the Maharal shiur I attend Sunday nights.
I mentioned it when we were discussing the Maharal's (first) explanation of the first type of charity-giver. It was a perfect illustration, and very useful. Thanks!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: but aren't you glad they didn't deny him access instead?
Had Joe been denied access, then I wouldn't have cared about not making a fuss and not embarrassing anyone. That is illegal and intolerable. I would have called the police.
And gladly accepted a lifetime free pass to the movies.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I mentioned it when we were discussing the Maharal's (first) explanation of the first type of charity-giver. It was a perfect illustration, and very useful.
Exactly! It was LOWER than the first type of charity giver. When the giver and recipient are known to eachother, there is the assumption (by the Maharal, and everyone else, I'm sure) that the recipient wants the charity. I give that way all the time when approached by beggars. We were not beggars. The "charity" was unsought and unwanted.
Does it still, then, count as charity?
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
This is Maharal on Pirkei Avos. The verse (mishnah) talks about four types of charity-givers (the previous several verses each talked about other groups of four related things/people): one who gives but stops others from giving; one who gives and encourages others to give; one who does not give, but thinks others should give; and one who neither gives nor wants anyone else to give.
There is some debate about what the first type means, and why someone would do this. The commonly accepted reading (without the Maharal's explanation) is that this person is a glory-hog. But this is problematic given the language of the mishnah. Rather, the Maharal says, this is someone who feels that he has the resources to give and no one else should be "put upon" and also have to give -- even though it may be the best thing for others to give, and even though they may want to give. In the end, he is giving to satisfy his own desire to give -- not out of an understanding of anyone else's needs.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps you could do something similar for someone else? Make a donation or help someone who is needy in the same amount or more of the movie ticket price? I know it can be uncomfortable to take charity when you don't need, but maybe passing it on will help?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tante, if that ever happens again, accept the manager's charity but tell him he's inspired you to do a good deed and purchasing two tickets for the couple behind you. He can't stop you from paying it forward and everyone's doing a good deed. Plus, once he sees that you'll find a way around the charity he'll stop offering it.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Esther, I can understand why you're upset, but there could be any number of reasons why he did what he did.
Maybe he was trying to make up for something he'd done in the past.
Maybe he has a friend or loved one with similar physical issues and couldn't make the distinction in his mind.
Maybe he was once wheelchair bound himself, and... well, any number of things.
Ultimately, tzedaka is about the giver. Not the receiver. It's true that it should be done in a way that doesn't embarrass the recipient, and he should have taken "no" for an answer. But if you can step away from the personal outrage and consider that he may have had personal reasons for wanting to do something -- anything -- for someone in your husband's condition, you might see that accepting it was a chesed in and of itself.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: DarkKnight has spurred an epiphany.
Tante, if that ever happens again, accept the manager's charity but tell him he's inspired you to do a good deed and purchasing two tickets for the couple behind you. He can't stop you from paying it forward and everyone's doing a good deed. Plus, once he sees that you'll find a way around the charity he'll stop offering it.
Just reading the thread title and the first post, my first reaction was "hey, it was just a random act of kindness -- something we should encourage other people to do" and feared that not accepting such an act of kindness would keep people from practicing acts of kindness in the future.
But as I read more of the thread, I guess I can see where it made you uncomfortable. (I have been the recipient of acts of kindness before, even though I have no apparent handicap, so I guess I didn't take it personal).
It is hard to tell someone's motives. I'm sorry if it made you and your husband uncomfortable. But I have a hard time feeling negative toward the manager for doing what I think was a very nice thing.
Our society is full of things like this that can be taken good or bad. There are restaurants that give police officers free coffee, or even a free meal, because they want to show appreciation for their service. Should police officers feel offended by this? We have handicapped parking for people who are disabled -- should you feel offended that you get special treatment in that way?
I mean -- I'm not trying to cause conflict, but I guess I just don't see why kindness should ever be questioned by the recipient, when it isn't done in an effort to manipulate.
posted
I think it is most admirable of all when we take the time and extra effort to see one another as agents, each in control of our lives, rather than primarily as vehicles on which for others to act.
Fine to offer courteously. Admirable, even. Disrespectful not to wait for and respect the response of the other.
I'm sure the manager is a good guy. I'm also sure, in comparison, that Tante and her husband are of yet more admirable character.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I mean -- I'm not trying to cause conflict, but I guess I just don't see why kindness should ever be questioned by the recipient, when it isn't done in an effort to manipulate.
I just read your reply, Farmgirl -- the above was not in response to you.
I think the reason why it is questioned is because it reveals some basic, fundamental assumptions about others which are appalling (and I chose that word carefully).
sndrake has a link to a wonderful webpage by two disability advocates, one of whom has CP (IIRC) and uses a wheelchair. His wife does not have a visible disability. He writes a really heart-wrenching essay about how it felt for each of them when someone came up to his wife after a presentation and -- sweetly, heartfelty, terribly patronizingly -- praised her for being "so brave." As if being married to him was something one could only do if one were a saint.
You'd have to read it to make sense of it -- I can't do it justice. Maybe I can find it.
Meanwhile, maybe it would help to to think of it in more familiar terms. The coworker who assumes you don't know enough to check whether the computer is plugged in if you (a woman) are having trouble rebooting: "Do you know that thing that sticks out of the back? It has to be connected to the wall before the machine will turn on. ... What?! I was just trying to help!" The mother-in-law who insists on bringing the Thanksgiving turkey to holiday dinner at your house, because of course you wouldn't be able to do it yourself: "Well, you know, dear, turkeys are very complicated. Yes, I know you've been cooking for years, but you don't want to make anyone sick at Thanksgiving, do you? No, I insist. You can make the cranberry sauce. It comes in cans now, you know!"
But these are such small, petty things in comparison. These are just in regards to aspects of one's life, not fundamentally who one is.
I just remember so vividly being the charity case of the local church and extended family. I wish I had the focus and strength of mind to explain why it angered me so much. Once, when I (very politely, very graciously) turned down the offer of yet more worn-out and outdated clothes from my cousins, I was slapped across the mouth once we went home. Because I might have made them angry, because it wasn't "my place" to decline an offer. Ugh.
It seems so different from the other side. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference may be in if you see my husband as a pitiful cripple or as a full-fledged respectable guy. I mentioned the incident to friends, family, and colleagues, all who know him, and they were dismayed and appalled that someone would have the nerve to assume Joe was a charity case. While they all agreed that the manager was probably well-meaning, and trying to be a nice guy, people who actually know (and to know is to respect the guy) my husband felt that the manager's actions were inappropriate.
But some also admitted that before they knew my husband (and therefore, knew better) they might have had the same impulse.
Ah, you should all know him. Brilliant. Witty. And the soul of a tzaddik*.
quote:*"Tzaddik" - (pl. "Tzadikkim"); a righteous man (for the female equivalent, see "Tzidkanit") - based on the Hebrew word "Tzedek," or Justice. The Jewish hero is not the swashbuckling warrior, but rather the "Tzaddik," the "mighty warrior" who conquers his "evil inclinations," towards pride, power and oppression, and practices righteousness and humility, and who is, like G-d, always on "the side of the oppressed." ("Kohelet," or Ecclesiastes 3:15) Examples were the three "Avot," the forefathers of the Jewish People, Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov, who exemplified what a person can be.
posted
Ah! Found it. This is a link to the main website for Norman Kunc and Emma van der Klift. They are also brilliant and witty, and they use humor very effectively in their workshops.
For anyone who has trouble understanding why someone would find the situation described by Tante to be appalling, please, please, please read these essays:
[I deleted the extended quotations so as not to stress Papa Janitor. But they are great essays, very warm and funny and frank.]
quote:Meanwhile, maybe it would help to to think of it in more familiar terms. The coworker who assumes you don't know enough to check whether the computer is plugged in if you (a woman) are having trouble rebooting: "Do you know that thing that sticks out of the back? It has to be connected to the wall before the machine will turn on. ... What?! I was just trying to help!" The mother-in-law who insists on bringing the Thanksgiving turkey to holiday dinner at your house, because of course you wouldn't be able to do it yourself: "Well, you know, dear, turkeys are very complicated. Yes, I know you've been cooking for years, but you don't want to make anyone sick at Thanksgiving, do you? No, I insist. You can make the cranberry sauce. It comes in cans now, you know!"
See -- I think this is a little different because they are being verbally patronizing.
I am seeing how this caused offense to Tante through everyone's reply. I am just saying if I had been there with them, I may not have recognized it at the time as being offensive.
posted
Those quoted examples are tough, though. You don't want to be patronizing, but if you're in tech support you know that most of your calls are on the order of, "I forgot to plug it in."
So you have to be very careful in your phrasing, because you don't want them to think you're pandering to them but you're trying to get them up and running as quickly as possible.
Anecdote - I went to Jason's Deli a few weeks ago and ordered a Club sandwich, plain. I always order sandwiches plain, and I always explain what I mean by 'plain'. I want the meat, cheese, and mustard but no veggies. So I tell the guy taking my order what I want, but I see that he doesn't write 'PLN' anywhere on the ticket. He just writes the sandwich name. Even though I told him what I wanted and he repeated it back to me he didn't write it down.
I knew right then it wasn't going to be like I ordered it, but if I say something to him then he'll get mad at me for telling him his job. If I don't say anything my lunch companion is done eating before I get my food. I give him the benefit of the doubt (which is what I usually do) and sure enough, it was wrong. I send it back, explain firmly to the manager what I wanted and that the order taker knew that but didn't write it down. I felt like an a-hole, and I still don't know how to avoid that situation the next time it happens.
It's one of those rock/hard place things.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tante, I do understand, at least a little bit, what you were getting at.
As far as my dad, I guess according to rivka's list my dad would be the first type of giver, although it took me a long time to see past the first interpretation of it myself. I realized eventually that those feelings I had about the situations were MY problem, not his. He had never even so much as implied, or mentioned in a negative manner, anything he had payed for in those situations. I know a lot of people whose parents would have been doing that just to have "ammo" against them in future conversations/arguments, but that wasn't anything like what my dad did. He would never mention it at all, and never tried to use it against me.
SO*, I ambushed him.
I told him a story, a true story, about a "friend" I had. His name was Lee, and he was a huge mooch. I had, by this time, stopped being friends with him, not completely because of the mooching, but at least in part because of it. I told my dad about all the times Lee came over but never brought anything, and all the times he "forgot" his wallet when we went out. About the time we all went to the beach but Lee brought a total of $14 for the whole weekend, and then mooched off of us the whole trip.
My dad and I agreed that he was not a nice person, and I said "Dad, this isn't the way you raised me. Aren't you glad?", and we both smiled.
We went out to dinner that night, and I called the waiter over and handed him my debit card as soon as we sat down, and my dad protested. I turned to him and said "Dad, please stop making me feel like I am a Lee.".
You could almost see the light turn on in his eyes. He still grumbled about it, but I finally got to pay.
We still fight over the checks at times, but now he lets me win one once and a while. We also had a really good conversation where he told me WHY he liked to pay, filled with some things I won't mention here in public, but those reasons made me feel a lot better about all of it.
Still, my dad and I had a history, of course, so even though there are some superficial resemblances between this situation and Tante's, they are not really the same situation at all.
I have friends who are physically handicapped, and offering to help them can at times be a hit of miss situation as well. I am not their friends out of pity nor do I offer to help them out of pity, and they know this, but sometimes they have trouble asking for, or even simply accepting, help....even from me.
We don't want to discourage people from helping, or from doing random acts of kindness, but we don't want to belittle how this made you feel either.
Tough.....although I do like the "pass it on" idea as well. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Aw, that'd be great. I really think it's good stuff. Memorable. (Thanks for not letting my rough-handed way of recommending them totally turn you off! )
quote:See -- I think this is a little different because they are being verbally patronizing.
*grin
As you couldn't see the nonverbal communication over the 'net, I made the explicitness verbal. In my family, it would have been just as clear if delivered implicitly as explicitly.
(I am willing to concede, though, that my family may be particularly obnoxious.)
quote:I am seeing how this caused offense to Tante through everyone's reply. I am just saying if I had been there with them, I may not have recognized it at the time as being offensive.
Farmgirl
I get you. Thanks for explaining. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those quoted examples are tough, though. You don't want to be patronizing, but if you're in tech support you know that most of your calls are on the order of, "I forgot to plug it in."
I hear you. I've been in similar situations in my line of work.
I try to deal with it by acknowledging that what I am about to say may sound offensive or patronizing, but it's just that it comes up sometimes. Sometimes a wry grin and a sheepish, apologetic look (which, by the way, can be a very deliberate way of yielding power to the other) can go a long way toward making oneself come across better in such circumstances.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have some similar situations with my father. He went through several strokes a few years ago and is now wheelchair bound. That hasn't stopped him much from enjoying life.
He still insists on paying for dinner. I know they don't have much money, but I don't fight it. When I try to pay I see a real sense of hurt in his eyes. I think he see's paying for dinner as a sign of potency. If his children start paying then they become dependent on us. My younger brother is pushing hard for us to pay more of the tabs, but I will refuse until they need it.
My father has taken to wearing Marine hats and shirts. He was in the Marines for one tour in the mid-50s. His only dangerous duty was fighting a forest fire in California. Yet he proudly wears clothes that identify him as a veteran, and in his wheel chair, most people assume he was wounded in action. The result is that he gets a lot of attention and sympathy. This makes me uncomfortable because I know he doesn't deserve it, as intended. Yet I also know that he won't be around for to many more years, and I don't want to steal any enjoyment he is getting out of life.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are restaurants that give police officers free coffee, or even a free meal, because they want to show appreciation for their service.
I had to laugh...that's not the only reason we did it at the 7-Eleven. Having policemen standing around drinking free coffee and pop, using our restroom, and reading our magazines just seemed to reduce the odds of being robbed again.
Without understanding all the details of all your life, I can't judge you. I'd have reacted in a similar way, since it's easy to see such acts of giving as power plays.
Or, you could see it as an act of desperate helplessness. The manager had no power, except to comp tickets. He can't heal an infirmity he knows he'd hate to have. He can't fund the medical research which might restore your husband's body to average function. He probably supposes that it's terribly expensive to maintain your husband's life, far more than he has the ability to earn.
And, it's an illusion to suppose that without the support of you and the society which surrounds you that he'd survive for more than a few days or weeks. Perhaps this man sees that and desires a more active part. Perhaps this man chose to express sorrow at your husband's condition in the only way available to him in that moment.
Would you ever interact with that man again? If not, then I can't see the sense in hanging onto indignation about it.
But I wonder just how many of us are trapped in a meme which teaches that it is more proper to become offended at random (to us) acts of kindness, than to receive them in gratitude, and build a relationship of trust thereby with the bumbling giver.
And, rather than becoming offended, perhaps a more constructive approach would be not to refuse, refuse, and then receive, but to receive it with a smile, but then inform politely that such a thing isn't necessary, and that you'll expect next time to be treated no differently than any other patron on your next visit.
That puts you firmly in control of interactions in the future. It affords you the opportunity to say, "I've said this before, that we expect to be equals with you in this matter," should the issue come up again. And it may teach far more than indignance and resentment ever could.
Posts: 89 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Emma: When I tell people this story, or one of hundreds like it that center around the deliberate or accidental insensitivity of non-disabled people, I am both amused and distressed at the reactions I get. "You have to understand," they say. I always know what's coming when I hear that phrase. I usually want to sigh when I hear it. Sometimes "understanding" is very tiring, especially when you "have to". "She didn't mean it," they go on. "She just doesn't know any better. In fact, she does it to everyone."
It's true. I actually do know that lots of people who do or say silly things don't mean to be offensive. I know that often they are just trying to be nice, or helpful, but operate out of a set of assumptions based in myth, misinformation or lack of information. And I also know that unfortunately, some people really do treat almost everyone (with the possible exception of those they perceive as more powerful...) with condescension and a lack of respect. I sometimes wonder if the people who listen to my stories don't think I know these things. Maybe that's why they feel that it's their personal responsiblity to edit my experience and provide me with a more "balanced" interpretation of events...
Have I lost my perspective or become unkind? I hope not. I do my share of embarassingly ignorant things. Most of the stories I tell are not without humour and perspective. I try not to blame people, or fall prey to "evil oppressor/victim" stereotypes. So why the knee-jerk reaction? How come the ten minute sermons on offering up the other cheek?
It occurs to me that there's more going on here than meets the eye. There's a message underneath the message. When people ask me to "understand" the ignorance and prejudice of others and swallow my pain, they're asking me to be quiet. They're saying, "It's not really like that. You're imagining things. You're overreacting. You're paranoid."
I guess I can't accept that it's OK for people to continue not to know any better. Silence and compulsive "understanding" never did much to challenge or change the status quo.
It seems to me in the theaters that I go to that there isn't very good seating for people in wheelchairs. Most of the theaters I go to have nice stadium seating but the only place a wheelchair bound patron can sit is close down by the front, not exactly where most folks prefer to be.
Maybe a policy of comping tickets for those in wheelchairs is a way of saying "I know we don't have optimum conditions for you and because you must take such a bad seat to see the movie, we'd like to let you see it for free."
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But they are great essays, very warm and funny and frank.] ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
