In Beanny's cool occurence thread we were discussing the difference between "retarded person" and "retaard" (my spelling). I recall mack posting a story months ago about sufferers of bipolar disease being called "bipolars". How far do we go with this? Is it right to call people belonging to the democratic party "democrats"... "republicans"... "independants"? (Do you use the -ant or the -ent to describe someone who is independent politically?)
In 12 step I see a variety of ways people refer to themselves. I have not heard of a person in AA call themselves "a person with alcoholism". It seems to be a 12 step principle of acceptance to say "I am a codependant. I am an overeater." To say "I am a person strugglin with codependence." distances me from the problem. I suppose that it is important in such a program's view to not distance the disease from the person.
What about other qualities? Am I straight or a person exeriencing heterosexuality? Am I a woman or a female person? Then there is the other meaning of straight- I am a law abiding person. Am I an American or merely a person who lives in America? If we say we can use good or useful labels and not bad ones, who is the judge of what is good and useful versus bad?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have no idea.
My first reaction is to say that this whole thing is stupid, and a bad product of the PC movement, and...
But there is truth there. The words we use really do affect how we think of people and things. It makes a different.
So I'm back to having no idea.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I just don't understand the flac that the "PC movement" gets. To me, it is simply a way of showing respect to another person. Why is that out of style?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: The words we use really do affect how we think of people and things.
That opens up a whole other can of worms. I do think thought exists apart from words, but the words give shape to the thoughts or perhaps demonstrate the thoughts.
I don't think we can change ourselves just through repeating affirmations, unless there is something already inside us that the affirmation can take root in.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Elizabeth- the issue about PC is that people can talk a certain way but continue to think in the same old way. People often negate PC as Politically incorrect when the true negation of it is unpolitically correct. That is to say, are you doing the right thing because it is the right thing or because it is what others think is right?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I just don't understand the flac that the "PC movement" gets. To me, it is simply a way of showing respect to another person. Why is that out of style?
I don't think there's any one reason. There are several motivations. Some valid and some not so pretty.
Not so pretty: People (mostly white) who don't like having to relearn terminology that groups want themselves to be called. After all, the white majority came up with perfectly fine names for people in minority groups a long time ago.
(It's not just limited to "white" or "race," though, the "language wars" extend to other areas as well, to be fair)
Valid critique: Some of the terminology - especially that coming out of academia instead of the group of people themselves - seems to change with increasing frequency and has little descriptive value.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Yeah, it's like someone changing their login all the time and getting mad if you call them by an old login Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
See, I object to being called bipolar.
I think because it takes away the rest of my personality. When you say, "Jamie is bipolar." Then...I am bipolar. That's everything I'm associated with, any everything else is a result of the bipolar disorder.
When you say "Jamie has bipolar disorder." It's like there's a bit of room open.
Or even someone with diabetes. If they're diabetic, that's what you associate with them, and everything attributed to that person is related to the diabetes. If said person just HAS diabetes, then other attributes can take precedence.
I dunno. It's complicated and frustrating. Maybe it's just me being sick of having the bipolar disorder accounted for every single decision and action I make and take. If it's just the bipolar disorder, then who am I?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I understand that, but the big question that, err, MT asked was where do you draw the line? Can we at least agree that calling people male or female people instead of males or females is overkill? How do we know?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:I think because it takes away the rest of my personality. When you say, "Jamie is bipolar." Then...I am bipolar. That's everything I'm associated with, any everything else is a result of the bipolar disorder.
This is common in people with different psych-related labels. It's one of the rationales behind "people first" terminology with retardation. Describing someone as a "retarded person" pretty much erases everything else about the individual in the ears of the hearer.
(I don't do a lot of "language policing" myself unless it's around a term like "retard." Rather deal with concepts.)
However...
On occasion, I've had the perverse privilege of addressing an audience of professionals and - with malice aforethought - refer to myself as a "high-functioning hydrocephalic." The startle from professionals is noticeable.
That label in not something that fits comfortably with someone they regard as a peer.
Cognitive dissonance can be a neat thing, done right. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Like OSC announcing to the Writer's Group of the University of Wherever, 'I am a practicing, believing Mormon.'
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
I'm bisexual.
Buy me something, and I'll be sexual.
("Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" ROCKS!)
EDIT: THIS WAS A JOKE. Not that there's anything wrong in being bisexual, of course...Or in "having bisexuality"
[ January 18, 2005, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: Beanny ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Fair, Beanny.
I welcome thee to Hatrack.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
Hmmm. I would draw the line at whether you are describing an attribute or a choice. I am a Liberal Green Lutheran etc etc...things I ahve chosen. But, for example, I don't say "I am arthritic" , I say, "I have arthritis", because I have not chosen that.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Ah, but different groups tend to have different slants.
Members of Alcoholics Anonymous refer to themselves as "alcoholics" as opposed to "persons with alcoholism," the message being it is central to who they are and the choices they have to make.
Sndrake High-functioning hydrocephalic Person with maleness Person with heterosexuality
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I think dpr is onto something there, that the intrinsic label can be used where someone chooses, embraces or accepts a quality about themselves. But if the attribute is not something you accept then the extrinsic "person with..." is a better idea.
sndrake, what is the reasoning behind not using "suffers from"? I mainly think of it as "suffers from heartburn" or something like that. I think I may have used it in the bipolar thread.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Beanny, Raia thinks it would be cool if you'd email her (your's isn't in your profile). She lives in Jerusalem this year, just thought you might be interested. She's away from hatrack for a while. Her email is pigs_are_me at yahoo . com (take out spaces and make it an @).
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:sndrake, what is the reasoning behind not using "suffers from"? I mainly think of it as "suffers from heartburn" or something like that. I think I may have used it in the bipolar thread.
mothertree,
that's a very good question and a complicated issue. To use a personal example, I absolutely describe myself as someone who "suffers from migraines." They make me suffer plenty.
Here's the thing, though. That "suffers from" gets used for a lot of conditions and disabilities. To use a particularly stark example, there was a case here in Chicago last year involving a kid with cerebral palsy who was apparently starved to death - and neglected in plenty of other ways before that - by his mother.
The press described the kid as "suffering from cerebral palsy." Just think how absurd that is in context. The kid was kept dirty and starving - and the word "suffering" is reserved to describe his disability.
Let's get real - the kid "suffered" from neglect and starvation - and a parent who, for whatever reasons, gave less care to him than most people do to their pets.
Does this shed any light on the problem?
(edited for what I hope is clarity)
[ January 17, 2005, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: sndrake ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
It does for me.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I suffer from my husband's migraines.
I guess I can kind of see what you are saying in that context. I'll take it into consideration.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
But now I want to know what "high functioning hydrocephalic" means. *does search on Google* *doesn't find a whole lot of useful information beyond what I already thought I knew*
Um, sndrake, care to expand?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I would draw the line at whether you are describing an attribute or a choice. I am a Liberal Green Lutheran etc etc...things I ahve chosen. But, for example, I don't say "I am arthritic" , I say, "I have arthritis", because I have not chosen that.
This doesn't seem to work as an absolute rule. I see nothing wrong with calling people male and female, even though that wasn't chosen.
I also think that there are more than two levels. Level 1: I have arthritis. This is the softest and least offensive of the labels. Level 2: I am arthritic. In am at odds with DPR on this one. To me, it is merely descriptive, and not really a label at all. Level 3 : I am an arthritic. This is the strong form of labeling, and I can see how people could get upset with this type of labeling.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Sndrake High-functioning hydrocephalic Person with maleness
Nice to meet you. I am of the female persuasion.
Posted by Beanny (Member # 7109) on :
Did anyone here read "The Politically Correct Book of Fairytales?" (I've unfortunately read the translation in Hebrew because I couldn't find an English copy, so the name might not be correct.)
I am a Womon!
[ January 18, 2005, 05:21 AM: Message edited by: Beanny ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nice to meet you. I am of the female persuasion.
Who persuaded you to be female?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't recall exactly, but I'm pretty sure my parents had something to do with it.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
mt, we're reading Porter's first post differently. I don't think that he's saying repeating a label/affirmation is an attempt to change himself so much as that his view of another person is influenced by the labels that are applied to them.
I hate binary state labels. Which is to say, any label made by adding non to another label or the equivalent. Like non-Christian. Dammit, I'm not a Christian. See the difference?
Ones like "childless" fall into this catagory as well. "I'm childless" vs. "I don't have children" have different contexts.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I was addressing another view I've run into that no one here has ever espoused with the affirmations. But it is something I encounter a lot and I think can be true in some circumstances. But a lot of people who believe in affirmations go overboard with them. Porter's post reminded me of it was all.
The binary label thing is interesting. On the purpose of life thread dkw said that there is no evil, only non-good. I didn't agree.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Having not read the thread, I have to ask, did she say that or that the opposite of good isn't evil, but non-good?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: Members of Alcoholics Anonymous refer to themselves as "alcoholics" as opposed to "persons with alcoholism," the message being it is central to who they are and the choices they have to make.
Well, actually, sndrake, it is just because we're all lazy and it is a lot easier to say alcoholic
FG
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
celia, IIRC, dkw used the analogy of heat and light. Just as there is no cold or dark (only absence of heat and absence of light); evil is merely the complete absence of good.
I think I agree with that, but I'm still pondering it.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
heh, then i don't see how it's relavent to my comment. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not sure, but perhaps it's because the binary labels imply that not being a Christian, or not having children are in some way less real, less valid? Only shadows and absences, in the way that dark and cold are?
Which is probably part of why you object to the labels, neh? Because of the implied judgment?
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Perhaps I'm reading pooka wrong, but I think she is implying that the states good and evil are not binary. That while giving change to a homeless guy might be good, not giving it to him isn't evil. Kicking him is. Is the label 'evil' aptly applied to everything not of the subset 'good' or does it have a specific subset of it's own which while being exclusive to good is not inclusive of all non-good?
G+G'=all of existance all elements in E are in G' not all elements in G' are in E being one possible set
vs. G+G'=all of existance G'=E which I think is what you're saying the statement was.
In terms of set theory, anyone who isn't a Christian is a non-Christian, just as anything not good is non-good, but the connotation is different. Especially in terms of how an individual self-identifies. Do you self identify as non-Christian or as Jewish?
[ January 18, 2005, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*nod* I think that is what she's saying, yes. But I'm not sure that I agree with it -- in the case of evil, at least.
quote: Do you self identify as non-Christian or as Jewish?
Primarily the latter, but it depends on the context. I don't disagree with you; I think defining someone as "non-" just about anything is very limiting, and not particularly useful. And the connotations are very different, certainly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mt, we're reading Porter's first post differently. I don't think that he's saying repeating a label/affirmation is an attempt to change himself so much as that his view of another person is influenced by the labels that are applied to them.
What I mean is that the words or lables we use influence our thoughts. If we consistently use a respectful label to describe someone, we are more likely to feel for and treat them with respect. Likewise if the label is derogatory, loving, mocking, etc..
Of course, this is partially a chicken/egg question. Do you treat and feel towards them X because you use an X label, or do you choose an X label because that's how you feel and treat them? What I'm saying is that it's some of both.
quote:I hate binary state labels. Which is to say, any label made by adding non to another label or the equivalent. Like non-Christian. Dammit, I'm not a Christian. See the difference?
Ones like "childless" fall into this catagory as well. "I'm childless" vs. "I don't have children" have different contexts.
I believe you that this bothers you, but I have yet to really grasp why. Heck, our own church leaders have pretty much told us to stop being jerks and stop using words like "non-Mormon".
But still, I really can't grasp why this bothers people. Even when I try to, I don't see even a subtle connotational difference between "childless person" and "person who does not have children". The only real difference that I see is that the second one is awkward to compose.
I'm not saying that you're wrong and I'm right. I think you are probably right. I'm just saying that even though I try, I don't see it. As a result, it's going to be very hard for me to change. Not because I'm stubborn, but for the same reason that it's hard for a blind man so solve a Rubick's Cube -- I can't really tell when I have it right and when I have it wrong.
quote:Not sure, but perhaps it's because the binary labels imply that not being a Christian, or not having children are in some way less real, less valid? Only shadows and absences, in the way that dark and cold are?
Which is probably part of why you object to the labels, neh? Because of the implied judgment?
If you tell me that there's an inferred judgment inherent in words like non-Christian and childless, I'll believe you, but I don't believe that it is implied. At least not when I use them.
[ January 18, 2005, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: On the purpose of life thread dkw said that there is no evil, only non-good.
No I didn’t. Sausageman made a light-shadow analogy about God and Satan and you asked why light needed an embodiment more than dark. I pointed out (in my long-lost physics major mode) that dark doesn’t actually exist – it’s only the absence of light. In response to another post I added (in my not-so-long-lost historical theology mode) that Augustine and the neo-Platonists promoted the view of evil as the complete absence of good.
[ January 18, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
rivka, which is to say that one of us is saying that she doesn't like the term applied to her subset we agree exists and wonders if elements of that subset who also belong to a smaller subset wouldn't prefer to be identified by that subset's term while the other is saying the definitions of a totally different system's subsets are not agreed upon.
i feel like i've just combined that awful EE class i took with with awful fun philosophy course i took.
porter, i think you just need to put the thoughts in the first part of your post together with the thoughts in the second part. and remeber the, um, discussion(?) that beverly and i had on sakeriver about the label "childless."
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
heh, see now *that* sounds more like something dkw would say!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:porter, i think you just need to put the thoughts in the first part of your post together with the thoughts in the second part. and remeber the, um, discussion(?) that beverly and i had on sakeriver about the label "childless."
I just can't make the connection, because I parse "childless person" and "person without children" exactly the same: person.mb_hasChildren = false;
I vaguely remember that discussion. It made no more sense to me then than it does now.
I swear I'm not trying to be difficult.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Try this – because the word “childless” exists, but no equivalent word for “childed” does, it implies that having children is the default state. “Child-less” indicates something missing.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I had an interesting experience with labels after my daughter had her first few seizures. After a hospital stay that affirmed that her seizures were not due to fever, the dr. informed me that she had a "seizure disorder." I said, "What's a seizure disorder? Is it epilepsy?" The dr. got uncomfortable and eventually replied that yes, a seizure disorder was the same thing as epilepsy.
After doing some research, I realized that not only did they change the name of the disorder, but also all the names of the seizure types. No more grand mal - now it's a tonic-clonic. No more petit mal - it's an absence or partial complex seizure. After lots more research and speaking to many people, I'm convinced that a large part of why the labels were changed is due to the negative connotations of the word "epilepsy."
That's always struck me as strange. Wouldn't it be better to just work at changing the connotations? I honestly don't know. But for my part I always told people that my daughter had epilepsy; to me it opened a gateway to changing the impact of the label by educating the people around me.
space opera
edit: changing the names of the seizures has actually helped them be a bit more literally descriptive, in all fairness
[ January 18, 2005, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Try this – because the word “childless” exists, but no equivalent word for “childed” does, it implies that having children is the default state. “Child-less” indicates something missing.
Yes, there is an equivalent word for "childed" ones -- it is "parent".
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It's not an equilant word. It would be normal to say of someone "she's not a parent." It wouldn't be normal to say "she's not childless."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
To me, that's just because there's no need for the added clunkiness that the double negative in that sentence creates.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Right. But it's only a double negative because the word "childless" is itself a negative term. Which is exactly why it is also a negative (in the emotional sense) term to some people.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think I see what you are saying. You are saying that there is no equivalent word that means "parent" that is not a negation of another word.
Of course, that's just another way of saying that there is no non-negation form of the word childless, which is why the word childless is used at all.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It’s the difference between implying that the default is a person, and having children adds something (including the title “parent”) and implying that the default state is having children, and everyone who doesn’t is “less-child.”
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As I say, that could be inferred, but I don't believe it is implied.
But often times that doesn't matter.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, often times it doesn’t. But I tend to think that knowing something could (reasonably) be inferred by a certain phrasing and choosing to use that phrasing anyway is pretty much the same as implying it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:knowing something could (reasonably) be inferred by a certain phrasing and choosing to use that phrasing anyway is pretty much the same as implying it.
Yes. That's what I was trying to say.
The problem for me is two-fold. I'm not sure that it is a resonable inferrence. I'm not saying it's not -- I just haven't decided yet.
Also, since I don't have any "feel" on why a reasonable person whould inferr that, even if I decide that I want to respect that, it will be extremely difficult for me to not give offence in that way.
[ January 18, 2005, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: Try this – because the word “childless” exists, but no equivalent word for “childed” does, it implies that having children is the default state. “Child-less” indicates something missing.
This is how I was trying to relate your comments on evil and non-good. Sorry if I took your explanation of another view as your personal statement. It was also meant to be humourous because of Celia's reputation for evil.
If there is evil and good, there could be something that is non-good and non-evil at the same time. Like the color red.
Posted by gingerjam (Member # 7113) on :
I once did a class called "abnormal psychology" about "mental disorders" but the professor was all about turning accepted concepts on their heads... we were not allowed to use the word "disorder" at all and problems people had were called "problems in living" as Satz called it to get away from the labelling. either you love it or hate it...i loved it. it was not to say these problems didn't exists, but to change the perception of them and their effects.
i think the word 'disorder' is the worst label. As Mackillan said at the start of this post, everything it seen in light of that 'disorder'... it also implies an inability to get out of the 'disorder box'.
[ January 18, 2005, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: gingerjam ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
It's all well and good to say you don't have a disorder (as I do) until someone denies your insurance claim because of the verbiage a reporter uses in the newspaper. So there are so very real world impacts of labelling. The newspaper thing never happened to me, but happened to one of the first LVAD implants here in Utah because a reporter in their desire to make it sound exciting called the procedure "experimental".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If there is evil and good, there could be something that is non-good and non-evil at the same time. Like the color red.
This is how I view almost all personality traits. Stubborness, intelligence, sensitivity to others, introspection, fearlessness, natural leadership, natural followship, logic, intuition, a tendency to contmplate, a tendency to act, a taste for violence, etc.. None of these are good or evil, but they can all be used for good or evil -- like a knife.
quote:i think the word 'disorder' is the worst label. As Mackillan said at the start of this post, everything it seen in light of that 'disorder'... it also implied an inability to get out of the 'disorder box'.
Do you believe that the word 'disorder' is better than the word 'handicap'?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: Also, since I don't have any "feel" on why a reasonable person would infer that, even if I decide that I want to respect that, it will be extremely difficult for me to not give offence in that way.
I understood that to be what you were saying earlier, so I was trying to offer some tools for understanding when and why something that you didn’t mean to imply might be inferred. (Which in a way is not nice of me – because if you get to the point where you can see the other person’s point of view then you have to decide what to do about it.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The idea of default state vs. non-default state seems like it has the potential of being useful for me in this, but I still can't quite wrap my soul around it.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Okay, I have a very, very sincere question.
When is it okay to explain things by the disorder?
What if someone has something (Asperger's/bipolar/agoraphobia/nymphomania) that affects their relationship with me? I'm not a doctor, a care provider or an employer, but say I have a friend, family, or sweetheart relationship with this person. I'm not supposed to chalk words/attitudes/decisions/interior decoration to the disorder, but take them on their own and not define what they do by their disorder.
But on their own, I'd never put up with that kind of crap.
Say...agoraphobia.
(Disclaimer: I know there are some people on the board with that, but I've never met any in person so I can't be talking about them. My apologies for using it as an example - I have to use something, and I have only a layman's knowledge of the possibilities.)
If I had a friend who refused to ever meet me at my house, who canceled at the last second whenever we did make plans, and who disappeared for long stretches of time with no explanation, chances are we wouldn't become close friends or remain friends for long. Behavior that is symptomatic in someone with a disorder is wildly selfish and untrustworthy for someone without it.
When is it okay to blame the disorder? And...if the disorder gets invoked to let them off of things, is it actually wrong of me to come to assume that they can't be trusted? Whatever the reason for it, the result is the same. I think if you want to claim largess for some actions because of it, you can't be upset when someone assumes you are going to act in ways that require large amounts of largess. In a completely voluntary relationship, exactly what role does the disorder play?
Corollary with that, how do you know the line between someone experiencing symptoms that make it look like they are, say, untrustworthy and that person simply being untrustworthy on their own?
---
I hope this isn't an offensive question. I would really, really love it if sndrake or someone with experience could answer this, though. It's been floating around in my head for a while.
[ January 18, 2005, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by gingerjam (Member # 7113) on :
quote: Do you believe that the word 'disorder' is better than the word 'handicap'?
From what i decided from my psych degree, (aside from being totally disillusioned with how it is practised and how it treats people as a scientific rather than social/humanitarian discipline) To me 'disorder' means there's something irreparably wrong, and all you do and all your choices are seen bathed in the light of that 'disorder' eg. She doesn't want to eat chocolate cake even though it's normally her favourite...she must be off the prozac and the depression is affecting her mood... rather than accepting that maybe, like everyone else, she doesn't feel like cake right now.
'handicap' to me in reference to the physical doesn't hold the same negative stereotyping and labelling, because for eg. not wanting cake can't be put down to the fact that someone is blind or in a wheelchair. 'Handicap' in reference to mental issues is not commonly used in OZ but i think in that context it would be in the same box as 'disabled' for me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Lady Jane -- That's a really good question, and one that I hope to hear good answers for.
[ January 18, 2005, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Great, now I've got "It cuts like a knife, but it feels so right..." stuck in my head.
Disorder vs. handicap.
The thing about handicap is it is derived from the days when a person with blindness or an amputation would sit on the streetside with thier cap in their hand to beg for money. I think that is part of it.
Disorder still means that someone is made imperfect, or is defective. The Deaf Community in particular resist this because they still have the ability to communitcate.
I worked with a woman who was blind for several years. The only philosophical statement she had on her condition was that she dislikes the use of blind as a metaphor for lack of insight, and darkness for evil (this is a coincidence and not weighing on the evil aspect of the discussion). I was there to read for her, and sometimes to show her how to find places so she could do it on her own.
I've mentioned elsewhere how blindness is associated with increased mental capacity whereas deafness tends to be the opposite. So their struggles are different.
As far as mental disorders go, I never resisted the label of OCD or Bi-polar until it was time to start discussing the family history of mental disorders to my child. At first I just plunged into an inventory of the problems. But I realized that it sounded like I was pronouncing the child's own fate, and that I had been a foolish person to reproduce at all.
There are some good mental traits shared by my whole family that are not unrelated to the disorders like engineering skills (OCD), intrapersonal insight (Asperger's), artistic ability (Bi-Polar), charisma (ADD). It's not just making lemonade from lemons. The action of agonist-antagonist drugs like Abilify support this view.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The thing about handicap is it is derived from the days when a person with blindness or an amputation would sit on the streetside with thier cap in their hand to beg for money. I think that is part of it.
I thought that the word handicap came about so that the image that you described, which was associated with the word cripple, could be removed from common speach.
Posted by gingerjam (Member # 7113) on :
i think we can change words all we like but the associated image will alway come back and attach itself to the new word until the mindset and attitudes surrounding the words/image change, and/or the image itself changes (hopefully a time will come when people without sight or without limbs etc can still be acepted as equal members of society and not need to beg on street corners).
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
IIRC, Snopes has a page on the etymology of "handicap." It is a term I avoid, but I believe it derives from a 1600s game of chance.
(I'd heard the hand-in-cap thesis before, too, and was corrected on the actual derivation somewhere along the way.)
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Semantic creep for terms of lots of oppressed groups occur. Think of homosexuals, people of African descent, and females. But it doesn't mean we stop trying.
P.S. But isn't the belief that it means that what has driven it out of use, CT? Also, a handicap in sport generally means the score of a more skilled person is docked so that their play reflects their performance relative to their own average. Accomodations for handicap (say, in parking) are kind of the opposite.
[ January 18, 2005, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: mothertree ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Hmm...maybe I should start its own thread for the question?
I've asked it before, and the question was thorougly ignored. I know it's a loaded and sensitive question to answer, but I'd really like to know the answer to it. I'm not trolling - I'm really wondering.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yeah. When we use a term, we employ both denotation and connotation. I try to be accurate to what I intend to say in each area. Since communication is (or should be) more about transmission of accurate information rather than scoring points, I think of PC-styled changes as just using the most currently accurate terms, same as I do for medical terminology.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Wait until you have a higer post count and it won't be trolling Really, fire away.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
quote: I think of PC-styled changes as just using the most currently accurate terms, same as I do for medical terminology.
If it's actually correct, it's not politically correct.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
LJ, it's a tough thing. I think it is important to realize that people with any type of health issue (be it primarily a mental health issue or not) can also be jerks. Disability doesn't confer sainthood.
For my own purposes, I have come to the point where I rely a lot on a gut sense of whether someone is acting authentically with me or not. Many friends are important to me but not crucial (not as, say, my husband is). In that case, I try to depend on them to the extent that it seems to work for both of us. Sometimes that means more, sometimes less, and it differs for each of us from context to context.
Lives are just so complicated. There is usually (I think) a whole wealth of a story behind every decision people make. If it is a decision I really am dependent on (say, a letter of recommendation), then I try to make that explicitly clear when I ask for it, and I make sure that the person knows how to get in touch with me ASAP if things change and the favor becomes unworkable. By addressing the possibility that things won't work out as we expect up front, it seems more likely that people will be willing to acknowledge when things start to snowball for them.
But I do this with all my friends, not just those diagnosed with particular disorders. On the other hand, I don't offer things or agree to do something serious unless I am willing to follow through. (I am flighty, however, and this is irresponsible -- so I try to make sure that my friends know to let me know if it is a weighty matter.)
I think being as self-sufficient as possible, especially as regards entertaining oneself and having tons of interesting things going on at any one time, makes for the healthiest friendships. Not that we cannot rely on one another, but that we assume responsibility for ourselves and be as charitable as possible to one another.
This is a ramble much more than an answer. Didn't want you to think that I wasn't puzzling over your question, though.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:If it's actually correct, it's not politically correct.
I don't understand what you are saying. (Honest, I'm confused.)
Again, I try to address both denotation and connotation as issues which influence the selection of the "correct" word to mean what it is I want to say. If a word denotes what I mean but connotes something I don't (at least to some), then I look for a word that is a better fit.
quote:Semantic creep for terms of lots of oppressed groups occur. Think of homosexuals, people of African descent, and females. But it doesn't mean we stop trying.
P.S. But isn't the belief that it means that what has driven it out of use, CT?
Yeah. The connotation over and above the strict etymological denotation. I think both are important.
(Here, too, I don't understand what is the disagreement between us. )
[ January 18, 2005, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
*nods* That does make sense.
Untrustworthy was just an example, though. I used it because it's not actually the one that bothers me.
I think it's more a conflict between wanting to be a good friend and a good person, but enjoying how I spend my time/emotional energy. If someone has something that as a symptom they do extremely unsocial things, isn't it wrong of me to hold that against them? On the other hand, what if it starts to feel like an excuse for acting unsocially?
[ January 18, 2005, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by gingerjam (Member # 7113) on :
Lady Jane, well, i really don't know. i think it's a balance between accepting the difficulties they face, but also not putting everything they do down to that difficulty...not really an answer! I'm a big fan of seeing everything in contexts and in holistic ways though.
I had a cousin who worried a lot about everything possible, spent half her waking time praying for her problems (which taught me a lot about reliance on prayer) and was therefore seeing a Psyhiatrist. She came back all full of how she was 'sick' and had a 'mental disorder'. i accepted that she had a harder time going through life than others do, and some of it was directly unavoidable, but i also would try to make her see that just because she was supposedly 'mentally sick' didn't mean that she could try to come out of it, rather than herself putting her problems down to the 'sickness'.
quote: In a completely voluntary relationship, exactly what role does the disorder play?
to enter into a completely voluntary relationship does however imply that there is a reason beyond mere day to day comings and goings that would make it worthiwhile, and make it easier to work around particular quirks or 'problems in living'. I have a friend with whom i have lots of shared experiences, a real soul connection and when i'm with we have very inspiring conversations and uplift one another...he's completely untrustworthy though, but i work around that and go out of my way to help him or make it easier for him to be able to fulfill my trust, get done the things i ask him to do because the ups of the relationship outweigh the downs.
i think i could really have just ditto'd Claudia Therese but i'd already written all this... 2am on this side of the world=bedtime
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
This is going to sound rather sparse, but it is said and done with a lot more kindness than comes through on the screen. *smile
I ask myself questions like:
What is it I want from this relationship? What is the minimum I need from it? How much potential is there for where this relationship could go? How much do I have to put into the relationship in order to get what a) I want, b) I need, and c) the best out of it.
I then make decisions accordingly.
I think I was more concerned with the concept of desert (as in "just deserts") when I was at a different stage in my life. I was focused on being fair and correct. I still worry about that, but it's now first filtered through a lens of what is possible for me.
So sometimes I let a friendship grow a little wild without tending, just because I can't do that tending right now. For me, the most important thing is to figure out what is possible first (for me and for the other), and then make the best choice among those options. Thankfully, this means I don't have to take the responsibility of labelling another a bad person, or not a good friend, or "impossible" in some concrete external sense. Instead, they may not be a good friend for me and right now -- which could be my fault as much as theirs.
To some extent we are all partly responsible for the sides of one another we bring out in others. I bring out an unhealthy side in some people, so it's best we minimize that kind of interaction, insofar as that is true. And the reverse for the reverse.
I have different demands for partnership, parenthood, and other more potentially fraught relationships. However, it all starts at the same place.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
I have nothing further to add, but wanted to say thanks to dkw for picking up Porter's question while I was away.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
"politically correct" arose to describe the term (or stated belief) for something that is politically received. But if people were only using it because they have been told to, they could still harbor ugly feelings underneath. Or beliefs are embraced because that is what the other cool people believe and not what one really thinks.
If you have been asked by a minority person to call them one thing and not another, then that is a valid reason to use it. If there is some other scientific reason or convetion to use a term those are valid reasons.
I don't like the term Asian, and I don't like the term Biracial for myself. It's hard to say whether it's because I feel people who bear those descriptions legitimately have bigger problems than me, or if that's just a pretty way of me saying I think I'm better than them. Is it possible to acknowlege I'm better off than them without thinking I'm better than them?
Lady Jane, I think I understand your question now. I tend to be the person with the disorders, but I personally still take responsibility for something that happened because of my disorder. I may offer the disorder as an explanation, but that is different from giving it as an excuse. And excuse means I don't think it's my fault. An explanation simply means it is my fault, and this is why. If I accept something in terms of an explanation, I will watch to try not to do that again.
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
I believe it is said with kindness, and I must admit that as much I wish to be more charitable, if someone makes me sad more often than they make me happy (for whatever reason), I don't hold on to them.
That doesn't feel quite right, though. It's like...it's like I'm holding against them what they can't help. I think we should be nice to everyone, generally, and really...most people require so little - a little interaction, a little personal attention, happy face or voice when they contact me, some approval for what I like about them.
This reminds me of a roommate I had once - she...she was a mess. I don't know if she had anything other raging depression that seems like a natural consequence and cause of a lot of her sorrow, but the other five of us put up with extremely unsocial behavior (with varying degrees of success: on one hand, we didn't kick her out or spill what she was doing to her parents when they called, but on the other, one roommate came up with the name The Beast for her) for a about six months before the drama, mess, fights, and dishonesty became too much. We didn't kick her out even then - we just scheduled a meeting with the RA and she left within 24 hours, probably to prevent us mentioning the pot we found in her room. Anyway, the point is that it felt wrong to add ourselves to list of people in her life that couldn't stand her, but we were so, so miserable in the meantime. We didn't even realize how much until she was gone.
If someone's dealing with something in their life, it feels wrong to step away. I'll do it anyway (I don't like being miserable, and I'll change whatever it is about myself or my surroundings that is making me so), but I guess I'm wondering if that's actually okay.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Great, now I've got "It cuts like a knife, but it feels so right..." stuck in my head.
That's funny. I've got:
"How do we get it?" "With a KNIFE."
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote: If I had a friend who refused to ever meet me at my house, who canceled at the last second whenever we did make plans, and who disappeared for long stretches of time with no explanation, chances are we wouldn't become close friends or remain friends for long. Behavior that is symptomatic in someone with a disorder is wildly selfish and untrustworthy for someone without it.
When is it okay to blame the disorder? And...if the disorder gets invoked to let them off of things, is it actually wrong of me to come to assume that they can't be trusted? Whatever the reason for it, the result is the same. I think if you want to claim largess for some actions because of it, you can't be upset when someone assumes you are going to act in ways that require large amounts of largess. In a completely voluntary relationship, exactly what role does the disorder play?
Corollary with that, how do you know the line between someone experiencing symptoms that make it look like they are, say, untrustworthy and that person simply being untrustworthy on their own?
Speaking from the point of view of someone who either has or had agoraphobia, along with a whole host of other phobias and other emotional/psychological problems, the question is not offensive. At all. Also, I wasn't ignoring your post - I was sleeping.
I would do exactly what you've described - I'd avoid people for long stretches, cancel things at the last minute - not because they offended me in any way. They didn't. But because I just couldn't handle being around people. I'm still that way to a limited degree, but being in a country where I don't have any close friends, the expectations are much lower. Some people didn't stay friends with me, but others did. The ones who did understood where I was coming from, they knew that it was because of the specific problems I had, and they knew that things would resume as soon as I could make them.
Actually, for a long time, I didn't realize it was a phobia. I felt guilty - so incredibly guilty - for acting the way that I did. But I also couldn't help it, or at least, it felt like I couldn't. I was completely overwhelmed by everything.
However. I also got help. I spent ten years in therapy, doing one-on-one therapy, group therapy, art therapy, whatever. I tried anti-depressants, both for depression and for the phobias (more correctly called anxiety disorders, but whatever.) I took responsibility for trying to change my life in a permanent way rather than just accepting that I had a problem and expecting everyone else to just work around it or suffer through it with me.
I know a lot of people with anxiety disorders and depression, and that doesn't bother me. But I am bothered when they don't do anything about it. I guess I have a low patience threshold on this. I don't mean in the short term - it takes a while to figure out that a person has a problem, and it takes a while for that person to come to terms with accepting they have a problem. But in the longterm, they need to deal with it.
I have a cousin who is bipolar. Has bipolar? Grammatically, it doesn't sound as good. Anyway, she takes her meds, she feels better - normal - so she decides she doesn't need the meds anymore, so she goes off them, and then she's back to messed up again. Granted, this is a normal pattern for people with bipolar disorder, but it's still frustrating. When she's off her meds, she's rude, obnoxious, hateful, vengeful, petty, mean, vindictive, destructive to everyone, and lies incessantly. I can't stand her and I won't put up with her behavior. But if she would actually take her meds, get therapy, or otherwise try to do something about it, I could handle it a lot better.
You know - some people whine and complain about everything but never do a thing to change what's going on. That annoys me to no end.
I know that some people have problems to such a degree that they don't think they're capable of doing anything to change themselves - and I suspect the medical world agrees with this. I have a hard time believing this incapability of changing is so widespread simply because I had a lot of serious problems and I managed to overcome many of them. Granted, I'm not done. I still have anxiety disorders, but to a much lesser extent, and a much more liveable extent. To the rest of the world, I'm just not as social. I'm a home body.
So part of this rambling mass is that I also think that people need to learn to deal with what they have in the best way they can. Of course, with some things, it's easier than others.
I don't know. Does this answer anything?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: rivka, which is to say that one of us is saying that she doesn't like the term applied to her subset we agree exists and wonders if elements of that subset who also belong to a smaller subset wouldn't prefer to be identified by that subset's term while the other is saying the definitions of a totally different system's subsets are not agreed upon.
i feel like i've just combined that awful EE class i took with with awful fun philosophy course i took.
Great. Now my brain is leaking out my ear. Thanks a LOT, celia. Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
As messed up as I am, there was a friend I "set free" because she was too mixed up for me. But I wasn't in any shape to be helping her, was kind of the thing. It was kind of a "put on your own oxygen mask before helping others" situation.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
CT said:
quote:Disability doesn't confer sainthood.
I would be a good example of the truth of this statement.
*wonders what CT has done with Sara*
*eyes CT suspiciously*
(OK, I'm back to work now.)
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
Thank you, quid. It does.
I picked the agoraphobia as an example because it's something that doesn't actually bother me. I do have a couple of friends that I need to talk to and rely on much more often, but for most of them, every once in a while and whenever they feel comfortable is okay. Most of close friends are fairly introverted as well, so I don't take it personally if they just can't handle seeing people right then.
I'm still not sure of how to resolve the conflict between wanting to be understanding and refusing to put up with being treated badly.
I was thinking about Molly, my best friend from college that I still talk to about once a week or every other week or so. She's married and has a kid, and our friendship has definitely had to change. I've been unhappy about things before and mentioned them, and she's been unhappy with me before and mentioned them, and when life changed there's an adjustment period, but we are still very close friends and have been for almost ten years.
Now, what if the things that made me unhappy were from a disorder of hers? Sometimes there was a reason (the post-baby's-birth hormones and life things being the main one for her, me dealing with the chaos in my head after my mom died for me), and generally, those conversations were saved until after the situation had passed.
Now, if someone has something, it doesn't pass. It doesn't go away, and you can't wait until they get through that phase or get over the breakup or their life settles down, because it never does.
You're at an impasse. What they are doing might be because of the disorder, but according to this thread, it is churlish to identify that disorder as the reason for the action. That means that the only solution if I'm unhappy with someone is to, well, take it or leave it, instead of to work it out like with other relationships. That doesn't feel right, but I'm not sure what else to do.\
Added: Is this just a touchy subject? Usually Hatrack is all over an opportunity to discuss ethical social mores.
[ January 19, 2005, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't like the term Asian
What would do you prefer? Or do just not like people talking about race?
edit: that might sound snarky, but it isn't.
[ January 19, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:You're at an impasse. What they are doing might be because of the disorder, but according to this thread, it is churlish to identify that disorder as the reason for the action. That means that the only solution if I'm unhappy with someone is to, well, take it or leave it, instead of to work it out like with other relationships. That doesn't feel right, but I'm not sure what else to do.
To clarify my position, it doesn't matter to me what the cause of a problematic behavior is. If I can live with it, I can; if I can't, then I can't.
I assume everyone is always trying to be the best friend that they can be. To do otherwise wouldn't make sense to me -- that is, although I have bad days, I try not to take it out on other people. When I do, I try to apologize and make amends once I come back to my senses. That is what caring for another means: you want them to be happy, and you are distressed if you cause them distress. I have to assume my friends take the same stance toward me, because to do otherwise would mean that they were not my friends.
When I've tried to "work on" friends in the past, it has never turned out well. Either the other person was more than willing to meet me halfway (in which case it would have probably worked out fine on its own) or there was an embroilment in counter-accusations and justifications (so I ended up getting yet more enmeshed in an unhealthy relationship).
I realize this might make me come across as uncaring. It's where I've come to after 30+ years of trying to figure out a way I can be in the world that is feasible and feels healthy to me. Again, for certain relationships, more is involved. Certainly this is so for my partnership with my husband -- we have covenanted to one another, and we have additional responsibilities. Also, my supervisor is someone who is in a position where he must give me feedback on my behavior and its acceptability.
For most friendships, though, I just don't think it's appropriate for me to tell another adult that he or she should change his or her ways so that they are more pleasing to me.* This does represent a change for me, BTW, and it may have something to do with the fact that work and marriage keep my quite busy otherwise. When I do have free time, I spend it with people who enrich my life, like Tom and Christy. Or I call Olivia, or my friend Melanie, or a number of other fantastic and loving people who already know how to be good friends to me, and I to them.
Most acquaintances I treat with benign neglect: delighted when I can spend good quality time with them, often thinking about them as I go through day-to-day tasks, but not really my responsibility to either save or raise. It's not just laziness -- trying to save other souls or raise them up as if I were a parent just has been a phenomenally unsuccessful strategy for me.
*The exception is when I see someone harming another, as sometimes happens at Hatrack or when I was in residency. I'll usually make an effort then, more in the hopes that clarification will help (or at least to show support for someone who is unfairly getting reamed), rather than trying to change the basic nature of another.
[ January 19, 2005, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:*eyes CT suspiciously*
*scrutes sndrake with haughty aplomb
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I don't think there's anything wrong with saying "I can't stand it when you no-show on me. If you can't give me advance warning, then I'll only come if it suits my schedule." Speaking from the point of view of someone who has a hrd time being social, something like that is fair. Honestly, communicating to the other person about how you feel about what's happening is fair. Demanding that they change, of course, is not. They can change or not change as they see fit. But you still have to either find a way to live with it, or not live with it. Communicating about what's happening is the only way.
It's also possible that the person on the other side of the problem may have some ideas on how to deal with things. For example, when my anxiety disorders were really bad, it would frequently work better to make loose plans with full acknowledgement that I may have to cancel at the last minute. At the same time, they were free to cancel on me at the last minute if something else came up. Fair is fair. My really good friends were always understanding about all of this, and even went so far as to tell me when I wanted to avoid certain places because the crowds were so large that it would just freak me out.
But I agree with other comments - either you can live with it or you can't. That's not being cold. That's being realistic.
There are some things I can put up with, and there are others that drive me nuts. The drive me nuts ones I avoid like the plague. Someone else can deal with them better than I.
Oh, and not a touchy subject to me at all. It also wasn't when I was in the worst of it. But then, I've always had a wacked sense of humour. One of my best friends actually got me "The Pop-Up Book of Phobias" for Christmas one year, and "The Pop-Up Book of Nightmares" the next. I nearly peed my pants from laughing so hard.
I know that anxiety disorders were picked on only as an example. I'm just telling you my side of things. Ask away if you want to know more.
Edit to add: The person with the anxiety disorders also needs to learn coping skills and responsibility for their disorder. Take medication if it helps, get therapy if it helps, and actively work on resolving the issue if it can be resolved. But still, even if none of that works, they have to find ways to cope with what's happening. And it can work.
I became self-employed specifically so I wouldn't have to deal with people every single day. I could work from home and only had to go out once a week or so. I had internet and email, so reduced the amount of time I had to be on the phone. I developed strategies that reduced the stress levels for me.
For me, anxiety disorders are kind of like a cup that's full. If it's less than half full, then I cope better even in identical situations. But if it's close to full or it's full, then I don't cope well at all. There's no room left. So reducing stressful situations made a huge difference in how I coped overall since I was putting myself in a position where the cup was nearly always under half full. Does that make sense?
I also had a great therapist who helped me develop the coping skills in the short term until I could deal with the root of the anxiety disorders. Getting professional help is paramount.
[ January 19, 2005, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: quidscribis ]
Posted by Lady Jane (Member # 7249) on :
quote:either you can live with it or you can't. That's not being cold. That's being realistic.
There are some things I can put up with, and there are others that drive me nuts. The drive me nuts ones I avoid like the plague. Someone else can deal with them better than I.
I agree with this - more in practice than in theory, but this is also what I do.
Among the many wonderful things that I like about being an adult better than being a kid, I no longer feel like I have to put up with crap to still be a good person. It is an incredible day of liberation to realize that simply because someone says they are a friend, you are free to call BS on them when they don't act like it.
quid, the anxiety thing really is something that I CAN live with. Unless it is in a close, close friend or a sweetheart, it's definitely in the "quirk" category, and I like quirky friends. Thank you for letting me use it as an example.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yeah. And in fact, playing an active role in figuring out what you will and will not do with your resources (time, attention, what have you) is a big part of being a responsible and mature agent. That was an eye-opener for me -- that by always acceding to others, I was being a shirker.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
Really, fire away.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
)