J.P.THARIN@f7.n300.z1.fidonet.org (J P THARIN) (08/25/90)
Index Number: 9965
Adrienne...
I was replying to your message earlier with a great deal of
righteous anger when my machine crashed. Perhaps G-d was trying to
keep me from making a fool of myself yet again. This over-concern,
this emphasis, this dwelling on the socially "correct" labels for us
human beings has got to stop some day. Just changing one previously
"correct" label to a new contemporarily "correct" (says WHO,
damnit!) label doesn't do one single bit of good for you or for me.
Let me introduce myself. I'm an apparently able-bodied mesomorph
(labels suck) who some jerks have the nice convenient label of "TAB"
for. I drive a paratransit van for a living. The pay stinks but I
love the job. For the first time in my life I love what I'm doing,
getting out into the world every day and meeting all sorts of
strange and interesting people. I have two labels for the people I
meet who have no legs (I have no tail!) or who dove into a shallow
pool (I once shot myself!) or who's eyes aren't up to standards (one
of my ears works very well most of the time!) or who move
unpredictably (no fair talking to my ex-wife!). Those labels are
"Sir" and "Maam", whether ten years old or ninety. It ain't forced:
my mother also taught me to stand when a person worthy of respect
entered the room (or van), and to open doors for someone with their
arms full, and to give a free push when someone needs it (just
because I push on up-hills and then hop on for a ride on the down
slopes doesn't mean any disrespect, Mom). But I'm digressing. Maybe.
Opening a door for someone is no different than getting behind
them and tilting their chair back to clear the threshold. Or holding
their hand so they're not afraid of falling. You do this for a three
year old child or a ninety year old parent, with no thought that
you're doing it because the person is three or ninety: you do it
because it's simply the thing to do. You also do it for anyone
between these ages, with no reservations, if that's what they need
to avoid their individual fear of falling. You don't need a label to
help you define your rationale for acting; you just act. This is
also known as "common courtesy".
I think that the person who wrote that article was someone who gives
too much thought to what should be an unconscious act (or trend).
Maybe one of dem bleedin' heart lib'rals who give more credence to
guilt and socially "correct" actions than to personal dealings with
real human beings. Some of these labels are seriously belabored,
like "Congenital Disability" for birth defect, like "Mobility
Impaired", and like "Of Small Stature". Hey, the guy's real short,
y'know?. It's a valid physical description. I've got brown hair.
Also a valid physical description! Who cares? This dwelling on
socially inappropriate labels is just plain anal. If someone needs a
label in order to define him or her self, then that someone needs to
get a real life.
Separate the mechanical aspects of life from the soul. Never
confuse the two. Leave the mechanics to the professionals and leave
the rest to the heart.
Jesse (almost upset)
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!7!J.P.THARIN
Internet: J.P.THARIN@f7.n300.z1.fidonet.orgJ.P.THARIN@f7.n300.z1.fidonet.org (J P THARIN) (08/28/90)
Index Number: 10009
Naaaaadiiiiiine!!!
Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I've got a real problem with
labels. The problem isn't in the issuance of one of the greasy little
things, but in the acceptance of them. How anyone can accept being placed
in a nice tidy box is beyond my comprehension. You have there one of the
core precepts of blind prejudice, this easy packaging of another's role,
attributes, abilities, and so on. Being saddled with a neat label gives
some people an easy excuse to deal me out, to discount my words, and so
on. My own reputation in this world, good or bad, is to be earned entirely
by me. You have no right to prejudge my worth by assigning an easy label
to me.
Well, how's THAT for an example? Insert any label and the analogy
should work well enough. The way other people have encapsulated my being
has held me back and held me down many little times in this life. When you
say labels are good, we just GOTTA be talking about different things. A
label that allows you to get a handle on reality is not the same as one
that lets others get a death grip on you! No one should define another on
the basis of their deviation from an arbitrary physical (or other)
"normalcy".
Anyhow, I'd never dump on you. I'm dumping on Fido.
Jesse Peter
"Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that sometimes he has
to eat them."
Adlai Stevenson (Speech 9/5/52)
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!7!J.P.THARIN
Internet: J.P.THARIN@f7.n300.z1.fidonet.orgcas@mtdcb.att.com (Clifford A Stevens, Jr) (09/04/90)
Index Number: 10048 I agree w Jesse. I think labels are a waste of bits. I think that every label society has for us is labeling us by an trivial characteristic! So I don't walk very well, why is that important? I mean, I have dealt and still am dealing w it, so it's important to me, but why do you care? And don't give me that BS about "caring because you want to make my life easier", admit it, people like helping because they get a "warm fuzzy" (As opposed to a "cold prickly".) out of it! *NOONE* helps unless it makes them feel better! (At least, they feel they tried!) So I don't like to use labels, but I recognize society's need to put us in a special cubbyhole! So what I do is label them, I refer to them as the "Uninjured", I know that not all of us are injured, but I do not like to be labeled! I've got to admit, the NHIF has a label that I kind of like! They call people who have undergone a head injury a "Survivor". And I'm sure we could use it, so let's call *ALL* of us "Survivors"! ------------ Militant Survivor! Cliff Stevens MT1E228 att!cbnewsj!ncas (908)671-7292
Nadine.Thomas@p1.f10.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Nadine Thomas) (09/05/90)
Index Number: 10088
JP> Naaaaadiiiiiine!!!
Yes?
JP> Hey, I'll be the first to admit that I've got a real problem with
JP> labels. The problem isn't in the issuance of one of the greasy little
JP> things, but in the acceptance of them. How anyone can accept being
I can accept my labels - I will not accept someone USING those
labels against me - there is a difference. We all have labels -
starting with being a human being, being a man or woman etc.
JP> When you say labels are good, we just GOTTA be talking about different
JP> things. A label that allows you to get a handle on reality is not the same
JP> as one that lets others get a death grip on you! No one should define
JP> another on
JP> the basis of their deviation from an arbitrary physical (or other)
JP> "normalcy".
Labels, just as other things in life, can be used good and bad. I
can call you a man (nicely) or I can call you a MAN (with anger and
disgust) each way can be interpreted as good or bad but that does
not mean that the label is a blanket bad thing.
JP> Anyhow, I'd never dump on you. I'm dumping on Fido.
I didn't really think you would (grin).
JP> "Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that sometimes
JP> he has to eat them."
JP> Adlai Stevenson (Speech 9/5/52)
Where did you find the Bartletts book of quotes??? I like it.
Nadine
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!10.1!Nadine.Thomas
Internet: Nadine.Thomas@p1.f10.n300.z1.fidonet.orgAdrienne.Barhydt@p0.f14.n105.z1.fidonet.org (Adrienne Barhydt) (09/05/90)
Index Number: 10093 > Just changing one previously "correct" label to a new >contemporarily "correct" (says WHO, damnit!) label doesn't >do one single bit of good for you or for me. You're right. What has to change is attitudes. Do you have any suggestions of how that can be done? >I have two labels for the people I meet who have no legs (I >have no tail!) or who dove into a shallow pool (I once shot >myself!) or who's eyes aren't up to standards (one of my >ears works very well most of the time!) or who move >unpredictably (no fair talking to my ex-wife!). Those labels >are "Sir" and "Maam", whether ten years old or ninety. You are light-years ahead of a good many people. >Opening a door for someone is no different than getting >behind them and tilting their chair back to clear the >threshold. Or holding their hand so they're not afraid of >falling. You do this for a three year old child or a ninety >year old parent, with no thought that you're doing it >because the person is three or ninety: you do it because >it's simply the thing to do. You also do it for anyone >between these ages, with no reservations, if that's what >they need to avoid their individual fear of falling. You >don't need a label to help you define your rationale for >acting; you just act. This is also known as "common >courtesy". Just don't open a door for me if I'm going through it on my feet without telling me first, or better yet asking me. If I am on my feet anything, let me repeat that, ANYTHING that I have my hand on is supporting me. If you pull a door open for me and I have my hand on it already, I'm gonna fall flat on my face. And if you see me loading my scooter into my trunk, don't touch it. I know how it is balanced, I know the angle it has to go into the trunk to fit. If you want to help, ask me and if I have a place to sit down and the time to tell you exactly how to do it, then you can help me. All I am saying is what seems obvious, may in fact not be. I need help with all kinds of things, lots of help. I am learning to ask for it. But more and more I appreciate people who say to me "how can I help" instead of just doing what they think would be helpful. Unfortunately, despite the best of intentions, what people decide on their own to do for me is often more of a hindrance than a help and sometimes dangerous as well. >I think that the person who wrote that article was someone >who gives too much thought to what should be an unconscious ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >act (or trend). ^^^ It should be, but unfortunately, it is not. What I see in the article is an attempt to make the point that a person is a person first. Writing the words out, "a person is a person first" seems so self evident that I feel dumb writing it. Clearly, it is an attitude that you learned very young. How can others learn it? I think that the attempt to change attitudes by changing language is incomplete if that is all that one is doing. But maybe it gets some people thinking. (Hey, how 'bout that out there, has any change in any sort of labels for anything changed anybody's attitudes in any way?) As you said in different words, if you just change the word without changing the attitude, the new words just take on the old, negative connotations. > Jesse (almost upset) I did not intend to upset you or anyone else with the article. I hoped to get a dialog going and the article seemed like a good starting point. I know that the responses I've received have given me more to think about. I don't know if I'll ever get to the point that I feel like I've got it all figured out. Fortunately, I enjoy exploring different ideas along the way. Take it easy....but take it! Adrienne -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!105!14.0!Adrienne.Barhydt Internet: Adrienne.Barhydt@p0.f14.n105.z1.fidonet.org