| « Hate crimes | Hell's Kitchen: The Season Finale, Part II (the final showdown) » |
Can we fix? SHOULD we fix?
This week's Hump Day Hmmm is a story about a young girl. A girl who was born with what many of us would consider a horribly disfiguring birth defect, but whose parents - indeed, whose entire village - considered a gift from heaven, the reincarnation of a goddess. A young girl, the family and community that loved her, and a doctor who was driven to 'fix' what he perceived as 'wrong'. A noble idea, but one which brought great pain and disruption to her family and the village where she lived, for they saw her as a special gift, the answer to their prayers, and not as someone who needed 'fixing'.
Our assignment, should we choose to accept it:
...share your thoughts about this case or any others regarding some medical or other situation that deviated from the "norm." What do you think about the drive to fix? Do all conditions and situations need fixing? Or do we societally need to consider our need to control, master and manage, and instead spend some time, sometimes, learning how to deal? Or...are those mutually exclusive?
Interestingly enough, I head up an Employee Resource Group (Employee Network) focused on people affected by disabilities at the place I work. One of the challenges we face is determining to what lengths we have to go to make 'reasonable accommodations'. At what point do we say "Enough! If you want to play in our sandbox, you must be able to keep up with the rest of us - without any special assistance." For, all too often, that is what 'reasonable accommodations' is seen as: giving someone special treatment, such as a preferred parking space, or allowing them to work from home/come in at a different time/be excused from certain activities at school. The resulting attitude on the part of those who resent this 'special treatment' is, in many cases, more painful than the disability itself. As a person with disabilities, I have experienced this, and to be honest it can get to be depressing. Even worse is when well-meaning people tell me about the wonderful surgical options that can 'fix' my condition (hint: unless your 'fix' includes a new liver and pancreas, don't bother.) Sadly, they see only what is on the outside, and don't have a clue what is going on inside.
And, our need to 'fix' those we perceive as 'broken' is not limited to the realm of medically-based disabilities.
One show I often watch is called What Not to Wear. The premise is that a pair of fashionistas help pathetic losers people with less than zero little to no fashion sense find a sense of style more in tune with the expectations of the community they live and work in. While in pretty much every case the hapless victim mentee expresses their appreciation for the experience, it saddens me a bit to see the person's individuality being suppressed in order to make them conform to the societal biases and prejudices, so that on the outside they make a good impression. To me, this seems so shallow, and shows that we are the Land of the Free - free, that is, to follow the conventional wisdom, to 'go with the flow'. As soon as we deviate too far, though, we become a mole in an arcade game, to be whacked back into a state of conformance. (hint: Stacy and Clinton, if you show up at my place, be sure your naughty word censors are well rested and on the ball. They'll be busy.)
So, what about our penchant for 'fixing' people we perceive as 'broken'? How long will it be before doing things differently - dancing to the beat of a different drummer - will no longer be viewed as a threat to the established order, something that needs to be 'fixed' like a flat tire?
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
9 comments
I heard that Clinton and Stacey get turned down about 10% of the time. Although for a week in NYC by myself with 5k to spend is mighty tempting.
Oy. reasonable accommodations. I think people worry too much about what others get, sometimes. I got a flex schedule after I had a baby. I worked just as hard---harder---and met all my obligations work-wise, but it didn't cut the resentment from others who logged (mentally at least) when I was and wasn't in the office.
Everyone is looking for fair, when it's not a state of being, but is, instead, a place to go to ride a Ferris wheel.
Interestingly, my mother and I were talking about a proposed bit of legislation here in Texas that would require, as part of licensing in Texas, all doctors to be fluent in Spanish and English.
Wow, that's a quick route to make the health care problem worse. I see their point, but to be blunt, that's not a reasonable expectation.
I guess the bottom line question is: does the concession benefit the greater good or does it cost the greater good too much?
If the concession would benefit the individual but at too much cost to everyone else---and that's your point, how do we find that place, I know---then...it's past reasonable.
I don't find "let the person work from home or have flex schedule" to be that place. But others do. A quandary.
Your post is two pieces for me:
Part 1 asks what are reasonable expectations of the greater?
Part 2 asks what are reasonable expectations of the individual? To me, this portion hints at wondering to what level of our ability are we expected, reasonably, to perform.
It's a big mom question, too: are degreed, professional women at home "wasting" their potential?
Emily - I don't know that we can 'fix' homelessness. Maybe what we need to do is go after the conditions that lead to it (which we do, but with varying degrees of success.) This isn't a call to 'sit on our hands and do nothing', rather a warning that we need to consider our motivations for trying to 'fix' something (or someone.)
Julie - I read that comment about fair, and realized I had just found my new email .sig! (With attribution, of course.)
As to the whole 'reasonable accomodation' thing, I am reminded of a quote (sort of) from the mother on the show 'Little People, Big World': "We do the same things as everyone else... we just do them a bit differently." I guess the issue becomes whether whether or not the cost of allowing that difference is too high, but I tend to lean toward the individual, as that is IMHO how we create an inclusive team/workplace/community/society, one in which all can contribute to their potential. It's sort of silly to take away a carpenter's hammer, then fault him for failing to nail the boards together.
As to your last question: Son just turned 21. I don't think either my wife or I feel she "wasted" her time - in fact, I would say it is the best investment we as a family have made.
Maybe the whole problem is that people somehow feel that 'those others' are getting an advantage (or special treatment), when all they are getting is a bit of help in overcoming a barrier that doesn't affect the rest of us.
~eTee
I think if we had a social definition of disability instead of a medical definition, maybe we would try to fix society and the barriers instead of trying to fix the people.
Attachedparent - What if all the doors in the buildings were constructed such that you required the strength of a professional athlete to open them? Or, what if all the steps were 9 feet tall? How would you feel if the only way your child could do his/her schoolwork was to be left-handed (and your kids were strongly right-handed)? Would YOU feel that making the appropriate modifications so that you/your family could perform basic life functions that everyone needs to do in order to function in society was an "entitlement"? I am not about "giving someone a fish", but rather I want to "teach/enabled them to fish", for that way they can feed themselves and contribute to society. After all, as unique individuals we tend to do things slightly different ways, and sometimes (oftentimes?) a "one size fits all" approach simply doesn't work.
I do want to thank everybody for coming over and commenting!
~eTee
I'm a week late for the Hmm, but please check out my post here:
http://www.mommybytes.com/2008/07/autism-revealed.html
Comment feed for this post