# Disabled: Killed with kindness?



## GEmatt

There was a news-type documentary on television, recently, about an alternative comedic troupe from Germany, the members of which all had some sort of physical disability (the programme mostly covered from-birth defects (phocomelia; dwarfism), although there were also some participants who were disabled through accident or illness (amputees; wheelchair-bound).

As I understood it, the idea of the troupe was to engage with able-bodied people in such a way as to actively provoke their stares, bemusement, or annoyance, in the set-up of a "hidden camera" programme. Several members of the troupe referred to their activities as "turning the tables", that is, as being empowered to pick their "victims", instead of being made to feel like victims, by being the constant recipients of pity or excessive niceness.

It just got me thinking that we're rarely educated on how to behave when confronted with a person with a disability, and the few times I have been in such situations, I have recognized that the other has shown far more tolerance of me and my bungling attempts to interact, than any tolerance or awareness I could have shown on my part.

What do forer@s think about the troupe's method? Can the increased visibility they are trying to create break down barriers, offensive or annoying though it may be (to some)? Or is another ghetto the best it can hope to achieve?

How do you interact with people with disabilities (especially interesting if you have first-hand experience, like through family or friends)?

Thank you for your thoughts.
GEmatt
______________________

I found the television programme description of the troupe, here, but in German.

This is a very rough translation. I am not a professional, so for those in the know, the below may leave a lot to be desired. It is just so that more forer@s have access to the background. Comments and corrections are welcomed, with thanks.

At last, Comedy Central is reinterpreting the "hidden camera" principle. "Para-Comedy" stars physically disadvantaged comedians, who become protagonists in malicious comic sketches. They pointedly fool passers-by with their handicaps, and the "normal" victims become delightful co-stars, valuable punchlines, and often perplexed confidants. Previously unusual stars, who already have some experience as comedians and who wish to emerge from the grey area of their profession, confront their fellows amusingly, and with their individual handicap. "Para-Comedy" stands for absurd sketches, freaky gags, and nasty surprises.


----------



## fenixpollo

Why are you unsure how to act around disabled people and bumbling in your attempts to interact with them? I'll tell you: because disabilities are not discussed in "polite society".  Society as a whole chooses to ignore disabled people, so people who are not disabled are at a loss when they come face to face with a differently-abled person (that one was for you, cuchu). 

The solution to this oversight is to get the topic out into the open so it can be discussed. I approve of the tactics of this troupe, as you've described it so far in these posts, because it opens the discussion... and it sounds empowering to the members of the troupe, so it seems like a good thing to me!


----------



## Kajjo

fenixpollo said:


> because disabilities are not discussed in "polite society".  Society as a whole chooses to ignore disabled people, so people who are not disabled are at a loss when they come face to face with a differently-abled person (that one was for you, cuchu).


Yes, you are right that disabilities are not openly discussed -- political correctness dictates to view and discuss such issues very differently from _normal issues_. Exactly _this_ discrimination done by the political-correct is one of the main sources of discrimination in the first place!

No, "Society as a whole" does not ignore such people. Most individuals know personally some disabled, handicapped, elderly or sick friends -- and discuss it quite openly in the family and with close friends: How to help, what to do, what are the reasons, possible treatments, how this affects family and so on. But all this openness evaporates quickly when being made public or political -- because the terms, the emotions and the responses are dictated and artificial. Telling the truth is prohibited, using plain language anyway.

What you receive as society response is what politicians and lobbyists make you think. It is not what people who are really involved think. And most people are involved.

Kajjo


----------



## Etcetera

I chose the third option. 
Yes, I'm especially attentive to disabled persons and I try to be helpful. But I try not to be hurtful and over-attentive. That may turn out to be even insulting, I know.


----------



## fenixpollo

Kajjo said:


> Most individuals know personally some disabled, handicapped, elderly or sick friends -- and discuss it quite openly in the family and with close friends:


 Well, at least one person in this thread has already admitted to having little experience with disabled people, which implies that he doesn't know anyone disabled. I don't, either. So your supposition is _false_ that "most" people have direct experience with disabled people and the issues surrounding disabilities.


----------



## Kajjo

fenixpollo said:


> Well, at least one person in this thread has already admitted to having little experience with disabled people, which implies that he doesn't know anyone disabled. I don't, either. So your supposition is _false_ that "most" people have direct experience with disabled people and the issues surrounding disabilities.


I intentionally widened the group as you quoted correctly. Anyway, I think that many people think only of users of wheelchairs when thinking about disabled persons. There are many kinds of disabilities, some minor, some major. -- But I have to accept your point that there obviously are people who have not been in close contact with disabled persons. 

Anyway, may opinion remains the same, that publicly-pronounced politically-correct responses do not help and are not in sync with what individuals usually really feel.

Kajjo


----------



## GEmatt

fenixpollo said:


> Why are you unsure how to act around disabled people and bumbling in your attempts to interact with them? I'll tell you: because disabilities are not discussed in "polite society". Society as a whole chooses to ignore disabled people, so people who are not disabled are at a loss when they come face to face with a differently-abled person (that one was for you, cuchu).


I don't know. I'll agree with you that disabilities and the disabled are not frequent, widespread or enthusiastic subjects for conversation. But I do not think that it is because society as a whole (not sure what that really means; just "people in general"?) chooses to ignore them. It's all normative, all majority rule, and the majority concerns itself simply with majority concerns. Anything that doesn't fit within the +/-1 standard deviation is relegated to the sidelines by default. By that rationale, uncertainty and bumbling when confronted with a person with a disability are more the result of sheer ignorance and inexperience, than of any deliberate attempt to stick one's head in the sand. Your use of "choice" makes it sound almost callous.



> The solution to this oversight is to get the topic out into the open so it can be discussed. I approve of the tactics of this troupe, as you've described it so far in these posts, because it opens the discussion... and it sounds empowering to the members of the troupe, so it seems like a good thing to me!


Definitely. If it's empowering to them, then that's worth something, and both sides benefit. Maybe even more than getting the topic out in the open: getting oneself out in the open and talking to real people concerned?
Cheers
GEmatt


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

I'm sorry, guys, but I have to disagree.    Which is such a pity, since you guys seemed to be reaching some sort of consensus...   

*What do forer@s think about the troupe's method?*
Well, I've never liked "hidden camera" programmes, since -to me, and in very general lines- their main attempt is to provoke and fool people -who generally just want to help-, and then rejoice over their innocense and naivety. Sorry, but I just can't give a non-biased opinion of that. Even worse, it would be hard to me to actually give a plain opinion without getting dangerously off-topic.

*Can the increased visibility they are trying to create break down barriers, offensive or annoying though it may be (to some)?*
I'm not sure about that. If I'm getting it straight, it is being suggested that some people could find offensive to get 'differently abled' people picking up on 'able bodied' people; or maybe that some might think 'improper' to have a show for/by/with 'handicapped' people. Actually, such opinions would not only be annoyingly ridicolous, but also disgusting!

Anyway, I still don't like the idea. Maybe it can help breaking down barriers, but the price seems somewhat excessive. See, if today you (or someone you know) get(s) fooled by a "hidden camera" programme involving, say, a 'vertically challenged' person (Cuchu, we love you!  ), what would be your -perhaps even inconscious- reaction, next time you see another guy with the same 'disability'? Wild guess here, but I don't think it would precisely be treating him/her just the way you would treat any other individual... 

*Or is another ghetto the best it can hope to achieve?*
Sorry Matt, but I have no idea what you mean by that. Would you mind breaking that down for a non-native, please?  

*How do you interact with people with disabilities (especially interesting if you have first-hand experience, like through family or friends)?*
Alright, let's go with the first-hand experiences, then. That, I can do... 

As a child, I was taught to treat "handicapped" ones with kindness and respect (Perhaps, even in a somewhat affected, stiff way).  However, I have a dear relative who taught me there's no perfect way to do anything, including the way to treat him. He's blind, by the way. And no, he doesn't mind being called "blind". 

According to his own words, he doesn't need "dainty" words to describe the fact that he cannot use his eyes the way most people do.  Upon his own request, many years ago, I treat him accordingly to _*who*_ he is (the person, the traits, the flaws, the neurosis), not _*what*_ he is --> a blind man. He used to say: "Right, so I can't see. And what of it? You canot read Braille, can you? Nor you can play the conga the way I do..." He was so-dammn right! 

Also, I've volunteered for a long time with the "hearing-impaired" community in my home town. I must say, I had never enjoyed myself so much at work! My deaf friends (again, they didn't mind being called that way) are among the nicest, funniest guys I've ever met, and trust me, some of those friends need no TV-shows in order to "talk up" and let others be in touch with their reduced and often misunderstood community.

So, right, those German fellas want people to 'see' and 'smell' and 'touch' and 'taste' those minorities and make them 'real' for the rest of the society... That I definitely can't argue against.  Buuuut, I don't personally approve the tactics. Sorry, but I believe that if we go like "the end justifies the means", this world would be an even more chaotic mayhem than it is already...

--Now, that was too much, wasn't it?  --​


----------



## Kajjo

Venezuelan_sweetie said:


> Well, I've never liked "hidden camera" programmes, since -to me, and in very general lines- their main attempt is to provoke and fool people -who generally just want to help-, and then rejoice over their innocense and naivety.


I fully agree. I do not think that playing jokes to helpful people will improve the attitude towards people in need of help - of whatever kind of help. 

  Kajjo


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

Kajjo said:


> I fully agree. I do not think that playing jokes to helpful people will improve the attitude towards people in need of help - of whatever kind of help.
> 
> Kajjo


Exactly! You expressed it so well... 

That's precisely my point. Perhaps there are other ways to make people understand that being part of a minority doesn't make you a 'freak'.  Unfortunately, I just can't think of too many, besides what's being done already...


----------



## cuchuflete

Whether anyone can seriously make a comment—any comment— about "most people" when a thread has had three or four responses ......  I leave that to the statistically enabled. 

PC terminology is frequently euphemistic and less than direct and honest, so if openness is the objective, language that communicates openly, without filigree and friendly froth, is a good way to begin.

I have had lots of experience with people with fewer functioning, or just fewer, body parts than I am fortunate enough to possess.  I learned at an early age that they are (1)physically different from most people...kind of obvious, but worth saying, (2)often damned good at getting along pretty well with the equipment they've got (3)not in need of pity or "extra sensitivity"; rather they need what anyone needs—fairness and common sense.

My uncle played handball better on his one leg than many younger athletes could on two.  He didn't think much of those who treated him as "handicapped" or dared call him an amputee instead of a one-legged man. He didn't go looking for unneeded extra help, nor did he stubbornly refuse genuine help when needed.  

No comment on a movie or TV program I haven't seen, either as an event or a potential instructional tool for whatever portion of society looks at such things.  


PS-Due to a childhood accident and a medical screwup, I was partially paralyzed as a kid--no feeling on the upper left side.  I never thought of myself as handicapped.  I was just frustrated and pissed off that I couldn't play the clarinet or hold a baseball bat for a year.  I worked at both, and when the nervous system was eventually more or less restored, went on to play music very well, and remained a crappy switch-hitter.   When the left arm and hand were useless, the neighborhood kids called me gimp, and I batted last (down from seventh or eighth?), and I remarked on their
parentage and lousy fielding/pitching/hitting skills.


----------



## fenixpollo

Kajjo said:


> Yes, you are right that disabilities are not openly discussed -- political correctness dictates to view and discuss such issues very differently from _normal issues_. Exactly _this_ discrimination done by the political-correct is one of the main sources of discrimination in the first place!


  I see "political correctness" as an effort to remove old stereotypes and insensitive labels, which gives us the ability to discuss touchy subjects with objective, inoffensive language. Using neutral or inoffensive words to describe disabled people allows us to *reduce discrimination* (by eliminating hurtful words like _cripple_ or _gimp_, for example) and *open conversation* (by allowing more respectful discussion). 





			
				GEMatt said:
			
		

> But I do not think that it is because society as a whole (not sure what that really means; just "people in general"?) chooses to ignore them. It's all normative, all majority rule, and the majority concerns itself simply with majority concerns. Anything that doesn't fit within the +/-1 standard deviation is relegated to the sidelines by default. By that rationale, uncertainty and bumbling when confronted with a person with a disability are more the result of sheer ignorance and inexperience, than of any deliberate attempt to stick one's head in the sand. Your use of "choice" makes it sound almost callous.


 I didn't mean to suggest that you or myself are "bumbling" because of an intentional distancing ourselves from disabled people, and I apologize for sounding callous. I meant to say that we are merely a product of our environment, despite our appreciation of diversity and respect for those who are different than us. In fact, "bumbling" would indicate an openness, consciousness and good intentions -- it shows that you actually _care_ about disabled people and their feelings.


----------



## GEmatt

Hi Sweetie, nice to read you again!


> *Or is another ghetto the best it can hope to achieve?*





> *Sorry Matt, but I have no idea what you mean by that. *


Sorry for the confusion. I was wondering if the troupe's method could really have some positive effect on the way the able-bodied perceive the disabled, or if such a method simply raises a group's profile without especially contributing to understanding.

If that's the case, then I thought it would just mean that the mainstream majority gains an increased awareness of the minority, and the minority feels slightly more empowered, but things remain on an "us-and-them" level (hence "ghetto"), because no real exchange has taken place.

Is that any clearer? I'm not sure if I've made much sense, and I don't want to create an invitation to wild conjecture, so feel free to ignore me.


----------



## GEmatt

fenixpollo said:


> I didn't mean to suggest that you or myself are "bumbling" because of an intentional distancing ourselves from disabled people, and I apologize for sounding callous. I meant to say that we are *merely a product of our environment, despite our appreciation of diversity and respect for those who are different than us.* In fact, "bumbling" would indicate an openness, consciousness and good intentions -- it shows that you actually _care_ about disabled people and their feelings.


Hi fenix,
Ah alright, I misunderstood. And concur.
Cheers,
GEmatt


----------



## Venezuelan_sweetie

GEmatt said:


> Hi Sweetie, nice to read you again!Sorry for the confusion. I was wondering if the troupe's method could really have some positive effect on the way the able-bodied perceive the disabled, or if such a method simply raises a group's profile without especially contributing to understanding.


I'd lean (tend?) towards the latter. How could practical jokes possibly help understand anything? Sorry, but I can't see it...



> If that's the case, then I thought it would just mean that the mainstream majority gains an increased awareness of the minority, and the minority feels slightly more empowered, but things remain on an "us-and-them" level (hence "ghetto"), because no real exchange has taken place.
> 
> Is that any clearer? I'm not sure if I've made much sense, and I don't want to create an invitation to wild conjecture, so feel free to ignore me.


No, no, you've made perfect sense! It's me, Matt; I started learning English from American teenagers and Economy newspapers, therefore sometimes I get all crumbled during cultural discussions using a high-register...  Now I feel sort of silly for not understanding it before...  

Now, back into physical disabilities and kindness...


cuchuflete said:


> PC terminology is _*frequently euphemistic and less than direct and honest*_, so if openness is the objective, language that communicates openly, without filigree and friendly froth, is a good way to begin.
> 
> I have had lots of experience with people with fewer functioning, or just fewer, body parts than I am fortunate enough to possess. I learned at an early age that they are (1)physically different from most people...kind of obvious, but worth saying, (2)often damned good at getting along pretty well with the equipment they've got (3) *not in need of pity or "extra sensitivity"; rather they need what anyone needs—fairness and common sense*.


I totally agree, Cuchu! See, one of the things I like the most of having you around this forum is that sometimes you're brutally honest, without being rude or offensive. We need more of that in this world...


And, if we're still talking about that TV-show, then I'll repeat myself: I don't see how that can help. As you stated so well, Matt, "no real exchange has taken place". I think you've just answered your own question. Although new ones might arise, but that might be for a new thread...


----------



## nichec

Is it off-topic if I don't talk about the show?

I remember taking a class in college called "culture studies", I like something the professor said very much, he said "by labelling a group of people, giving them a special name, you already make them stand out, make them look/sound different, and that, that's a discrimination". 

A friend of mine used to complain to me and said that all her relatives ask her "why do you love girls?", she said "Lucky you, no one would ever ask you _why do you love boys_?" All she wants is to be "taken for granted", so that no one would ever ask her to explain herself, just like no one ever asks me to explain why I love men, not women.

I don't personally know any "disabled people" (as in "not abled"? Who says that we are more "abled" than they are?), but whenever I see them in public places, I always try to treat them the way I treat anyone else, sadly, people stare, that's what they do, and I can't imagine being stared at my whole life...............To them, maybe the real "luxury" is to pass by you without being noticed, which is something we "abled people" have always deemed as a right.

Princess Diana was one of the first famous people to hold the hands of a HIV patient in public, and for that, she is remembered until now. What's the big deal about holding a patient's hands? Because by doing that, she treated the patient like everyone else, she's not afraid of touching him/her, when we still knew very little about HIV and the way it spreads.

I think what kills these patients (and anyone else who's labelled as different from us) is not their disease or their "physical condition" (or even their sexuality), but the loneliness, the feeling that they are different.


----------



## alexacohen

Yes and no, Nichec.
Disabled people are no different from abled people in one sense: they feel the same way we feel.
But they are different in many others. They're not differently abled. They are disabled. Full stop.
There will be always something that the majority can do, and that they can't do.

They have different needs. And not acknowledging that, changing the language to politically correct expressions, pretending there is nothing different, pretending that they are exactly alike the majority of people with no disabilities may hurt them more than accepting the truth and saying the truth.

I know.
My little daughter is partially deaf. She knows she can't hear properly, and has no problem at all saying to people "I'm deaf". She needs special lessons, and special teachers. She needs to be treated differently at school, because, if she isn't, she will not be able to learn properly.
And due to stupid, damned political correctness she has already missed one year's schooling.
She was put in a classroom with children who could hear to perfection. It didn't matter how much I explained to her teachers, to her headmaster, to her tutor that she needed special care. The stupid, simple-minded answer was: "we cannot discriminate children", "all children must be 'integrated' ", "she is no different and should not be treated differently". 
"Well, we will put her on the first row so she can hear better". Bull****. And what happens when teachers turn their backs and my daughter cannot read their lips, while the rest of her mates hear what is said?

What hurt her was people not acknowledging she is disabled. What hurt her was the realization that she couldn't keep up with her mates, and no one cared to help her "because children must learn how to integrate", because "the policy is that all children must be treated equal". 
Disowning the truth and hiding behind a politically correct curtain is a *LIE*. Not acknowledging the truth is the worst thing to do. It is, certainly "killing them with kindness".

P.S.
Nichec, don't you worry about my little Juliet. She is, now, studying in a very expensive, very posh school where there are special units for disabled children. And she is absolutely happy and learning so fast that you wouldn't believe it.
This, unfortunately, doesn't change the fate of those children whose parents cannot pay for the_ privilege_.


----------



## jonquiliser

nichec said:


> Princess Diana was one of the first famous people to hold the hands of a HIV patient in public, and for that, she is remembered until now. What's the big deal about holding a patient's hands? Because by doing that, she treated the patient like everyone else, she's not afraid of touching him/her, when we still knew very little about HIV and the way it spreads.



Well, we're all different, whether having HIV, some other disease or no disease at all. Some differences also implicate _disabilities_. Treating people equally does't mean treating everyone "the same" in the literal sense. It could mean, simply, treating everybody equally seriously, and taking their needs into account. 

I'm all with Alexa here.


----------



## nichec

Hmmmm...........I see you guys' point............

I agree with your point too, and Alexa, thanks for your story, I am very happy for your little girl


----------



## Jocaste

GEmatt said:


> How do you interact with people with disabilities (especially interesting if you have first-hand experience, like through family or friends)?
> 
> Thank you for your thoughts.
> GEmatt



Hallo !
My cousin, who is now 10 years old, has been disabled (tetraplegic), blind and dumb for about 2 years and a half because of a surgical operation which turned out badly.
And from that moment on, of course everyone in the family cried a lot, and so did I, but after a few weeks from this accident, I decided to treat him as anyone else. Because speaking to him as if he was a poor litte boy, I couldn't do it. And today, my cousin and his parents are very thankful for me and for this attitute because as I wasn't crying before him (he could just hear things, this sens extremely grew up), I was able to entertain him.
And today, I'm very happy to have done this because we are really close and I'm not afraid of his situation. Still today, his grand-parents have trouble to look at him without a sorrowed look and some tears.
Of course this is a horrible thing, he is very young but he's still alive and we have to see him as an alive person who has feelings and who can think (and talk now, thanks reeducation ^^) and not just a poor child who had not had luck.
And I'm the same way with other disabled persons. And so are my parents now. It's not caracteristic of a country I think, you can find everything in all countries. It's just a matter of character and personality for me.


----------



## alexacohen

jonquiliser said:


> Treating people equally does't mean treating everyone "the same" in the literal sense. It could mean, simply, treating everybody equally seriously, and taking their needs into account.


 
I couldn't have said it better, Jonqui. That's just it.
Taking their needs into account.
Not pretending they just don't exist. It has nothing to do with pity, they do not need our pity. What they need is our understanding.


----------



## jonquiliser

Alexa, quite.

Jocaste, that's a good example of what it can mean to treat people "like normal people" in the good sense. If someone suggested this kid goes to class with "everyone else" without special care (despite the fact he's blind, among other things), like Alexa's child in spite of obvious impairments, that would be an example of "treating people the same" in a bad -and damaging- sense. Or rather, having understood all wrong what "equal treatment" means.


----------



## Jocaste

jonquiliser said:


> Jocaste, that's a good example of what it can mean to treat people "like normal people" in the good sense. If someone suggested this kid *goes to class with "everyone else" without special care* (despite the fact he's blind, among other things), like Alexa's child in spite of obvious impairments, that would be an example of "treating people the same" in a bad -and damaging- sense. Or rather, having understood all wrong what "equal treatment" means.


My cousin has just return to school for 5-6 months and he is with other disabled kids. It's in the center of reeducation.
That's a good thing I think: they are a dozen (or a few less, I don't remember exactly) and there are 2-3 people to take care of them and to teach them.
These special teachers are dealing with each disability, sort of specific program for each child.


----------



## nichec

So I have been thinking about this, and I think that these terms, like "disabled people", meant nothing more than "people with some physical disabilities" in the very beginning, nothing negative, and nothing positive, just a neutral term. But then some people started to carry "a tone" when they used these terms, and in order to correct that, we started to focus on the "political correctness".

It's the same with our attitude. It's only human to pay more attention to people with some physical disabilities, because we naturally assume that they need to be taken care of, but there's only a very fine line between "pity" and "kindness" (at least they can look almost the same from the outside, and how can a stranger know your heart?) And from there on, things become a lot more complicated. Sometimes you wonder if you should show your concern, because you don't want to hurt their feelings, and eventually end up hurting yourself...........

I think that we should realize and recognize the difference without exaggerating it, and a lot has to do with your heart too, I guess, if you set out to be mean, you can easily be mean with a beautiful disguise, and that's where that "political correctness" is right now, I guess.........

Errrrrrr..............It still turns out to be too "big" an issue for me 
I meant well, but maybe I didn't understand the whole thing well enough....I am sorry


----------



## avok

fenixpollo said:


> Well, at least one person in this thread has already admitted to having little experience with disabled people, which implies that he doesn't know anyone disabled. I don't, either. So your supposition is _false_ that "most" people have direct experience with disabled people and the issues surrounding disabilities.


 
Does he have to have much experience to be able to suppose that "most" people have direct experience with disabled people? Have you ever heard the word "_observation_"?


----------



## alexacohen

nichec said:


> I think that we should realize and recognize the difference without exaggerating it, and a lot has to do with your heart too, I guess, if you set out to be mean, you can easily be mean with a beautiful disguise, and that's where that "political correctness" is right now, I guess.........
> 
> Errrrrrr..............It still turns out to be too "big" an issue for me
> I meant well, but maybe I didn't understand the whole thing well enough....I am sorry


 
You have understood it to perfection, Nichec.


----------



## jinti

I used to run a university tutoring (extra help outside of the classroom) program specifically for students with physical, emotional, health and/or learning disabilities.  Part of my job was to hire tutors.  I'd explain to the applicants what the program did (we offered lots of services for these students; the tutoring and tutor training was just my part of it), and see how they responded.  The ones that went on and on about how it would be so great to help "the less fortunate" or how we all have to pity such people didn't get hired.  

The truth was that these students with disabilities quite possibly were _more_ fortunate in some ways than the applicants who were pitying them.  (In fact, some of our students eventually became tutors themselves because they had the skills that some of these other applicants lacked.)  And the "poor, poor you" attitude, aside from smacking of arrogance, was not conducive to helping our students meet the university's standards.  

I am all for recognizing and acknowledging disabilities as realities that must be dealt with straightforwardly and kindly; I just dislike the kid gloves attitude that sometimes comes out, too.


----------



## alexacohen

jinti said:


> I am all for recognizing and acknowledging disabilities as realities that must be dealt with straightforwardly and kindly; I just dislike the kid gloves attitude that sometimes comes out, too.


 
Well, I don't dislike it. I hate that "poor little thing" attitude.
And I hate even more the "how unfortunate for you" directed to parents of disabled children. 
@#~€}ç@$%@#  is exactly what I think.


----------



## Jocaste

alexacohen said:


> Well, I don't dislike it. I hate that "poor little thing" attitude.
> And I hate even more the "how unfortunate for you" directed to parents of disabled children. _*And to their whole family.*_
> @#~€}ç@$%@#  is exactly what I think.


I think the same way but with €}ç@$%+} added !
This "poor thing" attitude is just unbearable for me.


----------

