Aspies For Freedom - Welcome to the Disability Community

dove nested towers Wrote:

[quote]To autistic self-advocates everywhere: Welcome to the disability community!

Yes, that�s right, you�re DISABLED. Yep, you can pick that word apart and tell me why you aren�t, but, trust me, you are. And, no, I don�t mean that you are less or more functional than anyone else. I mean that you are part of a community defined by society�s institutions and programs, a community formed because of our minority status and the fact that society expects certain strengths and weaknesses, and anyone who doesn�t have that same pattern of strengths and weaknesses is going to have trouble in this society.

Yep, that�s the social model. It�s not the �OH MY GOD, I AM SO BROKEN AND LIFE SUCKS AND I WANT TO BE NORMAL BECAUSE EVERYTHING WOULD BE WONDERFUL AND I WOULD HAVE LOTS OF MONEY AND A GIRLFRIEND AND A NICE CAR� view of disability. But it is recognition that we have trouble in society as it is currently set up. You�ll also notice that it is not a view that accepts society as a static, unchangeable, and morally good entity, but rather as an institution that can and should change - even when people have a hard time seeing how it could.

So, according to this model:

being female is a disability;
being black is a disability;
being homosexual is a disability;
being anything other than a Christian is a disability -- actually, even being the wrong type of Christian is a disability;
being poor is a disability...

In fact, being anything other that a Wealthy White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male is a disability. I mean, the members of every group outside that one has "trouble in society as it is currently set up". So, they're all disabled, right?

Such a position does have a certain logic and consistency to it.

However, as I know from long and sometimes bitter experience, logic and consistency only goes so far. If you go up to women and tell them that their sex is a "disability", the reaction will not be pleasant. Nor will it be pleasant if you go to blacks and tell them that their race is a "disability", gays and lesbians and tell them their sexuality is a "disability", people who aren't the right type of Christian and tell them their religion is a "disability", and so on.

Given that, perhaps this model -- or, at least, this description of it -- needs a little more thought. The way it's set up currently seems to be more likely to promote disagreements and infighting rather than solidarity between various groups.

My personal view is that autistic advocates are part of the Civil Rights Community, which embraces a number of groups including feminists, LGBT advocates, those fighting racial and religious discrimination alongside disability advocates.

Regards,

Zoran

Personally, I think the word "disabled" is so vaguely defined that it doesn't really matter if we apply it to ourselves or not. Some will, some wont, it's all semantics.

Essentially, a blind person is in no way in a similar position to a person in a wheelchair, a person with cognitive problems will face different issues to a person with cerebral palsy, and a person without any of these issues is not in the same category as a person with all of them. Whether or not you decide to put all these things in one big mixing pot called "disabled" is up to you.

Blindness is blindness, cerebral palsy is cerebral palsy, and autism is autism - that's all there is to it.

That being said, I agree with the original poster in that I think we will learn a lot by looking at the ways these groups achieved services and access rights.

To me in ASD the word "disablity" seems to be relivtive and how it disables your way of life.
In my perspective it's mildly disabling, Jobs are hard to keep because of my very poor social skills and my stand-offish personality. I do carry myself well and I've learn to be very stuble about my AS, people can't tell right away. So in that perspective I should be ok right? No...loosing job after job, drifting away from my parents who only see their Autistic daughter and beginning to realise that that being a "llama" in a "Sheep" world was diadvagous and in some cases disabling.

am I disabled. Well I would have to say sometimes. Other times I have managed to adjust. But it's not easy. Again I think disablity is truely a reliative word. It's only a disablity if A) you let it be and B) it hinders all aspects not just one or two. Thats just my perspetive at least :3

as for this:

Quote:

Yes, that�s right, you�re DISABLED. Yep, you can pick that word apart and tell me why you aren�t, but, trust me, you are.

That sentance is rude and very loud. And sir I suggest you should find a politer way of rephrasing

BardWolf Wrote:

as for this:

Quote:

Yes, that�s right, you�re DISABLED. Yep, you can pick that word apart and tell me why you aren�t, but, trust me, you are.

That sentance is rude and very loud. And sir I suggest you should find a politer way of rephrasing

I should point out that this was a copy-and-paste from a blog, rather than an independent post here. In that context it's a little less confrontational.

Besides which, it definitely gets your attention! Sometimes provocative language is useful, and this post did make me sit up and think - even if my final answer was to disagree.

In any case, I think it's difficult to debate the point without the dictionary definition - so here it is (from dictionary.com):

�adjective
1. crippled; injured; incapacitated.
�noun
2. (used with a plural verb) persons who are crippled, injured, or incapacitated (usually prec. by the): Ramps have been installed at the entrances to accommodate the disabled.

The social model of disability states that certain groups are "incapacitated" by the way society is set up for the majority - but as one of the earlier posters stated, where do you draw the line with this? Is every minority groups considered disabled by this definition?

I'm not necessarily saying that autism is not a disability, I'm saying that the definition of disability is "soft" enough that there's no clear lines about what is and isn't a disability - so it's more of a personal preference whether or not to use the word. There is no clear way to give a yes or no answer to the "is autism a disability" question.

In other words, my answer is "maybe, dunno, does it matter?".

anbuend Wrote:

That's why Joel is saying, read up on these things, find out about what the disability rights movement has actually done, before making these judgements of what disability is and what disabled people are.

If the description given in the material quoted in the original post is correct, then what the disability rights movement has done is redefine "disability" to include everything, and I mean everything -- sex, race, sexuality, class, level of wealth, even geographical location -- as a "disability". Under that definition, am I disabled? Yeah, I'm disabled, but I don't think it's a good definition.

It's certainly not the way that I see the term used in the world around me. Women don�t' declare their sex to be a disability. Blacks don't say their race is a disability. Gays and lesbians actively reject the notion that their sexuality is a disability. Is the disability rights movement out there trying to convince all these people that they are wrong and that their various traits are, in fact, disabilities? If not, why not? After all, those traits create a situation where those individuals have a body (including a brain) which is not planned for by a society that has norms which say another kind of body is the only one that should be planned for.

Does the disability rights movement actually claim that sex, race, sexuality, etc. are disabilities? If not, then they are applying their definition very selectively. And I have no interest in being part of any group singled out by that selectivity. I've been on the wrong side of too many double standards in my life to want to have anything to do with another one.

Quote:

And so does saying "Autistic people's issues aren't the same as disability rights issues because autistic people's issues are _______."

To the extent that disability rights issues are concerned with civil rights and getting fair and equal treatment for all, they are the same as autistic people's issues. However, that doesn't make the two the same thing. To the extent that apples and oranges are ripened seed-bearing ovaries of flowering plants, they are both fruit, but, despite that, apples and oranges are both proverbially and traditionally not regarded as the same thing.

Regards,

Zoran

Lucie1 Wrote:

If people choose not to see their asperger diagnosis - or if they have adapted their lives to cope - why (in specifics) would you say they are disabled.

And why should anyone trust you - to determine whether or not they are disabled. Your words come across as being condemning and judgemental. Aspergers can be disabling - but it can also have advantages.

Dove in nested towers - do you see yourself as being disabled by autism - if so, how are you disabled?

Lucie1 Wrote:

eeekkkk - gosh I don't know how that happened - please ignore the post above - if moderators would like to delete it - please do. apologies - it looks tactless!!!

I think it's fine - after all, if you can't be blunt on an aspie forum, where can you be? *grins*

With these sorts of discussions, people will always feel very personally about their own point of view - and I think that if you spend a lot of time addressing feelings rather than debating points, the discussion doesn't go anywhere...

anbuend Wrote:

But really, using a bit more common sense here, most of them mean groups of people who've been disabled by society in a form that's been approached in a particular way -- largely a medical way in modern times, and a way that has to do with the way their body works not being planned for, more than anything else. (Body here includes neurotype.)

This can change over time and by culture. For instance, yes, gay people were not that long ago, disabled in this sense just about everywhere, but in many places (not everywhere) are not anymore. I am gay, and I have no problem at all with this characterization because of my understanding of what the social model means, including that it accounts for shifts over time. Being disabled doesn't mean something's wrong with you, it means your society says something's wrong with you and they cast it in a medical light or a similar light. Some of my friends were locked up in psychiatric wards for being gay back when that was common. At that time, gay people were disabled. Now they are mostly not. Being a member of one of the groups targeted by the psychiatric establishment makes you a disabled person under this model, regardless of whether you've personally been targeted or not (because it's possible that you could be). Currently, autistic people occupy this role.

This makes a lot more sense to me - I'd be happy to call autism a disability under this definition of the word...

anbuend Wrote:

In the absolute most extreme form of the social model, that may be correct

Actually, that would be in the simplest, most straightforward reading of the social model.

Quote:

But really, using a bit more common sense here

I'm sorry, but if you're not going to actually say what you mean, then I really have very little interest in sitting around trying to figure out which magic decoder ring I should use to try and figure out what you are trying to say. I really dislike this kind of dog-whistle nonsense where those in the know understand what you really mean, while the rest of us are left in the dark.

If someone is going to present a model in which everything is a disability, then I'm going to interpret it to mean that they think everything is a disability. If that's not what they mean, then it's up to them to change either the model or how they present it, not up to me to engage in a bunch of hermeneutics and apologetics to try and tease out what they're really trying to say.

However, let's take the model at face value. Everyone who is in any way disadvantaged by social expectations and assumptions is disabled.

Now what?

What's changed? As I understand it, under the old model, groups and individuals were seen as disadvantaged and/or the subject of bias and prejudice and we would try to change social attitudes so as to try and eliminate or minimise the effects of the disadvantages, bias and prejudice. Now, under the new model, groups and individuals are seen as disabled and we should try to change social attitudes so to try and eliminate or minimise the effects of those traits that society deems disabilities. How is this different? Other than semantically, I mean.

Quote:

Being disabled doesn't mean something's wrong with you, it means your society says something's wrong with you and they cast it in a medical light or a similar light. Some of my friends were locked up in psychiatric wards for being gay back when that was common. At that time, gay people were disabled. Now they are mostly not. Being a member of one of the groups targeted by the psychiatric establishment makes you a disabled person under this model, regardless of whether you've personally been targeted or not (because it's possible that you could be). Currently, autistic people occupy this role.

I don't think that agreeing with society and the psychiatric establishment that, yes, we are disabled is the best way to change this. Most people will hear "disabled" and won't stick around to listen to the explanation that you're using "disabled" in the context of this alternate model where it means something different to how most people use the term. The evening news will run just the "Yes, we're disabled" clip and trim the rest.

Gays and lesbians did not fight homophobia by agreeing that, yes, homosexuality was a pathology.
Blacks did not fight racism by agreeing that, yes, not being white was a sign of racial inferiority.
Jews, Gypsies and Slavs did not fight Nazism by agree that, yes, non-Nordic types were Untermenschen.
Political dissidents in the Soviet Union did not fight Stalinsim by agreeing that, yes, opposition to his version of communism was a sign of mental illness.

When most people say "Autism is a disability" they mean that they think there is something wrong with autistics and that people with autism need to be fixed. If you don't agree with that sentiment, then I don't think playing word games in which you redefine "disability" is the best way to express that disagreement.

Regards,

Zoran

anbuend Wrote:

How about instead of griping at me for happening to come from a background in the disability community and happening to use words the way other disabled people use words, and instead of expecting me to write out a treatise on a community with decades and in some cases centuries of history just so you can be satisfied that I'm not playing word games, you actually look into some of the history of the disability community yourself?

How about you stop telling me I'm being extreme and not using common sense when I point out a problem with the model?

How about, instead of going off on a tangent about the history of the disability community, you actually address my point -- that the disability model usage of "disability" redefines the term to mean what terms such as disadvantaged, handicapped, underprivileged, deprived and discriminated against already mean and, as such engenders confusion without adding anything useful.

Quote:

A person could claim that you're playing word games for using the word 'autistic' in some manner other than the way most people do. Just about everyone here does, you know. Most people use the word 'autistic' to mean someone who has no concept of other people, no communication skills, and pays no attention to reality, someone who lives in an institution and has no hope for their lives. You don't use the word 'autistic' that way, do you? But it's not a word game when you don't use it the same way, is it? I don't think it is.

The disability community uses the word 'disability' in a way that you don't happen to be familiar with it. Your conception of disability is the same as the worst stereotypes of autism, in contrast to how most disabled people use it (and they all use it differently, just as people on here all use autism a little differently, but most don't mean it the way people here do). (And when I say "your" I mean a lot of people here, but not all people here.)

How on earth can you expect people to do the work to figure out you don't mean what everyone thinks you mean by autism, if you start accusing people of playing word games the moment someone uses a different definition of disability than the negative stereotype you're used to?

A couple of points.

First, words are used to communicate ideas. To do that, we need to have commonly agreed upon definitions for them. That way, when someone says "dog" or "democracy" or "devotional", we know what they mean rather than having to waste time wondering what they might mean by that term.

Language is a continually evolving thing. That means words and usages change over time. Old meanings become archaic and then obsolete; new meanings come into vogue and then standard. This doesn't happen uniformly; different groups and populations can and will develop language in different ways.

When different usages come into conflict, the accepted thing to do is to consult a dictionary. This isn't because dictionaries are the Word of God or represent the rulings of some academy that sets the official meanings of words, it's because dictionaries record actual usage. Since they are a record, they are always a bit behind the times; they record what words meant and how they were used at some point in the recent past. When we consult a dictionary we look for the meaning that existed before the usages diverged and agree to use that. It may be a bit old fashioned, but it helps preserve understanding.

So, from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:

Quote:

au�tism
n. A pervasive developmental disorder characterized by severe deficits in social interaction and communication, by an extremely limited range of activities and interests, and often by the presence of repetitive, stereotyped behaviors.

au'tist n., au�tis'tic adj. & n., au�tis'ti�cal�ly adv.

dis�a�bil�i�ty
n. pl. dis�a�bil�i�ties

1. The condition of being disabled; incapacity.
2. The period of such a condition: never received a penny during her disability.
A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area.
Something that hinders or incapacitates.
Law A legal incapacity or disqualification.

While these definitions may not be cutting edge, they should be mutually agreeable.

Second, please don't engage in mind reading. Don't tell me what what I mean by "autistic" or "disabled". Don�t tell me that I'm distancing myself from disabled people when I have done no such thing.

Am I disabled? Yes, I'm disabled -- by the definition I quoted above. I have a number of deficiencies and impairments. Some are congenital, others the consequence of accident and age. I just don't think being on the autistic spectrum is one of my disabilities. Just like I don't think being male or living in Australia or having brown eyes is one of my disabilities. They're all traits I have, but not disabilities.

Alternately, if you are going to engage in mind reading, get it right. If you tell me what I'm thinking or what I mean by a particular term and get it wrong, then I'm going to conclude you are dishonest; either because you have deliberately misrepresented what I am thinking or, more likely, because you are pretending to have an ability you don't in fact have.

One of the theories of autism is that autistics are disabled because they lack the ability to read the minds of others, whether due to a deficiency of mirror neurons of a lack of "theory of mind". Personally, I don't think anyone has the ability to read other people's minds. At best, people have the capacity to make inferences about another's mental state from observation and deduction based on experience, familiarity and similarity.

However, your actions seem to indicate that you believe you can read my mind. That you know what I mean by "autistic" and why I object to the redefinition of "disabled". Okay. If you can demonstrate that you can read my mind, then I will acknowledge that being on the autistic spectrum is a disability because I lack that capability.

How can you do this? As I said above, I do regard myself as disabled because I do have a number of traits which are deficiencies and impairments. Just tell me what those traits are. I'm thinking about them very clearly right now.

anbuend Wrote:

Especially since they've been at this a lot longer than we have. And accomplished more. We could learn a few things. If we weren't so damn busy acting like we're better. (And yes, saying "We're not disabled because we're not defective" is saying we're better.)

Where did I say we're better?

I have no problem with the disability rights movement. I'm very happy to be a part of it. I welcome anything they have to teach me.

However, as far as I can tell, all the social model does is obscure the distinction between "disabled" and "disadvantaged". If I disagree with that, it doesn't mean I've rejected the disability rights movement any more than disagreeing with the steady state theory means I've rejected modern astronomy.

Disagreement is not the same as rejection. And if the best response the social model has to disagreement is to say "How dare you think you're better than us!", then I don't think it has all that much depth of vigor to it, no matter how old it may be.

Regards,

Zoran

Zoran Wrote:

dis�a�bil�i�ty
n. pl. dis�a�bil�i�ties

1. The condition of being disabled; incapacity.
2. The period of such a condition: never received a penny during her disability.
A disadvantage or deficiency, especially a physical or mental impairment that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area.
Something that hinders or incapacitates.
Law A legal incapacity or disqualification.

While these definitions may not be cutting edge, they should be mutually agreeable.

I had a look in the dictionary too. However, I had a look at it with an open mind, and it was for this reason she eventually convinced me that the social model fits the existing definition.

However, you need to look closer.

Firstly, as above:

dis�a�bil�i�ty
n. pl. dis�a�bil�i�ties
[*]The condition of being disabled; incapacity.

Secondly, from dictionary.com:

in�ca�pac�i�tate
�verb (used with object), -tat�ed, -tat�ing.
1. to deprive of ability, qualification, or strength; make incapable or unfit; disable.

The social model of disability states that the way society is set up deprives us of some measure of ability, qualification, or strength. As per the above definitions, this fits the existing definition of incapacity, and therefore fits the existing definition of disability.

And please, everyone - regardless of whether you believe it fits the word or not, remember that it's just a word. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter if a thing fits the definition of a word or not. Autism is still exactly as it always was, regardless of whether it's part of a wider umbrella or not.

EvilZakkie Wrote:

I had a look in the dictionary too. However, I had a look at it with an open mind, and it was for this reason she eventually convinced me that the social model fits the existing definition.

Okay, you've convinced me. We're all agreed then that being a woman/black/gay/non-Christian/poor is a disability.

Now what?

Because, to be honest with you, if almost everything about me is a disability -- the only two traits I have that apparently aren't disabilities are being male and being heterosexual -- then I have much bigger problems than anything to do with the autism.

I mean, I used to think all these things were just differences, but I guess now I know better.

So, let's prioritise. Let's put the autism stuff on the back burner because, let's face facts, it's trivial compared to all the other incapacities we have.

What do we do now?

Regards,

Zoran

Zoran Wrote:

EvilZakkie Wrote:

I had a look in the dictionary too. However, I had a look at it with an open mind, and it was for this reason she eventually convinced me that the social model fits the existing definition.

anbuend Wrote:

Have you actually been reading this thread?

EvilZakkie Wrote:

Have you actually been reading this thread?

Yes. Have you?

From the original post:

dove nested towers Wrote:

Yes, that�s right, you�re DISABLED. Yep, you can pick that word apart and tell me why you aren�t, but, trust me, you are. And, no, I don�t mean that you are less or more functional than anyone else. I mean that you are part of a community defined by society�s institutions and programs, a community formed because of our minority status and the fact that society expects certain strengths and weaknesses, and anyone who doesn�t have that same pattern of strengths and weaknesses is going to have trouble in this society.

So, in the social model anything that differs from what society expects is a disability. It has nothing to do with functionality, it just means having traits that differ from what society expects.

Further, as society changes, what is considered a disability changes. So not being able to speak Latin is not a disability in modern Europe, but it would have been a disability in the days of the Roman Empire.

Is this interpretation of the social model correct? According to anbuend:

anbuend Wrote:

(and I have known people who are not disabled in any typical way, but are in that extreme way, who used the word disabled this way and meant it, as in a black woman who worked in a psych ward I was in, said to me once that she was disabled because she was black, and she meant it the same way social-modellers mean it in the most extreme sense of the word, she did not mean it in even the slightest self-disparaging way).

And:

anbuend Wrote:

For instance, yes, gay people were not that long ago, disabled in this sense just about everywhere, but in many places (not everywhere) are not anymore. I am gay, and I have no problem at all with this characterization because of my understanding of what the social model means, including that it accounts for shifts over time. Being disabled doesn't mean something's wrong with you, it means your society says something's wrong with you and they cast it in a medical light or a similar light. Some of my friends were locked up in psychiatric wards for being gay back when that was common. At that time, gay people were disabled. Now they are mostly not. Being a member of one of the groups targeted by the psychiatric establishment makes you a disabled person under this model, regardless of whether you've personally been targeted or not (because it's possible that you could be).

So, yes, being black or being gay are disabilities -- if society says so. No-one has suggested any reason why this wouldn't extend out to sex, class, religion, level of wealth, etc.

So, what's the difficulty?

Well, according to anbuend:

anbuend Wrote:

In the absolute most extreme form of the social model, that may be correct

And:

anbuend Wrote:

But really, using a bit more common sense here

And, from EvilZakkie:

EvilZakkie Wrote:

I had a look in the dictionary too. However, I had a look at it with an open mind,

So, I'm "extreme", not using "common sense" and lack an "open mind". The problem isn't that disability in the social model is an absurdly broad category, it's that my personal failings make me incapable of appreciating why that sort of broadness is a good thing.

Okay, I accept that I have personal failings. I thank anbuend and EvilZakkie for pointing them out. The first step to dealing with such personal failings is to own up to them and acknowledge them. I'm trying to do that.

An additional problem is that people like me apparently aren't willing to admit they are disabled. Okay, I admit that while I am prepared to admit that I am disabled in certain ways, there are traits such as my ethnicity and religion which I don't consider disabilities and am reluctant to regard as such. However, according to the social model, since they differ from what the society around me expects, they are disabilities.

This is a difficult step, but yes I'm trying to change my views and admit that things such as my ethnicity, religion and neurology are also disabilities.

I've accepted the social model of disability. I've publicly acknowledged that I'm disabled. While I don't think I have ever considered myself better than other disabled people, I will try harder to not consider myself better than anyone else, since that's another failing anbuend has so helpfully pointed out.

I'm not really sure what else you want. I have agreed with everything that's been said and am trying to adjust my behaviour accordingly.

So, as I said, what do we do now?

Or are there still additional personal failings you wish to point out because I need to work on them?

If not, can we finally move on to discussing the ideas involved. Because I would really like to know: having recognised our far-ranging disabilities, what do we do now?

Regards,

Zoran

EvilZakkie Wrote:

You may not have noticed, but I quoted Anbuend stating that the social model of disability was to do with "groups of people who've been disabled by society in a form that's been approached in a particular way -- largely a medical way" in my last post.

The criteria established in the original post were:

disability is unrelated to functionality;
it's being part of a community defined by society's institutions and programs;
that community has a minority status;
members of that community possess different traits (strengths and weaknesses) to those society expects.

Nothing about medicine there.

Are you now saying that the original post was wrong? Or at least incomplete? It would seem to be a major omission.

Well, let's see�
Has the inferiority of women been supported medically? Yep.
Has the inferiority of various racial groups been supported medically. Yep, again.
Has homosexuality been regarded as a medical condition? Oh, definitely.
Is religion regarded as a medical condition? Well, there have been a number of attempts to explain religion in psychological terms and religious experiences in terms of neurology and brain chemistry, so, yep, again.
How about poverty? Surely no-one's ever tried to explain that in medical terms? Well, the phrase "survival of the fittest" was originally coined to account for the difference between the rich and the poor and generational poverty has been explained in terms of congenital weaknesses.

The simple truth is that people will often try to justify their prejudices by invoking science and/or medicine.

So, like I said, apparently we're all agreed that being a woman/black/gay/non-Christian/poor is a disability. You certainly haven't said anything to suggest otherwise. You've just ignored the question.

anbuend Wrote:

Indeed, the number of disabled people is closer to 1 in 5, and I suspect really more than that if you take it over a lifetime.

I find that very hard to believe. Given the social model, I'd say the number of disabled people would be closer to 19 in 20. Why are you excluding all the other disabled people from the community?

Regards,

Zoran

If you don't need help, you probably don't want it either. Very few people like to ask. But not wanting it when you really need it--common problem.

But go back to your blind woman for a second. Let's assume blindness is her only disability. Chances are she wasn't desperately trying to hold it together because the flickering lights and echoey store were driving her crazy. She wasn't worried that those kids would be taken from her because she "couldn't connect emotionally with them"--even though she doesn't get any more meaning from eye contact than we do. She wasn't about to go nuts because there were so many damn people. And chances are she wouldn't have had a lot of trouble going to a party and socializing that night. Beyond the stigma of disability she wouldn't have had problems dating. Her disability is obvious and I doubt anybody ever told her "You're not trying hard enough" or "Asperger's isn't real; it's just an excuse and you're just a jackass." She never got fired from a job because she wasn't able to multi-task, "connect" with customers, or kiss her boss's rear end. She doesn't have problems understanding what the heck people are saying to her. Nobody ever tried to subject her to ABA, though they may have tried to make her look more "normal".

Oh, and the whole "amazing" thing of taking two kids shopping? That's her daily life. She's just living her life, adjusting. It's no more amazing than going shopping with earplugs and sunglasses and a mental map that leads to exits and restrooms just in case.

If you don't need help, don't ask for it. But if you need it, find a way. If there are resources so limited that many legitimate needs don't get met, you'll be passed over when you ask, anyway. And if you live your life without the help you need, you may spend so much time surviving that you'll never get the opportunity to help anybody else.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8