I want to share a comment written last week on our most popular post.
The Invisible Mom, written by Sue Robins, has had almost 22,000 views and generated 80 comments.
It's about how mothers of kids with disabilities can face the same social exclusion their kids face: "In the foyer of every elementary school there's a gaggle of moms standing in a tight circle, waiting to pick up their kids," Sue writes. "In the 10 years I've parented my son Aaron, I’ve never cracked that circle. I've walked past that circle hundreds of times and nobody has ever shifted—ever so slightly—to give me room to join in."
And not only do these 'typical' parents ostracize parents like Sue, she writes, but they seem to sanction 'leaving the kid with disability out' when it comes to their child's birthdays and other get-togethers.
Sue wrote her piece over a year ago, yet listen to how it hit this parent.
Do parents of kids without disabilities have any inkling that this is reality for many of our kids? If they did, would they care? Louise
Thanks for writing this. It has been in my heart for years. Yes, I know too well the gaggle of moms and dads. Like a gauntlet to run every day.
Every year I have hosted a birthday party for my child, every year something fantastic: a bouncy castle, paid entertainment, tons of loot. Every year the kids came, sometimes even ones not invited. But the reciprocal invitations never arrived. This year, he turned 12, and only one child showed up, despite the party being held somewhere all kids love. And this one kid probably came because I pay him to do yard work. I guess at 12 they are all too cool to go to the "retarded" kid's party. My sweet loving boy spent his birthday in tears. How do you explain it to a child? I don't know.
Home » stigma
Tampilkan postingan dengan label stigma. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label stigma. Tampilkan semua postingan
The big picture
By Sandra Joy Stein
The note announcing picture day came home in my son’s school folder.
“Wow,” I thought. “Look how far we’ve come.” The fact that my son attends school at all is quite an accomplishment. It wasn’t until three years after the onset of his autoimmune encephalitis—where the immune system attacks the brain—that we received medical clearance for him to participate in an educational program outside of hospital or home. After considerable work to get all the necessary systems in place, for the first time since his illness he was now attending a barrier-free neighbourhood school, accompanied at all times by a nurse.
I was occasionally thrown by how immediately his entry to school brought many ordinary experiences to our extraordinary lives. He had homework; I received emails from the PTA; I signed permission slips for fieldtrips. And now, it was picture day.
I picked out an outfit, lamenting that on that particular day I did not have the requisite time (or patience) to engage him in the choice. I sent a back-up outfit, should vomit or drool sully my original selection. As the wheelchair lift was raising him onto the bus, I made a request to his nurse. I had recently seen class pictures in which a group of currently able-bodied children stood clustered in the centre of bleachers with the one child who uses a wheelchair positioned to the side of the bleachers, separate from the class.
I find these images to be unnecessarily isolating to children who work tirelessly to participate in a world that has not been designed for them. I suggested that if the whole class were posed in such a way, with my son off to the side, to please ask for an alternative arrangement. She agreed to raise the issue should it come up.
Mid-day I received a text message from the nurse informing me that for the class picture they took my son out of his wheelchair and his teacher supported his head and torso so he could sit with the rest of the children. That made sense to me since they do take him out of the chair to sit with the other children regularly and his head and trunk control have improved enough over time that with a little input from an adult, he can sit in some of the classroom chairs safely. In the class picture, he would be right beside his peers, a full member of the classroom community.
But then came a second text message: “Solo pic was in his wheelchair but they’re gonna photoshop his headrest so you can’t see it.” I felt a lump in my throat. I had asked that he not be isolated from his peers in the class photo, not that his individual shot omit all traces of his illness. Who thought we would not want to see the headrest of the chair that has become the means for our son to move around in the world? I thought to write back immediately saying: “He uses a wheelchair. It’s fine. Keep it in the pic.” But I often find that taking time after my initial visceral reactions leads to better outcomes. So I waited for my husband to come home to discuss it with him.
My son loves having his picture taken. At times, when his body is behaving in ways that seem beyond his control, I hold up my cell phone to snap a selfie of the two of us. Upon seeing our image on my phone he often focuses, calms, and mugs for the camera. It’s a phenomenon I cannot begin to understand, so I don’t try. I have several pictures of the two of us, looking right at the camera, smiling together as if someone just told us to say cheese. When I post these pictures on Facebook, I comment that they are from the “If you didn’t know you wouldn’t know” files because there is not a visible trace of the three years my son has been battling his disease.
I am admittedly more likely to post these pictures to Facebook than the ones where the visual effects of the disease—the deviated gaze, the open, drooling mouth, the protruding tongue, the asymmetrical facial expressions, the blank stares—are visible. I have justified this tendency by looking at the postings of friends’ kids whose childhoods have thus far not included disabling diseases. We all post what we believe to be the most attractive shots of our kids, the ones where they look happy and loving and impish and proud…right?
But the thought of any part of his current state being photoshoppedout of a professionally taken picture disturbed me. I told my husband the story and he had the same reaction. Our son used to walk on his own. He does not now. He may or may not walk again someday. In the meantime, there is no need to photoshop any aspect of his current state out of visual existence.
We wouldn’t want the photographers to airbrush in a smile that his facial muscles didn’t authentically produce or paint the missing teeth back into his mouth. In fact, we wouldn’t want them to change a thing about his picture, as it is a snapshot of his incredible life as it is today. There is nothing about the physical imagery of his journey that brings us shame. Quite the opposite, he is a powerful testament to resilience in every image we capture of him with or without the wheelchair, the drool, and the varying facial asymmetries. He is our son and we stand in awe of his beauty.
I texted the nurse that night asking if she happened to get the photographer’s contact information so we could communicate that we do not want any photoshopping of our son’s picture. She informed me that they would be back to the school the following day and she would let them know.
The next day I received a text from her: “Spoke to photographer. He is leaving headrest in.”
I noted how the attention I was able to give to this issue served as yet another indication of just how far we had come. I was not at this moment suctioning the trache he used to have. I wasn’t watching the alarming ICU monitor while a medical team ran in to resuscitate him. I was not making an impossibly hard decision about medications or surgeries. I was asking that the wheelchair headrest captured in my son’s school picture not be photoshopped out, the health equivalent of a first-world problem.
Sandra Joy Stein is an education and leadership consultant, writer and poet who lives in New York City.
Posted by Bian
at 09.41,
Add Comment
Read more
What does IQ have to do with happiness?
By Louise Kinross
I’m a little stumped.
I read this piece called Genetic screening to enhance IQ should be embraced in The Conversation. In it, an ethicist argues we should test embryos for gene changes associated with low intelligence (70-85) and discard them because of “the bad things” low IQ portends: poor job opportunities, low income, increased risk of poverty and welfare dependency, greater likelihood to drop out of school and increased chance of incarceration and being murdered (quite a mouthful).
This 2013 Psychological Medicine study seems to support the association between low intelligence and less happiness. Of almost 7,000 people, those in the lowest IQ range (70-99) reported the lowest levels of happiness compared with those in the highest IQ group (120-129). When asked to rate their level of happiness, 12 per cent in the lowest group said “not too happy” (that doesn’t strike me as a huge number. I don’t have the full study to look at what portion of the high IQ group said they were “not too happy.”)
However, the study authors suggest that it's not the degree of intelligence per se that leads to happiness, but the fact that people with higher IQs have better incomes and health and less mental illness.
But isn't stigma one of the main reasons that marginalized groups make less money, have poorer health and experience more anxiety and depression (I'm thinking historically of women, minorities and people with a range of disabilities)? What role does discrimination have to play in these outcomes?
Remember the 2012 French study that showed that even adults who outwardly say they accept kids with disabilities carry a negative bias against children with Down syndrome at an automatic, unconscious level (deduced through implicit-association testing)? In other words, they react to people with Down syndrome based on a negative stereotype they may not even know they have. “These implicit associations are the result of social values...carried by our culture,” says the lead researcher Claire Enea-Drapeau, a school psychologist in Marseille, France. “They are likely deeply embedded and difficult to break.”
However, in spite of the pervasiveness of automatic bias against kids with Down syndrome, this 2011 American Journal of Medical Genetics study found that nearly 99 per cent of 300 people aged 12 and over with Down syndrome say they are happy with their lives; 97 per cent like who they are; and 96 per cent like how they look.
How does this finding fit with the Psychological Medicine research above?
Further, would we ever expect people in the general population to say they were almost 100 per cent happy and okay with themselves? The AJMG study seems to fly in the face of this statement from our ethicist above: “It is pretty clear that low-normal levels of cognitive function tend to reduce well-being.”
Then I googled IQ and depression and found this article about how the rate of suicide in undergrads at Harvard over a recent five-year period was two times the national average for college students. Wouldn't Harvard students be among some of the brightest? And, according to the earlier research, happiest?
I remembered this BLOOM interview we did with Holland Bloorview neurologist and autism expert Evdokia Anagnostou about how high IQ doesn’t predict happiness in people with autism. In fact, there's a high rate of anxiety and depression in youth and young adults with higher-functioning autism.
I felt like I was being buffeted back and forth between arguments suggesting that happiness was dependent on high intelligence and those suggesting it was independent of it.
And I started to think about how perhaps we were looking at this in a simplistic way. I was reminded of Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert’s Stumbling on Happiness—a book that looked at common blind spots in how we imagine the future. These include a lack of empathy that allows us to imagine an experience different than our own and a tendency to overestimate the negative impact of an event and underestimate our resilience.
Gilbert said this helps explain a study that showed sighted people will pay more to avoid going blind than blind people will pay to regain their sight. It also explains why most people assume they couldn’t be paralyzed and happy, even though surveys of people with quadriplegia show the opposite (in fact, sometimes they rate their quality of life as better post injury).
I wondered how much resilience on the part of children with low intelligence and their families might ameliorate some of the supposed negative impacts.
During this time I read A Healing Family, a memoir by Japanese Nobel Prize winner Kenzaburo Oe, about raising a son who was born with brain damage. In it, Oe keeps coming back to the fact that despite the challenges, having a son with intellectual disability came to define his worldview and enabled his family to adapt in ways that readied them for other challenges.
“Twenty-five years ago, my first son [Hikari] was born with brain damage. This was a blow, to say the least; and yet, as a writer, I must acknowledge the fact that the central theme of my work, throughout much of my career, has been the way my family has managed to live with this handicapped child. Indeed, I would have to admit that the very ideas that I hold about this society and the world at large—my thoughts, even, about whatever there might be that transcends our limited reality—are based on and learned through living with him.”
And further on: “On a more personal level, I can imagine a very concrete example of what happens to a society that shuts out its disabled by asking myself how we ourselves—[the Oe family]—would have turned out if we hadn’t made Hikari an indispensable part of our family. I imagine a cheerless house where cold drafts blow through the gaps left by his absence; and, after his exclusion, a family whose bonds grow weaker and weaker. In our case, I know it was only by virtue of having included Hikari in the family that we actually managed to weather our various crises, such as my mother-in-law’s gradual mental decline.”
I guess I'm not sure what I think anymore.
I’m a little stumped.
I read this piece called Genetic screening to enhance IQ should be embraced in The Conversation. In it, an ethicist argues we should test embryos for gene changes associated with low intelligence (70-85) and discard them because of “the bad things” low IQ portends: poor job opportunities, low income, increased risk of poverty and welfare dependency, greater likelihood to drop out of school and increased chance of incarceration and being murdered (quite a mouthful).
This 2013 Psychological Medicine study seems to support the association between low intelligence and less happiness. Of almost 7,000 people, those in the lowest IQ range (70-99) reported the lowest levels of happiness compared with those in the highest IQ group (120-129). When asked to rate their level of happiness, 12 per cent in the lowest group said “not too happy” (that doesn’t strike me as a huge number. I don’t have the full study to look at what portion of the high IQ group said they were “not too happy.”)
However, the study authors suggest that it's not the degree of intelligence per se that leads to happiness, but the fact that people with higher IQs have better incomes and health and less mental illness.
But isn't stigma one of the main reasons that marginalized groups make less money, have poorer health and experience more anxiety and depression (I'm thinking historically of women, minorities and people with a range of disabilities)? What role does discrimination have to play in these outcomes?
Remember the 2012 French study that showed that even adults who outwardly say they accept kids with disabilities carry a negative bias against children with Down syndrome at an automatic, unconscious level (deduced through implicit-association testing)? In other words, they react to people with Down syndrome based on a negative stereotype they may not even know they have. “These implicit associations are the result of social values...carried by our culture,” says the lead researcher Claire Enea-Drapeau, a school psychologist in Marseille, France. “They are likely deeply embedded and difficult to break.”
However, in spite of the pervasiveness of automatic bias against kids with Down syndrome, this 2011 American Journal of Medical Genetics study found that nearly 99 per cent of 300 people aged 12 and over with Down syndrome say they are happy with their lives; 97 per cent like who they are; and 96 per cent like how they look.
How does this finding fit with the Psychological Medicine research above?
Further, would we ever expect people in the general population to say they were almost 100 per cent happy and okay with themselves? The AJMG study seems to fly in the face of this statement from our ethicist above: “It is pretty clear that low-normal levels of cognitive function tend to reduce well-being.”
Then I googled IQ and depression and found this article about how the rate of suicide in undergrads at Harvard over a recent five-year period was two times the national average for college students. Wouldn't Harvard students be among some of the brightest? And, according to the earlier research, happiest?
I remembered this BLOOM interview we did with Holland Bloorview neurologist and autism expert Evdokia Anagnostou about how high IQ doesn’t predict happiness in people with autism. In fact, there's a high rate of anxiety and depression in youth and young adults with higher-functioning autism.
I felt like I was being buffeted back and forth between arguments suggesting that happiness was dependent on high intelligence and those suggesting it was independent of it.
And I started to think about how perhaps we were looking at this in a simplistic way. I was reminded of Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert’s Stumbling on Happiness—a book that looked at common blind spots in how we imagine the future. These include a lack of empathy that allows us to imagine an experience different than our own and a tendency to overestimate the negative impact of an event and underestimate our resilience.
Gilbert said this helps explain a study that showed sighted people will pay more to avoid going blind than blind people will pay to regain their sight. It also explains why most people assume they couldn’t be paralyzed and happy, even though surveys of people with quadriplegia show the opposite (in fact, sometimes they rate their quality of life as better post injury).
I wondered how much resilience on the part of children with low intelligence and their families might ameliorate some of the supposed negative impacts.
During this time I read A Healing Family, a memoir by Japanese Nobel Prize winner Kenzaburo Oe, about raising a son who was born with brain damage. In it, Oe keeps coming back to the fact that despite the challenges, having a son with intellectual disability came to define his worldview and enabled his family to adapt in ways that readied them for other challenges.
“Twenty-five years ago, my first son [Hikari] was born with brain damage. This was a blow, to say the least; and yet, as a writer, I must acknowledge the fact that the central theme of my work, throughout much of my career, has been the way my family has managed to live with this handicapped child. Indeed, I would have to admit that the very ideas that I hold about this society and the world at large—my thoughts, even, about whatever there might be that transcends our limited reality—are based on and learned through living with him.”
And further on: “On a more personal level, I can imagine a very concrete example of what happens to a society that shuts out its disabled by asking myself how we ourselves—[the Oe family]—would have turned out if we hadn’t made Hikari an indispensable part of our family. I imagine a cheerless house where cold drafts blow through the gaps left by his absence; and, after his exclusion, a family whose bonds grow weaker and weaker. In our case, I know it was only by virtue of having included Hikari in the family that we actually managed to weather our various crises, such as my mother-in-law’s gradual mental decline.”
I guess I'm not sure what I think anymore.
Posted by Bian
at 12.59,
Add Comment
Read more
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)

.jpg)