The “About” section reminded me of something. Around the time when I first started at my current workplace, the women’s leadership group at work offered a seminar on how to effectively communicate at work, particularly when persuading our male counterparts. It taught us to rein in our emotions (a “more female” trait than male) in favor of facts, which were more professional and were more effective to our male counterparts. It didn’t strike me till years later that curiously, I’ve never heard of a corresponding seminar offered for my male coworkers regarding how to more effectively communicate with us.
When I stopped coloring my hair, I discovered I was no longer "fully human" to some people. I was young to have all-white hair, but that didn't help. The difference in the way I was treated was shocking. Suddenly I disappeared in the eyes of many people, and I was treated like I was feeble-minded and barely tolerated. There was a little increased deference, but that doesn't help your feelings when you are being treated like you are in a different class of people -- old and discarded. I'm still me, just with different hair! I can still contribute to society!
I broke my ankle and was in a boot. I had to go to the Apple Store to get my laptop fixed. My brother drove me. When we arrived at the mall we found the elevator was broken and the Apple store was on a lower level. I was too nervous with my wobbly leg and boot to take the escalator so I decided to take another elevator in a department store. I sent my brother ahead with my laptop for my appointment because I would need a few extra minutes. When I arrived at the store they told me I was late, they could not see me and I would have to wait for a later opening. They made me sit and wait until the next appointment which fortunately was only about 15 minutes. They really didn’t seem to care or notice my broken foot or accept my brother’s excuse for why I was late. An older me would have asserted myself and explained the situation with my broken foot and broken elevator. But I “took it,” because that exclusivity vibe that Apple stores gave off circa 2012 was tough to shake. (Do Apple stores still give off that vibe?) It made me think about folks with physical limitations and disabilities. They must deal with these situations all the time. What can I do to accommodate people with disabilities instead of forcing them into a narrow box?
This doesn’t quite fit either of your questions; put it down as a story in which my own understanding of who counts, and what kinds of relationships count, was tested and expanded.
Many accounts of human value turn on our capacity to reason; humans are defined as the rational animals. When adults cannot exercise this capacity, whether because of developmental disability or mental illness, they are excluded from the liberal order of autonomous individuals, and (for accounts of personhood that rely on abilities) may seem to cease to be people at all.
Several years ago, my mother became very sick with a generalized anxiety disorder combined with delusions and leading to suicidal depression. Her illness notably involved defects in her ability to reason: she could not engage in conversation, but would repeat anxious thoughts like a broken record without responding to what you said to her. She had manifestly false beliefs that could not be shaken by any amount of evidence or argument. It was intensely frustrating and frightening to talk with her, as I primarily did over the phone from a university in a different state.
My frustration was perhaps exacerbated by my temperament—I tend to engage with people by talking about ideas, and my default approach to the world is analyzing and arguing, which became impossible or counterproductive with my mother. I had to learn (I’m still learning how) to listen to false or senseless talk and say “That sounds really scary” and “I can see why you’d be worried” and “Can I pray for you right now?” instead of disagreeing. When I was visiting, I related to her through service—cooking meals and encouraging her to eat, cleaning the house the way she would have wanted it. In her illness my mother's relationships with me and (especially) my father were no longer a matter of reciprocal love, but asymmetrical need and care, with a fair amount of dislike on both sides. But as painful as it is to see that change happening, such relationships of need and care (like the one in which all our lives begin) are among our most important and intimate loves; there is something holy and sanctifying there that is not found in friendships between equals.
In arguments about involuntary psychiatric commitment, some want to respect human dignity by allowing even very sick people to make decisions for themselves, even if those decisions cause them to lead a worse life. Some go so far as to argue that what we call mental illnesses are exhibitions of unusual and socially disapproved preferences. This kind of thinking springs naturally from the liberal order: if personhood and dignity are rooted in individual autonomy, then treating mentally ill people with respect requires affirming their autonomy, while acknowledging their dependence on others, not just for material needs like food and shelter, but for judgements about what is real and what kind of life is good to live and what is necessary to achieve that sort of life, means violating their personhood. But which shows better honor to a person who is unwell and confused: allowing him to lie in his own filth, or making sure he is clean and has fresh clothes? respecting her decision not to take medication, or getting her help that will enable her to live a fuller life? facilitating self-harm, or posing obstacles to it?
I don’t know what policies around involuntary commitment should be, but I am sure that honoring the dignity of an adult, like loving a young child, can involve thwarting her will and compelling her to do things she does not want to do, as my father did when he prevented my mother from selling or giving away possessions he knew she would regret losing and when he forced her into the car to drive her to doctors’ and therapists’ appointments she was terrified to go to. It’s because she had someone to depend on that my mom made it through and has been able to recover—not enough to support herself independently, but enough to understand and take an interest in things beyond her fears.
Leah says that children are not “defective adults,” but I would say that defective adults too are fully human. We can respect the dignity of their personhood by taking care of them and being compassionately present with them, even when they do not have, or cannot be trusted with, independence.
> 'I had to learn (I’m still learning how) to listen to false or senseless talk and say “That sounds really scary” and “I can see why you’d be worried” and “Can I pray for you right now?” instead of disagreeing.'
Oh wow, yeah. That really "caught at my heart." That reminds me of a friend's story about her mom's sort of... spiritual anxieties. (which seems both like and unlike this) My friend recounted how frustrating it was that her mom would have a tendency to over-spiritualize things - like if there was a family disagreement, [my friend's mom] - instead of responding to some confrontation or request-to-be-heard by her [adult] children, would ask them if they would first sing a hymn with her. The thing is... as unreasonable as it was to disrupt certain kinds of uncomfortable dialogues with a request like that... my friend found that the few times she acceded to this wish, her mom became more reasonable, even w/ regards to engaging with those tough topics. (I envision it as "she moved a bit toward her mom, and then her mom moved toward her in response.")
I don't know if that bore much resemblance to your situation, but... I love the idea that we just shouldn't expect other people to be as reasonable as we want them to - maybe not even reasonable AT. ALL. - but, in love, "work with what we've got."
> 'It’s because she had someone to depend on that my mom made it through and has been able to recover—not enough to support herself independently, but enough to understand and take an interest in things beyond her fears.'
Oh! I wasn't expecting this good conclusion to the story. <3 You guys passed through deep waters.
Yesterday was the anniversary of George Floyd's murder, last week Tennessee enacted a law that prohibits hormone therapy for minors (unless it's to make a kid taller or for another non-trans related reason) and also last week Texas passed a bill that anyone providing or intending to provide support (including emotional support) to a woman seeking an abortion after six weeks can be sued in civil court.
One (tiny) plus side of these and other moments, actions, events is that they allow a moment to have tough and clarifying conversations. When George Floyd was murdered, millions of people understood racism in the US more clearly - and were able to voice their defense of the humanity of all more forcefully when a friend or colleague defended his murder. To a lesser extent I think that's happening as anti-trans and anti-women legislation is passed.
Personally, I've kept an open dialogue going with a Republican acquaintance from high school. A frequent listener of FOX and talk radio, he had said BLM was a hate group in the past - but after George Floyd was murdered he switched gears. We semi-regularly check in and talk through our (frequently opposing) perspectives and I keep working to broaden his perspective of who counts as a citizen and who counts as fully human. Our sons are about the same age, so we're also talking about what we want the world they grow up in to look like, and what our current polarized state means for their future. I think without that grounding in 'this is reality, this is their future' our ongoing conversation wouldn't be possible.
Musing on this more - one common thread in the way 'defective' people are treated is that their ability to think for themselves is questioned societally and then their choices are constrained or coerced by the state. Women weren't allowed to open bank accounts. Kids who know they are trans are considered 'brainwashed' and unable to seek care. Women who choose an abortion rather than a risky (medically or financially or emotionally) pregnancy are threatened with lawsuits or jail time.
I do think there's the obvious intersectional tension there around abortion! Women's choices are not treated with respect and we're seldom given the information we need in *a lot* of medicine. But a baby also fits the criteria of "their ability to think for themselves is questioned socially." Neither a newborn, nor a first trimester baby in utero can articulate a desire to continue existing, but we assume it's there in the first case and not in the latter.
Definite tension! And lots of nuanced tensions! Which is why I think that the blunt force of a coercive/carceral state is such a poor fit here.
I'm also just generally wary of putting life above all else.... Can we say that a newborn's (or fetus') desire to continue to exist is greater than their desire to spend their last moments held and loved? In cases where newborns are not expected to survive, denying infants palliative care in their parents arms (if that is their parents' wish) and instead requiring medical intervention seems to me unbearably cruel. And that's a potential outcome of at least some of the pro-life policies currently advocated for.
First, in terms of the abortion debate, it does go both ways regarding women not being treated with respect and disinformation. Part of the reason why I have become disillusioned with the pro-life argument is because they do use disinformation and lies in their statements and work and have a lot of ethical questions that I have not found the answers to yet. It isn’t true that women usually regret abortions, that birth control is medically harmful, and many crisis pregnancy centers do not use ethical practices IMO. I see your point that a first-trimester baby/fetus does have inherent value--but so do women and their lives. I think interdependence and the relation between a women and their unborn child is important, but I also think women should have a good deal of autonomy in their lives and choices.
I think part of counting someone else as human is acknowledging we can learn something from them and/or need their help. That we actually need them so that we can become more fully human.
I spent three years studying in Uruguay recently and was brought up short by the social exclusion I felt as a non-native Spanish speaker, North American and visibly religious person (Uruguay is a super secular country and there are somewhat understandable feelings against the "northern collosus"). There were also plenty of great people there, many of whom I count as friends! But it made me reflect on my own actions when I am on my home turf. It's not that I was consciously looking down on people before; it's just that my good efforts at "reaching out" probably came across as patronizing. I explored this experience in a blog post here last year: https://www.bruderhof.com/en/voices-blog/life-in-community/the-odd-one-out
> "I think part of counting someone else as human is acknowledging we can learn something from them and/or need their help."
This really made me think!
In my own life, I know people who are really emotionally-broken (to the point of being anxious all the time or have trouble getting things done), and who are mentally-broken (to the point of saying things that sound bizarre, and persisting in that even once people get uncomfortable) and yet... I have allowed myself to be helped by friends who match these descriptions! They -DO- have something to give, they -DO- have things they can teach.
Being connected with them can be uncomfortable, though. ...because maybe I won't be able to convince a particular one of them that a given delusion is untrue at a particular moment when it's captivating him. But sometimes these same friends have deep wells of compassion, astonishing creativity, remarkable intelligence & insight. (in another area that's not the one where there's a fixation or blindness)
I don't think I generally have much success convincing other people to view these friends the way I see them, though! I have to wonder if it's because I try to resist others' assessments so directly - maybe I seem to be saying "this one's brokenness isn't REALLY as much of a mess as you think it is" to others.
Read your blog post - really loved your friend HeeEun Kim's story. Wow. Thank you.
So to tie this in better...perhaps this happens when we human beings don't realize that we need others. Or as Leah has pointed out, when we subscribe to the myth of our own independence and self-sufficiency. Perhaps it's harder for healthy young men (or any adult without physical disability) to see their need for others. It's not exactly their fault, but still needs addressing through conversation.
> '...a philosophy of children that sees them as “defective adults.” '
Counter: "[In one author's subversive books for children] ...Adults are treated as obstacles to pleasure, like ghosts of children who learn words for big feelings and forget the emotions themselves."
Here's the article that's excerpted from - "In the Kingdom of Klutz - 1996" https://stanfordmag.org/contents/in-the-kingdom-of-klutz ...I've wanted to share with you since I discovered it, Leah - now I can share it with everyone here! (It's about the founders of Klutz Books, who I started Googling after noticing how uniquely quirky - and engagingly fascinating - an old "Natural Disasters" book of theirs I have is!)
I just read "The Little Prince" for the first time, so I'm in a fitting "place" for this conversation!
On the playground the other day, I heard some other moms discussing how terrible it was that a program was giving hotel space to the homeless during the pandemic. The ringleader said (very condescendingly and gratingly) that they kept leaving to get more drugs, so that the police were now bringing THEM drugs in the hotels, and now lots of people were just gaming the system to get drugs. Of course this is absurd on its face, but the "news" reported it. I chimed in politely that I had worked in a homeless shelter, and that it would be unethical to force people to undergo drug withdrawal without their consent and without any support. I said I didn't know what was going on exactly, but that they were doing it with an eye toward helping very desperate folks quarantine for COVID. At least one of the other moms nodded sympathetically, but none of them were willing to speak up for the humanity of the homeless or "drug addicts." They just became a problem to be displaced somewhere else, which is how most Orange County people view the homeless. It was interesting at least to witness the spread of fake news in person instead of on social media!
Ah! That brings to mind an example of me - not minimizing the humanity of someone in that situation - but being willing to speak energetically and ignorantly on a drug-addiction-related topic! (Something that one co-worker had told me an acquaintance of hers was doing that sounded like an act of kindness to addicts in that circle... sounded like a disaster to the nurse who worked with people with drug addictions when I re-told it to.) Foot-in-mouth disease!!
Anyway, tough times on the playground - I really avoid those interactions! Good for you to engage in that way, to the point that one woman would nod and assent. (and thus be more willing to dissent from that cluster, maybe) People's implicit agreements to support each-other's claims regardless of the truth - else risk rejection - are ...frustrating.
The “About” section reminded me of something. Around the time when I first started at my current workplace, the women’s leadership group at work offered a seminar on how to effectively communicate at work, particularly when persuading our male counterparts. It taught us to rein in our emotions (a “more female” trait than male) in favor of facts, which were more professional and were more effective to our male counterparts. It didn’t strike me till years later that curiously, I’ve never heard of a corresponding seminar offered for my male coworkers regarding how to more effectively communicate with us.
When I stopped coloring my hair, I discovered I was no longer "fully human" to some people. I was young to have all-white hair, but that didn't help. The difference in the way I was treated was shocking. Suddenly I disappeared in the eyes of many people, and I was treated like I was feeble-minded and barely tolerated. There was a little increased deference, but that doesn't help your feelings when you are being treated like you are in a different class of people -- old and discarded. I'm still me, just with different hair! I can still contribute to society!
I broke my ankle and was in a boot. I had to go to the Apple Store to get my laptop fixed. My brother drove me. When we arrived at the mall we found the elevator was broken and the Apple store was on a lower level. I was too nervous with my wobbly leg and boot to take the escalator so I decided to take another elevator in a department store. I sent my brother ahead with my laptop for my appointment because I would need a few extra minutes. When I arrived at the store they told me I was late, they could not see me and I would have to wait for a later opening. They made me sit and wait until the next appointment which fortunately was only about 15 minutes. They really didn’t seem to care or notice my broken foot or accept my brother’s excuse for why I was late. An older me would have asserted myself and explained the situation with my broken foot and broken elevator. But I “took it,” because that exclusivity vibe that Apple stores gave off circa 2012 was tough to shake. (Do Apple stores still give off that vibe?) It made me think about folks with physical limitations and disabilities. They must deal with these situations all the time. What can I do to accommodate people with disabilities instead of forcing them into a narrow box?
Pushing around a stroller has made me *really* aware of which local shops don't have a ramp entrance.
This doesn’t quite fit either of your questions; put it down as a story in which my own understanding of who counts, and what kinds of relationships count, was tested and expanded.
Many accounts of human value turn on our capacity to reason; humans are defined as the rational animals. When adults cannot exercise this capacity, whether because of developmental disability or mental illness, they are excluded from the liberal order of autonomous individuals, and (for accounts of personhood that rely on abilities) may seem to cease to be people at all.
Several years ago, my mother became very sick with a generalized anxiety disorder combined with delusions and leading to suicidal depression. Her illness notably involved defects in her ability to reason: she could not engage in conversation, but would repeat anxious thoughts like a broken record without responding to what you said to her. She had manifestly false beliefs that could not be shaken by any amount of evidence or argument. It was intensely frustrating and frightening to talk with her, as I primarily did over the phone from a university in a different state.
My frustration was perhaps exacerbated by my temperament—I tend to engage with people by talking about ideas, and my default approach to the world is analyzing and arguing, which became impossible or counterproductive with my mother. I had to learn (I’m still learning how) to listen to false or senseless talk and say “That sounds really scary” and “I can see why you’d be worried” and “Can I pray for you right now?” instead of disagreeing. When I was visiting, I related to her through service—cooking meals and encouraging her to eat, cleaning the house the way she would have wanted it. In her illness my mother's relationships with me and (especially) my father were no longer a matter of reciprocal love, but asymmetrical need and care, with a fair amount of dislike on both sides. But as painful as it is to see that change happening, such relationships of need and care (like the one in which all our lives begin) are among our most important and intimate loves; there is something holy and sanctifying there that is not found in friendships between equals.
In arguments about involuntary psychiatric commitment, some want to respect human dignity by allowing even very sick people to make decisions for themselves, even if those decisions cause them to lead a worse life. Some go so far as to argue that what we call mental illnesses are exhibitions of unusual and socially disapproved preferences. This kind of thinking springs naturally from the liberal order: if personhood and dignity are rooted in individual autonomy, then treating mentally ill people with respect requires affirming their autonomy, while acknowledging their dependence on others, not just for material needs like food and shelter, but for judgements about what is real and what kind of life is good to live and what is necessary to achieve that sort of life, means violating their personhood. But which shows better honor to a person who is unwell and confused: allowing him to lie in his own filth, or making sure he is clean and has fresh clothes? respecting her decision not to take medication, or getting her help that will enable her to live a fuller life? facilitating self-harm, or posing obstacles to it?
I don’t know what policies around involuntary commitment should be, but I am sure that honoring the dignity of an adult, like loving a young child, can involve thwarting her will and compelling her to do things she does not want to do, as my father did when he prevented my mother from selling or giving away possessions he knew she would regret losing and when he forced her into the car to drive her to doctors’ and therapists’ appointments she was terrified to go to. It’s because she had someone to depend on that my mom made it through and has been able to recover—not enough to support herself independently, but enough to understand and take an interest in things beyond her fears.
Leah says that children are not “defective adults,” but I would say that defective adults too are fully human. We can respect the dignity of their personhood by taking care of them and being compassionately present with them, even when they do not have, or cannot be trusted with, independence.
> 'I had to learn (I’m still learning how) to listen to false or senseless talk and say “That sounds really scary” and “I can see why you’d be worried” and “Can I pray for you right now?” instead of disagreeing.'
Oh wow, yeah. That really "caught at my heart." That reminds me of a friend's story about her mom's sort of... spiritual anxieties. (which seems both like and unlike this) My friend recounted how frustrating it was that her mom would have a tendency to over-spiritualize things - like if there was a family disagreement, [my friend's mom] - instead of responding to some confrontation or request-to-be-heard by her [adult] children, would ask them if they would first sing a hymn with her. The thing is... as unreasonable as it was to disrupt certain kinds of uncomfortable dialogues with a request like that... my friend found that the few times she acceded to this wish, her mom became more reasonable, even w/ regards to engaging with those tough topics. (I envision it as "she moved a bit toward her mom, and then her mom moved toward her in response.")
I don't know if that bore much resemblance to your situation, but... I love the idea that we just shouldn't expect other people to be as reasonable as we want them to - maybe not even reasonable AT. ALL. - but, in love, "work with what we've got."
> 'It’s because she had someone to depend on that my mom made it through and has been able to recover—not enough to support herself independently, but enough to understand and take an interest in things beyond her fears.'
Oh! I wasn't expecting this good conclusion to the story. <3 You guys passed through deep waters.
Yesterday was the anniversary of George Floyd's murder, last week Tennessee enacted a law that prohibits hormone therapy for minors (unless it's to make a kid taller or for another non-trans related reason) and also last week Texas passed a bill that anyone providing or intending to provide support (including emotional support) to a woman seeking an abortion after six weeks can be sued in civil court.
One (tiny) plus side of these and other moments, actions, events is that they allow a moment to have tough and clarifying conversations. When George Floyd was murdered, millions of people understood racism in the US more clearly - and were able to voice their defense of the humanity of all more forcefully when a friend or colleague defended his murder. To a lesser extent I think that's happening as anti-trans and anti-women legislation is passed.
Personally, I've kept an open dialogue going with a Republican acquaintance from high school. A frequent listener of FOX and talk radio, he had said BLM was a hate group in the past - but after George Floyd was murdered he switched gears. We semi-regularly check in and talk through our (frequently opposing) perspectives and I keep working to broaden his perspective of who counts as a citizen and who counts as fully human. Our sons are about the same age, so we're also talking about what we want the world they grow up in to look like, and what our current polarized state means for their future. I think without that grounding in 'this is reality, this is their future' our ongoing conversation wouldn't be possible.
Musing on this more - one common thread in the way 'defective' people are treated is that their ability to think for themselves is questioned societally and then their choices are constrained or coerced by the state. Women weren't allowed to open bank accounts. Kids who know they are trans are considered 'brainwashed' and unable to seek care. Women who choose an abortion rather than a risky (medically or financially or emotionally) pregnancy are threatened with lawsuits or jail time.
I do think there's the obvious intersectional tension there around abortion! Women's choices are not treated with respect and we're seldom given the information we need in *a lot* of medicine. But a baby also fits the criteria of "their ability to think for themselves is questioned socially." Neither a newborn, nor a first trimester baby in utero can articulate a desire to continue existing, but we assume it's there in the first case and not in the latter.
Definite tension! And lots of nuanced tensions! Which is why I think that the blunt force of a coercive/carceral state is such a poor fit here.
I'm also just generally wary of putting life above all else.... Can we say that a newborn's (or fetus') desire to continue to exist is greater than their desire to spend their last moments held and loved? In cases where newborns are not expected to survive, denying infants palliative care in their parents arms (if that is their parents' wish) and instead requiring medical intervention seems to me unbearably cruel. And that's a potential outcome of at least some of the pro-life policies currently advocated for.
First, in terms of the abortion debate, it does go both ways regarding women not being treated with respect and disinformation. Part of the reason why I have become disillusioned with the pro-life argument is because they do use disinformation and lies in their statements and work and have a lot of ethical questions that I have not found the answers to yet. It isn’t true that women usually regret abortions, that birth control is medically harmful, and many crisis pregnancy centers do not use ethical practices IMO. I see your point that a first-trimester baby/fetus does have inherent value--but so do women and their lives. I think interdependence and the relation between a women and their unborn child is important, but I also think women should have a good deal of autonomy in their lives and choices.
I think part of counting someone else as human is acknowledging we can learn something from them and/or need their help. That we actually need them so that we can become more fully human.
I spent three years studying in Uruguay recently and was brought up short by the social exclusion I felt as a non-native Spanish speaker, North American and visibly religious person (Uruguay is a super secular country and there are somewhat understandable feelings against the "northern collosus"). There were also plenty of great people there, many of whom I count as friends! But it made me reflect on my own actions when I am on my home turf. It's not that I was consciously looking down on people before; it's just that my good efforts at "reaching out" probably came across as patronizing. I explored this experience in a blog post here last year: https://www.bruderhof.com/en/voices-blog/life-in-community/the-odd-one-out
> "I think part of counting someone else as human is acknowledging we can learn something from them and/or need their help."
This really made me think!
In my own life, I know people who are really emotionally-broken (to the point of being anxious all the time or have trouble getting things done), and who are mentally-broken (to the point of saying things that sound bizarre, and persisting in that even once people get uncomfortable) and yet... I have allowed myself to be helped by friends who match these descriptions! They -DO- have something to give, they -DO- have things they can teach.
Being connected with them can be uncomfortable, though. ...because maybe I won't be able to convince a particular one of them that a given delusion is untrue at a particular moment when it's captivating him. But sometimes these same friends have deep wells of compassion, astonishing creativity, remarkable intelligence & insight. (in another area that's not the one where there's a fixation or blindness)
I don't think I generally have much success convincing other people to view these friends the way I see them, though! I have to wonder if it's because I try to resist others' assessments so directly - maybe I seem to be saying "this one's brokenness isn't REALLY as much of a mess as you think it is" to others.
Read your blog post - really loved your friend HeeEun Kim's story. Wow. Thank you.
So to tie this in better...perhaps this happens when we human beings don't realize that we need others. Or as Leah has pointed out, when we subscribe to the myth of our own independence and self-sufficiency. Perhaps it's harder for healthy young men (or any adult without physical disability) to see their need for others. It's not exactly their fault, but still needs addressing through conversation.
> '...a philosophy of children that sees them as “defective adults.” '
Counter: "[In one author's subversive books for children] ...Adults are treated as obstacles to pleasure, like ghosts of children who learn words for big feelings and forget the emotions themselves."
Here's the article that's excerpted from - "In the Kingdom of Klutz - 1996" https://stanfordmag.org/contents/in-the-kingdom-of-klutz ...I've wanted to share with you since I discovered it, Leah - now I can share it with everyone here! (It's about the founders of Klutz Books, who I started Googling after noticing how uniquely quirky - and engagingly fascinating - an old "Natural Disasters" book of theirs I have is!)
I just read "The Little Prince" for the first time, so I'm in a fitting "place" for this conversation!
Oooh, thank you! I loved these books as a kid.
On the playground the other day, I heard some other moms discussing how terrible it was that a program was giving hotel space to the homeless during the pandemic. The ringleader said (very condescendingly and gratingly) that they kept leaving to get more drugs, so that the police were now bringing THEM drugs in the hotels, and now lots of people were just gaming the system to get drugs. Of course this is absurd on its face, but the "news" reported it. I chimed in politely that I had worked in a homeless shelter, and that it would be unethical to force people to undergo drug withdrawal without their consent and without any support. I said I didn't know what was going on exactly, but that they were doing it with an eye toward helping very desperate folks quarantine for COVID. At least one of the other moms nodded sympathetically, but none of them were willing to speak up for the humanity of the homeless or "drug addicts." They just became a problem to be displaced somewhere else, which is how most Orange County people view the homeless. It was interesting at least to witness the spread of fake news in person instead of on social media!
Ah! That brings to mind an example of me - not minimizing the humanity of someone in that situation - but being willing to speak energetically and ignorantly on a drug-addiction-related topic! (Something that one co-worker had told me an acquaintance of hers was doing that sounded like an act of kindness to addicts in that circle... sounded like a disaster to the nurse who worked with people with drug addictions when I re-told it to.) Foot-in-mouth disease!!
Anyway, tough times on the playground - I really avoid those interactions! Good for you to engage in that way, to the point that one woman would nod and assent. (and thus be more willing to dissent from that cluster, maybe) People's implicit agreements to support each-other's claims regardless of the truth - else risk rejection - are ...frustrating.