we're watched!

Nothing profound here... just a few wristwatches.

I've worn a watch since I was 8 or 10 years old, and I am lost without one.  Many folks now opt to rely on a cell phone for this function, but I still consider a watch essential.  Cool thing is... my three oldest kids think so, too.  They say they occasionally get harassed because watches aren't cool anymore, but the consensus among us is that being "watched" just makes sense!

Quad Timex... in need of synchronization!

non-sterile

During no other time in history has the forming and dissolving of relationships been so public.  The advent of social media has made the lives of the masses who choose to engage in it much more public.  It adds a very interesting layer to this process of relationship.  We now have to "manage" our "online presence".  We have new words associated with friendships and relationships... such as "unfriended" or "blocked".  Nobody ever really taught most of us how to manage our online presence, because nobody ahead of us ever heard of such a thing.

We are online pioneers.

So, we wing it.

Though this post is not meant to be critical, I have noticed something that unnerves me just a little.  I have witnessed a number of long-term relationships crash and burn within my facebook circle.  Some manage their online presence more tactfully than others, but almost without fail, I see one commonality... the sterilization of the online presence.

Every trace of that ex-whatever is wiped out of profiles.

Gone.

Deleted.

Erased.

Eliminated.

The online presence is sterilized as though eradicating a deadly bacteria.

And it unnerves me because it is history.  I see social media (both this blog and my facebook page) not just as an in-the-moment whimsical time killer, but as an account of my life's history.  Both, but mainly this blog, are a running autobiography, of sorts.

Editing folks out of my online presence is essentially rewriting my history.  I'm not sure I'm okay with that.  If I took the time to record something with or about someone in the "pages" of my online presence, then the event, thought, or emotion was significant in that moment.  Just because I may now feel very differently does not mean that it was not valid in that moment.  And, because I chose to record it, it becomes a part of my personal history.

What I am in this moment is hollow and empty if I rewrite the history that made me.

I often try to filter things through my kids.  My online presence is their history, too.  While displaying pictures of an individual from a  past relationship in your home would just be weird, it's not the same with social media.  My marriage really happened.  18 years of life really happened.  And because of that, four kids really happened.  And they deserve to have some preservation of that aspect of their history.

While I am still married, it is now reduced to little more than a business arrangement and the proverbial handwriting is on the wall.  I'm not trying to sound holier-than-others, but I have had a season to ponder... more than many in this situation.  I'm not making guarantees, but if divorce happens, I'm thinking I won't sterilize my history.  While I have made some adjustments to what is being posted in the present, I'm hoping to leave history intact.  As a blogger, I think an accurate history of the past lends a richness to the present that can be lost to sterilization.

A related event occurred today that prompted this post.  I have my facebook account set to show memories... things that have been posted "on this date" over the course of my seven-plus year account.  I had a significant-to-me multi-decade friendship go bad a few years back.  The details aren't important to this post, but the friendship is not salvageable.  I believe in forgiveness but that does not always equal restoration, and in this case it does not.  I toyed with sterilizing this person from my blog and facebook history, but I chose not to. (They have been unfriended, but the past content is intact.)  I have kept it in my history as a less-significant-than-a-spouse test of my theory that one should carefully weigh social media sterilization. Today, a link to a blog post written about this friendship (when it still was a friendship) popped up in my facebook memories.  At first, some of the pain started to resurface.  But, along with the pain was a reminder of lessons that have been learned.  As I've pondered it throughout the day, it cemented the idea that I am who I am today partly because of both the good and bad aspects of that significant piece of my history.

Time will tell, but it has been said, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"... I think I may just continue to run with my history non-sterile.

the "r" word

This post may be offensive to some, and the Politically Correct (PC) Police may hunt me down, but it's a thought I need to work through. If you're the sort of person that is easily offended by things potentially politically uncorrect, then I apologize, in advance.

I get the idea behind the PC movement. Really, I do. It's about using the least offensive language to describe people, or groups of people, in a way that promotes their respect and dignity, especially toward those who are perceived as having some disadvantage.  Who can argue with that, right?

But, I think it sometimes creates some of the problems it actually tries to solve.

Let me try to explain.

It's supposed to be a people before problems mentality, right?  But, I feel like we sometimes focus so heavily on getting the right words to describe the problem or disadvantage, that we actually loose sight of the people.  We focus so much on getting the perfectly least offensive label that the label actually becomes MORE important than the person.  The emphasis is so much on policing the use of the right people-first language that it becomes political before people before problems.

And, sometimes I think the PC language and movement, if you really boil it down, can potentially become even more offensive than the "offensive" stuff it replaces.

What I'm talking about here is the "r" word... retarded.

There is a movement afoot to totally stamp out the use of the word "retarded".  But, I stand slightly askew of that movement, and you may hear me use the "r" word on occasion. (Gasp!)

Now, before you drag me through the computer screen to tar and feather me and call me a heretic, let me remind you that this post does not just represent a half-baked rant on a random subject.  No, I'm qualified to speak on the subject because I live it.  It's in the house.  It touches a son I love.

To attempt to prove my point, let's do a little experiment.  Which of these statements sounds the least offensive?

1. "Slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress." 

2.  "Physically or mentally impaired in a way that substantially limits activity, especially in relation to employment or education."

I'm hoping you voted for the first one.  I did.  To me, the first statement doesn't have an extremely negative connotation.  It doesn't say "you can't".  It says "you can", just maybe in a slower or more limited way than many others.  The second uses the very negative word "impaired", which to me shouts, "you can't!"

Both are according to Merriam-Webster.  The first (my preferred) is actually the definition of "retarded", short for "mentally retarded".  The second is the definition of "disabled", as in "intellectually disabled"... today's preferred term (according to the current whim of the PC Police). When you break it down, the word disability quite literally means "without ability".  Wow... pretty negative, if you ask me.

So, I maintain that, in a pure comparison of the two choices, I find mentally retarded LESS offensive than it's preferred counterpart, intellectually disabled.

I have seen folks post on facebook that they would not continue to allow their child to be seen by a doctor or specialist who still "ignorantly" uses the outdated term mentally retarded.  I disagree.  In fact, not too long ago, I was in the office of the Head of the NeuroDevelopmental Center at a local children's hospital, and he used the words mildly mentally retarded while in conference with me.  I didn't cover my ears and run out of the office screaming.  I respect this specialist.  I was not offended.  He was very instrumental in my son's diagnosis.  It is still an extremely accurate term.  More accurate, I feel, than intellectually disabled.

The problem, however, lies not in the word itself, but in the fact that it has developed into slang over the years.  Calling something or someone "retarded" in a non-clinical way is not okay.  Calling someone a "retard" is NEVER okay.  These uses of the word are so wrong that we have tried to all together ban the word from the English language.

So, here is my take on the "r" word debate.  When it comes to the slang... don't you EVER!  That hits me where I live, and even if it is joking around, it is HIGHLY offensive to me.

But, in a clinical context, I'm not opposed hearing it or using it.  At times, you may hear me say it... because I think it is still the most accurate and actually the least offensive of the two clinical choices.

In all honesty, I don't like labels much at all.  My favorite label is simply "son", because that's what he is to me.  But, sometimes other labels are necessary to communicate needs.

Yes, mild mental retardation touches me where I live, and PC or not, I don't want to hear the message about the one I love that "he can't" because he is "without ability".  I prefer the message... he may struggle more than others, but... HE CAN!