Hi Judy,Re: "no better word has come up for "neurodiverse people" as the preferred adjective for people who belong from neurological minorities."Have you really not heard of the commonly used adjective "neurodivergent", coined by Kassiane Assumasu?We should all use that, and reserve "neurodiverse" for its proper purpose, which is to describe a characteristic of human populations (or even any kind of population of living beings).
I struggle with the idea that disability can be understood purely as socially constructed, and especially an artefact of welfare systems. Before welfare systems came along there were people with limbs missing for example who would not have been able to do certain things that human beings have evolved with two legs to be able to do. Yes, social reality is partly socially constructed.
Pains Being Pure Heart Belong Rar
First off:GREAT EPISODE! The last episode was good too, but this was by far the best episode this season. The writers did a great job really adding tension with the cramped hot room they were all waiting in. Also, I really liked seeing real tension BETWEEN the detectives, especially between Rollins and Carisi, as we all know they both have feelings for each other. My views:I wholeheartedly agree with Rollins. Let me explain why.There was no evidence of any psychological abuse except for the wife's words. And there was no physical abuse at all. If we knew for a fact the wife was being abused, that would be one thing, but we do not. Anyways, she had options other than murder. Resources do exist for battered women, and at least she, unlike women who have actually been physically abused or threatened, does not appear to have a valid excuse not to seek help. If her version of events ore true, her husband was a controlling narcissist, but not a murderer. I'm not justifying how she may or may not have been treated by her husband, but no matter what, she did not have the right to take the law into her own hands. And to be honest, maybe it's just the way the actress played her, but I had half a mind to think she really was a psychopath who was using the unproven battered wife theory as an excuse. If you look at the end, when Olivia admits that the wife said she didn't feel sorry, the woman appears genuinely shocked and devastated. Did she expect Olivia to lie?Just the fact that she seemed to count on Olivia committing perjury instead of telling the truth makes me suspicious. But the bottom line is this: there is no conclusive proof to support the woman's version of events, and we know for a fact she was never physically hurt or threatened by her husband. Also, Rollins really hit the nail on the head with Olivia: NOT EVERY SINGLE WOMAN IS A VICTIM, AND NOT EVERY SINGLE MAN IS A PERPETRATOR. Olivia was preinclined to suspect the husband and refused to think that there was a possibility the wife was lying. Rollins is right in saying that the William Lewis fiasco has colored her vison. Again, let me be clear, that if the husband was psychologically or physically abusing her, I would be giving a whole different speech, but there is no proof. If the woman wanted to get off, she should have recorded him abusing her or something. But you can't murder someone and then not have any evidence that it was done in self defense, and still expect to get off. The world doesn't work like that. What if it was your son (or daughter for that matter) who has their name being smeared after being viciously murdered, but the person doing the smearing has no evidence to back ANY of their claims up. Does it sound fair that the person automatically gets a way with murder?
Professor Beck,One of things I found interesting in Unclean (one of many things) was this idea of purity having an attribute of permanence because in the Jewish biblical tradition there are many "Purity" violations but each one comes with it's own methodology for reversal. It is expected that you should attempt to avoid becoming impure but also accepted that this isn't really possible while living life and so the society as a whole provides mechanisms for ritual cleansing. It seems like this was something that got lost in translation and created expectations that can't be met by human beings
This is very interesting and I'm glad it is being addressed! Although, I feel like I (at least sort of) know the resolution because I feel like I have found it... I got pregnant as a high school-er and had my son when I was 16. I have always been part of the Christian church and continued on as part of it afterward, raising my son in the church. People knew about my impurity just by asking me how old I was and looking at my son... Duh! She had her son when she was 16 and not married! Whereas I could take that as having a stained life and feeling like I was walking around with a big sign that says "I'm impure," what I found was forgiveness, acceptance, and freedom. The Christians around me, instead of saying "wow, you've been sexually impure", said "God loves you no matter what your sin is. We all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and God wants to redeem your situation." And he did, I asked him to forgive me and make me clean, and I am. Now, 7 years after I had my son, God has brought a wonderful, strong Christian man into my life who looks at me like God looks at me, as forgiven and clean and pure, and we are now married and expecting our first child together! Redemption is available to anyone who is willing to repent of sin, or just come before God (if it wasn't your fault, in the case of rape) and say "God, if you will, you can make me clean", his answer is always "I will." Now, when people say "Wow! You look so young to have a child that age!" I smile and say, "I AM young! Let me tell you about it..." and it's a great chance to share about the way God redeems our lives from sin and makes it something beautiful.
I hope this comment doesn't minimize in any way the focus on personal purity.The thought that comes into my mind with this psychology of contamination and permanence is the amount of waste this creates. In the realm of sexual purity, what is wasted is usually a human being, especially a female human being. What a tragedy. All around us we witness that nature relies on processes that clean and purify any contaminated system. Nature's ability to restore is amazing.Our tradition in water management came to mind. An amazing amount of the water we use ends up in the sewer (waste water collection system). Much of it had no exposure to contaminates between the spout and the drain. Still, our practice is to get our water from the river BEFORE it enters town and dump it back in the river (hopefully after treatment) as it leaves town. One city, realizing it would tap out all its water rights (every drop of water west of the 100th meridian is already "owned" by someone) and was still growing, did something different. The first part was the same, water was taken from the river before town, treated and returned to the river. They discovered that 10 miles below the city, the water was just as pure as where they took it above the city. Their solution was to take the water that had been treated by science and nature and recirculate it back up the geography and put it through the city water system as potable water again. Citizens went ballistic! The psychology that this was water they had flushed down their toilets was overpowering. There was protest and there were legal battles. After the political reality check and a passage of time, the city, very quietly, completed the system. Nobody died. Nobody got sick. Nobody even noticed.Abuse leaves physical, psychological and emotional scars. I can't imagine the burden of Elizabeth Smart when most people she is introduced to will immediately remember, "this was the girl abducted in Salt Lake City". Physical damage is the easiest to recognize and treat. Psychological and emotional damage require skilled therapy, patience and an amazing amount of a specific kind of love (agape). Healing requires action on the part of the victim, but also on the part of the witness. Experience predisposes us to look for any apparent contamination. If we reject the victim, we join hands with the perpetrator repeating to some degree their violation. We also create or reveal a chink in the armor of our emotional and psychological immune system as we participate in and become subject in some way to the same disease.I traveled thousands of miles and stayed in thousands of hotel rooms during my career. I volunteer now in the Emergency Room at the local hospital. I am a chronic pain patient. I do not get sick. I have a reserve of immunity to pain I can share with patients to comfort them. When we focus on eradicating every potential threat, our ability to deal with the threat is compromised.People who impugn permanent contamination on those who have experienced sexual predation or even chosen promiscuity are revealing a contamination they already carry. The noble response is that of the doctors in Camus "The Plague", we join in the celebration of their health and beauty and become partners with them to accomplish it.
On first blush, I agree with your stance. I've experienced the shame personally. There's a flip, however, that's not addressed. Perhaps the sin or violation of our souls that occurs in the loss that accompanies any sin is what ushers in a sense of being not pure. The definition then follows the experience verses the definition determining the sense of being pure. Either way, the redemptive work of Jesus justifies and cleanses. I'd just hate to see an oppositional stance that overlooks essential reasoning.
this is addressed in the article. other sins, while discouraging, are not framed with this purity metaphor and therefore, while they may well induce guilt (well-deserved guilt, even) they don't have the same sense of being irrevocably dirty and damaged, ie impure.
2ff7e9595c
Comments