At 08:30 AM 12/6/99 -0500, you wrote: >I'm with Anee here. I think we take ourselves and our disabilities too darn >seriously. Sure, having CP sucks, but so does political correctness. The >disabled community (PWDs, LSTMFTs, PWAL, FTCSFS and whatever other acronyms >are popular this week) is in danger of of becoming a monoculture in that the >only issue they talk about, think about, champion is their disability. Well said. In fact, I have a weakness for "handicapped cartoons", you know, the row of mouse traps or lovers' leaps. etc., with a ramp & an access symbol by one of them. >With regards to the statement someone made earlier that when we see movies >featuring the disabled: How many disabled people aspire to the theatrical >arts anyway? Well, there's that blind guy who was popular for a while, >Matlin, and a handful of others, but you just can't take a PWD, hand them a >script and say, "Okay, act out this role in a multi-million dollar film." >Let's face it, it's a lot easier for a good actor to take on the >affectations of a PWD than vice versa. How could "Rain Man" have been made >with the genuine article? > >Personally, I am not offended by humor directed at anyone struck by one of >life's arrows of fate. Everyone has some failing, idiosyncracy, foible that >makes them less than perfect. Humor, by its very nature, brings our >failings to light. It forces us to realize that we ARE less than perfect. >My father, when I was entering one of those "why me?" periods, said, "Look, >here are the hands we've been dealt. Ain't a thing you can do to get new >cards, so you can either laugh and live, or cry and die." > >We can sterilize our culture and make everything taboo that could possibly >offend, but it would not be a very interesting place to live--I sure >wouldn't want any part of it. > >-Kyle > >-----Original Message----- >From: Anee Stanford [mailto:[log in to unmask]] >Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 8:32 PM >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: Women with Disabilities & "Gigalo" > > >In a message dated 12/4/1999 2:29:56 AM Central Standard Time, >[log in to unmask] >writes: > ><< Has anybody seen the ads for the new Adam Sandler {I believe} movie >called > "Gigolo"? It feature him as the title character "dating" women with > Tourette's syndrome and narcolepsy. Hence, making fun of these disabilities > and making the assumption that women with disabilities are so desperate we > must pay for a man's company. I find this appalling. Why are disabilities > considered an appropriate source of "humor"? Renee >> > >Hi everyone: > >On that point why is any group considered a source of humor? Sterotyping >seems to be a way of life how many times have we seen the stero typical >"nerd" or the "jock" or any of those...I have never met anyone that is as >far >as the etertainment industry takes these sterio types. Humor is a part of >life and it is one thing that everyone can be a part of. Some are the >subject of it more then others--this is true--but dose this meen that humor >should not take place at all? Lafter has been proven to have benifical to >ones health but what may be funny to one person won't be funny to another >person. I don't know? I can't get too upset about it even though I don't >find anything Adam Sandler dose to be funney but that's just not the type of >humor I like. > >Women and men with disabilities arn't always the butt of the joke though, >just look at The Other Sister...shure there were some laughs in it...but it >was more the story of a young woman becoming indpendent dispite a disability >and socitey then it was that disability was a thing to be laughed at. I >think there need to be more movies like this personaly. > >Just my too cents. > >Anee >http://www.geocities.com/aneecp/CPIC.html