He has all number of good points, but one that he deliberately avoids making, whilst getting close, is that if you teach boys and men that women are inherently worthy of disrespect (as American culture more than often does seem to) and add to this the cultural lesson that it is demeaning to listen to a female teacher, you will get fidgeting, incapable boys in the classroom.
Stop the misogyny, which is at the roots of many of our social problems, and you will get a society that is less ridden with neuroses.
He says, "In our culture, for women to raise a strong energetic boy as a single mum is almost impossible."
This is very telling about the culture of the USA. How absurd. In my culture of origin that was really not so, and if you read my father's description of his mother, you will see she was, for any of her faults, formidable.
Also, let the little beggars run around.
Further thoughts:
Breggin is wrong in some ways -- leans a little toward the right just a bit, with regard to how gender is constructed. In this regard, he could do with a thorough humanities education. I do mostly agree with him, though, even in his extreme stance because I think adaptation should not be chemically assisted. Ever.
Better to be an instigator for change in society than accept chemically assisted adaptation.
3 comments:
I'm not sure on the actual statistics but adults who get treated for add often have drug abuse problems. With currently accepted treatments (adaptation through councelling), a successful recovery from this abuse comes with a 90% chance of relapse.
There are other commonalities that boil down to not being able to function in society in a meaningful way, often with fatal results.
It seems very simplistic to label this a problem of perception that can be fixed by these people simply ackowledging that society needs to change.
In any case, and whatever the root problem might be, while some instigate for remedial social change, I don't think these people are acceptable casualties, nor that fixing them with stimulants means they won't become instigators themselves.
Or, in other words, "life is complicated", so let that be a warning?
I've just made a video about how to function in a meaningful way when you cannot function in society in a meaningful way.
I misinterpreted "Better to be an instigator for change in society than accept chemically assisted adaptation" as saying a person could cure their ADD symptoms if they became an instigator for change. As if they just need to realise something and they'll be fixed.
But then there is explaining possible ADD symptoms with representations of women, soon followed by "adaptation should not be chemically assisted. Ever." It's a broad conclusion that doesn't deal with extreme examples like what I first talked about. There are a few other symptoms that dont fit here either.
If you're right about representations of women resulting in an misogynistic mindset causing neuroses, then whats required is a change of perception. Add to that how I misinterpreted your last sentence and it looked to me like you were saying a person could just flick a switch and not have ADD anymore.
Post a Comment