How do you think I should have felt about this?

[MaxTheVool]

@you_with_the_face

I disagree and I think some of y’all our underestimating your fellow man by asserting this. “You might get a bad reaction if you are too pushy with your ‘niceness’ ” is an easy lesson to take from an exchange like this, and most decent people have it in them to grasp it with a little introspection.

I guess the question is what is the ideal outcome of the interaction.

At least with respect to the other guy, it’s that he (a) understands why what he did was offensive/bothersome/bad, (b) takes that lesson to heart going forward, (c) maybe even communicates that to other people, spreading the good word, but at the same time (d) continues to have an instinct to help others, just tempered with better judgment and more awareness.

Were Ambi’s words the absolutely optimal way to achieve that outcome? Probably not. And not so much because they had a harsh or critical edge, but because of how he brought up the person’s motivation.

I finally figured out what it reminds me of… I’m a white guy. So at some point, let’s say I have some random interaction in a social setting with a black person, and I do something careless or thoughtless, and I’m clearly in the wrong. Say… I accidentally cut in line in front of him because I’m on my phone and am not paying attention. I mean, clearly I shouldn’t have, but it happens, doesn’t make me a monster. It’s open to debate what the response he could give would be which would most optimally decrease the likelihood I’ll do the same thing in the future… should he be polite? Should he be rude? Somewhere in between? Swear under his breath? Hard to say. But what I’m pretty sure it would NOT be is if he accused me of racism and said that I only cut in front of him because he was black. Even if it was in some sense true (and I’m not claiming I’m somehow 100% free of all racism), it’s such a heavy hammer to hit someone with that I’m going to walk away from the encounter fuming about how irritating it was that he played the racism card, not feeling guilty about having cut in line.

Of course that’s just me, and that’s just me hypothesizing about me, so, maybe I’m wrong… and of course it’s not like Ambi has some responsibility to act at every moment in every encounter in some theoretically optimal fashion. Saying “your actions weren’t entirely optimal” is a far cry from saying “your actions were bad” or “you suck”.

[MarvinKitFox]

Response to the OP original post:

You, sir, were an asshole of the first rank.
You want to be seen as a cripple, and when someone tries to assist you out of the goodness of their own heart, you warp their intentions so that your sense of pity-entitlement can be satisfied.
THEN you come here to bitch about it some more, to further feed your need.
.
I honestly, sincerely hope that all of your handicap parking spots are taken when you get there, that the doors will stick for you, and that fate puts rocks in front of your wheels.
Maybe that will make you happy.

[Broomstick]

@TruCelt

You actually do have a choice to assume that people are well-meaning. You can take this as an opportunity to connect or a chance to humiliate and punish.

Even actions that are well intentioned can be harmful. Your right to feel good about yourself does not trump someone else’s right to autonomy or safety.

People with food allergies get to deal with this - people trying to force food on us that could kill us. “Oh, just a little bit won’t hurt you!” Yes, yes it can - it could kill someone with allergies. Those folks may have the best of intentions but they are still a hazard.

What you’re missing is that Ambivalid feels humiliated on a certain level himself by this treatment. So… it’s OK for these random strangers to engage in behavior that their target finds demeaning, humiliating, infantalizing, but it’s not OK for the target of those behaviors to object? He should just be a [del]nice girl[/del] [del]polite negro[/del] compliant cripple and suck it up, day after day? Smile and be the Hallmark movie happy disabled person working on sainthood rather than a real flesh and blood person?

I see nothing wrong with Ambivalid telling one of these passive-aggressive do-gooders that in fact they are NOT helping, quite the opposite.

[Ambivalid]

@kambuckta

So, you wanted cites?

Your reaction to anyone here who didn’t immediately fall to their knees at the Altar of Ambivalid has been at best dismissive, and at worst, downright rude and hostile. You asked for opinions, you got them.

And for the record, I agree that the person who ignored your refusal of help was out of line. What his motivations were, I will never know. Nor will you. Personally, if I’m ever slighted by a stranger in any way, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps YOU could have cut this bloke a bit of slack. And no, of course, you don’t have to nor maybe SHOULD you have to. Sometimes though, it’s easier to smile than to get cranky

So, if your memory of what you said to him is anything to go by, I would think you were the bigger dick in that exchange. And given how you respond to posters HERE who piss you off, I’d be thinking that your response to Mister Misguided Samaritan was possibly a bit more vehement and vitriolic than you have claimed.

You posted in IMHO. You did NOT want a free exchange of opinions. You wanted to rant about the way disabled folk are oft times considered as lesser people in this world. Doubt you’d get much argument there really.

Should have left it as a rant and bunged it in the Pit.

Wow.

[kambuckta]

@Ambivalid

Wow.

Cool. So we’re on the same page then?

[blob]

@Broomstick

these passive-aggressive do-gooders

If it’s acceptable to label and lump together every misguided or rude person offering help in that fashion THEN it is equally acceptable to label people in wheelchairs with anything you want to dream up.

You can’t have it both ways. Either baseless judgments are acceptable, or they’re not.

[kambuckta]

@blob

If it’s acceptable to label and lump together every misguided or rude person offering help in that fashion THEN it is equally acceptable to label people in wheelchairs with anything you want to dream up.

You can’t have it both ways. Either baseless judgments are acceptable, or they’re not.

^^ Damn there’s not a LIKE BUTTON.

[Broomstick]

@blob

No such implication at all. The point is that others also have to deal with (ridiculous) perceptions of others.

Yes, but different people deal with different levels of it. The more “other” groups you belong to the worse it gets. Disabled black women have more servings of this sort of shit than, say, disabled white men.

If you’re able-bodied there’s a whole level of bullshit you don’t have to contend with. Yes, you still have to deal with annoyances, aggravations, and other people being dicks, but Ambivalid has additional helpings of all of the above.

Saying that the handicapped should be somehow exempt is saying that they are different…

They are different. Ambivalid does, in fact, need some concessions the rest of us do’t but they should be based on actual NEED, not the mistaken perceptions other people have of him and other folks who use mobility aids. Using a wheelchair because your legs don’t work does not invalidate your physical ability in all other aspects of life.

If you rush to the “defence” of a handicapped person accusing people of “judging” and “taking them to task” and demanding “empathy” you are in effect saying that they are “different”, everyone should acknowledge that and treat them differently, that what THEY have to put up with is worse, that the reaction they get from others should always be a certain way (why is “empathy” any better than “sympathy” which motivates unneeded and unwanted offers of “help”? It’s not.)

Two points - it’s not that any one instance of this is “worse” than for able-bodied people, it’s that for the disabled it is so very much more frequent. It’s the quantity, not the quality.

As for “sympathy” vs. “empathy” - “sympathy” implies you feel bad for someone, or that there is something negative. “Empathy” is more neutral. Sympathy might make you open the door for the poor guy in the wheelchair even after he declines your offer of help. Empathy enables you to see it from his point of view and urges you to restrain your impulses, because you understand in that case he’d feel much better if you didn’t help him.

Someone on the internet telling them just to “suck it up, princess” (not that that is what has happened here) is treating them the same as everyone else.

I strongly object to “suck it up, princess” being the response to someone complaining/venting a frustration because it’s the opposite of helpful. It is basically saying the world sucks, there is no justice, and you’re just going to have to continue to be victimized. Granted, “victimized” by having doors opened for you is hardly the worst thing that could happen to anyone, it is sort of first world problem, but that’s not the point.

Sure, not everything wrong with the world can be fixed, but much better than “suck it up, princess” is considering how Ambivalid could better handle the situation next time (which is what I sensed was the direction of the OP) and how to better deal with his own frustration. “Ignore it” or “suck it up” is not helpful for either of those.

I don’t think that Ambi is some special flower that has to be protected and agreed with just because he’s in a wheelchair.

But, clearly some people do because they won’t even let him own a door himself! Not only is he not a special flower, he doesn’t want to be treated as one. So he objects when he is.

Here’s a question: does each and every other person in a wheelchair find unsolicited and pushy inflictions of “help” as annoying and upsetting as Ambi does? Are all wheelchair-bound exactly the same in their reactions, or are they individuals with their own minds? Could there be a range of reactions to having to put up with this type of thing?

I have not interviewed all other people who use wheelchairs (“wheelchair-bound” says heaps about how you view the disabled - wheelchairs are not prisons). My experience has been that yes, in general, they do not want others imposing “help” on them. Even people with very little ability to move usually want to take care of moving as much as they can on their own - that is, after all, why joystick-driven wheelchairs were invented, or chairs that can be steered by sucking/blowing into a tube. So the person using them can do the moving instead of being so dependent on others.

The ONLY thing we have under our control is our reactions. If we can reduce how much certain other people annoy us, it makes it easier on us.

In other words - STFU up and swallow your feelings because they make someone else uncomfortable. How dare you speak up and complain about unfair treatment? You can’t do anything about it so quit complaining rather than trying to find a way to make things better.

I’m not going to “apologise” for treating a competent adult the same as any other user on the internet.

What if I don’t agree with how you treat competent adults with a grievance?

[blob]

@Broomstick

What if I don’t agree with how you treat competent adults with a grievance?

If you read what I posted, you can retract that remark any time you like. An apology is optional, I don’t think the world revolves around me.

If you WANT to behave in exactly the same fashion as the “helper-offerer” and decide that you know best without any regard to what was communicated to you, then have an earful. (I can’t actually be bothered giving it to you because I’ve got better things to do :D)

[Broomstick]

@blob

You cannot make such a statement from a group on FACEBOOK who choose to respond and who may feel aggravated enough to do it. How many respondents on Facebook? How many wheelchair users in the world? How was your “survey” statistically significant? Tell me, how are all wheelchair users the same? How is it that each and every person has the same injury/handicap?

OK, at this point you’re just looking for validation of your own viewpoint and won’t admit the possibility of you being wrong.

If the “welcomes unsolicited help” disabled person exists he or she is certainly and outlier. Since you assert this person exists it’s up to you to find that person, not Ambivalid.

It’s neither ignorance or misunderstanding to tell you, or any other individual, handicapped or not, to get over yourself.

Nope, it’s saying “talking about your grievance makes me uncomfortable so STFU”

[Broomstick]

@MarvinKitFox

Response to the OP original post:

You, sir, were an asshole of the first rank.
You want to be seen as a cripple, and when someone tries to assist you out of the goodness of their own heart, you warp their intentions so that your sense of pity-entitlement can be satisfied.

Actually, he doesn’t “want” to be seen as a cripple, he IS seen a cripple. It’s the wheelchair, you see, it’s all some people ever see.

And good intentions can have harmful consequences. John Hockenberry, a man who didn’t let needing a wheelchair to get around stop him from being a journalist in the Middle East, once told the story about how he was on a street in some small town in the Middle East when a bunch of people suddenly grabbed his wheelchair, with him in it, and carried him up a flight of stairs and left him there. From the context of the story, he seemed to think they had good intentions and maybe thought he wanted to get up the stairs but in fact he didn’t and leaving him there, at the top of the stairs, left him in a place he didn’t want to be. And the problem of how to get down those stairs.

No, “good intentions” does not excuse actions that have harmful outcomes.

I honestly, sincerely hope that all of your handicap parking spots are taken when you get there, that the doors will stick for you, and that fate puts rocks in front of your wheels.
Maybe that will make you happy.

Are you happy with displaying what sort of jerk you are? Even if you think Ambivalid was an asshole that punishment you propose is far, far out of proportion to the the transgression. But hey! You put angry wheelchair guy in his place, amiright? :rolleyes:

[Broomstick]

@blob

If it’s acceptable to label and lump together every misguided or rude person offering help in that fashion THEN it is equally acceptable to label people in wheelchairs with anything you want to dream up.

You can’t have it both ways. Either baseless judgments are acceptable, or they’re not.

You’re assuming the judgements are “baseless”, but when I call someone a passive-aggressive do-gooder I’m doing it based on their actions. In other words, not baseless.

[Broomstick]

@blob

If you read what I posted, you can retract that remark any time you like. An apology is optional, I don’t think the world revolves around me.

Why would I apologize? I’m not sorry for my opinion of you. I read what you posted. I disagree with what you said. I’m not sure why you’re having trouble understanding that.

[Velocity]

I’m reminded of an apocryphal parable: There was a man in France who had the reputation for being “the politest man in France.” One day he was riding in a carriage with the king. When the carriage stopped, the king told him, “You step out first,” even though by all tradition and protocol it was the king who was supposed to alight first. And so the man did just that; he got out. And the king says, “now I know why they call you the politest man in France.”
The OP is right; if someone asks you to do or not to do something, and you contradict him in the name of politeness, then you have not been polite.

[Asimovian]

@MarvinKitFox

Response to the OP original post:

You, sir, were an asshole of the first rank.
You want to be seen as a cripple, and when someone tries to assist you out of the goodness of their own heart, you warp their intentions so that your sense of pity-entitlement can be satisfied.
THEN you come here to bitch about it some more, to further feed your need.
.
I honestly, sincerely hope that all of your handicap parking spots are taken when you get there, that the doors will stick for you, and that fate puts rocks in front of your wheels.
Maybe that will make you happy.

You are welcome to disagree with and/or be critical of another poster, but you are required to do so civilly. This post is out of line for this forum. Do not do this again.

[Ashtura]

@Ambivalid

Why are you comparing this to you holding the door open for someone and them not getting huffy? Unless the person specifically told you not to hold the door for them, your comparison is irrelevant.

Because nobody’s ever done that. Nobody’s ever said to me, “no, don’t hold the door for me”, regardless of their condition. I’ve heard anecdotes of women getting huffy when men hold the door for them, but I’ve never personally seen it happen.

I tend to judge people’s actions based on intent. I don’t think this guy had bad intentions. He probably wanted to help somebody out that he felt needed, it but didn’t want to be a bother to anyone.

Should he have walked away when you said no? Sure. I would have. Like I said, I think you had every right to think what you did, and say what you did. I just don’t think it was productive. This guy probably will probably only have an opportunity to open a door to a person in a wheelchair a few times in his life (this is becoming rarer with automatic push button doors nowadays). You lecturing him accomplishes practically nothing, and could EASILY be interpreted as you being an outlier with a chip on your shoulder.

Yes, YOU have to deal with annoying people trying to be “helpful” all the time (I presume). And that sucks, and I wish that didn’t happen. They, however, do not run into that situation very often.

[elbows]

I think you were 100% right to feel how you feel. I think your reasons for objecting are valid. You were right to say something, I’m only sorry it didn’t achieve your desired goal. I know you’ve faced this before and struggle with a response that’s not rude or testy, even when you feel it’s warrented!

And I can feel your frustration with well meaning dolts who can’t seem to hear what you’re trying to get across. I can’t agree with the words you used as I find them aggressive and I don’t think he learned much of what you wanted him to take away.

Honestly, I just think you need to keep working on the delivery and message until you stumble onto the formula that hits home with dolts.

I have a couple of humble, different tack, suggestions, for you to consider;

“I’m asking you kindly not to. I realize that it’s not the intention, but it always feels demeaning. It’s help I don’t need, didn’t ask for and would prefer NOT be forced onto me. I hope you can understand, appreciate the offer, have a great day.”

Or

(Big Smile)”Please don’t! I can do it myself and it feels great to do so. Don’t take that from me, okay?”

I doubt either of these are the magic words either, who knows what will get through? But regardless, I encourage you too keep trying, because when you find the perfectly toned response…you’ll be golden!

(I can only imagine how frustrating it is for you. Especially the having your words and request ignored, sheesh. But I can also see you that it angers you and who wants that, randomly when running errands? How much better to discover a response that leaves them thinking and you NOT seething!)

Good Luck!

[Barkis_is_Willin]

With the benefit of hindsight, I think the best thing might have been for Ambivalid to NOT go through the door. Stop short of it and say, “Sir, will you please close the door? I know you’re trying to be helpful, but it truly is an inconvenience to me if you hold it open.” In this scenario, nobody is being an asshole and perhaps the guy is more likely to feel a tinge of embarrassment and reconsider his actions in similar situations.

I agree that a “sharp lesson” isn’t necessarily a *bad *thing. I just don’t think it’s effective. The recipient of the lesson is more likely to feel pissed than educated.

[you_with_the_face]

@MaxTheVool

I guess the question is what is the ideal outcome of the interaction.

I don’t think the onus was on Ambivalid to create a happily ever after ending. If anything, it was the Door Opener’s responsibility to do that. After recognizing his actions caused offense (unintentional as it was), the grown up thing would’ve been to apologize.

But I don’t blame either one of them for just letting things go at the point that their paths ceased to cross.

Were Ambi’s words the absolutely optimal way to achieve that outcome? Probably not. And not so much because they had a harsh or critical edge, but because of how he brought up the person’s motivation.

I actually think it was great he brought up the person’s motivation. Whether his assessment was true or not, it doesn’t matter on a practical level (for what it’s worth, I don’t think he was wrong).

f you offer to help me and I’m adamant about not needing help and you choose to overide the words coming out of mouth, to really understand why this is bothersome, you need to know how how your actions and motivations come across. Contrary to what Mr. Door Opener probably assumed, his motives appeared tainted with an ulterior interest. Ambivalid basically informed him of that. If I were Door Man, I would mull over that information and not reject it out of hand just because my knee jerk response might be to deny it.

I finally figured out what it reminds me of… I’m a white guy. So at some point, let’s say I have some random interaction in a social setting with a black person, and I do something careless or thoughtless, and I’m clearly in the wrong. Say… I accidentally cut in line in front of him because I’m on my phone and am not paying attention. I mean, clearly I shouldn’t have, but it happens, doesn’t make me a monster. It’s open to debate what the response he could give would be which would most optimally decrease the likelihood I’ll do the same thing in the future… should he be polite? Should he be rude? Somewhere in between? Swear under his breath? Hard to say.** But what I’m pretty sure it would NOT be is if he accused me of racism and said that I only cut in front of him because he was black.**

That’s not analogous to what happened in the OP. Ambivalid didn’t accuse Door Man of being ablist; he merely pointed out that he was indulging his own interests rather than acting selflessly. And that’s a fair accusation when someone has explicitly said “no” to your offer of help and you completely ignore that.

If the black person in your hypothetical had accused you of being self-absorbed and thoughtless, that would more closely mirror what happened in the OP. And guess what? If you being on the phone and not paying attention caused you to cut in line, then you would be guilty of being self-absorbed and thoughtless. Not a nice thing to hear from a stranger, and it might be an unfair way to characterize you as a person, but the feedback will likely affect a change in your future behavior for the better.

Even if it was in some sense true (and I’m not claiming I’m somehow 100% free of all racism), it’s such a heavy hammer to hit someone with that I’m going to walk away from the encounter fuming about how irritating it was that he played the racism card, not feeling guilty about having cut in line.

Well, as you say, that’s you. Not everyone is wired that way. If I accidentally step on someone’s toe and end up breaking it, and they accuse me of doing it on purpose, even though they’d be totally out of line for saying that, I’m still going to feel guilty for hurting them. I’m still going to apologize. They might come across as a jerk to me, but I still will replay the incident in my head to see how I could’ve prevented the incident by being more careful or whatever.

[TruCelt]

@Ambivalid

Nice. And why didnt you bring up the disability until now?
. . .

Because when I was on a walker I was grateful to people who held doors for me, it made my life easier. I brought it up now because you were trying to invalidate my experience.

Look, you asked for opinions, and you got them. Every frustration is an opportunity for spiritual growth. I have repeatedly agreed that the guy was wrong, and it is frustrating, sure. But you have put yourself through far more unpleasantness since then due to your choice of response to it.

@kambuckta

Q: How do you think I should have felt about this?

A: Well, how you feel is entirely up to you, but perhaps your reaction was a bit OTP.

Ambivalid: NONE OF YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL, I’M NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINIONS.

Gotcha.

This is exactly how I feel about it. I’ve said everything I can think of that might be helpful, and clearly you don’t want to hear it.