“He's not disabled. He doesn't look in pain, I saw him
smiling yesterday. Sometimes he jogs; he must, since I've seen him in sweat
pants. Cripples can't exercise.”
“I've heard him
laugh. His back can’t be that bad, that's just something he tells the
government. He's lazy. He's a liar. Sure,
sometimes he goes to his room for two hours, sometimes for a day, but he
comes back acting normal. Bet he’s jacking off, and if he can jack off, he's
not that sick.”
“When he staggers around like that it gets a lot of
sympathy, but he’s not a hunchback. He could stand up straight if he wanted. I’ve
seen him do it for photos. It’s an act.”
“No, he’s probably drunk when he’s staggering like that. I
had an uncle who liked to get fucked up, but the government didn’t pay him for
it. Being fake disabled is a sweet gig.”
“How much do they pay him?”
“Too much, that’s how much, to just pretend like that. It’s
depressing to look at, with that stupid tremor. How's he make his leg go like that?”
“Depressing because it’s an act?”
Which begs the question - is it fake or is it real and they are cruel?
ReplyDeleteOuch. Wincing from the sidelines here. I well remember someone telling me that I didn't look like I had MS, and telling me that I NEEDED a second opinion. Or a third, counting his.
ReplyDeleteI dare say there are people who feign disabilities in order to get benefits, but there are also people who don't look disabled who live in almost constant pain. I'm not sure which category this person fits into though.
ReplyDeletePoor thing, I'm sure the crowd is mistaken.
ReplyDeleteA good piece for discussion, John. Like others have already said, some people are hard to read. Still, I detect the note of bitterness in the dialogue here. It's almost like sour grapes, but the problem is on the people who fall into the comparison trap (i.e. Why do I have to work so hard when he/she doesn't have to?) Thank you for the food for thought.
ReplyDeleteHarsh post. People need to know that just because you don't look disabled or sick doesn't mean you aren't. =\
ReplyDeleteInteresting piece, because I guess the old adage 'You can't tell a book by its cover,' applies here. What you see is not necessarily what really is. Also this pieces draws to our attention how people do like to assume things about others without really knowing the facts.
ReplyDeleteMost curious is why these two invest so much in discussing someone that apparently otherwise doesn't concern them. If the person did concern them, they'd know the enough details already. Some prefer their speculations over knowledge.
ReplyDeleteDoubting Thomas types keep the fakes to a minimum. But they also make life for the truly disabled a little tougher. While trying to act normal is, well, normal, it also masks the outward signs of pain.
ReplyDeleteExcellent story/discussion. People too often can't see anything from another perspective. Just because someone doesn't look disabled all the time doesn't mean they aren't.
ReplyDeleteSome people assume a condition mustn't exist if they don't have it, so the 'invisible' disabilities get turned into 'excuses'. Maybe if these two actually spoke to the people with disabilities to find out how they are, they'd learn something.
ReplyDeleteHaving lived with someone who started off with a real debilitating injury which they proceeded to fake after healing started and the severity subsided, I've come to the conclusion that it's those who try hardest to get on with their day who are really disabled. The ones who won't shut up about it and are unable to just quietly do whatever compensating they need to are more likely to be fakers.
ReplyDeleteCoincidentally, I read this while drinking a coffee-free coffee substitute, because I'm horribly allergic to the real thing and got exposed to it last week (three-day reaction, boo). Somehow getting a reaction always makes me want some, even though I've always been a tea granny.
A very interesting piece that makes me think instantly of invisible illnesses. I love the way you left it slightly open for us readers to take a side without knowing either part.
ReplyDelete