The key is to consciously acknowledge that you were looking at someone, and realize that you are forced to "justify" your look -- was it innocent and friendly, or creepy and rude? If it was innocent and friendly, then commit to it! If was creepy and rude, you messed up, do better next time.
If you're running at a park and ignoring all the kids on the playground, don't stop to greet (or gawk at) a disabled child. If you're greeting all the kids at Sunday school, don't skip over them (or switch to baby-talk just for them).
So if you default to treating them like any other human, they'll be happy and you'll make their parents happy. And at this point, parents will happily let you know if there are any specific ways to interact with their child.
Note: Some kids have aural sensitivities ... don't yell at them like their deaf during your first interaction. I usually start with a voice slightly lower than my regular speaking volume.
Forgetting disabilities for a moment: if you are not used to being around _children_ then the first time you are surrounded by them you'll act completely weird. Because they are different than you're usual pattern. With sufficient exposure you adapt, you integrate that slight variation into the pattern and all is well. For some patterns you act differently (you act different for children than adults) for some you won't act differently (for most disabled children you act the same as for other children) but in all cases exposure is the key because we humans are imperfect pattern recognition machines.
Also though, some people are just assholes. I mean don't baby talk to anyone ever.
Which goes against your entire point, doesn't it?
> Some kids have aural sensitivities [...] I usually start with a voice slightly lower than my regular speaking volume.
OP says to treat people like you would anyone of that age. I take that to mean that he speaks to children in a slightly lower voice than he would older people, regardless of (perceived) disabilities or lack thereof.
or may be, just may be we are genetically programmed to avoid things which starts uncomfortable thought process.
"They just don't automatically know what to do"
This might not socially acceptable thing to say out loud, may be, people don't have _enough_ time or inclination to imagine other people's condition in everyday life.
Like you remembered some cases where you looked away, there might be more cases where you didn't even notice that somebody disabled was around you.
That's not cultural.
Some things are just built into us, not that we don't have the power to override them through the application of will but they didn't just appear out of nowhere.
>> Staring isn't staring if you're smiling. Or waving. Or if you say hi. Adults- do stare but do it smilingly or say hi
>> Just tell your child to wave.
>> And don't worry if he(your child) asks an awkward question, like, "Can't she talk?" That's a welcome chance for us to introduce Esprit.
>> Just ask a disabled child's parents whether the planned activity will work for their son or daughter. If an adjustment is needed we can figure it out together.
>> A nuisance like leaving a picnic early is normal (for parents with disabilities), so don't make a big deal out of an annoyance with a portent-filled comment like, "I don't know how you do it."
>> They desire the human contact that most of us take for granted. So increase your awareness, by reaching out to one of them.
They're not really assholes, but they get confused on how to act and may overcompensate. Is it appropriate to smile at a coworker of the opposite sex? Or to instant message them about work late at night? This can result in a lot of strange reactions.
It depends on your intent. If you are trying to be a creep and looking for "innocuous" ways to start moving in on an intended victim, then, no. If you are a decent human being with genuine respect for other people who isn't up to anything creepy, it's totes fine.
In fact, you should not be treating members of the opposite sex as "off limits" socially merely for being the opposite sex. This is a form of sexism and it insidiously closes a lot of doors.
So just be really honest with yourself as to why you are smiling at them or messaging them and if the answer is "I have plans that amount to sexual harassment," yeah, no. If the answer is "They are a coworker and that's how I interact with same sex coworkers," go right ahead. You're fine.
But the point at which you realize that you are a. Attracted and b. Trying to maneuver the person -- This is the point at which you need to have a heart to heart with your conscience. If you realize you want them and you don't really care if the feeling is mutual, then you are a creep. (The generic "you", not you the person I am speaking to at this moment.)
People do sometimes meet on the job, date, fall in love and get married. That can happen if both parties are equally aware of the potential pitfalls and both parties are equally looking out for the welfare of both people.
What separates a creep from an ordinary person who might happen to stumble into romance on the job is that creeps a. Make conscious and intentional plans aimed at a particular outcome and b. They do so with callous disregard for the other party.
Decent human beings who realize they have slippery sloped themselves into an awkward situation that might harm another start working to figure out how to avoid said harm. They don't have to be omniscient geniuses who can predict it ahead of time. They just have to decide to make other choices once the problem space becomes apparent.
> Is it appropriate to smile at a coworker of the opposite sex? Or to instant message them about work late at night?
No. And no-no.
That's sufficiently bizarre that I assume you misread the original post... (I'm applying Occam's razor).
Likewise, if the on-call engineer is female, I'm going to text or even call her late at night if I need her help.
Thing is, when I randomly message someone at night, I don't expect a response, nor do I view my recipient unfavorably if they don't respond until morning or at all. Of course, it's different if the entire team is working late, but that's only happened a few times in the past 2 years I've been at my current company.
> The Arc called the portrayal [of a man with an intellectual disability] "offensive" and also objected to the use of the words "retard", "moron", and "imbecile" throughout the movie. [...] the Arc continued to criticize the film as containing hate speech, promoting offensive stereotypes of people with intellectual disabilities, and being offensive to people with disabilities and their families.
Tropic Thunder mocked retarded people, it didn't use those terms in neutral usage.
Tropic Thunder was all about putting offensive stereotype behind a layer of indirection ("actors playing actors playing X", and used that layer to dodge criticism, but it's a complex scenario to try to untangle. Much of the entertainment value that the audiences perceived was in "making fun of X", not "making fun of actors playing X"
> “In our culture, `retard’ and `retarded’ carry a lot of baggage from the days when people were institutionalized in large state facilities,” [...] They don’t deserve to be treated in such a dehumanizing way.”
> Leaving aside the movie’s offensiveness or lack thereof, the uproar also serves to highlight the evolving standards of acceptable terminology [...] “Adults with retardation self-advocated. They clearly told us that the use of the word `retarded’ was very hurtful.
https://www.dailynews.com/2008/08/13/some-give-tropic-thunde...
FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with them in totality -- I have various disabilities and have zero issue with "disabled person" or "the disabled" (unlike the linked article) -- but linking to Arc doesn't appear to support the use of "retarded", even where the intent is neutral.
The usual advice is "just treat disabled people as people" but it isn't super useful because humans don't "naturally" treat anyone like anyone. Much of our social interaction is cultural and learned. So it's extremely helpful to give specific, actionable advice ("just tell your child to wave").
I have to admit to occasionally looking away, or doing other things mentioned in the article. It's not because I think disabled people are "worse" or because I'm an asshole. It's because I get a momentary "shit, this isn't automatic, what do I do" feeling, and by the time I arrive at a conscious decision of what to do a few moments later it's too late.
There is a lot of shaming of people that I think would be much better replaced with education. Most people aren't assholes. They just don't automatically know what to do. We can fix it by giving people specific actionable norms.