OK, it seems to be PSA time again. Not lj-cut, either, and not very damn well
going to lj-cut.
Yesterday (or maybe the day before, as I forget what protocol gmail uses for timestamps),
zogblog forwarded me
this gigantic steaming pile of horseshit.
Of course, it wasn't the exact same story. Somewhere along the line, somebody stripped it of all its paragraph breaks, rendering it one barely readable mass of text. Somebody had also "corrected" the spelling of the child's name, because evidently Shaya isn't a real name, and somebody else had added the fact that the child died that winter, because evidently we need to pity him and his family even more.
So, where do I start? I'm going to set aside for now the fact that it's been on Snopes for
eight years now and that if you don't have the decency to delete the names of the steaming pile's 47,000 previous recipients, you probably shouldn't be forwarding
anything. I'm going to set aside the fact that I've said numerous times that I do not want to receive said e-mails in the first place, too, and concentrate on the story itself.
Or actually, how about a slightly different telling of the story? Imagine somebody telling this story, except instead of a disabled child, it's a girl who wants to play with a group of boys. Imagine the boys only letting the girl play after her father asks them to, and only putting her in because they're already losing. Imagine her stepping up to bat and the pitcher closing about half the distance between them. Imagine that same pitcher throwing the ball as lightly as he can manage... and the girl missing. Imagine him stepping in again, and again, and on her third try, she taps the ball. The pitcher catches it, tosses it out of the field, and tells her to run. Game ends, obligatory cheering and ice cream ensue.
Would people still call these boys "heroes" and be proud of them? Is it still a celebration of "God's perfection?" Would
zogblog still have hit the forward button? Or would people hold up this story as an example of what feminists have been speaking out against for as long as there have been feminists?
Who would, in this day and age, forward something that so explicitly acknowledges women as so inferior as to not only be so stupid as to need to be carried through the game, but to be unable to recognize when they're being pandered to?
And now back to the original story. I'm not saying that the boys shouldn't have helped Shaya. They promised to let him bat in the ninth inning, and they let him. That much is good. The story mentions that he didn't know how to hold or swing a bat, and that he was "not at all athletic," so I'm fine with the pitcher stepping a few feet in and one of Shaya's teammates helping him hold the bat, so long as Shaya was okay with it. That's called "reasonable accommodation," and it's why we have wheelchair ramps and why public restrooms have at least one large(r)-sized stall. (If it weren't beyond the point, I'd mention something about how difficult it is to prove the need for reasonable accommodation for invisible disabilities here.)
But there's a big difference between reasonable accommodation and pandering. The fact that these boys are held up as heroes for taking pity on Shaya and letting him win the game because of his disability is despicable. He wanted to
play baseball. The boys, in letting him win the game, weren't lifting him up. They were telling him he wasn't worth actually playing the game for.
And if, after reading this and the
Snopes essay on the subject, you still think of that story as heartwarming, please let me know. I want to play baseball with you sometime.
The Cliffs Notes version: Pity bad, reasonable help good,
zogblog needs to think about what he forwards.