ADHD - A Hunter in a Farmer’s World (1997) by Thom Hartmann.
I enjoyed this book as it provides an interesting way to look at the often misunderstood ADHD. I particularly liked how the author finds a way to make it a sort of power rather than a “disorder” but without ignoring the real problem that it might pose to many individuals (suicidal tendencies included). Definitely worth a read.
I already talked about how much I despise some editing in reference to the generic third person (she/he) which often feels forced and more to prevent controversy than presenting a real need. This book brings the problem to a whole different level. I never wished so hard for an editor to be fired. A couple of examples:
Page 8: “Tell a child he’s bad often enough, and he’ll most likely become bad. Tell her she’s brilliant, and she’ll strive to achieve brilliance.” (I mean, really? Change the gender form right in the middle of the paragraph and the concept???)
Page 18: “An ADHD person may be working on a project when something else distracts him (...) The normal person will create a mental picture of each of those things as she hears them described.” (Although there is some space between the swap, it still doesn’t flow. Just choose!!)
The book is filled of similar instances which in my personal opinion will ironically pose an extra challenge to ADHD individuals.
A topic worth a serious conversation, - indeed, a serious, sane, sober, yet measured and nuanced conversation, one which allows for subtlety - yet which, with regret, I doubt it is possible to have here, in this thread, not without it becoming derailed both geographically - by way of a detour into the territory of PRSI, - and in tone, which I doubt could long remain civil, not with such a subject matter.
While I dislike the treatment of such a topic in the broad brush strokes of a blunt binary choice, I also do not believe that language is neutral and simply descriptive, but rather, that it comes freighted with cultural attitudes and subsequent baggage, and that, in turn, informs and expresses attitudes in politics, law, society, economics, and culture.
Thus, however clumsily expressed, I think that language should be sufficiently flexible (and capable of admitting and expressing change, for living languages change all the time) to be able to name things, and to be able to express the fact that what it describes includes clear reference to both male and female, rather than inferring that what is male also incorporates (automaticaly, but unspoken, therefore unacknowledged and unrecognised) reference to that which is female.
Last edited: