Thursday, November 12, 2009
I have much to say, by Tania Tokarski
What kind of future stakeholders will be trained to deal with our drug addicts, prisoners and elders? It is a question whose answer I am afraid.
At CEGEP du Vieux Montreal, it teaches students to break down prejudices as the belief that the poor is his fault, or track information converged. While this is commendable CVM other prejudices are encouraged.
It maintains and reinforces these beliefs:
Women are the only victims of society (feminization and victimization.) According to the study books, men and today still prevents their female counterparts to reach the pinnacle of their rights. Presumably, it encourages women to hate men rather than trying to become their equal.
Moreover, in all the paperwork done for women, speaks very little trouble experienced men. Women, although they have still not equal pay to men, were undoubtedly many benefits, women are much more community resources than men, they will be welcomed and heard much more easily in a center for battered women. They may also have access to more choices of life to stay home or work. Unless you want to go for soft-side, men do not have that choice.
Of course, it remains only 33% of men in our College, and the CVM (Cégep du Vieux Montréal) recognizes that it is partly due to the type of education provided. Maybe if they favored an approach for the men, we would find more of them in our classroom.
Another prejudice, the speaker should not create links with its customers because they would mix his private life. Sniff-sniff ... I feel contempt towards helping? A young student, to my question, even launched "There is not a dating agency!" Wow. What a diplomacy. Bravo to the touch, my dear! What will happen when a senior will ask you a question, while looking confused? You mock him?
Another said to the class: "Of course, we can not be friendly with the people because it should be treated ... not as numbers, but ... uh ... you know what I want say! *laughs*" If you can not find your words, my dear, I must say that your answer does not really reassure me.
Then, only one graduate from the university can not only judge, but can suppose that a person is suffering from a psychological illness. A graduate who is not from the University will be persued to have said his professional opinion. Aah! So before it was the church that was right about everything now, it would be the University. I do not know about you, but I do not imagine that a Stakeholder who had special relationships with people experiencing suicidal thoughts - that people would confide in workshops to exchange and meeting individual - that the Stakeholder, therefore, may not set the probability of depression, only a psychologist can do this verdict.
Worse! A family whose father is isolated with him for years, who rub shoulders every day and knows his temper better than anyone can say that his father suffers from depression. Worse! The person himself who suffers, can not say to her employer that she was depressed "without consulting the psychologist." Between you and me, who knows best which bugs we live with, most of the time? Us or another? This is not only problematic for the right of speak.
Let us not forget that the stakeholder, even if he chooses his words well, will be persued for saying the possibility of a depression to his client. The problem is also time to file transfers. How long does it take to make an appointment with a Stakeholder? Months? Good.
And then, when we had this meeting with Stakeholder, him, after hearing our story, he referred us to a psychologist. It will take months before the first appointment with Mister Shrimp. And Mister Shrimp, of course, will charge, while the CLSC will not. We must not only be fucking patient to be treated, but we must pay. Forgive me, but people have time to get fed up and drop the proceedings pending, and / or worsen their situation with all that lost time. Think about it. Offer more flexibility to Stakeholders and makes you less time waiting, because there will be more caregivers.
The victim is totally innocent. While it encourages the victim to exonerate himself, as in a rape, it also directs the thought of "everything is white and everything is black" - there is only one culprit. I feel frustration at dawn the enemy, and more frustration leads to more aggressivity, resulting in more violence.
Physical violence is worse than emotional abuse. Ooh. Believe me, this is not true. Physical violence is simply less subtle than psychological abuse, both are scars, the first external scars, the second internal wounds which sometimes leads to suicide or murder. Be treated any time good for nothing by anyone, do you think is less worse than receiving a punch in a boxing match? I let you think about it.
A person who cries all the time, who never leaves her house, who has suicidal thoughts, but has not committed the act of suicide attemp is not a priority. I know from experience that these signs are a harbinger of depression. So, will it always wait until the situation worsens to intervene? But then, the risk of being too late increases. And indeed, in our courses, they have taught us that in general if a young person is abandoned by his parents in the care and affection they lavished on him, if he does not receive help before the adolescence, it can not create any links with anyone. His sense of commitment will be irrevocably dead.
Knowing this, why then create a priority list? It seems that encourages people to maintain their sores to keep jobs in the health system. More the sore becomes, the more it is long to heal, the more Mister Shrimp The Little Fucker psy will fill the pockets with long hours of rehabilitation.
After hearing these statements, I tried to discuss the matter with the teachers and see them I just did not understand. Unfortunately not. Though encouraging among stakeholders the right for error, one of the values we are taught with the assistance and commitment, teachers have refused to glimpse the possibility that they are wrong to think so.
If this offends me as much, it is because we are taught to think before you swallow the information that seem plausible, but when consideration is made, we must believe what the authority figure says. I just do not understand.
That was all from me. - Other reviews will follow.
Sincerely,
Tania Tokarski, future stakeholder among other branch full of shit.
Labels: Bottle state, Human mistake, Québec, Tania Tokarski
# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 2:57 PM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]