This article by Peter Hitchens (who I like to call "Christopher Hitchens' Saner Brother") on the mostly faux yet fashionable childhood "affliction" ADHD pretty much echoes my own beliefs, based both on what I have observed of the way parents tend to treat their children today, and on my own experience as one of those "dreamy, vague, in a world of her own, forgetful and disorganised" -- though, thank God not "diagnosed" as having something that needed to be cured with pills, but told by my old-fashioned parents and grandparents to sit up straight, get my nose out of that book, pay attention, and finish my chores -- girl in the Sixties and Seventies. But leaving that, and the article's subject aside, it's the final paragraph that hits home for me in more ways than one:
Some of these motives for believing in ADHD (or any other notion, idea, fad, political movement, etc. -- Ed.) are reasonable and defensible. Some of them less so. All are understandable. But what's mine for attacking this belief? What do I gain? Nothing, as it happens.It would be much easier- and less time-consuming - if I never wrote about it. Other conservative columnists don't. There's no shortage of other subjects I could write about that wouldn't attract the waves of bitter letters I receive. I just think it's wrong, that's all.
That pretty much sums up why I write the way I do. And if you're honest (my dear fellow bloggers), you'll feel the same, and not bow to pressure to avoid subjects that really rankle you just because they might alienate some of your readers -- usually expressed as "if I wrote what I really thought about this I might hurt someone's feelings." Hurt feelings make the world go 'round, don't you know?
(Article via Kathy Shaidle.)
Update: of course, and also, this. Well, at least I won't have to go on The View.
