Well if it's all the same I'd rather NOT be lumped in with anothe bunch of mis-behaving self-destructing people, the burnt out workaholics, which has nothing to do with the disease ME. Shades of yuppie flu by going down that road, or "stress" psychobabble/quackery. The day we get parity is when they realise we're just a typical ragbag of ordinary people, but in extraordinary circumstances, not some stereotype. We've had more than enough of "personality" drivel.
(BTW, why is it when you reply to a post with a quote in it, the quote is removed so you have to re-paste it? Kind of annoying.)
Yeah. Although I wouldn't have put it quite like that, I'd agree. I was going to post on that before you said.
Although obviously I've certainly no desire for us to be labelled "lazy", apart from anything being that it's not the slightest bit true, I don't think the "high achiever" tag does us any favours either. It was the high flying city types coming down with it that created the derogatory "yuppy flu" label in the past.
Personally, although I went to university, I'd probably rate myself as a middling achiever with a talent or two. Although initially I tried to go back to work too early after contracting ME, there's pressure for just about anyone to do that after catching a virus, not just "workaholics". Whether it actually made any difference to my recovery (or rather lack of it) I'll never know.
Saying ME's mainly the preserve of high achievers is more likely than not to alienate ordinary people from understanding us. It may even make someone who doesn't fit that profile who has the disease feel like they can't have it or feel like a fake.
Better to say that ME is a disease that can be contracted by anyone from any walk of life, class, job, level of talent (or lack of). Anyone can get it, and it does not discriminate.
Other than that, the article seems like a pretty good response to Liddle's bigotted nonsense.
