 sj |
||
|
||
Descriptive terms, appropriate or not?
|
|
|
Subject: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Rick Fielding Date: 06 May 00 - 12:51 AM This has been covered before under other titles, but I'm curious how current Mudcatters feel about some of the terms that can "cause trouble". The other aspect is that times are changing with "rocket" speed these days, and things that many of us wouldn't have dared discuss (in a "pro/con" way) a few years ago are now talked about (albeit gingerly) on the tube. I'm referring of course to the "all inclusive" style of descriptive phrasing that came into being during the sixties and reached some truly hilarious (in my cynical opinion) extremes over the last few years. Words like "Chairperson, server, bi-polar, and many others are now in common use, and I doubt would bug too many people, but terms like "challenged" and the amazing "differently abled" are often hard to think of, and depending on the company you're in..likely to stand out like a sore thumb. I used the term "schizophrenic" on my radio show one night in a flippant way and got a couple of VERY angry phone calls...fair enough, no big deal to use some other phrase to describe being of two minds about something, but I think many of us who remember the sixties are getting left behind language-wise. As an example, terms like "nigger, queer, fag, lez, heebie, and a lot of others, that no one except a moron would use today appear to be a part of most teenagers vocabulary (at least when they're talking to each other) and seem to have lost their "stigma" and perhaps even the ability to "hurt". At the same time however these kids use terms that came into being as "better alternatives" from the political upheavals in the sixties. In another thread someone said: "Too many words mean too many things, especially in English, and very few actually convey what is really meant." Just curious what folks think. Hopefully we don't need to use the term "politically correct" which has become a catch-all phrase and means totally different things to different folks. Rick (gotta go out of town for two days, so I'll check back later) |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Sorcha Date: 06 May 00 - 12:56 AM Ooh wah, that was me that said that, and I still stand by it. As for the other see my latest post on "Music and the Mentally Handicapped", just got off my soapbox there, and won't get on here, but I do understand the problem, and try to be sensitive to needs. (Even if I am stoopid at times......aren't we all?) |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Rick Fielding Date: 06 May 00 - 01:08 AM Sorcha, you are HARDLY "stoopid", but shouldn't that be "cerebrally alternately-abled"? Honest, I never had a problem with many of the language changes...I've just heard some that boggle the mind with their ambiguity. Would you say "blind" or "deaf", as opposed to non-sighted, or hearing impaired? And just HOW offended would the folks in question be? I don't know. I'm just asking. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Sorcha Date: 06 May 00 - 01:17 AM Frankly, Hearing Impaired offends me because it pretends to be "correct", excuse me, I am deaf........and cerebrealy-alternately abled/enabled/disabled is just EXACTLY what I was talking about.......my problem is that I just can't hear well, since birth, not that I am dumb. Only once have I ever encountered any problem, and that person continued to cover her mouth and smirk with her eyes while looking at me. I got out of my chair (after the 3rd time asking her to look at me and uncover her mouth) and went around the table, took hold of her hands, lowered them and said, in ASL "It's my ears that are broken, not my brain, EH?" Then said in aloud in English; never had a problem since. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Bob Bolton Date: 06 May 00 - 01:55 AM G'day Rick, I have come up with the opinion that euphemism (and that is all the 'political correctness' can ever be) is a lost cause. A euphemism only lasts as long as it takes for everyone to realise what the heck it is that you are talking about ... then it becomes just as offensive as the word you replaced. Sorcha's remarks reminded me that I had my hair cut recently by a lady with poor hearing. She had a sign at her work area, asking that people speak clearly and ending with something quite like Sorcha's remark: "I may be deaf, but I'm not DUMB!". There are probably people out there who would argue with her honest way of facing a real problem - and presenting a workable solution - by criticising her own straightforward words to describe her own difficulty. There are times when trying to please everybody can lead to offending those that matter. Regards, Bob Bolton |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Sorcha Date: 06 May 00 - 02:08 AM Thank you Bob. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: catspaw49 Date: 06 May 00 - 02:12 AM Reading the thread which Sorcha refers to, it was generally agreed that attitude is more important than words. I would suggest that attitudes which emphasize using "non-offensive" terminology are completely offensive. We are lost in a miasma of jargon which rarely describes the situation and requires a dictionary to understand. Mentally retarded is STILL in use in diagnostic and educational materials and actually describes the condition of many. For quite awhile, we were hearing Developmentally Delayed for the same thing, when in fact it is not. What "development" are we dealing with here? Delayed implies that at one point or another all this is going to be OK. Now there are people who fit this category, but to use it with a tailing of descriptive terms in the name of being polite is complete bullshit. My son is mentally retarded. He will never catch up. he doesn't have Speech Delays....he is impaired and if he ever speaks in a normal manner it will be a freakin' miracle. I was in an IEP session and the term "challenged" was used an I lost it. Challenged? Sweet Jesus. A challenge is climbing a mountain. Tris cannot ever make the summit of his mountain. His brain and his mouth are not in complete contact. What do we do to work around the problem? We simply confuse ourselves and lay off false hopes to people who don't need lies. I'm going to bed. Screw this. All I'm doing is getting myself wound up at all the PC folks in the "Do-Gooder" dodge who are completely worthless because they refuse to see that honesty and forthright analysis goes further than the "right" words. Pat |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Sorcha Date: 06 May 00 - 02:19 AM And thank you Pat, my points exactly. And Rick, I know I am not really "stoopid", it is just a term I use when I do something really ignorant..........ignorant is NOT the same as stupid, and I know that. I will never meet my hearing "challenge", any more than Tristan will meet his. You can try all the (whatever) modification you want, and I will still be deaf......and hearing aids don't help, tried that, as I am sure someone has tried "that", whatever it is, with Tristan. Love you Spaw, and all of yours too. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: BlueJay Date: 06 May 00 - 02:53 AM It is getting ridiculous. The deaf folks I have known all said "I am deaf", not "I am auditorally challenged". Paraplegics say "I'm paralyzed", not "I am mobility impaired". If you go to the other extreme, what about someone with perfect vision? Is he "visually enhanced"? I suppose Fielding is "tactile/harmonically endowed"! I'd better quit, as I'm getting neuron synapse inefficient. BTW, I'm not advocating insensitive remarks, just common sense. BlueJay |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: bbelle Date: 06 May 00 - 03:41 AM Rick ... good topic of conversation. I've always thought of politically-correct as being a ridiculous term and agree with 'spaw regarding the word "challenged." One day, at a previous place of employment, I was referred to as "vertically-challenged;" and it wasn't said tongue-in-cheek. I made the comment that I thought the term was stupid ... that I'm short, pure and simple. The person said she didn't want to offend me and felt the "polically-correct term is more appropriate." I looked at her, shook my head and walked away. I do think it appropriate to use correct terms, though, i.e., Downs syndrome vs. mongoloidism. As far as what comes out of the mouth of babes these days, I am appalled! Teenage girls calling each other "ho;" teenage boys calling each other "nigga." And just the lack of propriety in the conversations of so many adults. I remember, clearly, when they began advertising women's intimate accoutrement on TV. My mother had a fit and I wondered if it was necessary. What it has served to do is to take the mystique out of the whole menstrual process, which I don't think is a bad thing. I do, however, find it offensive that whenever a woman is in a bad mood, the term "PMS" is used. The last time someone used that terms in reference to me, I responded with, "No, I have "UMS," which means "ugly mood swing," and I can have it any time I want!" shalom ... moonchild
|
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Sorcha Date: 06 May 00 - 03:47 AM moonchild, YES, right on!! Love UMS! Will now use it a lot! |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: JulieF Date: 06 May 00 - 05:03 AM I think one of the problems is that we are defining terms that cover a whole range of conditions. Take the term visual impairment, this can cover from complete blindness through tunnel vision to much less complete sight loss. So it can look as if you pussyfooting about with the words when merely you are trying to be all encompassing. I think you just have to listen to people and take your cue from how they wish to be referd to. Which is confusing in the extreme as there is no consensus out there. Julie |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: kendall Date: 06 May 00 - 07:06 AM I have to wonder if all these new terms arn't just patronizing to the handicapped? Now, if a person is 5 feet from ground to scalp, why do we call them Short? it implies that they are below standard. Why dont we refer to anyone over 5 feet as tall? The problem here is, when it comes to humans, there is no standard. Normal does not apply. I try not to use terms which hurt or patronize. For instance, I would never call a waitress "Honey" but, I have had them call ME honey, and I think it's quaint. Maybe it's because I always treat them exactly as I would treat the governors secretary or any other business woman. At least, she is working for a living, and that's worth honoring. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: TerriM Date: 06 May 00 - 08:30 AM whilst I dislike 'pc' language for the patent absurdities in it and agree that it's the underlying attitude that really counts I have to say that attempts to be more sensitive to the words we use about other people has got to be a good thing,surely? I grew up hearing words like spastic and cripple used as insults in my peer group and nigger, spic, wop, paddy etc. for ethnic groups. They made me cringe then and they make me cringe now. Perhaps pc terms have gone too far but I'd far rather that than no care taken at all. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 06 May 00 - 10:42 AM "Politically correct" = compulsory mealymouthism
Thank you, but I will be just as kind and just as considerate of people's feelings as I choose to be (which I think is a lot). At the same time, I will use good, short, clear, historical-language terms like deaf, blind--yes, and "fat"--when I consider they are indicated. These are more honest, and much better writing style into the bargain.
|
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Art Thieme Date: 06 May 00 - 10:51 AM I have a dyslexic friend who gets extremely upset when he is called that. Prefers to be called "mentally and semantically juxtoposed". He is also an Illinois State Trooper and continually gets in hot water for stopping people on the highway and checking them for I.U.D.s. What is this world coming to. Alas. Personally, for the first 56 years of my life, I wasn't disabled. Now, after being officially diagnosed, the Social Security system here in the USA says that I am disabled and they send me a check every month. It's not enough cash for these times, but it is something at least. Sooooo, I am now DISABLED because there are certain things I cannot do now that I used to be able to accomplish. I even have been assigned one of those mirror tags for my car that would let me park closer to my destination (if I could still drive). Lots of stuff tells me I'm disabled and not simply musically and otherwise challenged. But mostly it's the main and quite simple and frustrating fact that I can no longer play my instruments that tells me to believe Social Security when they send me the SSDI checks. I had/have standards that have always told me to get the hell out of the damn spotlight when you can't do it the way concert goers do and should expect you to pick and sing when they are paying hard-earned cash to be there. That's why I named my last CD The Older I Get, The Better I Was and went back and found some pretty decent stuff from old shows. All that said, I prefer the old terms for stuff. I also prefer the old songs and the old days and the simpler life of those times. But it really doesen't matter. These times are just as good as the old ones were----if only we could figure out a way for the cops to patrol cyberspace, we'd be home free ! Next will come the "FUCK YOU" virus. All of the massochists around the world will open it just like the love starved masses opened the recent Love Virus in hopes of getting their egos and their genitals stroked. I thought it was pretty funny. Now, back from my thread creep: The terms I hate are where perfectly good nouns are turned into perfectly terrible and irritating verbs. Words like "network" being contorted into to network. (Let's get together and network tonight.) Those kinds of improper usages push several of my buttons for some reason. Please pardon this polemic. This thread must've pressed a button too. Art Thieme |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Jon Freeman Date: 06 May 00 - 11:28 AM Rick, I think that you will find that many schizophrenics are quite happy when the term is used correctly. The biggest problem here is public igorance and the way they are often protrayed as being murderous monsters, etc. The reality is many of them live a nigthmare of a life stuggling with fears and reality but are not harmful and just want to fit in with other people. I don't know what you said but, even if in a joking manner, you said something that encouraged the stigma involved with this disease, I can fully understand you getting some angry responses. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Amos Date: 06 May 00 - 11:30 AM I think "PC" language has a sensitivity in the original impulse, as someone mentioned above, which I appreciate; but in its use it becomes just institutionalized denial. As I gradually become more chronologically gifted, I get less patient with those who are courage-challenged and differently-brained. A |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: bbelle Date: 06 May 00 - 12:12 PM Well ... I'm a hair under 5' from feet to scalp and I'm short. There are things I cannot do because of my height and I'm afraid of heights, soooo ... I would prefer people to call or think of me as short, rather than vertically-challenged because, not only can I not reach lots of things, but getting on a ladder makes me dizzy. So, when I ask for some assistance, I want people to have the word "short" in mind. But I'm also built square and, upon reaching the age of 50, have had to fight my weight everydamnday. I'm not as sensitive about it, as I am sensitive to others' feeling about their weight. I often refer to myself as a "short, little Jewish/Irish woman." doesterr ... I certainly hope I meet you on a day that you "choose to be kind and considerate of people's feelings." sorcha ... thank you. It works and it stops people in their tracks ... moonchild |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: kendall Date: 06 May 00 - 12:55 PM Right on Art..wanna hear some of the words that bug me? You dont? ok.. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Jon Freeman Date: 06 May 00 - 01:02 PM Yes Moonchild, you are short - gives part of an idea of what you look like, relative to the rest of us. I am schizophrenic (or so psychiatrists had it some years ago), therefore I have 2 minds...? It is not accurate descriptions or assosciations that hurt... Jon |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Pixie Date: 06 May 00 - 01:25 PM To focus in on some "less than complimentary" terms, I can feel the hair on my neck rise when someone calls a person with developmental delays "retarded". After reading Catspaw49's response I have another perspective. Probably all my years of working with people who have "special needs" (after reading all posts its hard to know how to define it). IT IS very difficult to keep up with current vernacular; for example we were instructed for several years to identify a deaf child as "hearing-impaired". Now that I know several deaf adults, I realize THEY are okay with being "deaf", but us hearing folk don't know how to deal with it. Very few have made an effort to understand the deaf culture. Sorcha is right; deaf people are deaf, not stupid. Where I grew up, there were no "African Americans", but I grew up very close to a large "reserve" in British Columbia. The native children were "Indian"; that's how they identified themselves; it was never an isssue. To this day I don't know how they referred to us other than "white". There was no connotation that one was better than the other. Don't get me wrong - the racial issues were there with alot of people, which was unfortunate. Now I live on the East Coast of Canada where there is a long heritage of "African Candadians" here. My experience has been to hear many "African Canadians" refer to themselves as "black". All I know is that political correctness is a necessity in my job and it can sometimes boggle my mind and make me very tired.....perhaps I need to retire? |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Ely Date: 06 May 00 - 02:02 PM I have a couple of friends who are dyslexic and do not mind being called dyslexic. As one of them pointed out, "dyslexic" is simply a word that literally describes their problem--there is nothing in it that is inherently stigmatic. Therefore, it could easily be replaced by any new term, and this new term will not be immune to acquiring whatever negative stereotypes are already attached to "dyslexic". I am learning disabled. I have Asperger's syndrome, which is a comparatively mild form of autism (nevertheless, it has made my school and social lives extremely difficult). I've had people tell me that I have a "self-paced learning style". Um, don't we ALL have "self-paced learning styles"? Nobody can learn anything faster than they are personally able. I suppose the point was not to single me out. Unfortunately, my schooling probably would have been more productive if I HAD been singled out, because I needed help. Although I am intelligent, I have always had a tremendously hard time with math-based subjects. I understand fine what the concepts are but I have a horrible time with the calculations. I was tested for learning disabilities in eight grade but the basic tests they gave me couldn't find anything (my parents could not afford to hire a private psychologist). The high school I attended said it could not give me any assistance unless I was officially recognized as "learning disabled". However, if I WAS recognized as learning disabled, district policy mandated that they put me in special ed. There was nowhere for me to go--I had to either do poorly in honors pre-cal or be put in remedial classes. I do not think that re-labelling my troubles would have helped. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 May 00 - 02:04 PM "Except a moron" - well that's a word that I'd sooner see retired. The implication of using it in this context is that. if you are less clever than most people are, you are also insensitive to other peoples feelings. It doesn't work that way in my exprerience. The least sensitive and rudest people I know tend to be people who are normnally counted as pretty clever.
Challenge is an odd word. The idea of saying that someone has "challenging behavior" was that they behaved in a way that challenged other people - it was an indication to the people around them that the way services had so far been organised needed to be changed. It was adopted as an alternative to terms that implied that the problem lay in the person themselves, and that the only way to deal with it was to alter that person - which normally meant locking them up out of sight somewhere. Then a con-trick was carried out, and the term was inverted, so that something about the person is said to be "challenged".
If you can't reach the buttons in a lift, it's not because you're too short, or your wheel chair is too low. It's because some thoughtless person has failed to realise that buttons need to placed at a level where everyone can reach them. Not "a moron", a highly intelligent thoughtless person who didn't use the brains they have. And if your response to that is to kick up a fuss, and maybe stop other people using tye lift, that is "challenging behaviour", and quite right too.
And the same principle applies across the board - the human race is made up of all of us, not just the average ones.
I'm 5 foot eight inches high.Put me in a crowd of Tutsis, I'm short. Stick me in a crowd of pigmies, I'm tall.
I wear glasses. Take them away from me and I can't seee all kinds of things I need to see. Give me back my glasses, I can see perfectly.
I strongly suspect that the kinds of distortions of language that people quote when they sound-off about PC language come from two sources. On the one hand there are people who intentionally set out to ridicule the idea of using language sensitively. A few years ago there were all kind of stories going around about bans on nursery rhymes like "Baah Baah Black Sheep", and things like that. And most of them were complete lies, made up by racists.
And on the other hand you have humourless careerists who latch on to something like this and exploit it as a way of winning points in intra-office games on campuses and elsehwere, coming up with ever more absurd neologisms which aren't intended to help anybody, but just a way of getting a bit of attention and some brownie points.
The very term "political correctness" is an example - I suspect it was somebody trying to ridicule the whole idea of sensitive use of language, and adopted by irresponsible careerists who didn't give a shit about anybody but themselves.
If people are despised, whatever label you give them will become an insult. Changing the label can provide a temporary respite, but until you can get rid of the attitudes of wishing to insult poeople, the new labels will rapidly become insults. Changed attitudes mean that labels cease to become important - and most of the time they aren't even of any significance at all. Label Jars not People.
Sorry to go on like this. It matters, and there's a whole largely forgotten history of horrible things being done to good harmless people in the name of some pseudo-scientific classification that sees them as less than human. And it's very recent history, and there's no guarantee it won't all happen again.
|
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: catspaw49 Date: 06 May 00 - 02:08 PM Pixie, I can certainly understand your feelings. A lot of my life is surrounded with areas where the jargon changes more often than I change socks......well, more often than that 'cause I don't wear socks. Anyway, the issue to me has always been one of "best descriptive term and attitude." Using the current nomenclature without attitude is probably the most horrific to me. Its like an underlying bigotry of sorts. And to be frank, it is very hard to overcome societal attitudes in many areas as they are deeply entrenched. Try this. Let's talk adoption. In our society, we have had a long history of adoption as being unnatural and indeed, in many cases, its been a source of shame to anyone looking at the history of it in North America....see the current thread on "Orphan Train." In other cultures and in other times, this has not been the case. In several African tribes, you could not achieve status, could not be part of the royalty, unless you were adopted. But here, we have a history of the opposite sort. So when you begin to use terminology that is different to reflect the changing attitudes, you encounter resistance based on that history. The word "natural" comes to mind. What is a "natural" parent? What is a "real" family? We get a lot of folks trying hard to be PC (sorry Rick) who use the current terms, but their underlying attitude comes through. I love it when they slip up and cover it with, "Sorry, but you know what I meant." Yes, I did. What I'm trying (badly) to say is that you can't overcome history overnight with new words. And you can always tell when the "right" words are covering the "wrong" attitude. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: bbelle Date: 06 May 00 - 03:19 PM Dear Ely ... I don't know you at all, so I cannot comment on your learning disability, however, I must tell you that I was never able to "do" math unless it's add, subtract, multiply, and divide. I also screw up percentages and have learned to ask "which number goes into which?" The only time I've ever cheated in my life was in third grade. It was parent's night and my teacher was going to display our long division papers. I couldn't figure out long division to save my life ... so I took a trip down to the teacher's desk ... and on my way back to my desk glanced at someone else's paper and memorized all the answers. My downfall was that I wrote down all the answers but didn't have time to write down the problems before the teacher picked up the papers. The teacher knew my "problem" and chastised me privately for what I did. She didn't tell my parents but I did. The disappointment in their eyes has never allowed me to cheat again. I had math tutors all through college and grad school to get me through the math. I've learned to compensate, but it was some rough times. It's funny how people tend to rate your IQ on how well you perform calculations. They missed their mark on me because my IQ is 160 and I'm still mathematically-challenged! I'm certainly loquacious today ... I'm painting the inside of my house ... getting ready for the "boys" (Allan, Bill, and David) ... and taking a break ... and not particularly eager to return to the task. But ... I think I'm going to change my nickname to ... shortfatlittlejewish/irishwomanwhowearsglassesandhasbushyunrulynair |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: catspaw49 Date: 06 May 00 - 03:30 PM So Moon.....if each wall measures 8x14 and every window measures 3x5 and the doorways are 3x7....you have 14 walls to paint with 8 windows and 4 doors total and the paint requires two coats each covering at a rate of 600sqft/gal......How much paint do you need? ANSWER: Who gives a turkey. Ask the guy at the store. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Caitrin Date: 06 May 00 - 04:03 PM I like your answer there, 'spaw! :) Art, I feel the same way about network. I also maintain that impact and research aren't verbs, either. I've never heard of anyone using the term "vertically challenged" seriously before. That truly amazes me. The only people I know that say it use it to describe themselves as a joke. I've heard some black kids here refer to each other as "niggas." Most adult black people I know think it's disgraceful. I've heard girls, joking, calling each other all kinds of names (slut, ho, bitch, etc.). I don't really see why these are considered terms of affection. We've talked a lot about the stereotypes related to schizophrenia and other psychological diseases and disorders in my Pysch class. People often get labeled as "crazy" and totally written off, even by family and friends. It's terrible that anyone gets treated like that, especially if it's a person who needs support. As to terminology, I always say whatever the official name for the psychological disorder in question is. That tends to avoid any euphemism or "political correctness" problems. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Jeri Date: 06 May 00 - 05:16 PM Spaw, you need 4.54666667 (rounded) gallons. Labels indicate you expect people to be a certain way, and if the people themselves believe in the labels, they're locked into a role. I always believed I sucked at math. I can't recall getting anything higher than a D in it. I'm now working for an organization that scores tests, and last week they asked if I could do math. I laughed, but they wanted me to give it a try. Now it seems I have an aptitude for math, but only if I don't listen to anyone trying to explain problems. I believe my lack of success years ago was because my teachers expected me to think like everyone else, and didn't know how to handle it when I didn't understand. McGrath said "If people are despised, whatever label you give them will become an insult." Nailed it. The problem is not with words, it's with attitudes. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: bbelle Date: 06 May 00 - 06:12 PM spaw ... I used the formula for figuring how much paint I need and it came out to 50,000 gallons or .5 gallons ... I asked the guy at the store. I learned to compensate for my shortcomings. jeri ... I've known for many years that I don't think like other people, but I've never equated it to my shortcomings in math. Maybe ..... caitrin ... I, too, use the proper terminology for whatever it is I'm talking about. At first, people looked at me strangely (I thought they were looking at me because I was short.), now they are used to it, at least when they're talking to me. My feeling is you can't upset someone by using the correct term. Now, when it comes to little children using the correct term for their body parts, it's a wee bit daunting to hear a 2 y/o saying rectum or vagina. When I was growing up, we just didn't have names for stuff like that. It's just sort of funny how you just "learn" them along the way! Well, break's over, gotta go do a little touch-up and put the bathroom back together again. Next, it's the kitchen cabinets and my bedroom ... moonchild |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: catspaw49 Date: 06 May 00 - 06:29 PM Not much painting to do in your bedroom Moon......Its mainly mirrors isn't it? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 May 00 - 06:29 PM Of course it depends on the technical terms. I mean it's not so long since you found official textbooks by highly qualified experts using terms like "Mongoloid Idiot".
You can't trust the experts, just because they're experts. Lots of experts used to favour wiping out people with disabilities. Some still do, but they tend to keep quiet about it in public. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: bbelle Date: 06 May 00 - 07:52 PM spaw ... the kind that make you look long and skinny! And the bed's round so I don't have to go around any corners. mcgrath ... I mentioned, earlier in the thread, about growing up with the term "mongoloidism," instead of Downs Syndrome. During The Holocaust, any Jew who was considered not perfect, was immediately sent to the left ... moonchild |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Art Thieme Date: 06 May 00 - 08:03 PM The two references I made to dyslexia were jokes. At least they were supposed to be jokes. But the actual names p.c. folks come up with for all amnner of afflictions is pretty funny too. The schizophrenics I know tell me it beats dining alone !!!! Art Thieme ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: kendall Date: 07 May 00 - 08:42 AM I to do poorly in math, and, I prove it by buying an occasional lottery ticket. Dont know how this is with others, but, in my case, I HATE MATH..always did, and I believe that if you are not interested in something, you will not do well at it no matter what that something is. On the other hand, I like geography, history and english literature. In those subjects I did well and they sort of balanced the math thing. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 May 00 - 01:34 PM Now here's a song about this kind of thing. I wrote a few years back, so it's not aimed at anything anybody has said in the thread (here is a link to it on my website)
Poison in Jest
So I say "Good Morning, Mr Nigger!",
So, perhaps you are a Poofter, or a Gippo with a van,
If I'll call you what I choose, what's that got to do with you?
And if anybody says that I offends,
So, I'll speak to you direct, that's what you must expect -
Now some might call it courtesy, |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Rick Fielding Date: 08 May 00 - 12:12 AM Thanks for the feedback folks. Just got back to town, and this has proven very interesting. I'm noticing something here. I'm starting to find agreement with a lot of "McGrath's" postings over the last month or so. He took my use of the word "moron" way out of it's original context, but that often happens when something's mentioned back at the beginning, and a thread gets a few dozen responses. One thing I'm sure of is, McGrath...you're one helluva literate wordsmith, whether you're writing "straight" or satire. Gotta check out the tunes. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 00 - 06:40 AM Thanks for not taking offence, Rick (and for the warm words) - "Moron" is an odd word. In a way it's moved away from its original pseudo-scientific meaning, in the sense thatyou wouldn't now get many professinal experts using it to label people destined for some kind of provision. It's a bit like "idiot" in that way.
But "idiot", in my experience, has developed a relatively non-offensive use, normally pronounced "eejit". And that is really going back to the Greek origins of the word, where it didn't have anything to do with lack of intelligence, it was more a question of not using the intelligence you have.
That hasn't quite happened to "moron", and it gets casually thrown away in a way that suggests, as I said, that people who would score very low on Intelligence Tests are also likely to be insensitive and so forth, and that just isn't true. (And I'm not saying that people who use the term necessarily have that thought in their mind, because I know in many cases they don't.)
It's a different point from the one about the use of terms, it's about stereotypes. It's rather like objecting to the term "to Jew down" someone in a business deal - one wouldn't be objecting in that case to the word used, but rather to the assumption lying behind the use of it.
|
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: GUEST,James Date: 08 May 00 - 07:50 AM Many of the words some people find offensive are perfectly good english words.....they are good words simply because they describe exactly what they intend describing. People offended by the directness of English replace these words with rubbish words and phrases which are designed not to be polite but to turn away from reality.....hence we have words like mentally challenenged, developmentally delayed...special needs, and so on. Political correctness is a dangerous thing... |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 00 - 09:49 AM "Nigger" is "a perfectly good English word". Been in the dictionary for hundreds of years. Straightforward Latin roots.
That doesn't stop it being offensive.
|
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: GUEST,James Date: 08 May 00 - 10:29 AM II was waiting for that to be used as an example....the fact that it is in the distionary does not mean that it is inoffensive nor do I think That it is a word to be compared to words like handicapped, to use them in the same context is absurd in the extreme....My contention is that words like mentally challenged is an imprecise replacement for a good english word... |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 08 May 00 - 10:52 AM Let's talk about the difference between a word that's what I'll call "inherently loaded" and one that has a potential for hurt.
The "N word" is, in my opinion, inherently loaded. I would avoid it unless I was engaged in a direct quote from somebody else, where the quote is necessary for some point to be made. I know that some black folks use it; in their position maybe it's not seen as loaded.
But then take the words "short" or "fat". These are what we've talked about as "perfrectly good English words", and I maintain they are just that. Frankly, I am short. Frankly, I am fat.
But suppose you run into someone who is 5'2" and weighs 300 hundred pounds. Sure, it's true, that person is fat. If you MUST refer to that fact, I say the best word to use might be "obese" or "overweight". But "fat" is clear and meaningful. Now, it is kinder, surely, to avoid reference to the hypothetical person's weight, but to use these PC manufactured expressions--"avoirdupoisily challenged?"--is to underline the offensiveness of the reference. Say "obese" or "overweight" or even "fat", if the context requires it, but avoid these talkings-around that merely call attention to the potential offensiveness of the reference. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: BeauDangles Date: 08 May 00 - 12:37 PM One of my favorite authors is Harlan Ellison. He is a small person with big talent...and, some would say, a big mouth which sometimes gets him into trouble. One, in an editorial he was writing, he made passing reference to "midgets." Later, he received an irate letter from a reader who said, "we prefer the term 'little people.'" Without missing a beat, Mr. Ellison replied, "I am 5'4" tall. I am a 'little person.' You, sir, are a midget!" BeauD. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 08 May 00 - 01:37 PM I'm going to put in my $.02 for the jargon side. I speak from the experience of having a PhD in neurolinguistics (a kind of eclectic combination of biology and linguistics, earned from within a Cognitive Psychology program). For one thing, schizophrenia is not multiple personality disorder (aka MPD). I find that using the jargon term for schizophrenia to mean schizophrenia is rarely, if ever, offensive to a schizophrenic or to someone with MPD. However, using it to mean "being in two minds about something" or other loose multiple-personality references bothers BOTH the schizophrenics and the MPDs. The problem there is historical - in that the meaning of the roots of schizophrenia is "split mind" BUT Split Personality is a totally other disorder. Deaf, furthermore and in jargon, is not hard of hearing, at least not to members of the deaf community. The term "deaf" is preferred by individuals who use ASL as their primary language, and who do not consider themselves nearly as "disabled" as their hearing counterparts consider them to be. However, such "deaf" individuals use "hard of hearing" to refer to those who may or may not have less of a deficit in auditory perception, but who identify with the hearing community, avoid ASL, and consider themselves as having a disability. In fact, I got into an interesting misunderstanding once when working on my Master's studying deaf students at Gallaudet, one of whom referred to a friend of theirs (in sign language) as "very hard of hearing" - which I took to mean that the friend had a severe hearing loss. Turned out that the friend actually had such a slight hearing loss that they did not consider themself to be "deaf" - thus they acted very much like a hearing person - thus "very hard of hearing" - IN ASL. Furthermore, in trying to get around offending anyone, when I was writing up the article that came out of my Master's thesis, I got into trouble with my advisor for referring to "deaf people" - he made me say "deaf persons" or (as I have done throughout this posting) "deaf individuals." Now that, to me, was Political Correctness, whereas using the term Deaf to mean what the people belonging to the group I was describing use it to mean, wasn't. Sorcha, would "deaf people" in that context have been offensive to you? I think the basic point is that one should strive not to be offensive. Miss Manners says you should call people what they wish to be called. My mom doesn't want to be called Grandmother by any of our kids - so fine, they call her Aunt Mom instead. Someone tried to tell me my kids were rude in not calling her grandmother. I referred them straight to Miss Manners. If it upsets people of partial African ancestry to be called what they used to be called while slavery was legal, then that term should not be used by anyone attempting to be polite. It isn't so much POLITICAL correctness as just plain correctness. Oh, and Sorcha and any other ASL users, my condolences on the loss of Prof. Stokoe. He was the linguist responsible for getting ASL treated as a real language and not as a disabled version of English. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 00 - 01:38 PM I really don't think there's too much difference between us all here.
In an earlier post, referring to the expression "political correctness", I said: "I suspect it was invented by somebody trying to ridicule the whole idea of sensitive use of language, and adopted by irresponsible careerists who didn't give a shit about anybody but themselves." And I think the same applies to the kind of terms doestarr mentioned. Anyone using an expression like "avoirdupoisily challenged" is using a way of talking designed (probably intentionally)with a view to ridiculing people for their differences.
That is different from some of the words which have been used to label people with learning difficulties (a straightforward term which I prefer to use, because I know that it is currently seen as more acceptable by people to whom it is applied).
Words like "degenerate", "Mongoloid idiot" and "retard" are words which really are just as offensive as "nigger". Moreover they have a history of use in a context where they were used against people by experts and professionals and politicians who, quite literally, believed in eliminating the people so described.
It wasn't just in Nazi Germany that this was done either, though of course the Nazis were more thorough in carrying out "eugenic" policies (ie killing of "degenerates") for which they were in fact commended at the time by some professionals and others in America and England and elsewhere, where the emphasis was more on locking people up in huge institutions, and forced sterilisation. (Here's a relevant link
Truly, the words in themselves don't mater, the attitudes underlying the words does. But at any time, some words are loaded with certain attitudes. And conversely, some attitudes, while they persist, are going to colour the most seemingly inoffensive words. The reason I'm coming on heavy is because it's so easy to see all this as about word games and irritating fashions, and it's a lot more than that.
|
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: GUEST,Mrr Date: 08 May 00 - 01:45 PM Ooh, but the words DO matter. They matter a lot. Whoever said that silly stuff about sticks and stones had never been well-insulted. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 May 00 - 02:12 PM Sticks and stones in themselves don't break your bones - it's the people who beat you with them or throw them at you that cause the hurt. The same goes for words. |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: bbelle Date: 08 May 00 - 08:17 PM I agree with Mrr ... "words" do matter. I think it best to know to whom you are talking, when using potentially loaded or hurtful words. There are terms we use to describe ourselves, which we don't find offensive, however, the "other" person might. Let's face it ... rarely are two people going to agree on which words are offensive, in the above situations. The best way to handle such situations is to know of what you speak and to whom you are speaking ... moonchild |
|
Subject: RE: Descriptive terms, appropriate or not? From: Mrrzy Date: 08 May 00 - 09:05 PM Raht Own! |
| Share Thread: |