Person with a disability - reply moved to off topic

Hey, just wanted to unhijack the thread this was in but still respond, so I moved it here!

Ah, let me and my Rock-Em Sock-Em Robots of Righteousness put on a little play for you...



Red Robot: Hi there! My name is Paul Gunderson. You must be...

Blue Robot: I'm Richard Stinkapotamus. Good to meet you.

Red Robot: Good to meet you, too, Dick!

Blue Robot: Uhm, my name isn't Dick. I prefer to be called Richard, if you don't mind.

Red Robot: Posh! Dick is a perfectly good nickname for Richard. Why, look at all the famous Dicks. Dick Gregory, Dick Butkus, Dick Van Dyke and of course Tricky Dick Nixon! Why should you mind being called Dick?

Blue Robot: I understand, but I just prefer Richard.

Red Robot: You're awfully touchy about this, aren't you? Don't you think you're being a tad bit silly?

Blue Robot: Not really. I prefer to be called Richard. I'm not sure why you seem to object to that.

Red Robot: Because it's just silly! I've called people named Richard Dick for years, and I don't see any reason to stop now, just because you have some silly bee in your bonnet! No, sorry, Dick, but I just think you're being hypersensitive. Now, if you'll pardon me, I have to run over and talk to Stretch Armstrong. He owes me five bucks.

(Red Robot exits stage left.)

Blue Robot: What a dick!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am always amazed that there is any resistance to calling people what they want to be called. (Although I agree that the money spent by the ADA was wasted, and shouldn't have been!) What's the big deal? It strikes me more as an issue of etiquette than one of "political correctness", in any event.

Okay, I have to get to work. Time to put the Rock-Em Sock-Em Robots of Righteousness back in the toybox!

B

I have no problem at all with calling someone what they wish to be called. But it seems to me that the issue that we are facing is the imposition of political terminology.

I know someone who, at a trade union meeting, was threatened with ejection, because he used the term 'blackout' for an electrical failure. Now I don't seem to have heard any great groundswell of opinion from the African or Caribbean communities to the effect that the words 'blackout' or 'blackboard' were somehow demeaning to them.

I have never heard a single diabetic (and I have spoken to many) say that they were really not a diabetic at all but a 'person with diabetes'.

I have never heard a person with a physical or mental problem (and I know a few) claim that they do not wish to be referred to as having a handicap.

It seems to me that the initial impulse was probably because someone felt that calling someone paraplegic or a diabetic was defining them in terms of their disease or condition. But of course, it is actually not doing anything of the sort. Nouns define us only temporarily, depending on the context. So I am a man - not a person of the male gender - but I am only defined by that noun if we are in a conversation about gender or about those expectations society might have regarding males. If someone is a doctor, that will define them so far as their job goes, but not when they are at a party. If I am a diabetic, that defines me when talking about the condition, but otherwise has no relevance at all.

Using these tortuous phrases seems to me to be contrary to all the rules of good English, and it seems to me that the hypersensitivity evinced by those who would have us use these terms comes not from those whom they describe.

As a diabetic, my condition is, without doubt a 'handicap'. It makes life sometimes difficult, and it means that certain kinds of employment are forever closed to me. If someone is physically disabled, that is certainly a handicap, because it means that actions which might be simple for you or for me, require a great deal of effort to achieve.

This kind of hypersensitivity seems to me to be sometimes concealing something more sinister. In the case of the trade union meeting I mentioned above, if I had been a black man attending that meeting, I would have had a very uneasy sensation in the pit of my stomach. It seems to me that the message that was being broadcast by that kind of political correctness was one of racialism. Inverted racialism perhaps, but that is perhaps even worse than the other kind, because it is more difficult to fight.

I have a friend called Pamela, and I discovered recently that she prefers Pamela to Pam (which I, and everybody else had been calling her for years). Nowadays I only call her Pamela, and it seems to me to be only common courtesy to do so. But it hasn't been those with physical difficulties who have been telling me they didn't want to be referred to as having a handicap. It has been the social workers. Or rather, not the social workers, but their bosses. Those people in charge of the policies of social services departments, who are not necessarily at the cutting edge of provision.

In particular with the word 'handicap' we have a term which perfectly describes what it is like having a physical or mental disability. To tell us we should rather use some wordy circumlocution, to me is an assault on the English language, and the poor language has to put up with enough of those anyway. If the term is imposed by someone else, then it is equally an assault on the person being described.

Red Robot: I see they have built you to exactly resemble a human. You even have a dick!

Blue Robot: You are really being offensive, using that term! Kindly leave the room!

I can understand someone being upset about the personal name more than I can the group label. I understand that there are labels out there that are hurtful and hateful. I can even see some changes in the name of accuracy (deaf -> hearing impaired). But in a lot of cases (disabled/handicapped/"other abled" I don't really see that changing the word will change the reality someone perceives behind it.

In the novel 1984, the basic reason for inventing "newspeak" was that (supposedly) once you remove the word for something, the idea behind that word would also vanish. I hate to think that the thought processes of people are so weak that this is true.

Okay, first off this may not have been clear but I'm not calling anyone a dick. It was just the punchline to the play! Seriously, you can't expect serious theater from the Rock-Em Sock-Em Robots of Righteousness. They just don't have it in 'em!

Second, I'l say this more clearly since it seems it wasn't clear before... I am a person with a disability, and if you call me "handicapped" I will put a cap in you, as the kiddies say.

There is a big long reason that persons with disabilities hate the word "handicapped" but let's just say it has to do with a big PR campaign by some well-meaning but misguided folks that included the infamous "Handi-Capable!" ads and a bunch of other crap that freighted the word with a sense of needing charity and wanting help.

So, we've cleared up that "no one with a disability ever asked me not to say handicapped" thing. I do, and I have.

+++

I still don't get why it bother's people, though, to let groups pick their own names. All civil rights groups have gone through this. Anyone else remember "womyn" and "womon"? Some examples, like that one, are silly. But I also remember when civilization as we know it seemed to be threated by the two little letters "Ms.". And that's a change I'm glad stuck!

Some of these things stick, some don't. They're generally insignificant to the culture at large but crucial to the groups asking for the change. So why not just be gracious about it, call people what they want to be called, and smile happily to yourself for being such a good guy?

Really, can someone tell me why the fuss?

Guesses: Inertia. The feeling that one's lexicon is perfectly good and that this is just sugar on top.

(obRepresent: I'm deaf. I answer to hearing impaired and deaf. If asked, I prefer deaf. I will not, however, answer to Deaf as I don't consider this to be the main point of my identity, cultural or otherwise)

Okay. That's another idea: that the argument over terms is tied to the way that we see ourselves and the world in general. And changing the term would mean that we have to shift our worldview. Maybe I'm going a bit far with that, but it sounds better.

Hmm, I think you can find words and examples that support both using "political correctness" and NOT using it. I would say that words which either have implied second meanings, or were *created* to be offensive, are the ones to shy away from. Handicapped would be one of those, I think. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I've heard that the term comes from "cap-in-hand" (as pointed out above), meaning: asking for a handout. That (if the implied meaning is accurate) I can agree, is a bit insulting.

On the other hand, "disabled" or "diabetic" seem to me to be very blunt and to the point. I can't understand how something like "diabetic" can be taken as an offensive term.

The problem I think is that people took it too far, so now in order to stop things like "Follicly Challenged" from becoming seriously used terms (to cite the most extreme example which is now used as a joke), there was a backlash against all PC. Now it's just one of many "liberal" ideas that have been taken too far. The diabetic commercial mentioned above proves this, and I wish those responsible for wasting that money could be made to pay for the BULL they threw that money away on. I'd be very pissed off if I had donated to that organization.

Personally I HATE political correctness, but in some rare instances I can see where SOME words should be considered rude, at the very least.

Oh, and if I was fired for using the term "blackout", my response would be "GOOD RIDDANCE" + some other highly politically incorrect terminology. I'd never work for an employer like that.

Garoad,

With regard to cap-in-hand, please read the third paragraph of the first posting of this thread.

Yes, I agree entirely with your comments on the ADA.

Bhodi,

I didn't imagine you were calling anybody a dick (although my middle name is Richard!

So it seems there might be a cultural element here, because despite that silly comment by the social services department, the word 'handicapped' doesn't seem to have the same connotations over here.

If it has picked up accretions of meaning in America, then I can understand why you object to it. But I still think that it's a great shame that such a perfectly descriptive word has been lost, at least temporarily.

I agree with you about Ms. It is useful and it conforms with correct English usage. However, many of the other terms that have been coined have been done so in total ignorance of etymology and as a result of whatever the literary equivalent of tone-deafness might be. Womyn is a good example. Indeed many of the expressions containing 'man' which have been objected to don't actually refer to the male gender at all, but to the hand. 'Man the decks' is a good example, which has nothing whatever to do with men.

I feel very protective of the language, especially at a time when only a small minority of English speakers seem to be able to correctly form a plural, and when TV News broadcasts, which used to be exemplars of the language, have been dumbed down to such an extent that sometimes you have to consciously decipher what you think they actually mean.

We are in danger of entering the outskirts of Babel, and we should do all we can to prevent that from happening. Part of that process is to use simple terms to describe commonplace things.

If, without a very good reason, you allow people to make their own definitions of words, and forbid people from using terms that have been used since the middle ages, then you are threatening our very means of communicating ideas. And what more important thing can there be?

I stand corrected on the origin of that word. I wasn't sure about that bit of history which is why I expressed some doubts there.

If the "handout" origin is a myth, that seems to change things with reguard to that word. It SHOULDN'T be insulting, but apparently it's one of those words that a vocal (misinformed) few have turned into something more than what it was intended to be.

I'm not sure what to think of that word in particular now, I'll have to think about it.

Bhodi, thanks for clearly stating your opinions. That was a real eye-opener for me. I would have thought that the word "disabled" would be considered worse - implying that someone was not able or less able. While the word "handicapped" seems to imply that the individual may have more difficulty doing something, but would still be able to do it.

Nice that you brought this thread up... it's one of those silly things in modern society that sometimes makes my skin crawl.

If the person in question *wants* to be called all the overly politically correct names then all is well. But in most cases it seems to be other people who take offense to terms not even attributed to them! I'm sure they mean well, but they're just not in touch with the people they're supposed to be protecting.

Example: I work with a deaf woman. She said at one point that if she finds anything patronising or demeaning it is indeed all those silly "Politically Correct" terms they come up with (hearing impairment / person with hearing difficulties etc) to discreetly 'mention' her disability, as if they think she has some sort of emotional issues and will flip on them if they say the word "deaf". I'd probably feel the same way.

I wonder if all those bin men out there like being called... and this is seriously a job title I've seen for them here, or very similar... an "Environmental Sanitation Officer"

Everyone I work with has a disability of some sort, so I asked them whether or not they minded being called "handicapped". Here are the answers:

Mattie: It depends on who is saying it. If it is an older person, I usually let it slide. If it's not, I usually correct them.

Robin: Actually, I prefer person with a disability, if I get to pick what I'm going to be called. That or, you know, "Robin."

Jan: (This was a really long winded answer on the importance of people first language that basically boiled down to "yes, I mind."

Ken: F*ck yes, I mind!

Everyone else is out of the office, but since I didn't get a single "Nah, go ahead and call me whatever you want" kind of response, I'd say that the consensus is that they all mind being called "handicapped."

B

As another 'Disabled' person I agree that Politcal Correctness has seemingly gone mad. It would seem that the state wants to decide for us which terms we prefer.

I would prefer to be thought of as 'Just Me' but yes, I have a disabilitiy. I am in fact disabled. I don't take offence to that at all. But for someone to say "Go see the disabled guy over there" instead of "Go see the guy in the grey suit" for instance would offend me. I am not my disability.

I guess what I am saying is that we don't need the state to decide what we personally prefer, just a little applied common sense will do nicely in most cases.

Bhodi -- Do alternate terms for handicap parking/bathroom/etc exist?

Yes, the preferred term is "fully accessible" parking/bathrooms/etc.

Bhodi, where are you? CA/west coast? I only ask because it seems like there's a definite geographical difference at work here. California doesn't strike me as the best place to take a poll of this sort (PC is popular among liberals) if you want to get a feel for the opinion of the nation as a whole.

It would have also been interesting to know why those you asked answered the way they did, though.

I'm starting to lean towards "handicapped" being an okay term (although still thinking on it), due to the fact that the -origin- of the word has no negative connotations (based on the limited internet research I've done).

Ehh. I'm in WA state, and there are definite caveats about using the term "handicapped". Just because a term started out with no negative connotations doesn't mean that it doesn't currently have any right this minute.

Like terms relating to black people -- the reason that _Tom Sawyer_ so often winds up on banlists, even though the term in question was a valid usage at the time that the book was written.

Nergal,

Yes, but that term started under abusive circumstances and was used as an abusive word.

'Handicap' is a word meaning something which impedes somebody's progress. Nothing more.

*nod*

I didn't look up the cites of the etymology; I was responding to his assertion as gospel.

Point taken

Nergal,

I'm in rural West Virginia. We are definately not a bunch of PC fanatics out here - we're big old stinky hillbillies! So, if we're sensitive about it, you can bet a lot of people in more urban (and urbane) areas probably are as well.

Each person, obviously, decides for him or herself how to use the language. And while the word "handicapped" may not have etymologically objectionable roots, it has been used in objectionable ways, and is freighted with objectional meanings, to many people with disabilities.

Again, you can say what you want! But if you choose to call someone "handicapped" and they object, at least now you'll know why!

Bhodi, who again, really hates being called "handicapped" herself... although, in truth, most of the time you can't tell I have a disability so it hasn't been as much of an issue for me as it has been for my coworkers with more apparent disabilities.

*looks down at self* HEY! Who switched out my AV?

Bhodi, thanks for your commentary on this topic -- I've enjoyed reading your posts.

Okay then, apparently the meaning of the word has changed into something it wasn't meant to be.

I definitely wasn't trying to assert (above) that the only valid opinion of the word is based on the etymology; actually the reason I was still reluctant to think handicapped is okay is the fact that SO many people consider it negative. I guess if 95% of a society consider something rude, than it is rude even if it wasn't originally intended to be so.

This is basically a moot point anyway, I guess, since I always say disabled to begin with.

But I still think that we were all brainwashed, in a sense, into believing handicapped is a nasty word. I'd still like to know why it's considered negative. I've always thought of it as a negative myself, but it was based on the "cap-in-hand for a handout" thinking. If that isn't where the word originates from, I just fail to see the logic here...

Surely some group of people with strong access to mass media didn't just go and "decide" one day that this word is going to be bad? So why?

G-

Most of the language changes associated with discussing disability come from the "consumer directed movement" (that's a mouthful!) in the disabilities community. A great resource for learning about that is

http://www.ncil.org/

B

Been reading all night so I'll have to look at that later (tired), but are you saying that there I'll find the reasoning behind the word-meaning-changes?