One of my favorite writers and dear blogging friends, Attila the Mom has this to say about my post on the r-word:
Oh I don't know. Try substituting the "R" word that you use in every day language with the "N" word, or maybe "shiftless and lazy" to describe things you find "slow".
Would you? If not, why not? Since you're using free speech as a reference, do you use terms like "hooked-nosed jew", "wetback" "faggot", etc as a well?
I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong.
In a polite and civilized society, we don't use words like this because they marginalize groups of people and are hurtful to some/many of them.
Sometimes the definition of words change over time to reflect current culture and no longer retain much of their original meaning. A good example is the word "gay".
I think that the word "retard" is another.
You've frequently written about different instances in your life where you've been made to feel marginalized, misunderstood and degraded in terms of your disability. You're mad. You're upset. You use your voice to vent and to tell others how much different experiences hurt and infuriatiated you.
Yet one person told you that your use of the "retard" word bothered her and you blew her off. You've read reams of stuff on how the use of the word hurts people, and spent a paragraph or two justifying your use of it.
I guess you really don't "get" it.
You may have a disability, and work with people who have disabilities, but bottom line---you don't have a cognitive disability.
It doesn't make you one of the "club" or give you a pass to blow it off. Any more than I can tell people without legs to "suck it up" because I once stubbed my toe.
You know, I love you to death, but you're way off the mark. We've spent years dealing with this kind of ignorance and bigotry, and it hurts some very vulnerable people who don't have the intellectual capacity to raise their voices the way that you and I can.
So why use it if it hurts even just one person? What's the point?
First of all, let me clarify something. I don't use the word "retard" and never in connection with anyone with any kind of a disability. As I stated in my earlier post, I learned that in grade school. Other words like those Attila mentioned in her comment are also not words I use. However, in terms of free speech, everyone has the right to use or not use them. That's what makes the First Amendment nifty.
I use the word retarded to describe things (not people) that I find dumb, slow or just plain backwards. I did not blow my colleague off. She mentioned the word "retarded", not "retard" bothered her and so I made a concerted effort not use it when in her company. Why? Because it bothered her. Did I stop using it altogether? No.
I do write frequently about how I have felt marginalized with regard to my own disability but rarely because someone has referred to me as a "cripple" or a "gimp". Usually, it is with regard to people's preconceived notions about hidden disabilities. I can't think of an instance where I have been personally hurt or offended because someone referred to me as a cripple or a gimp, regardless of the spin they put on it. My self-image isn't contingent on someone's idea of who or what I should.
In my opinion if the people we are referring to are indeed "very vulnerable people who don't have the intellectual capacity to raise their voices the way that" I can (and there is a large population of people who fit this category), then maybe we need to be spending time teaching self-empowerment and self-advocacy instead of teaching them it's okay to censor other people's words and ideas because we don't like them and find them offensive.
But as for people with intellectual disabilities not able to raise their voices from what I can see they are doing a fine job. There are scads of videos on You Tube, national coverage in the Op-Ed sections of newspapers, it's been mentioned at length on both morning and evening news, all protesting Tropic Thunder's use of the R-Word abound.
My point is that in demanding we ban offensive language and art simply because we don't like it or find it wrong is censorship which is a constitutional rights violation. Since when are movie actors, directors and producers our arbiters of good role modeling? Why are they responsible for educating and indeed, re-educating the people who view their films? Can anyone honestly say they are looking for deep meaning or intellectual depth when they go to a Ben Stiller film? The people who make these kinds of movies are in it to entertain not educate.
Like it or not there appears to be a huge market for that genre of filmaking and comedy. IF his intent really was to poke fun at the movie industry, I still say what I said in my first post about this on Active Gray Matter's blog- "Uhm, bad job dude". I may not like Ben Stiller's word choice or portrayal of people with intellectual disabilities but does that mean he doesn't get to express himself? Does that mean it's okay to censor his words, his expression simply because we don't like it or agree with it? I don't think so.
Which brings me to ask, why am I suddenly a bigot because I don't agree with the current group conscience? Why does that make me wrong or "off the mark"? This wouldn't be the first time I have been told I have no business voicing my opinion by members of the disability community because I don't meet someone's idea of what being disabled is. Undoubtedly it will not be the last. If we are going to be proponents of inclusion and diversity, then let's do it. Let's not just do it when it's pretty or comfortable for us to do so. Sometimes we have to include even the POVs we don't care for.
Oddly, I am always not disabled enough or I don't have the right kind of disability in order to voice a differing opinion about a certain issue. Yet, I am welcomed with open arms if jump on the band wagon without question.
Human nature is a funny little bird.
