That's [disingenuous, mendacious, hateful, cruel, bigoted, economically unfeasible, culturally insen
sitive, unconstitutional...]
[Note: This post has a few ablist slurs used as examples of my point.]
Today Melissa McEwan had a brilliant insight into how (dis)ablist* slurs impede the Left's ability to confront the bad policies of the Right. I mean, I know all the reasons of courtesy, accuracy, and social justice to purge one's vocabulary of these slurs, but I never once considered (nor had most of the commenters) how dismissing things we don't like as "crazy," we also deny ourselves the ability to make cohesive, rational, persuasive arguments against them. "Shooting oneself in the foot" applies here.
Anyway, I posted the link along with the following comment on The Evil Facebook(TM), but I also want to expand on these thoughts below:
I am committed to eliminating (dis)ablist language from my vocabulary because:
1. I'm tired of being part of the culture that constantly tells me and my loved ones with disabilities that we are less than, that we are abnormal,
2. It's imprecise, inaccurate, and thoughtless.
But now, I have a #3:
3. Politics--by dismissing hateful, cruel, bigoted policies, legislation, and rhetoric as "crazy", we take away our only weapon to fight it. If it's "crazy," then it can't be understood or criticized from a rational perspective, and we with privilege leave more vulnerable members of society prey to horrific ideologies by our helpless indifference. If it's "crazy," we give a free pass to the bigots to carry on unchecked because we have dismissed them as beneath engagement, and give up on all their ignorant followers as not worth our time and attention. And I'm going to write a blog post about this. :)
1. The way I reminded myself not to use some slurs early on was to replace the slur with the name (in my mind) of a person I knew with the disability in question. You know, "That movie was so [Nepot Rain]!" or "What an [Elmo]." Or "That's [my own name]." Even though many MOST! (Wow. I just counted on my fingers and really thought about it and, wow.) of my dearest loved ones have or have had disabilities/debilitating conditions or injuries that lasted a significant amount of time, and even though I myself have had a (partial) diagnosis of my disability for 2/3s of my life (Hi, I'm a little crazy. For serious.**), I still slip up (and still am having a lot of trouble purging even my language of "crazy" as an all-purpose insult***), but I keep working on it, because I think it's important.
2. This has really become more obvious to me as I work on #1. Even something as fun and frivolous as a discussion of a movie goes further when you can say that its plot was insipid, that its acting was wooden, that its dialogue was unrealistic, that it would have been better without the misogyny in subplot A, or the unoriginal humor in subplot B, rather than summarily dismissing all those elements as "lame." Besides which, they obviously aren't lame, besides which, being lame does not make a person (or a horse) necessarily insipid, wooden, unrealistic, misogynistic, or unoriginal, for example. Why casually belittle, insult, and possibly trigger any person with disabilities who happens to be near you when you can actually say what you really mean? No, reserve your insulting of PWD for when you really want to hurt their feelings! Uh, I mean, uh...
The constant use of ablist terms and metaphors of disability to refer to badness reinforces the idea that disability is bad. In fact, it's Our view that disability is not good or bad, it just is. Sometimes it makes things very challenging and difficult, sometimes its fatal, but it's definitely December 21, 2012. That is, NOT THE END OF THE WORLD. On the contrary, disability is not something we should despise and look at with fear, rather we should accept that it is something that will happen to the majority of us sooner or later, if we live long enough. And now and then disability surprises you with what's good about it. As Elmo once said, "They have to let me in because I'm a cripple," or, as PrairieDawn is often saying, "Membership Has Its Privileges." The privileges are many and diverse, and not limited to, say, the fact that physical therapists are almost always kind and attractive (And if they aren't young, they look young. I honestly think it comes from helping others every day.), but that is certainly one of them. Hey, sometimes disability even comes with a pony.^
But McEwan's insight into how casual ablism undermines political discourse and inhibits action was really enlightening for me. As she says, by dismissing people who seek to oppress us as "nuts" (Mmm... nuts!^^), we take away not only our ability, but also our will to argue with them. If their arguments are unserious and absurd, then how can they be rationally countered? Not that this is the only reason behind, for example, Democrats sitting idly by (at best!) or even colluding with Republicans to make Roe v. Wade absolutely meaningless in real life. But I do wonder if the Republicans have not been enjoying couching their reprehensible policies in rhetoric that no decent person (sane or insane) could support, while leftist pundits and politicos gape, and then dismiss the whole business as incomprehensible. And it also means leaving behind all those (ignorant, misguided) people who vote for Republicans against their own interests, because no Democrat is willing to engage with what all Democrats have decided is so absurd as to be beneath their notice. And also leaving the most vulnerable people, minorities who live in places where the majority consistently votes against them, with absolutely no one fighting for their rights. That's not fair.
I encourage you to read the comments on the post as well. Here are five of my favorites:
fannie says:
"Over the years, I've stopped reading many blogs where it seems like the main points being made over and over were, "OMG, can you believe what crazy thing this crazy person said this time!"
I just got to be like, "Um, okay, but can you expand on that a little more, or maybe rebut it, or form an actual argument?"
angryplatypus says:
"I [worked] for my state legislature in the area of mental health policy, where I met many people with mental illnesses and cognitive disabilities who were intelligent, articulate, powerful advocates for themselves and their communities, people who truly believe in the inherent dignity of every person and justice for all- in other words, the exact opposite of the people and ideas I generally labeled "crazy" or "nuts". So I decided I needed to find better words to express myself. And doing so has made me a better writer and a better human being. Rick Santorum and Todd Akin are religious zealots and misogynists; calling them crazy instead is unnecessary and inaccurate."
KHBuzzard says:
"[W]hen Wayne LaPierre said something like "If it makes me crazy to suggest that (blah blah guns blah blah fart), then call me crazy." I yelled at the TV, "It doesn't make you crazy - it makes you an asshole.""
Ana Mardoll says:
"[B]eing able to dismiss harmful worldviews as "crazy" (and therefore unworthy of serious rebuttal) is a position of privilege. Anti-choice positions aren't some distant, "crazy" phenomena when you're the one faced with having to drive 50 miles to get an abortion. Homophobia and 'pray away the gay' boot camps aren't some interesting, "nutty" religious outlier to be viewed with a scornful (but entertained!) eye when you've been through the ordeal, or when you have beloved family members being hurt by religiously-motivated homophobia. Being able to write a blog -- or a book -- from the safety of the Privilege Blanket that basically says "lulz! look at the wacky crazy extremists! entertaining!" seems to require that the author forget that those same extremists are ACTIVELY HURTING PEOPLE. And to those people being hurt, this isn't some entertaining little aside to their daily life."
And finally, Melissa McEwan says:
"Dismissing ideas, behaviors, and people as "crazy" not only absolves oneself of the responsibility to seriously examine and critique the ideology whence emerge those ideas and behaviors; it also absolves oneself of being part of the solution by examining in what ways one is personally contributing negatively to the larger culture that is the broad context for that ideology. This shit doesn't exist in a void...and neither do I."
Indeed. None of us does.
Love, Susie
*I still haven't decided which term I like here, and it's definitely related to the way one parses terms like "sexism," "racism," etc., and this problem I have with "disablism" is the same one I have with "heterosexism," by the way. Sexism means treating people in a discriminatory way (which could be positive or negative!) based on their sex. Racism is the same based on (perceived) race. There is nothing inherently wrong with any sex or race; these -isms are pure cultural constructs. Likewise, I think the term should be "ablism"--discriminating on the basis of (perceived) physical and/or mental ability. The equivalent term for discriminating based on sexual orientation should be, er, sexualorientationism, which is more than a mouthful. And then there should also be genderpresentationism, oof. Most of the time, therefore, people don't talk about the ways heteronormativity (and I totally love that word, though it has the same problems every prefix hetero- word has) and gender essentialism and normativity are subtly reinforced; rather we focus on the more virulent outright hatred, which we call homophobia and transphobia--terms which are themselves inaccurate, implying as they do an unconscious psychological response of fear, rather than what it really is, conscious bigotry unconsciously reinforced by a systemically bigoted culture. Right, also, "disablism" seems to be the preferred term in the U.S.A., while "ablism" seems to dominate in other anglophone countries, reflecting the different way we think about -isms--in America sexism is prejudice against the sex, uh, which is female (male is not a sex, much as men don't have a gender, in the popular imagination), and not, as I said above, discrimination (positive or negative) based on sex (male or female).
**NO GUNS FOR ME! ;P (Ah, I'm joking. I'm definitely NOT homocidal. Heh, just noticed that's not a word that has changed meaning in all our Latin/Greek homo-/hetero- confusion /tangent!.)
***I mean, I'm crazy, but I'm not that crazy, so I'm uncomfortable with "reclaiming" the word. Also, I have problems with qualifying disabilities, and owning my experiences, you know, and not trying to dismiss the bad stuff with an "other people have it worse!" I fail a lot. :)
^To ride, at least, in a therapeutic riding program, though there are also helper ponies (usually serving as seeing-assistants for the blind).
^^I am RIGHT NOW eating chestnuts and hot chocolate! Yummy. :)
[Note: This post has a few ablist slurs used as examples of my point.]
Today Melissa McEwan had a brilliant insight into how (dis)ablist* slurs impede the Left's ability to confront the bad policies of the Right. I mean, I know all the reasons of courtesy, accuracy, and social justice to purge one's vocabulary of these slurs, but I never once considered (nor had most of the commenters) how dismissing things we don't like as "crazy," we also deny ourselves the ability to make cohesive, rational, persuasive arguments against them. "Shooting oneself in the foot" applies here.
Anyway, I posted the link along with the following comment on The Evil Facebook(TM), but I also want to expand on these thoughts below:
I am committed to eliminating (dis)ablist language from my vocabulary because:
1. I'm tired of being part of the culture that constantly tells me and my loved ones with disabilities that we are less than, that we are abnormal,
2. It's imprecise, inaccurate, and thoughtless.
But now, I have a #3:
3. Politics--by dismissing hateful, cruel, bigoted policies, legislation, and rhetoric as "crazy", we take away our only weapon to fight it. If it's "crazy," then it can't be understood or criticized from a rational perspective, and we with privilege leave more vulnerable members of society prey to horrific ideologies by our helpless indifference. If it's "crazy," we give a free pass to the bigots to carry on unchecked because we have dismissed them as beneath engagement, and give up on all their ignorant followers as not worth our time and attention. And I'm going to write a blog post about this. :)
1. The way I reminded myself not to use some slurs early on was to replace the slur with the name (in my mind) of a person I knew with the disability in question. You know, "That movie was so [Nepot Rain]!" or "What an [Elmo]." Or "That's [my own name]." Even though many MOST! (Wow. I just counted on my fingers and really thought about it and, wow.) of my dearest loved ones have or have had disabilities/debilitating conditions or injuries that lasted a significant amount of time, and even though I myself have had a (partial) diagnosis of my disability for 2/3s of my life (Hi, I'm a little crazy. For serious.**), I still slip up (and still am having a lot of trouble purging even my language of "crazy" as an all-purpose insult***), but I keep working on it, because I think it's important.
2. This has really become more obvious to me as I work on #1. Even something as fun and frivolous as a discussion of a movie goes further when you can say that its plot was insipid, that its acting was wooden, that its dialogue was unrealistic, that it would have been better without the misogyny in subplot A, or the unoriginal humor in subplot B, rather than summarily dismissing all those elements as "lame." Besides which, they obviously aren't lame, besides which, being lame does not make a person (or a horse) necessarily insipid, wooden, unrealistic, misogynistic, or unoriginal, for example. Why casually belittle, insult, and possibly trigger any person with disabilities who happens to be near you when you can actually say what you really mean? No, reserve your insulting of PWD for when you really want to hurt their feelings! Uh, I mean, uh...
The constant use of ablist terms and metaphors of disability to refer to badness reinforces the idea that disability is bad. In fact, it's Our view that disability is not good or bad, it just is. Sometimes it makes things very challenging and difficult, sometimes its fatal, but it's definitely December 21, 2012. That is, NOT THE END OF THE WORLD. On the contrary, disability is not something we should despise and look at with fear, rather we should accept that it is something that will happen to the majority of us sooner or later, if we live long enough. And now and then disability surprises you with what's good about it. As Elmo once said, "They have to let me in because I'm a cripple," or, as PrairieDawn is often saying, "Membership Has Its Privileges." The privileges are many and diverse, and not limited to, say, the fact that physical therapists are almost always kind and attractive (And if they aren't young, they look young. I honestly think it comes from helping others every day.), but that is certainly one of them. Hey, sometimes disability even comes with a pony.^
But McEwan's insight into how casual ablism undermines political discourse and inhibits action was really enlightening for me. As she says, by dismissing people who seek to oppress us as "nuts" (Mmm... nuts!^^), we take away not only our ability, but also our will to argue with them. If their arguments are unserious and absurd, then how can they be rationally countered? Not that this is the only reason behind, for example, Democrats sitting idly by (at best!) or even colluding with Republicans to make Roe v. Wade absolutely meaningless in real life. But I do wonder if the Republicans have not been enjoying couching their reprehensible policies in rhetoric that no decent person (sane or insane) could support, while leftist pundits and politicos gape, and then dismiss the whole business as incomprehensible. And it also means leaving behind all those (ignorant, misguided) people who vote for Republicans against their own interests, because no Democrat is willing to engage with what all Democrats have decided is so absurd as to be beneath their notice. And also leaving the most vulnerable people, minorities who live in places where the majority consistently votes against them, with absolutely no one fighting for their rights. That's not fair.
I encourage you to read the comments on the post as well. Here are five of my favorites:
fannie says:
"Over the years, I've stopped reading many blogs where it seems like the main points being made over and over were, "OMG, can you believe what crazy thing this crazy person said this time!"
I just got to be like, "Um, okay, but can you expand on that a little more, or maybe rebut it, or form an actual argument?"
angryplatypus says:
"I [worked] for my state legislature in the area of mental health policy, where I met many people with mental illnesses and cognitive disabilities who were intelligent, articulate, powerful advocates for themselves and their communities, people who truly believe in the inherent dignity of every person and justice for all- in other words, the exact opposite of the people and ideas I generally labeled "crazy" or "nuts". So I decided I needed to find better words to express myself. And doing so has made me a better writer and a better human being. Rick Santorum and Todd Akin are religious zealots and misogynists; calling them crazy instead is unnecessary and inaccurate."
KHBuzzard says:
"[W]hen Wayne LaPierre said something like "If it makes me crazy to suggest that (blah blah guns blah blah fart), then call me crazy." I yelled at the TV, "It doesn't make you crazy - it makes you an asshole.""
Ana Mardoll says:
"[B]eing able to dismiss harmful worldviews as "crazy" (and therefore unworthy of serious rebuttal) is a position of privilege. Anti-choice positions aren't some distant, "crazy" phenomena when you're the one faced with having to drive 50 miles to get an abortion. Homophobia and 'pray away the gay' boot camps aren't some interesting, "nutty" religious outlier to be viewed with a scornful (but entertained!) eye when you've been through the ordeal, or when you have beloved family members being hurt by religiously-motivated homophobia. Being able to write a blog -- or a book -- from the safety of the Privilege Blanket that basically says "lulz! look at the wacky crazy extremists! entertaining!" seems to require that the author forget that those same extremists are ACTIVELY HURTING PEOPLE. And to those people being hurt, this isn't some entertaining little aside to their daily life."
And finally, Melissa McEwan says:
"Dismissing ideas, behaviors, and people as "crazy" not only absolves oneself of the responsibility to seriously examine and critique the ideology whence emerge those ideas and behaviors; it also absolves oneself of being part of the solution by examining in what ways one is personally contributing negatively to the larger culture that is the broad context for that ideology. This shit doesn't exist in a void...and neither do I."
Indeed. None of us does.
Love, Susie
*I still haven't decided which term I like here, and it's definitely related to the way one parses terms like "sexism," "racism," etc., and this problem I have with "disablism" is the same one I have with "heterosexism," by the way. Sexism means treating people in a discriminatory way (which could be positive or negative!) based on their sex. Racism is the same based on (perceived) race. There is nothing inherently wrong with any sex or race; these -isms are pure cultural constructs. Likewise, I think the term should be "ablism"--discriminating on the basis of (perceived) physical and/or mental ability. The equivalent term for discriminating based on sexual orientation should be, er, sexualorientationism, which is more than a mouthful. And then there should also be genderpresentationism, oof. Most of the time, therefore, people don't talk about the ways heteronormativity (and I totally love that word, though it has the same problems every prefix hetero- word has) and gender essentialism and normativity are subtly reinforced; rather we focus on the more virulent outright hatred, which we call homophobia and transphobia--terms which are themselves inaccurate, implying as they do an unconscious psychological response of fear, rather than what it really is, conscious bigotry unconsciously reinforced by a systemically bigoted culture. Right, also, "disablism" seems to be the preferred term in the U.S.A., while "ablism" seems to dominate in other anglophone countries, reflecting the different way we think about -isms--in America sexism is prejudice against the sex, uh, which is female (male is not a sex, much as men don't have a gender, in the popular imagination), and not, as I said above, discrimination (positive or negative) based on sex (male or female).
**NO GUNS FOR ME! ;P (Ah, I'm joking. I'm definitely NOT homocidal. Heh, just noticed that's not a word that has changed meaning in all our Latin/Greek homo-/hetero- confusion /tangent!.)
***I mean, I'm crazy, but I'm not that crazy, so I'm uncomfortable with "reclaiming" the word. Also, I have problems with qualifying disabilities, and owning my experiences, you know, and not trying to dismiss the bad stuff with an "other people have it worse!" I fail a lot. :)
^To ride, at least, in a therapeutic riding program, though there are also helper ponies (usually serving as seeing-assistants for the blind).
^^I am RIGHT NOW eating chestnuts and hot chocolate! Yummy. :)