[SmilingBluEyes]

Originally Posted by prmenrs

I think when you have a child who has a disability (or in my case, not so much a child anymore), you can occassionally get angry @ the cards that child has been dealt, and @ the system(s) that are supposed to help.

Focusing on verbage, or something else like that, is a whole heck of a lot safer than a lot of other things you might like to beat the crap out of--so focus as much as you want. It helps you deal more productively w/challenges.

JMHO.

wow well-said, Prmenrs!

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

I have not insulted you, I've merely disagreed with you.

And I have not contradicted myself.

There is a difference between an overt, intentional slight and a perceived one. Now, two posts in a row, you argue that isn't the case. That if you perceive a term to be a slight, then it must be either intended as such, or, due to the obvious insensitivity of the speaker, it must be effectively the same as intent.

I can buy the argument that 'crippled' and 'handicap' might be better left behind, and when the common language reaches a consensus on that (and in many ways that is already happening), I'm sure it will. I'll even agree that discussing it is the mechanism that moves the issue along.

But look at the thread in the first 1.5 pages; it was about word order and how many words can you demand to make the speaker sound respectful without going too far, etc. etc.

Maybe some terms ARE insensitive. But, reacting to every non-perfect way to say something is overly sensitive, and this is key: ESPECIALLY WHEN OFFENSE IS NOT INTENDED. I am suggesting that there is a balance.

The problem with PC language control is confusing making changes in the language to make it more clear and less confrotational as being more about the motives of the users of language and less about the semantics.

Making the language more clear and precise is NOT PC.

Making it an accusation of insensitivity when no insult is intended IS PC.

~faith,
Timothy.

Yes, maybe they are. Imagine that. Maybe.

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by prmenrs

I think when you have a child who has a disability (or in my case, not so much a child anymore), you can occassionally get angry @ the cards that child has been dealt, and @ the system(s) that are supposed to help.

Focusing on verbage, or something else like that, is a whole heck of a lot safer than a lot of other things you might like to beat the crap out of--so focus as much as you want. It helps you deal more productively w/challenges.

JMHO.

Okay, or it could just be that some of us- or maybe just one of us- felt like they've reached their limit with arcane language from people we think should know better, and decided to start a thread about it.

[prmenrs]

I'm very happy you did, MTP. It is a tough thing to have someone refer your child as if he were an object.

I also dislike having to defend my child's right to participate in some activities because he doesn't look @ 1st glance "affected". I had another mom in a horsebackriding program come out and ask me what was wrong w/my son!

I don't like when people act like I'm some sort of wonderful because I adopted him. I fell in love, I didn't go out looking for a child w/disablilties, that's just the package. I haven't enjoyed all the challenges, but it was, yup, part of the package. He's not "lucky to have me", it's the other way around.

We're both dealing w/our situations the best we can.

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by prmenrs

I'm very happy you did, MTP. It is a tough thing to have someone refer your child as if he were an object.

I also dislike having to defend my child's right to participate in some activities because he doesn't look @ 1st glance "affected". I had another mom in a horsebackriding program come out and ask me what was wrong w/my son!

I don't like when people act like I'm some sort of wonderful because I adopted him. I fell in love, I didn't go out looking for a child w/disablilties, that's just the package. I haven't enjoyed all the challenges, but it was, yup, part of the package. He's not "lucky to have me", it's the other way around.

We're both dealing w/our situations the best we can.

I agree. About all points.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by prmenrs

He's not "lucky to have me", it's the other way around.

Ah, but of course he's lucky to have you. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

~faith,
Timothy.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Ah, but of course he's lucky to have you. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

~faith,
Timothy.

I completely agree with this.

steph

[goats'r'us]

Originally Posted by jackie53

...I don't like the phone calls from organizations who use the term "deserving children". As in give a donation so they can have a party or whatever for "deserving children". Are there "undeserving" children trying to bust the door down and get in?

i totally get what you mean! where i used to live they ran a 'special children's christmas party' and it used to irk me because all children are special! i know it's silly, and it's a lot less of a mouthful than the more pc 'christmas party for children with a developmental disability' but still..

[goats'r'us]

Originally Posted by rn/writer

One final note and then I'll stop rambling. Whenever someone reacts badly to my daughter disciplining one of her special needs boys, she says, "If he turns out to be a brat, that'll be a much bigger problem than sitting in a wheelchair." A few take offense, but most laugh. Before you know it, they start seeing a real kid in that chair.

i know what you mean about this. i got told off by a co-worker for laughing and telling one of the kids that he was 'today's horror child' when he was joking around being difficult. all i could say was 'well look at him! he is'. pointed at him just as he was looking straight at me, grinning and spitting out the tablets i'd just laboured to get into his mouth.

couldn't help but laugh, even if my co-worker didn't

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by goats'r'us

i totally get what you mean! where i used to live they ran a 'special children's christmas party' and it used to irk me because all children are special! i know it's silly, and it's a lot less of a mouthful than the more pc 'christmas party for children with a developmental disability' but still..

''You are invited to a winter holiday (mustn't say Christmas!) party for children who are exhibiting a delay of at least 50% in one developmental domain, or delays of at least 33% in two developmental domains''....

I can laugh at PC overkill as much as the next guy. I just don't like that the idea of using ''people first'' instead of ''disorder first'' language is dismissed by those who claim that the notion is the product of the PC police!