Words and phrases that make me want to scream

[LydiaNN]

Feel free to add your own!

Handicap. One only needs to recognize the word's origins to under its offensiveness. Cap in hand. Nope. I've tried to convince our local Special Ed Consortium to stop qualifying kids for Special Ed based on their 'handicapping condition', but they just roll their eyes at me. Sigh.

Calling autism a mental illness. It's not. It may seem contradictory to say this, since I also find the stigmitization of mental illness unfortunate, but let's be clear. Autism is a developmental disorder, not an illness of any kind.

Saint. As in you're such a saint for taking care of your child. In the first place, such drek usually is coming from the mouth of a Mom whose kid is out in my front yard hacking at my rose bushes or doing something equally annoying. Since I am sure this child has many fine qualities, I resist the urge to tell her I'd be tempted to drop her kid off at the foot of a mountain. And of course, if we were my kid, I wouldn't dream of dropping him off at the foot of a mountain. We love our children and do everything we can for them, just like parents of typical kids. Why is that so hard for certain people to 'get'?

Stricken. Afflicted. Suffers. Whatever. How about the words 'has autism' or whatever they have, and you leave your personal judgment out of it?

In the past couple weeks, I have seen people in another thread express opinions that it is ever appropriate to suggest an out of home placement to a mother who hasn't asked for your opinion on the topic, heard a Speech Therapist call in to a radio show and talk about the handicapped kids she works with, and talked to a Special Education teacher who made a joke about insanity in the family of a child with a mental health dx. Honestly, I don't expect Joe Q. Public to be enlightened, but it would sure be nice if those who claim to be professionals acted a bit more aware at times.

[Spidey's mom, ADN, BSN, RN]

You don't get to decide what is worth being bothered by for anyone other than yourself. Following your thinking that any language is 'okay' as long as no offense is intended, one could revert back to using the terms that once described those of African or Jewish descent, so long as we don't 'mean' anything by it.

And that WAS, interestingly, the subject of a thread not long ago.

My niece has spina bifida and that doesn't define her although she certainly used it to her advantage as a child. She would throw tantrums and threaten to hold breath until she passed out, which would scare her parents, and so they would usually give in. I babysat her once where she tried it and I walked out of the room saying, "go ahead". She was shocked - and didn't hold her breath and behaved her little self. My brother and his wife let the "disability" define how they treated her and that was not good. Fortunately as a teen she has overcome that parental disability and become a nice young lady.

We are fortunate to have in our community a large community of Down's Syndrome adults who live on a ranch. They are an integral part of the community. Our local high school has a class where the basketball team coaches them in basketball to get ready for the Special Olympics. Also our track team does the same. The "ranchers" are at just about every sporting event in town. They go to our church.

This has been very good for our kids in the community because they see people with disabilities as just folks in our small town. And good for the adults, who may have had stereotypes in their heads.

I think Tim has a point and so does Miranda and Mercy . . .

steph

[prmenrs, RN]

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.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

You don't get to decide what is worth being bothered by for anyone other than yourself. Following your thinking that any language is 'okay' as long as no offense is intended, one could revert to using the terms once commonly used to describe those of African or Jewish descent, so long as we don't 'mean' anything by it. Miranda put it best, it is about helping people with good intentions align their choice of words with the way others might interpret it. After all, it isn't really worth our time to try to enlighten those with bad intentions, anyway.

Absolutely not, because those terms you reference above WERE meant with bad intentions.

And you are either purposely seeing apples and oranges as the same, or you can't tell the difference.

And if you can't tell the difference, then that is exactly why some see the PC thing as out of control. You're right, I can't tell you what is worth being bothered about, but I'm also not going to let you tell me that I'm an insensitive oaf for common language use when in fact, it is more likely that you are being purposely oversensitive.

I do agree with Miranda. If someone were to point out a preference in the case of themselves and/or family member in terms of terminology, I'd respectfully stick to it.

I just don't like the assertion that that somehow means I was crude before it was pointed out. That, I have to somehow be chided not to use the N-word because I was too obtuse to recognize that it wasn't socially acceptable to say (and btw, THAT is EXACTLY the comparison you just made.)

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.

And I agree with this also, and in my first post here, I said I thought part of it was related to other frustrations. Using language as a vent is taking out frustations on 'innocent' people that didn't mean to offend. The terminology that is 'offensive' is a proxy fight for the underlying system. So, even if people 'get' the terminology correct, it'll just change again, so that the frustration can continue to have an outlet.

~faith,

Timothy.

[LydiaNN]

Absolutely not, because those terms you reference above WERE meant with bad intentions.

And you are either purposely seeing apples and oranges as the same, or you can't tell the difference.

And if you can't tell the difference, then that is exactly why some see the PC thing as out of control. You're right, I can't tell you what is worth being bothered about, but I'm also not going to let you tell me that I'm an insensitive oaf for common language use when in fact, it is more likely that you are being purposely oversensitive.

I do agree with Miranda. If someone were to point out a preference in the case of themselves and/or family member in terms of terminology, I'd respectfully stick to it.

I just don't like the assertion that that somehow means I was crude before it was pointed out. That, I have to somehow be chided not to use the N-word because I was too obtuse to recognize that it wasn't socially acceptable to say (and btw, THAT is EXACTLY the comparison you just made.)

And I agree with this also, and in my first post here, I said I thought part of it was related to other frustrations. Using language as a vent is taking out frustations on 'innocent' people that didn't mean to offend. The terminology that is 'offensive' is a proxy fight for the underlying system. So, even if people 'get' the terminology correct, it'll just change again, so that the frustration can continue to have an outlet.

~faith,

Timothy.

Right. On the one hand, you are perfectly willing to adjust your language based on the preferences others state, but on the other, those who express a preference (or is it just me?) are being overly sensitive. How, exactly, do you suppose the 'N word' as you put it, came to be out of favor? Someone sometime had to first express the opinion that it was offensive. (Not that I'm suggesting I'm the first to express frustration with words such as handicapped or crippled, even though it is seeming like you think my viewpoint is more unusual than I know for a fact it is). Were those first to vocalize their opposition to that term being oversensitive, or is it just a subset of those of us who find words that are currently considered less offensive that particular term who are so quick to take offense in your opinion? You contradict yourself, and you find it necessary to sling insults at me. Gee, I better stop now before someone suggests I leave the thread, I guess....

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Right. On the one hand, you are perfectly willing to adjust your language based on the preferences others state, but on the other, those who express a preference (or is it just me?) are being overly sensitive. How, exactly, do you suppose the 'N word' as you put it, came to be out of favor? Someone sometime had to first express the opinion that it was offensive. (Not that I'm suggesting I'm the first to express frustration with words such as handicapped or crippled, even though it is seeming like you think my viewpoint is more unusual than I know for a fact it is). Were those first to vocalize their opposition to that term being oversensitive, or is it just a subset of those of us who find words that are currently considered less offensive that particular term who are so quick to take offense in your opinion? You contradict yourself, and you find it necessary to sling insults at me. Gee, I better stop now before someone suggests I leave the thread, I guess....

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.

[Marie_LPN, RN, LPN, RN]

Anyway, back to the subject at hand.

When someone's refered to by their diagnosis. "The bipolar manic depressive," for example. Not the person's name at all. That's just disrepectful.

[SmilingBluEyes]

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!:kiss

[LydiaNN]

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.

[LydiaNN]

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, RN]

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.

[LydiaNN]

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, RN]

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.