First, a bit of background information:
For the past 4 1/2 years, I have been a semi-active participant on a message board; the site is mainly for discussion about a baseball game, but there is an entire off-topic section in which people discuss movies, music, politics, religion, what they had for lunch, births of children, etc. There is a separate debate forum where things can get pretty heated when people disagree (which is often, of course). I check the boards a few times a day and comment when I feel like I have something to say. I've also met two of the other posters in person.
So, earlier this week, I was reading through some of the recent threads and opened one about the letter that John C. McGinley wrote about the use of the words "retard" or "retarded." Basically, he compared the use of "retard" to "nigger, or kike, or faggot, or jap, or kraut, or mick, or wop" and said that words hurt, so we need to remove such words from our vocabulary. This particular thread was started by someone I'll call JW; he is a conservative Christian with an autistic son and a history of arguing with the more liberal members of the message board. He and I have always gotten along, though we certainly agree to disagree on a lot of issues (like the fact that I am damned to hell for loving a woman).
In response to the topic at hand, I posted the following:
"...my point of view is definitely in the middle somewhere.
Any words can become derogatory, depending on the context and intent. I certainly don't think that the use of any particular word automatically makes someone a bigot. Getting too focused on banning the words themselves is like a dog chasing its tail; we'll be wasting a lot of energy and not getting very far.
That said, I also agree that the casual use of these words can desensitize people and if this brings about education and intelligent discussion, then I'm all for it. Overall, I'd rather see change in people's actions than their vocabulary, and if any discourse leads to that..."
With that done, I opened another new thread. This one started by linking an article about a homophobic incident. Honestly, I didn't even read the article; it didn't end up being my focus in the thread. What caught my eye was JW's response to the incident. He mentioned that people were "pushing the gay agenda" and that was enough to piss me off. So, I wrote:
"FWIW, I absolutely hate the phrase "gay agenda" and find it as insulting as faggot, dyke, or anything similar. It's as though homosexuals are distributing obscene brochures or holding recruiting meetings at which they force people to sign up for a pyramid scheme of satanic proportions. I guess I just see people who are trying to have a consensual relationship (possibly even recognized by the state?!?) with an adult that they love very much."
After another second, I realized I should follow it up with this:
"...just so I stay consistent with what I posted in the thread about using the word "retard"...
I don't think the phrase "gay agenda" should be banned and I don't think that the use of it necessarily means that someone is a bigot. I do hope that there is continued discussion about the issues behind the usage of the phrase and that people's actions can change as a result."
My thoughts are obviously more complex than I can properly explain on a message board, or this blog, but I do wonder what causes someone to worry about the use of one word (retard) and use others (gay agenda) so casually. Is it as simple as differentiating between what hits close to home and what doesn't? Am I wrong to think that actions speak louder than words? If we eliminate the use of some slurs, won't there be others to replace them? Shouldn't an off color joke be an opportunity to educate, rather than a need to silence?
I have more to say on the importance of words, but I will wait until tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
My feeling on words is that they only have the power we give them. I try not to give hateful/hurtful words any power. I sometimes will say "that's gay" or something similar but only around people I know it doesn't bother because I recognize that some people could be hurt or offended.
When people use hurtful words, I take it for what it is; a show of their own ignorance or pain and not an attack on me. Even if it looks like it's an attack on me, it's not.
Morgan, I don't think words should be banned but you have to realize that when dealing with the words retard and retarded, you are not playing on a level playing field. If someone says gay agenda to you, you are able to verbalize how you feel. People with intellectual disabilities are the most vulnerable and abused people of our society. They are frequently mocked and abused just for a laugh and they aren't capable of sticking up for themselves. It is our responsibility as citizens of the world to stand up for these people. They are saying that the word hurts them and that's reason enough to start listening for me.
I don't think I ever got what the big deal was until I had a child with special needs. Then the bottom drops out and you get it. Unfortunately most people aren't as kind about giving it a second thought like you did.
Best wishes.
Auntie - I don't usually take things personally either. I'd rather deal with the ignorance itself than the specific word.
Anonymous - Thank you for your comment. The only clarification that I'd like to make on my part is that I didn't mean to directly compare "retard" and "gay agenda." They just happened to be the two terms that came up back to back on my message board. There are lots of words that hurt lots of people. As citizens, we should be standing up for (alongside?) each other, regardless of what the difference may be.
Oh, this is something I think about ALL THE TIME (Gee, Chili; REALLY?!).
I find a great deal of hypocrisy in how people use language. This word is "bad" and shouldn't be used, except by me and people like me because, you know, then it's okay." I got into it with a number of students over "nigger," and I've had more than one conversation with people who judge me because I will swear in front of my children.
Auntie's right; language only has the power we give it (and by "we," I mean both the speaker AND the listener. Someone can call me a terrible name with a terrible intention, and I can choose to blow it entirely off - it has to go both ways to be effective). I understand your frustration, though; if someone is going to get all up in arms about the proper use of words, they should at the very least be mindful of how they use them themselves.
i think the difference between banning a word and educating people about its usage is all a matter of purpose. it's like in the classroom, i can say, "you are not allowed to speak today." or i can say, "today has to be a silent work day so that i can conference with you each individually about your essays. if there is talking, i won't be able to focus on giving you feedback on your writing, so i need it to be silent in the room." banning a word isn't nearly as helpful as saying, "here is why we, as a society, should not use this word." the latter invites much more cooperation, in my opinion.
Post a Comment