Why the little things matter.

[feuervogel]

Once upon a discussion with my libertarian now-ex-boyfriend, he told me that I shouldn't get so upset over "the little things," like "that's so lame" or the eleventy-millionth depiction of bisexual women as slutty, indecisive, or outright evil, because ... I don't know, I guess because sharia exists, or something. The Real Problems, as defined by a white, middle-class, straight, cis man, because bisexual women don't get to define our own problems, I guess.

sohotrightnow has this excellent post on why little things matter.

Do not ever forget that it started small, that the Holocaust was merely the logical conclusion of the gradual devaluing and dehumanizing of large swaths of people -- some people claim that focusing on microaggressions and trying to end them is reductio ad absurdum; I'd go in a different direction and call the Holocaust an increscio ad absurdum: a completely logical series of steps from one degree of devaluing and dehumanizing to the next, on up to the most horrifying and completely logical conclusion. But don't forget either that there were a lot of people, along the way, who did fight, who didn't simply accept the tiny little ways their society had told them, day in and day out, for their entire lives, that certain lives were worth less than others, that certain people were less human than others. Don't use the latter fact to write off the former, because if more people had spoken up from the beginning, if more people had examined their assumptions and their language and the casual everyday ways they devalued and dehumanized the undesirable, maybe the more dramatic actions of the Righteous wouldn't have been necessary. But don't let the former cause you to lose hope, to think that there is nothing you can possibly do in the face of widely-held, systemically-enforced, popularly-approved and -perpetuated injustice. And by God, don't let it be an excuse to do nothing, to ignore the microaggressions because there are "real" problems, "real" injustices: because -- I know I am saying this over and over again, but seriously -- if more people had stopped and examined the small injustices they were committing or simply ignoring from the beginning, there may not have been a need for a few people to give up their lives trying to stop huge injustices.

And as far as the casual throwing around of "lame" as a derogatory term, who does it hurt to make the effort not to use words others find offensive? Ask yourself, if someone said "that's so gay," would it piss you off? Would it add to the hundreds of papercuts of society-wide injustice perpetrated against the LGBT* community? If yes, then STOP USING LAME as a replacement for gay in that sense.

Comments

[thesmallwonder.livejournal.com]

Actually I'm referring specifically to the definition where it doesn't mention referencing people who have handicaps. That would of been the definition about it. The one I pulled literally just means weak and ineffectual.

Also what about the fact that words evolve over time. Are you also opposed to the word Moron since it was a term for mildly retarded back in the 1800's?

[thesmallwonder.livejournal.com]

* above... I can type wooo

[feuervogel]

Did you read the link?

Here's another one: http://equality101.net/?p=1264

ETA: And this one is more concise: http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/11/23/o-language-again/#three

[thesmallwonder.livejournal.com]

I did, and I think its a very one-way opinion that doesn't take into account the transformation of language, culture or society. I guess in short, I completely disagree with you on the word "lame."

[feuervogel]

It's one sided from the point of view of disabled people, who are asking people to stop using a term that insults them. That makes them feel like lesser beings. Is not using an insulting term that much of a burden on you? So much of a burden that you'll defend its use vigorously?

It's an offensive term. Don't use it in my space. I can't control yours, obviously, but I can control mine.

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

The notable difference between "gay" and "lame" is that I don't hear people describing themselves as lame, while I do hear people describing themselves as gay.

That said, I eschew it because people say it's offensive, and it's certainly not my place to say that it isn't.

[feuervogel]

True. But the middle-school "that's so gay" when they mean some negative sentiment or other perpetuates homophobia, and the disabled feminists say that lame perpetuates ableism. I'm not gonna argue with them, and for god's sake, I can excise one stinking word from my vocabulary. It's not that bloody difficult.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but it's mainly because you know more gay people than you know lame people. As I just commented, since I read a lot of disability communities, I do read posts from people who self-describe themselves as lame.

[corpsefairy.livejournal.com]

Which I don't find surprising. I mentioned it because "lame" to describe a person doesn't come up in common discourse nearly so often as "gay" does, so it doesn't surprise me that people are more reluctant to accept it as an insult. It's more common to hear about "disabled people" than "lame people." I don't think I would describe someone as lame unless they did it first, because it seems a little outdated to me. Dickensian. I'd be more likely to say "that child has a limp" than "that child is lame," and I suspect the same is true for many other people. "Lame" as a personal descriptor just doesn't come up that often.

[leora.livejournal.com]

Right, but as far as I can tell, it actually isn't outdated among people who have trouble walking. The term is alive and well. The group just isn't being talked about that much.

I pretty much had the same reaction, except with a few others tied in. First off, my introduction to disability came first through the blind community, and most people in the blind community tend to actively get annoyed with people's efforts to avoid sighted language around them. Although I suspect it's because people tend to be more inclined to try to filter out things like "See you later" which aren't offensive than things like "blind to reason" which could be (there are better examples, but I can't think of them offhand - blindness is actually vastly used to mean ignorance or incompetence, although sometimes it is used in a supposedly positive but childlike way, and then there are "blind dates" and such. You can turn a "blind eye toward it" (which I've done!) or be the "blind leading the blind" (which works far better than the Bible implies that it does if at least one of those blind people is competent and so forth). But despite the huge extent to which blindness is used metaphorically, sight is used even more within the language and when people try to filter out all sight terms for no really good reason or act as if blind people wouldn't understand the concept it's quite annoying to most blind people I've read the opinions of on the matter. So, coming initially from that community, it biased me toward most disabled people would really like you to just stop being incredibly awkward in your language use around them, when the actual state of things in the wider community is a bit more nuanced.

Then there is the fact that I am lame, but don't really mind the use of the word (but came into it as an adult - most people who really get hurt by the terms tend to have had their problems from childhood, and it is a reminder of years of childhood taunts).

Then I posted about how I didn't really think of "lame" as much of an issue and found out that I knew someone who did self-identify as lame who did find it hurtful and yes, there are actually real people who do. It was not just an issue invented by non-disabled people who thought it might be. And since then, having read enough stuff by those who have spastic conditions to learn how hurtful the term "spaz" can be, I can imagine that those who grew up lame would likely have similar issues, despite the fact that I never even would have thought of the connection for "spaz".

So, it feels outdated, but it isn't for those who actually are going around being lame. Although some primarily self-describe as "crippled" or "crip" or "gimp" or "handicapped" and others hate any of those terms that I just listed for various reasons. About the only term though that I can find that is universally hated and I don't know anyone who self-identifies with is "handicapable". "Differently abled" is generally reserved for people who are both disabled and have superpowers, such as Professor Xavier. He is differently abled, and it rocks.

Oh, and "wheelchair-bound" is offensive to a lot of people, and I find it very offensive. There are wheechair users. Very few people are actually whelchair-bound or "confined to a wheelchair". It makes me want to talk about the poor, struggling masses of "car-bound suburbia" who are completely incapable of surviving without their expensive, environment-damaging disability aids. How tragically they grew up unable to run at 55 miles per hour or to carry home 12 bags of groceries at once, and they are now pathetically confined to cars for the rest of their lives.

It probably is different among different groups of disabled people, but that's what I've found so far.

Although, avoiding the word "lame" for people who have trouble walking is annoying. I get why people would and do. But I can't think of a good, easy replacement. It seems people have to use sentences to replace the term. And you would refer to someone as blind or visually impaired. It's not like mentioning the specific disability is always offensive.

[thesmallwonder.livejournal.com]

I'm not using it in your space, I am however disagreeing with your point of view. Which I'm p certain was okay so long as I didn't get rude about it. But if I'm wrong...

[feuervogel]

You're defending its usage, quite vigorously. That bothers me.

Disabled people are saying, "stop using that term. It hurts us." What your defense is telling me is that their hurt is less important than your convenience and your ability to use this casual insult which conflates being disabled with badness.

[thesmallwonder.livejournal.com]

It wasn't intended as vigorous. It was intended as my not really agreeing with the definition of the word and believing that modern times has changed it. People can be upset over whatever word they want to be, but I do beleive that sometimes a step back needs to be taken so we can view the context in which the word was intended to mean.

But you got it, you don't want any opposing points of view from me on you're journal, consider this my last comment here.

You kind of burn a lot of bridges by getting very defensive very quickly. I appreciate your passion but not the execution. :v

[feuervogel]

When did I say I don't want opposing viewpoints? I don't want people to use slurs or defend their usage when I have asked people not to do so in my space. Feel free to defend and use ableist slurs in your journal all you want.

My point is that it doesn't hurt YOU to stop using something that HURTS disabled people, which they're saying in that blog entry. And you're saying, well, they're overreacting/meanings change, as if no social justice activist has ever heard that before. (They have, so often, in fact, that it's on a bingo card.)

[steuard.livejournal.com]

To be fair, what thesmallwonder said was "you don't want any opposing points of view from me on your journal", not "you don't want them anywhere". And that's pretty literally what you've said here. I absolutely support your right to enforce your journal as a space that's safe for you in whatever ways you need, so I won't fault you for that at all. (It can make conversations a bit disjointed, though.)

I'll be honest: I too have mostly come to the conclusion that it would not be safe for me to comment on your journal to voice any disagreement with a position you've taken. I simply haven't studied these issues enough to know what sorts of arguments are disallowed (since many of those are not remotely obvious to me), and I understand that you don't want to spend your time catching lots and lots of people up on the basics.

It does make me uncomfortable to see you swear at people or express intense anger toward them for making arguments that, while entirely flawed, are nevertheless very, very commonly used by even well-intentioned people who have not studied this topic (which unfortunately is "almost everyone"). (Admittedly, not noticing an earlier thread on the same topic is poor form.) But again, this is your space and the standards here are yours to define.

[feuervogel]

There are some habitual repeat offenders, who've defended a variety of jerk behavior over the years, when I've specifically said "don't do X, it's offensive because [link]." They've defended it with bingo-card statements and shown little interest in educating themselves by reading the convenient links I've provided and considering that the writing of the marginalized person at the link is valid, and that the writer's offense is important enough for them to stop X.

So, when I've said "stop X, it's offensive/hurtful." I get a handful of "you're overreacting/it doesn't really mean that/meanings change" derails. Which I then have to spend my time rebutting and attempting to teach them remedial social justice. It's exhausting, especially when I'm talking to a brick wall.

If someone wants to be part of the solution -- which was the point of the original post: how to make the tiny changes that can help people, through awareness and listening when people say "that's hurtful, please stop," which could lead to breaking down the systematic marginalization and dehumanization of women/POC/the disabled/LBGT*/immigrants/non-Christians -- they will show a desire to learn, to change their habits. Someone well-intentioned, or someone who'd say, "huh, I never thought of it like that before," is very different than someone who's fighting to defend the status quo (and their privilege). The former can follow a link and be enlightened; no amount of linkage will help the latter.

Disabled people say "lame" hurts them. That's enough for me to stop throwing it around as an insult. If only it were enough for other people to do the same.

[steuard.livejournal.com]

Actually I'm referring specifically to the definition where it doesn't mention referencing people who have handicaps.

Dictionaries are tricky things. They're great at telling you what a word has been used to mean, but they don't say a lot about how that usage is received (in general or by specific groups).

I would expect, for example, that a good dictionary would include the definition of "Jew" used as a verb that tiurin quoted earlier, and that the definition given might well not make any reference to the Jewish faith or people. But that doesn't mean that the term isn't highly offensive in origin or in use!

So while I agree completely that words evolve over time, it's quite possible for common usage to evolve in that way with no regard for the harm that it may do to those who are its targets. (Harm either by directly causing insult or offense, or by indirectly reinforcing stereotypes throughout the community.) As long as any remotely substantial number of people is honestly being hurt by a given word or phrase, I'm pretty much willing to drop it from my active vocabulary.

(And "moron"? That's an interesting example to choose. As it happens, I was taught not to use it sometime while in school, specifically because it was offensive to people of low intelligence. So coming from that background, it's jarring to see it presented as a counterexample here. Of course, I've still actively used "crazy" without thinking about it, and that's been pointed out as potentially harmful here as well. Gotta think about that one.)

[leora.livejournal.com]

Yes, but we have every reason to believe that that definition exists precisely because the people with that disability were viewed in that way. It's not even as if such discrimination and problems are a thing of the past. People who actually are lame often do have to fight preconceptions that they are weak and ineffectual in other ways. Choosing to strengthen the mental association between a physical disability and a completely unrelated negative trait makes life more difficult for the disabled. It also makes it more difficult for people with those disabilities to discuss their disabilities.

As to "moron", I do not overly object on the same grounds as nobody should currently be labeled with that, however, you still should not be using the term. If somebody is of below average intelligence then it is extremely rude. If somebody is not, you should be properly distinguishing between that, stupid actions, and ignorance. I dislike when people call people things like "retarded" or say that something was a "retarded action", because it is insulting. It implies that someone who is mentally retarded would always choose poorly in their actions; this is not true. It means that they have less overall intelligence to work with, but says nothing for how they have actually used it. Their individual choices might be wiser or better chosen than someone who is smarter than them. Sure, on average, you would expect them to be lower, but that's not the point. When someone of average or higher intelligence uses their intelligence poorly that is very different from having low intelligence, which is what you are saying they did. They do not; they acted poorly. When someone has less intelligence, it says little about how that potential will be used; you have to look to what they then do with it. I would like to see people acknowledging those distinctions and it bothers me that people imply that every single action a person of low intelligence does would be poor when the evidence does not show that to be the case. They clearly are not using their intelligence when they imply this.