Posts from — February 2009

One of these days, I’m going to have a catchall response that’s short, to the point, and convinces everyone I’m right in ten words or less, but for now, please bear with me as I sort through this topic once again for your reading pleasure. Or torture, whichever. It just needs to live somewhere other than my head for a while.

So I wrote another letter recently in response to a few posts by an online author that I’ve read for a number of years. The specific piece I was reacting to is here, but just a few days earlier, I’d also seen this reference to “semi-retarded” thugs in a write-up about the movie Ex-Drummer, so felt compelled to write this:

If you were a disc jockey like in the days of old, this would be my “longtime listener, first-time caller” event.

As much as I appreciate your writing and your point of view, I wonder sometimes about your overuse of the word “retarded,” which popped up again today when you described Kenny Glenn — who I know nothing about and maybe is actually mentally disabled, I don’t know.

But as the new parent of a child with Down syndrome who is also a total film fanatic, I’m slowly — slowly — becoming numb to the use of the word, since it’s everywhere and unavoidable on sites like this, Ain’t It Cool, CHUD, etcetera. I understand — especially at the other sites, which cater to a slightly (though only slightly) cruder/younger/more irreverent demographic than maybe what you seem to be aiming for at HitFix. But until that numbness sets in, I’ve started to write to folks who use it in an attempt, however small, to find out why. And I get the argument that it’s just a word, and sticks and stones and all that, but unfortunately, I can’t help the clenching of my stomach when it involuntarily blares at me as if it was written in neon every time I see it.

And sure, I’m guessing that — like in your review of Tropic Thunder over on Ain’t It Cool — you can write me off as a self-righteous prick who’s got a stick up my ass about this, but I’m really not here to tell you not to use that word or anything else that might offend someone, as long as your intention is to put it out there with that knowledge. Which, by the way, is how I took Tropic Thunder — it hit the target it meant to hit, and I found myself unable to be even mock offended it by it, especially when the protesters — typical and disabled alike — were unable to see the point.

My guess is you’re not the kind of guy — and this is just my internet impression of you from your film writing and your devotion to your kids that comes through in some of your pieces — who would ever call my kid a retard, I totally get that. But if that’s true, why throw it out there at all? As my son gets older, I worry about introducing him to the only other world I know, the geek world of film, and having him have to deal with the idiots who won’t be able to get past his disability. And it just doesn’t seem that difficult to me to use another descriptive term when writing about someone moronic, imbecilic, or otherwise dumb as a bag of rocks that might not actually stigmatize a group of people. Whether you think it or not, every utterance of retard/retarded that’s out in the world right now may make it that much more difficult for him. And that’s a damn shame.

Thanks for your time.

Here’s the first response I got:

I don’t use the word lightly or as slang. If you’d followed that link, the kid under discussion is, at the very least, a sociopath, but I think it’s more likely he’s both emotionally and mentally retarded in a very real sense.

I appreciate people’s sensitivity to the word, which is why I used it to mean precisely what it means, and not as a derogatory term or as a casual slam.

Thank you for writing.

Followed by another e-mail which included this:

Again… I’m not one of those people who use this word or “gay” or any of these overused terms these days to simply mean “bad.” I think you’re lumping me in with other AICN reviewers or online outlets, and your already-heightened sensitivity to the word has you reacting to more than just my one specific use of it today.

Emphasis mine.

So if I’m reading this right, since Mr. McWeeny feels that he used “retarded” to mean precisely what he thinks it means,  my thoughts on the matter are basically irrelevant, since I’m just being sensitive. But it also seems to me that he thinks that “retarded” is a relative substitute for “sociopathic,” which more or less proves my point. I think. Maybe.

But I’m not trying to single him out or start some shit or even holding a grudge of any sort — I wrote him back immediately thanking him for his response and attempting to refute and/or get my point across where I didn’t agree with him and why, because I’m really interested in making this a conversation, and lord knows I’m still working through my own shit about how best to approach this issue.

One of the arguments I see a lot is that words don’t hurt people — but that’s bullshit. Words bite and maim and injure all the time. And sure, you can control to some extent how much pain they inflict to some extent, but no matter what we learn in kindergarten about sticks and stones, words do hurt you.
Just as an example, I’d point to this, where what you’ll find is language — just language — specifically meant to foment people, to anger them, to get them to fear, and to get them (or keep them) in a specific mindset. It may not be violent in and of itself, but it’s certainly an inducer to violence. Now, to be clear, I’m in no way calling people who casually use the word “retarded” extremists, but I do think that the more that casual usage is accepted or objection to it is dismissed as merely “sensitivity” is specious.

I also just found this, which freaks me the fuck out that someone, A, made a shirt that says that, B, wore it, and C, then tried to defend their wearing it as innocent play (while demeaning those that objected, of course). What’s next, a t-shirt that says “retards can’t complain about being called retarded if you knock them out first”? That will be just so awesome.

I read an argument the other day that just because the word “nigger” isn’t used in polite company anymore doesn’t mean that that sentiment is gone, and I’ll agree with that to some extent. There is an argument to be made for the codification of language in some ways making it easier for someone to hide their intentions or prejudice or whatever. But I also think that when you start to use different language, there’s going to be a contingent of people — and maybe only a small one, but still — who asks themselves “hey, why don’t we use retarded/nigger/faggot to describe those people anymore?” and then actually decides that yeah, the history behind those words or what it’s turned into is kind of shitty, so they’ll then not only choose not to use it but change their attitudes toward the people it affects.

(I also go back to the idea of the power behind the group influencing the language: people don’t say “nigger” or even “faggot” anymore ’cause they’re afraid of the damage it might do because those groups have power behind them. But “retarded” is okay because, well, nobody’s afraid of some disabled kid punching them — metaphorically or literally — in the mouth.)

The other response I’ve started to get is the “I’m using it responsibly, as a description of someone who’s mentally/physically disabled, so it’s okay” thing, which I also call some bullshit on. Or even better, the “why don’t these retards understand that language changes” argument? See here and here. Beyond the Tropic Thunder subject, which was just the spark that started this all — and which I’d mostly agree was not offensive (to me) — It seems to me that if a representative group of people — and in this case we’ll use the NDSS, no matter what you may think of their tactics — comes out and says, “You know what, this word used to be used to describe people in a medical/professional, but due to the ever-changing nature of language and its evolution into a derogatory slang, we think it no longer is used in an appropriate way and we’d ask people not to use it,” then maybe some second thought should be given to its usage. Who gets to be the arbiter of when a word goes into or out of usage? I’m not in any way saying it should be me, I just don’t think it should be so easy to dismiss an objection when it’s raised when you’re not a member of that community.

Just as an example, let’s look at the word Negro… not a “bad” word, not intended for offense, necessarily, but an outdated term to describe what we now call an African American or a black person. If you wrote a piece about a movie starring “the Negro actor Samuel L. Jackson,” my guess is you’d get more than a few “what the fucks?!?” thrown your way. And I don’t know my history, but my guess is that the NAACP — and hey, let’s try talking about colored people, eh, because that’s another argument I see, that since “retarded” is in some business names, it must be okay, but tell that to the NAACP or even to the UNCF (yes, the United Negro College Fund, which nowhere on their site do you actually see the word “Negro.”)

My roundabout point is that just because your dictionary definition of a word might meet some imaginary boundary line that you made up doesn’t make it okay to use if there’s a group of people out there who are going to read that and wonder why. And I’m not necessarily saying it would be wrong to use “Negro,” but I’d bet money that if it was written, it would be deliberate — someone would’ve thought about it and decided to specifically use it. Which is mostly what I’m asking, that the usage of “retarded” is deliberate and that you can back your shit up if I or anyone else calls you on it, because it’s way too casual right now. And that you don’t mean it as a substitute for “sociopathic” or “idiotic” or anything else. Find me a place where it’s used in a non-derogatory way, and we’ll talk. Or you could just walk up to a black person and say, “hey, negro, how’s it hanging?” and then when that person objects, just be all “hey, man, language changes, you’re not allowed to take umbrage!” And then report back to me with your results.

‘Cause the thing is, the only time most people use “retarded” is in a derogatory way — even if it’s a “textbook” usage. Take the piece written by McWeeny that got me to write to him — even disregarding the “semi-retarded” describer (and what, pray tell, is “semi-retarded” anyway? From the description of Ex-Drummer, it appears that it means deaf, stiff-armed, and/or phsycopathic, so apparently people who are physically handicapped are retarded, too, yay!) — but he used “retarded” to describe a person — maybe mentally ill, I don’t know — who was abusing cats, who he even described in the e-mail to me as “definitely sociopathic.” And hey, “mentally ill” certainly doesn’t have the same comedic/grammatic connotation as retarded, that’s for sure. And there’s a part of me that gets that, I guess, but then there’s the other part where I go a little cold inside when I think about how that might affect Archer somewhere down the road. And really, who does it hurt to use maybe “mentally disabled” or some other word instead of “retarded”? I guess I don’t get the attachment to that precise word, except maybe for its inherent comedic/dramatic/offensive value. Find me an example of someone outside the disability community saying, “whoa, that retard kicks some ass! I wish I could do that!” and I’ll think about reconsidering my emotional response to the word… or maybe 50 examples, just to counterbalance, eh?

Because here’s the thing that gets me: just about* the only representation Archer gets in our culture is that he’s retarded; that’s going to be everyone’s first impression of him. And then he’ll have to climb a hurdle to show people that it’s not necessarily — or even close to — the worst thing in the world, and at the very least he’s not to be lumped in with sociopaths. Which is why I wrote to McWeeny (and have at least one more letter brewing, which I’m sure I’ll discuss here later). And that’s why I feel like I have to speak out, even in this very small way, when I see that word.

And okay, sure, I’m sensitive, fine, I’ll totally admit that. ** And okay, sure, my son is — to use everybody else’s parlance — retarded. But he sure as hell isn’t dumb. In fact, he’s smart and clever and intuitive and joyful and a host of other things that most people wouldn’t associate with “retarded.” (and I’ll be honest, the first time someone other than his mother or myself called him “smart,” I choked up a little…) And I just want people to get a chance to see that before he’s labeled and reduced to something less than human, which is ultimately what I feel like that word does. Hell, I know when I see that word, it takes me a second to pull myself out of the stereotype and realize that it applies to Archer, and I live in this disability world every day. Which is why I understand that anyone who doesn’t live here can just shrug it off like it doesn’t matter, because to them, the stereotype, the reduction, is good enough. And you can dismiss my argument, you can call it PC bullshit if you want to, but I just call it decent. I just want him to be able to be “that kid” or even “that fun kid” before he’s just “that retarded kid,” and if I can help to pull that word out of circulation even just a little bit, then I guess I’ve gotta try to do it.

*There was an episode of Scrubs a couple weeks back that deserves its whole own post that had an actor with DS on it…and no mention was made of the T21 at all. It wasn’t a “very special episode” of the show or anything, he just happened to be a patient. Nobody drew attention to him at all, talked down to him, or otherwise acknowledged that he was anything other than a person in the hospital. Which is how it should be, but is the first demonstration of that I’ve seen in the last year and a half. Some of which, I’m sure, has to do with John C. McGinley, but is also a pretty great demonstration of that show’s heart.

**I’d complain about — see, I wrote “bitch” first, ’cause I think that’s lost its gender-specific stigma, but what do I know (one of the side effects of this new life is I’m hyperaware — sensitive even — of the way language is used even more so than before — and I deal with language for a living. Which is why I’m not trying to condemn anyone for their language use, I’m just trying to figure this out in public). So, yeah, I could complain about the many reasons I have for being sensitive about this subject, but that would be — while slightly cathartic for me — pretty lackluster for anyone else… and really, compared to some, I’ve got it easy. But I would just say that I am constantly — weekly, daily, hourly — reminded in some way or made cognizant of the limitations that are going to affect my family for the rest of our lives. And sometimes it strikes when I least expect it, like when I made myself toast in the dark the other morning and wondered to myself if Archer will have not only the cognitive skill but the dexterity and memory to do that someday. I’m not saying that he won’t, but I’m saying that I actually have to think about that sometimes in ways that most parents and most people don’t. (and it’s often the little tiny mundane acts like that that affect me more than the grand scale of events that are going to be actual life challenges) This isn’t always a bad thing, but sometimes it weighs pretty heavily. And so yes, I could use few less outside in-my-face reminder of that, which doesn’t seem like a giant sacrifice to make.