I really like @EverydayAbleism. It's a fantastic idea. Sharing people's accounts of ableism in the real world. Often very personal. Often moving. I speak to a lot of interesting people because of it.
Last night, my experience was somwhat bitter. Your mileage may vary, etc etc.
The topic of conversation was ableist language. Lots of interesting accounts being retweeted. Lots I agreed with, and lots I had to say.
The conversation headed into the territory of mental health. I'm glad to see mental health issues being discussed in parallel to physical disabilities (I have something of a history...) and I think it's long overdue.
An opinion that I voiced about MH language struck a raw nerve with several people, I think.
To recap; I had seen a lot of words being challenged, which I agreed should be challenged. Words like:
Spazz. Mong. Retard. Cripple. Schizo. You get the idea.
Then the discussion moved to words like:
Mad. Bonkers. Crazy. Idiot. You get the idea.
Still with me? Good. Here's where I have to pitch in with my two pence worth. I say (and I stand by this) that words like 'mad' are not in the same sphere as 'spazz'. They have an informal, innoffensive use to my ears (mad/crazy/bonkers) to describe THINGS (NOT people) which I'm okay with. The weather can be a bit crazy. A shirt can be a bit mad. A song can be bonkers. This, I was repeatedly shot down for. Some very strong views that I was condoning ableist language. Really?
I don't regard the derivation, but then I'm not condoning describing a person with mental health issues as 'mad' either. That IS offensive. And stupid. It's also stupid to think that I am condoning it from the discussion I was drawn into last night.
I have a vague rule. If a word is clearly a slight on a medical condition, (i.e. Schizo) I'm not cool with that. Calling me crazy because I have a history of MH, also not cool. Calling me out for discrimination for using a genericised term like 'mad' to describe something (NOT someone) is also not cool.
I hope you can see my point. Why does this matter? Because we have to have a sensible(ish) line where we don't discredit the arguments against ableist language. Defining a 'mad weekend' as being equal to calling someone (anyone) a spazz is very, VERY dodgy ground. Ground we cannot afford to lose. That's why I won't go there, and I won't be bullied into agreeing. But here's the point; it's up to me. I'm not calling you bonkers; I may refer to one of my own songs as bonkers. You can not like that. That's fine. I think it's dodgy ground, that can discredit a lot of the challenges we throw out there, but there you go.
I hear ableds describe each other as 'spaccas' for doing something stupid. It goes right through me. I hear someone say 'You're mad, you are!' in a David Brent kinda way because they did something 'wacky'; it really doesn't bother me. I cannot be the only person who thinks that seeing these scenarios as the same is potentially counter-productive. I just can't.
It's often overlooked that ableds use terms like spazz without aiming them at disabled people. They're synonomous with 'stupid/clumsy/slow'. This attitude needs challenging too, not just insults thrown at us.
IF all these words are on the same spectrum, they are at different ends. When the word 'wild' was put forward as being problematic, I got the impression I was being trolled. Maybe I'm playing into it, but I feel we have to have these conversations honestly.
So, yeah; I'm not going to feel bad about saying I'm looking forward to a mad weekend, or whatever. I am going to call people who call someone a retard for spilling their tea. There is a difference.
If you disagree, fine. Guess what? It's up to you. You HAVE to maintain control over what language you find accepable, but you can't pick and choose what offends others affected by these issues for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment