The book we’re reading at present in the online bookclub to which I belong (Radical Readers, go check it out!) is The Ethical Slut by Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy. I almost threw it across the room when I reached the following on page 233:
The historical censorship of discussion about sex has left us with another disability; the act of talking about sex, of putting words to what we do in bed, has become difficult and embarrassing.[1] […] What you can’t talk about, you can hardly think about – a crippling [2] disability.[3]
nooooOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHHhlafoaidygpkj
Gentle readers, welcome to hearing about one of the things in this world of ours that shits me the most.
Disability is not your cute fun analogy. You know why? Disability is its own thing all by itself. Disability is a part of many people’s lives and identities, it’s an experience in the world, a political one, a personal one, a sensitive one, a serious one. It is not a sweet little term you can charmingly appropriate for whatever other purpose pops into your head.
When people use ‘disability’ in that manner, (‘I’m really bad at cooking! It’s like a disability or something.’ ‘[Component of society] is [bad effects] to the extent that it’s like we’re all disabled.’) to me it conveys a good deal about how that person thinks of disability and the unthinking contempt with which they regard disabled people.
For a start, it displays a fundamental lack of understanding as to what disability actually is. Disability is not a silly compartmentalised quirk that you get to pull out and put away as you see fit. It is long term or permanent, it is a life experience, there are all manner of internal and social factors involved. In a strange way this kind of usage has a delegitimising effect on the disabled identity, as though it’s not really a serious thing, or it’s so broad a term as to be available for use in talking about all kinds of other experiences. It’s not an attempt at kinship or understanding; it takes away meaning.
Using it for an analogy appropriates the experience of being disabled. It takes the experience without permission or proper respect and only in part, meaning everything gets skewed. This sort of thing tends to leave out either the dimension of social oppression (as with the cooking example) or the impairment (the ‘we’re all disabled’ example). And it’s always used to say something negative: it’s setting up disability as the go-to reference for bad things. In short, using ‘disability’ for an analogy shows a lack of connection with disabled people’s experiences of disability.
Appropriating chunks of people’s lives is always going to be a not very good idea. When this is done through specifically saying something negative it goes to a whole other level. It’s about some people taking experiences belonging to other people’s lives and using them for easy, unaware reference.
[1] Right folks, the primary, analogy-worthy characteristics of disability are difficulty and embarrassment, let’s all go home.
[2] CRIPPLING?!
[3] What is particularly spectacular about this passage is that it appears shortly after the book’s one page addressing disability.
I agree. Besides, I have no understanding what purpose the anlogy with disability has in this context. Of course I haven’t read the surrounding paragraphs, but my idea is that it doesn’t help much to clarify the point.
Thank you so much for this! I’ve been saying that I want to get a button for my wheelchair that reads “Not a metaphor.” And a very special ACK!! re: note 3. That’s just all kinds of messed up.
Yeah, Astrid, there’s no help from the surrounding paragraphs. *sigh*
You’re welcome, sundiszno. Great idea for a sticker!
In addition to using “disability” in a very inappropriate way, those sentences are badly written!
Hi — sorry to butt into a private blog, but I have a Google alert to let me know about reviews of our book, so yours came up.
My handy-dandy little built-in dictionary defines “disability” as “a physical or mental condition that limits a person’s movements, senses or activities.” Secondary definition is “a disadvantage or handicap.” It was in those senses that we chose the word — our intent was not metaphorical; we didn’t mean to compare a limited sexual vocabulary to, say, a broken spinal cord. We simply meant it in the literal sense, as “lack of ability.”
I am married to a person with a disability (spinal cord injury and chronic pain), and I would never dream of comparing the problems of talking about sex to the problems of getting out of bed every morning, holding down a job, or, for that matter, having a satisfying sex life.
I’ll mention your note to Dossie and we will consider rephrasing this paragraph in subsequent editions of the book.
Regards,
Janet Hardy
Hi there Janet – you don’t have to apologise for butting in on the blog, you’re absolutely welcome to comment!! :)
Maybe it’d be helpful if I explain a bit more of my thinking. My problem comes in, for a start, with differing uses of the word ‘disability’. Lots of disabled people approach disability as the social aspect of what people with impairments (that is, people whose bodies or whatever aren’t in line with societal standards) undergo. That is, part of the problems come from one’s actual body, but a lot of it is also what society enforces. This is contrary to the medical model which places the disadvantage, the “handicap,” with the disabled person. So it’s essentially a (political) identity that places the negative – the disadvantage, a good deal of the limitations – in society’s lap. So what putting words like ‘embarrassing,’ ‘difficult’ and ‘crippling’ there does is go right back to the characterisation of that disabled identity as all things negative, where we’ve worked quite hard to make this not so. (Which is not to say that being disabled can’t be hard – it is because of the internal and external things we have to deal with – just that using our word and lives as the go-to to describe negative things is jarring, as with ‘lame’ or ‘gay’. Lots of people’s internal dictionaries would say those words have different connotations which makes it okay to use them negatively, too!) As such, that’s a whole lot of oppression and identity and experience funneled into that one word apart from what one might personally bring to it. I get that ‘disabled’ can mean different things; I could ‘disable’ the comments on this post, for instance. But I wouldn’t give the comments here a ‘disability’ by doing so, that’s a people thing, yeah? And here you’re using the term to talk about people who aren’t of that oppressed group, which plays into that ‘everyone is disabled in their own way’ trope. Disability isn’t a continuum. Particularly following on from a passage about actual disability, it really does read like an appropriation of people’s lives to talk about something negative, to mean trouble or an inability to talk about sex.
Thanks very much for coming by and taking my thoughts under consideration. There’ll probably be a bunch of reviews and posts and such up at Radical Readers in a few days (including one from me that focusses on the actual book!) if you’d care to take a look. :)
Hi Chally –
I do understand the issue at hand here, but I think it boils down to whether the word “disability” has only one meaning — the one that you use on this blog, a permanent or long-term physical or mental impairment that affects how an individual interacts with the greater world — or whether it can mean more than one thing.
A few years ago, Dossie and I were speaking in a BDSM club. She described a BDSM scene, using rather poetic and metaphorical language, and described her body in that scene as being “colonized” by her top. Afterward, she was taken strongly to task by a couple of young women of East Indian ancestry, who were affronted by her use of the word “colonize,” given that they came from a culture that had been profoundly affected by colonialism. (Many BDSM folks run across similar issues when the words used to describe a particular relationship style — “master” and “slave” — are seen as an affront by African-Americans who hear in those words echoes of a deeply traumatic cultural past.)
All of these folks have a valid point, which I think you’ll see is similar to the one you’re making. But here’s the other side of that story: The fewer words we make available for talking about our sexual experiences, the bigger the problem becomes.
You are doing important work on this blog, conveying your thoughts and experiences with the words you’ve chosen to help your readers understand the world as you see it. If you have to hesitate over every word, worrying about whether it might offend someone whose point of view is different from yours, you *are* being disabled — in the sense that one of your abilities, the ability to write freely and descriptively, is being impaired.
This does not, of course, release any writer from the obligation to choose their words carefully, to ensure that each word is the best for its purpose and to minimize any possibly distracting connotations. But the point we were making in that paragraph — that an impoverished vocabulary necessarily leads to impoverished thinking — is true of all topics, be they sex, social justice, or the experience of living in a body that works differently than most people’s.
Thanks,
Janet
Would you mind reading that again? I was quite explicit about multiple meanings of ‘disability,’ and that’s not a definition I used. In addition, I explained that it’s not about my personal usage on this blog – or, for that matter, yours – but about how disabled people as a group conceive of our own identities. We’ve worked hard in our communities to build that. These aren’t just words I’ve chosen or meanings I’ve shaped myself, but in accordance with the social model of disability as I explained. I agree it’s important to find language to talk about personal experiences. I resent abled folk co-opting our language in order to do so. That usage places limits on disabled people, limiting what we can do. It’s pretty disingenuous to set up oppressed groups protecting the language the use to describe their own experiences against having enough words. It’s very easy to find words that describe what you want to say without harming people; I suggested ‘inability,’ for one. Also, on this:
‘If you have to hesitate over every word, worrying about whether it might offend someone whose point of view is different from yours, you *are* being disabled — in the sense that one of your abilities, the ability to write freely and descriptively, is being impaired.’
I explained the social model of disability at some length. It’s really insensitive to ignore that and go on ignoring disabled people’s framing of our own lives and what disability means, and especially so in making a point about valuing the ability to write freely and descriptively over the freedom of an oppressed group to live our lives with a little less oppression.
All in all, I’m not quite sure you understood what I was saying. Would you like me to recommend some reading on disabled people’s shaping of language?
I believe I did understand what you are saying — which doesn’t mean that I agree with it :/ I simply resist the idea that any group of people is entitled to define a word for all people.
Saying that a curtailed vocabulary is a disability does not in any way dilute the realities of your disability, any more than someone’s same-sex marriage can dilute the realities of someone else’s heterosexual marriage.
Do I like it when someone talks about having gotten “raped” by having to pay a high price for their car? No, I don’t; I wish they’d choose some other verb. But I’m even less comfortable with the idea that the word is the exclusive property of people who have been subjected to sexual assault, and that they are the sole arbiters of its usage.
And if that means I value the strength, purity and flexibility of language over the rights of an oppressed group, then I guess I can live with that — which, I suppose, means that it’s very unlikely that you and I will reach agreement on this matter.
(I’m sorry if my off-the-cuff definition of “disability” wasn’t accurate to your meaning; I bow to your greater expertise there. My apologies.)
Janet
Janet,
I actually don’t think anything Chally has said to you has gotten through to you, considering the great leaps in logic and fantastic squirming you’ve done to get out of being called out for your language. Read the title of the entry again: DISABILITY IS NOT YOUR ANALOGY. It is NOT. There’s nothing to disagree or agree with here and the more you try the worse you come off.
And if that means I value the strength, purity and flexibility of language over the rights of an oppressed group, then I guess I can live with that
This is so disgusting I’m really just going to pretend you’re kidding. Valuing language over an oppressed group is pretty bad. You know what’s in that group? People, actual people–shocking! You’re valuing your privileged ability to use hurtful language over them? Okay! Good lord. That is so ignorant and foul I’m just at a loss. Which is probably for the best since there isn’t much left to say to you that isn’t obvious.
We cannot take away your ability to use language in any way you choose, Ms. Hardy. We are not disabling you. All we are doing–all we can do–is point out when the use of language is harmful. Your and Ms. Easton’s use of “crippling disability” as an analogy for the very real social structures that inhibit open and healthy discussion of sexuality is itself dependent upon and reinforces social structures that oppress people with disabilities.
Everyone may and will use language as they choose. We choose to use ours to point out when that use is harmful to people already harmed by societal oppression. What you do with that information is up to you.
Your assertion that having to be respectful of others in the way you use language is harmful to you is something that bigots of all kinds say when called on their use of language. Political correctness has gone too far, right? (Bill O’Reilly, for example, was just complaining that not being able to make fun of non-white people made him less free.)
If you’d like to not be perceived as a bigot you may want to work on that.
TR: I certainly don’t value language over your right to live a comfortable and successful life, but I do value it over your “right” to tell me what words to use.
The word “disability” has a legal meaning; it denotes a particular condition and carries a particular weight in the halls of government and law, and so it should. Its use in ordinary discourse is a different matter altogether — just like “rape” and “slave” and any number of other terms whose legal and colloquial meanings are entirely different.
(I’m actually reluctant to take this discussion into the realm of “rights” — one of the smartest observations I’ve ever heard was from a friend of mine, who says “You can begin to trace the point where a discussion begins to come apart to the moment someone begins to talk about their ‘rights’.” “Rights” is another word which has a legal meaning that is quite different from its colloquial meaning, and its colloquial meaning means almost nothing.)
FWIW, I just ran the paragraph in question past the disability activist with whom I share my life. His response? “Meh.” So you’re asking for ownership of that word, not on behalf of all disabled people, but on behalf of those disabled people who agree with you.
Sorry, but we’ve hit an irreconcilable difference of opinion here. All done talking.
Alright Janet, you have fun being bigoted & clueless at the expense of people who’ve wasted too much valuable time on you already.
Do you really think that using “disability” to describe lack of vocabulary is the same as using, say, “crip” to describe a disabled person, as Mr. O’Reilly’s lament would indicate? I don’t.
Janet
whose time has value as well
Well, Janet, when an actual disabled person tells you that yes, it is offensive and harmful to them to use “disability” as an analogy (just as it is offensive and harmful to use “crip” as a slur), wouldn’t you think that it’s just as important to stop doing it?
And I believe you should well know this: One person does not invalidate an entire movement. If a person who believes sex is shameful thinks that something (say, forcing his values on everyone else) is OK, does that mean that you, someone who cares about removing those social taboos on sex, should stop doing the work you are doing, or that your points are now invalid? No more, then, does one disabled person saying something is OK mean the entire disability activist movement is wrong or that any individual point they make is invalid.
Isn’t it ironic that someone who is considered an ‘expert’ regarding a minority group, such as Ms Hardy is, could still be so ignorant regarding treating other minority groups with respect and dignity?
The mind boggles.
Bri
Janet, in moderation, I’ll not republish other people’s comments from elsewhere, it’s just not Internet etiquette. And if you really expect me to publish such comments that accuse me of ‘sustaining a hierarchy of disabilities,’ being ‘too sensitive’ or using my being disabled as ‘social currency,’ you have another thing coming. I have been generous in letting some of your comments through and pretty measured in my responses, and you really need to know you are pushing the limit here. To answer the substance of your comment, no one is saying disagreement isn’t possible.
Given that I stripped their names, and that they’re all publicly available on my Facebook page, I don’t see any breach of etiquette. I am disappointed that you are not interested in publishing the opinions of other disabled people who disagree (admittedly sharply) with you.
Janet
@ Janet
I believe I did understand what you are saying — which doesn’t mean that I agree with it :/ I simply resist the idea that any group of people is entitled to define a word for all people.
This commentary is highly offensive and smacks of privilege. No member of the privileged group has the right to tell the marginalized body was and is not offensive. You do not have the appropriate experience and there is a clear conflict of interest. This social justice 101. You have been repeatedly told that your commentary is highly offensive and instead you seem to be intent upon telling people why their feelings are wrong. You were offered an explanation from Chally i.e the social model of disability and you dismissed it because it did not suit your purposes. Disability is one of the fastest area of scholarship in the field of sociology. The social model is not something Chally made up for shits an giggles it was based upon valid research.
As this is Chally’s space I have been more polite than you deserve. I suggest you use this opportunity to check your privilege.
Janet, I wouldn’t even publish the opinions of people who did agree with me unless they published them themselves. Please don’t make those kinds of assumptions about my motives, especially as I made my motives for not publishing quite clear. I really don’t care to be treated like this on my own blog; please be respectful if you wish any further comments to be published.
@Janet
Also, even if other differently abled people have a different position on this issue, it does not give you, an able bodied person the right to use disablist language. The disagreement is a conversation within a community and in no way abdicates your responsibility to admit that for a significant percentage of the differently abled community, your commentary is offensive.
I just have a few points here:
1. Wow. You have a *serious* dearth of empathy. You care more about your ability to use whatever words you want than not hurting other people? Just, wow.
2. A good writer should be perfectly capable of coming up with another phrasing. There are plenty of other words in the English language.
3. Purity? Of a mongrel language of french and german and many other languages all stuck together? Where, exactly, is the purity?
4. “My disabled friend thinks it’s fine” is not a valid argument. There are women who think feminism is bullshit, this does not invalidate feminism.
I think I had another point, but I forgot it while I was typing the first four. Maybe it’ll come to me later.
Renee: “…for a significant percentage of the differently abled community, your commentary is offensive” is the smartest thing anybody has said in this thread; thank you for putting it so concisely.
I completely acknowledge that fact; I’d be an idiot not to. The question is, whether a significant percentage of a group should be able to dictate terms for the entire group and/or for the outside world.
I will point out that two of my disabled correspondents are as offended by your phrase “differently abled” as you are by my use of “disabled.” Does that mean that you should not use your phrase? Of course not; it says what you want it to say, and the fact that it offends other people with disabilities does not change that.
Janet
Be disappointed all you like. You’ve decided that you aren’t going to change your behavior. You said hours ago that you were done talking and yet you’re still here. Why? Are you trying to change our minds? Get us to admit we’re wrong, that it is in fact just peachy keen to keep reinforcing structures that marginalize people like us?
Is this really the best use of your valuable time? Arguing with anyone who takes issue with your work?
Janet, I’m not publishing comments that continue the misuse of the word ‘disabled’ to describe (oppressed) people disagreeing with you without the level of politeness you would like. Perhaps it would be useful to google ‘the tone argument’ or ‘the privilege of politeness’. I am this close to banning you, but out of respect I have not thus far.
Someone suggested I give you the following link: http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/11/23/o-language-again/
Oh, also!
5. If you’re so big on purity, then why exactly aren’t you objecting to the non-standard usages of words like “rape” and “slave”? Supporting them meaning different things isn’t linguistic purity. So what exactly is the “purity” you’re so for?
A few years ago, Dossie and I were speaking in a BDSM club. She described a BDSM scene, using rather poetic and metaphorical language, and described her body in that scene as being “colonized” by her top. Afterward, she was taken strongly to task by a couple of young women of East Indian ancestry, who were affronted by her use of the word “colonize,” given that they came from a culture that had been profoundly affected by colonialism. (Many BDSM folks run across similar issues when the words used to describe a particular relationship style — “master” and “slave” — are seen as an affront by African-Americans who hear in those words echoes of a deeply traumatic cultural past.)
As someone that considers themselves to be part of the BDSM community and identifies with the lifestyle you describe here as an example:
Word usage can still be a problem. Yes, there are people that are offended by the usage of the terms Master and slave to describe the lifestyle and its components. These people have a right to be offended. We do not have the right to just ignore them in the favor of the flexibility and strength of language. If they have an issue with the word usage, that should be taken into consideration.
Also, knowing people that don’t have an issue with the wording isn’t an excuse. They are not representative of the whole.
This isn’t a matter of who is a greater force. It’s a matter of doing what’s respectable. It’s respectable to take into consideration the criticisms that people have about your word usage. It’s respectable to listen to their suggestions and come to an agreeable compromise.
What isn’t respectable is to defend the word usage and passing off people’s concerns as a “minority”. Or to ignore their suggestions in favor of the “strength, purity and flexibility of language” – when some of these suggestions are a result of the strength, purity and flexibility of language. Or to use a community or friends to further defend the use of problematic language, in attempts to explain the reasoning and yet refusing to back down.
6. WORDS MEAN THINGS.
7. Wow, an ableist slur! How ORIGINAL!
Y’know, I adore language. I love metaphors, I love the flow of words, I love the subtle distinctions between purported “synonyms”. And here’s what I’ve found about working to reduce and eliminate the kyriarchal influences on my vocabulary (such as “lame” and “crazy” and disability-as-metaphor): I use more words.
My writing, my thinking have grown stronger as I have stopped, and thought, and searched, and realized that I was using one catchphrase (eg “X is crazy!”) where I really meant a dozen different things (“chaotic” “irrational” “overwhelming” “anxiety-provoking [because I have anxiety]” and so on).
So have I been “disabled” by my avoidance of ableist language? Sure, if by that you mean that a whole new world has opened up for me, and my writing is stronger, my toolkit more varied, my perspective broader; “disabled” in the eyes of society, because there are a few things I cannot do, a few words I don’t use in certain ways anymore (and it is, admittedly, sometimes a pain in my ass), but not actually less of a writer therefore.
But I don’t think that’s what you meant. So you might want to look for a better word.
I completely acknowledge that fact; I’d be an idiot not to. The question is, whether a significant percentage of a group should be able to dictate terms for the entire group and/or for the outside world.
What? No it isn’t, the real question is when you’re going to show a hint of understanding. You are doing entirely too much to justify the fact that you were ultimately wrong & got called out on it. While you were busy arguing & trying to get people on your “side” you could have been doing something productive, like…I dunno, listening and learning.
@Janet
Let reiterate my earlier point. I am a differently abled woman and therefore how I chose to identify is business. If someone else in the community disagrees with my personal identification, that is a family conversation and does not grant you the right to intervene. It does not grant you the right or the freedom to misuse the word disable to solidify your undeserved privilege.
Here let me give you another analogy. There are some Black people that call themselves the N word and use it quite liberally in their speech. There are other Blacks who find that word offensive and would never make it apart of their regular speech. Regardless of how a White person may feel about the N word, the disagreement between the two groups does not give the White person the privilege to use that word to refer to Blacks.
Arwyn said exactly what I would but a thousand times better.
I’ve done the thought process she describes (and I’m still doing it and I still stuff it up). It does feel strange to realise how often you use a word unthinkingingly when someone points out that it is hurtful to them. That doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to continue using it unthinkingly. Thinking about what you’re saying is usually a good thing for the point you’re trying to make. Thinking about the words you use is a *good* thing for language. Not hurting people is a good thing for humanity.
I’m not sure why the use of particular words is so important to you that it is worth hurting people for. I’d suggest there are a thousand words that not only say the same thing but that say it *better*.
Janet said: “I value the strength, purity and flexibility of language over the rights of an oppressed group”
That says it all for me. I sincerely hope you look back at this portion of your comment and really think about what you’re saying here.
Janet, first of all, your handy-dandy dictionary definition of disability is incomplete. As others here have tried to explain to you, it is society that disables people, not their bodies. Sure, we aren’t able to do certain things that others can, but that’s because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU. It’s your attitude that disables us. You are contributing to our marginalization by declaring that you are more of an authority on what it means to be disabled than we do.
I think it makes sense to point out how typically white and Western your mentality is. Your “I asked a disabled person and they said” is nothing more than a variation of the “I have black friends”/”Some of my best friends are gay” argument that has been shot down time and time again. Of course, being white and non-disabled means that you can ignore what we are saying to you and continue to revel in your ignorance. What have you gone through that makes you so entitled to use our bodies to make your points? Oh yeah, that’s right! Nothing.
This whole conversation boils down to your unwillingness to learn. Instead of assuming that you do understand the issues surrounding disability, you came here defending your ignorance. You keep talking about what you wouldn’t ever do and then proceed to do just that. For instance, you say,
“I would never dream of comparing the problems of talking about sex to the problems of getting out of bed every morning, holding down a job, or, for that matter, having a satisfying sex life.”
even though this is exactly what the words in your book does. We could talk about intentions all day long, but in the end all that matters is results. Your words are comparing the problems of talking about sex to the experiences of people like me and others here despite the fact that you have no clue what you’re talking about. If this is not what you intended, then your language should reflect that and right now it doesn’t. Ironically, this means that you are contributing to the problems with talking about sex.
You are appropriating the experiences of several groups in your comments here and that deserves to be called out. For instance, there’s this:
“Many BDSM folks run across similar issues when the words used to describe a particular relationship style — “master” and “slave” — are seen as an affront by African-Americans who hear in those words echoes of a deeply traumatic cultural past.”
Maybe you should consider refraining from making claims about what African-Americans feel, especially since you aren’t one. Again, you are making comparisons to groups that you absolutely aren’t a part of and never will be. Of course, I’m sure if you dig around on the internet you could probably find some black person who could make you feel better about using us and our experiences to justify your appropriations.
You might do well to take your friends’ advice and refrain from trying to make this a conversation about rights–you were the one who brought this topic into the discussion, by the way–unless you just WANT to be schooled about why that’s so problematic.
@Chally I just wanted to say that this is a really great post, because I think that fact has maybe been slightly overlooked in the kerfuffle going on down here in the comments. I very much enjoyed reading it.
@Janet Other people have said this, and said it better, but here’s my two cents: What it boils down to is not, as you suggest, “whether a significant percentage of a group should be able to dictate terms for the entire group and/or for the outside world”. It is this: Does your unwillingness to search for a different word–and god knows in English there are an abundance of options, many of which are probably more accurate than the problematic language you’re currently using–trump other people’s right to feeling safe?
Does your resistance to changing your vocabulary outrank other people’s claim to being viewed with respect, to being seen as entire people? That’s the real question here, and I think the answer is pretty conclusively ‘no’.
PS: Language doesn’t have feelings. And it’s plenty flexible even if you avoid certain words. People, on the other hand, deserve a little bit more care.
Everything I have to offer here has been said by Arwyn et al. But I also want to say to Chally – you have encouraged me to think about the impact of my words more than I have for years, or maybe ever. And for that I thank you, and so does the quality of my writing.
Wait.
What?
Did a white woman HONESTLY just say up in the thread that her ability to use words to describe sex, trump the pain of colonialism, imperialism and slavery?
And then double it all by saying preventing her from using that word would be crippling to her?
Oh wait, what am I thinking, of COURSE a white woman said that shite. White women (cis, tab, het) struggles will always trump all.
I don’t even – what?
Flames on the side of my face would be far too tame a description.
Dear Ms. Hardy,
The people who have already commented have no doubt said it more incisively than I will, but hopefully the number of responses will help convince you that you could have phrased that passage better.
Short version: please don’t use the lives of people like me as shorthand for “crappy”. Words come from places, and they matter.
Long version:
First: the dictionary is not a perfect rhetorical tool. It is more important to consider how people actually use words and what implications they have. Maybe a more precise word to describe how people have difficulty talking about sex would be “inability”?
Second, it is not very accurate to say that when marginalised people take exception to your language, we are trying to cut words out of your vocabulary or restrict what you can say. It may appear that way if you’re coming from a particular viewpoint. But I think what people are actually getting at is this:
To understand some metaphors and analogies, people need to refer to a whole way of thinking about things. Sometimes these ways of thinking, while perhaps helpful to some, oppress others. The disability-analogy passage depends upon the prevalent concept that a disability is an innately bad thing to have, one that inherently degrades one’s quality of life. This isn’t true, and contributes to harmful stereotypes, behaviours, government policies, and so forth.
So, the thrust of all these comments has been that the passage would be more effective if the point were not made at the expense of marginalised people. If you thought differently about people with disabilities in the first place, you wouldn’t have used that metaphor.
Dear Ms. Hardy. In order to be able to fully talk about sex and describe what we do in bed we need to extend and expand our vocabulary. That is most easily done by two methods: 1) listening to others – something you seem to have some trouble doing and 2) reading dictionaries, encyclopedias and lexicons. That’s how our vocabularies – our personal lexicons – are expanded.
Also, in order to be able to talk about sex without the embarrassment and awkwardness that seems to be your major problem is something that can be fixed. Mostly by doing it and keep doing it. Sooner or later the surroundings will catch on that this is normal.
That means it is NOT a disability. It is a temporary troublesome spot we’re in concerning the talking about sex.
A disability, on the other hand, is not (necessarily) temporary. Whereas talking about sex becomes possible if you keep doing it, Asperger’s Syndrome doesn’t go away if you keep being an Aspie. IBS doesn’t go away if you keep having it, a spinal cord injury doesn’t go away if you suffer from it for long enough. That’s why they’re called disabilities, because there’s jack shit we can do about it aside from learning to manage as best we can in a society that doesn’t consider us worthy of consideration.
Talking about an embarrassing subject, on the other hand, is quite easy to overcome. I can’t say “fuck you” to society and then magically no longer have my disability, but I CAN say “fuck you” to society and use real live words to describe my experiences, however embarrassing they may be to me or others. There’s your difference.
Your attitude here in comments, both in your responses to Chally and to other commenters, has been willfully obtuse. I say willfully, because you seem intelligent enough to understand the concepts behind basic courtesy. If you’re a guest in someone’s home, you probably wouldn’t say hurtful things to them, because that would be disrespectful. These problems arise because this world, this society is home to all of us. And guess what? This being your home as well does not give you the right to piss all over other people’s feelings, because it’s their home too.
You still have the ability to do so, of course, which is where you wrong. Being frowned on for dong something does not remove your ability to do said something. It merely means there may be social consequences for doing it. But claiming that we’re disabling your language by requesting that you not use hurtful words is simply bullshit. You’re free to be as offensive as you like, and we’re free to call you out as a bigot in that case. No one’s language has been disabled. Saying so is deeply offensive and shows that you have no true grasp of what disability is, despite the many excellent explanations here.
tl;dr: Ms. Hardy doesn’t know what words mean. And has a poor grasp of reality.
@ Janet Holy crap.
“I value the strength, purity and flexibility of language over the rights of an oppressed group”
Really? So nigger-rigged and other terms are cool to use with you? We wouldn’t want to restrict your use of language. Words mean things. Just becuase you try to divorce the meanings doesn’t necessary mean it’s going to happen and people from the non marginalized group do not get to decide what is and isn’t offensive. If members of x group decide they want to reclaim something, they do it on their terms, not yours.
I wanted to add something I was too sleepy to articulate last night.
Ms. Hardy seems to be relying, mainly, on the argument that “one group should not be able to dictate language for the rest of us.”
Here’s the thing: the only way that matters is if you believe that the stated experiences of that group, their claims to oppression, are false or invalid.
If you take their claims seriously, and believe they do actually face oppression, and believe it is a serious matter, then you take one of two paths: stop using the language they object to because you know it will contribute to their oppression, or keep using it because you are a thoughtless asshole who is perfectly OK with contributing to the rape, abuse, institutionalization and killing of those people.
On the other hand, if you don’t take their claims seriously — if you think they are lying or exaggerating, that they are making a big thing about nothing, that they are whining about trivial things — then all of a sudden their requests to change your language are an “imposition.” It is only then that it is somehow imposed on you (a nonmember of the group) to not use that language: because if you did believe their claims are real, and that they do face daily ignorance, hostility and obstructionism from society, and that they are discriminated against in employment, housing, and general life — then it wouldn’t be an “imposition” to change your language to avoid making all those things worse — it would just be the right thing to do.
The only way we are somehow “dictating language for the rest of you” is if you think we’re full of shit when we talk about being denied necessary medical treatment or having unwanted treatment forced on us, about being assaulted and abused, about being shut out of everyday life because it would be too much of a hassle for abled people to include us, about being forced into institutions because of prejudice or because of financial situation, about being neglected until we die off or killed off before we can grow to adulthood –
If you think all that is the stuff of fantasy, then our requests to stop doing something that makes all that stuff worse is somehow a dictation or imposition.
On the other hand, if you actually care, and actually believe this shit happens, it’s no “imposition”: it’s just your personal choice as to whether to make it worse or make it better.
This was an awesome post. Seriously, nail head, hammer, BANG!!
Thank you so much for this. It’s so frustrating seeing people appropriating experiences, especially when it’s activists who would oppose appropriation in other circumstances.
I’m really disappointed in reading through this thread, though not surprised. But that’s been covered by lots of you so I just want to say:
Chally, this was an awesome post. Thanks for writing it and hopefully you were able to get something out of the book other than this experience.
I’ve been trying to come up with something that has more depth than “Ditto!” but I just don’t have the words. I do need to echo everyone who has written about how amazing the original post was and send my sincere thanks again. Thank you, Chally!
As a currently-abled person, I can understand Ms. Hardy’s confusion. But as a person in general, I don’t understand her response. She might have had an easier time of it if she’d just said, “Thank you.”
Pingback: I’ve got an app for that « a shiny new coin
Pingback: Most Tweeted Articles by Feminism Experts
Pingback: The Down Under Feminists Carnival is here! « The Radical Radish
@Janet: I don’t know whether you’re still following the discussion here, or, for that matter, whether you’ve already read this: http://usapetal.net/wpmu/eh226/2009/09/29/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-backpack/ …but even if you’ve read it before, I submit that you need to re-read it, and substitute “level of disability,” “type of disability” or “disability or lack thereof” for each instance of “race” or “skin color” and “ableism” for “racism” in Ms. McIntosh’s list of “daily effects of white privilege” in her life. It’s a simple yet very informative exercise. And it works for every single example enumerated, except for #26… but that one can simply be changed to, ‘I can appear in public without my able-bodiedness or disability drawing the attention or even notice of others.’
You may also find this: http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#backup instructive in helping you to understand why so many people here found so many of the things you said so offensive. (The specific section that link puts at the top of the destination page is the tactic I’ll be addressing next, but I hope you’ll read through the whole page, as you’ve employed several other of the listed tactics in your comments here as well.) Note that this second link helpfully includes other types of marginalisation, besides race and including disability, so no mental heavy lifting required!
As to your spinal-cord-injured husband and his allegedly taking your side… if what he said in response to reading your conversation with Chally here was indeed “Meh,” and nothing more, I would tend to read that as meaning, “I know trying to argue the point with you is pointless and/or I don’t have the spoons to try to argue the point with you right now,” since saying, “Honey, you’re right and they’re wrong” would’ve been pretty simple if that was how he actually felt. That is just my impression of your characterisation of something a person I don’t know said — I am not trying to put words in another PWD’s mouth — but it IS the impression I received.
Finally, if your husband does indeed have spinal cord injury and chronic pain, *then why the fuck is there only a single page about sex-and-disability in your entire fucking book?!* (I’d apologise for the language, but it makes it easier for me to talk about sex, you see.) You of all people should know better.
@Chally: This was an excellent and pointed post, and you handled the discussion in the comments with dignity and aplomb, probably more than I would’ve mustered in the same situation. What is it with print-published authors who put their foot in their mouths then showing up on strangers’ blogs and other webspaces to try to browbeat them and their supporters into shutting up about their missteps, instead of just sucking it up, admitting they made a mistake, and taking the experience as a valuable lesson learned — the way only-famous-on-the-internet, or even more obscure, bloggers manage to do so hearteningly often?
Sigh. At least her husband isn’t here going the Will Shetterly route.
Janet’s responses here are flat out infuriating. I don’t even know what else to say. Ugh.
Ew. Just ew.
I’m so disappointed in this. I used to be a huge Janet Hardy fan. I don’t even know what else to say except that everyone else’s responses have been so thoughtful, so articulate, that it blows my mind that anyone could be so willfully obtuse as to not take the point.
Pingback: The Ethical Slut Read-along: Sex and Pleasure | approximately 8,000 words - Kit O'Connell's Homepage