Ablest language is tricky. I personally find it confusing, and I could explain what I don't get about it, but that would take away from the point, which is: some words hurt people. When someone tells me, "This hurts me," it's my job to do better rather than explain why I don't get it and how their feelings are incorrect. I don't need to understand. I just need to try to do better, and I'm trying, even if I'm not perfect.
Using these words hurts people. And wouldn't you rather not hurt people?
Isn't not hurting people worth being mildly inconvenienced?
It's hard to cut words out of your vocabulary. And these words are SO ingrained, that it makes it extra hard. (Don't use the word "superfluous"? Sure thing, boss! Don't use the word "st*pid"? ...Well, crud.) There's the added bonus that as I try to cut words from my vocabulary, I also try no to expose my son to these words so he'll start life a step ahead of me: being a kinder person and not having to prune his vocabulary in the future. And it's impossible. These words are thrown around so causally on even the most wholesome kid's shows. These words are thrown around casually at school and by neighbors and by the ladies in the Jewel checkout line.
If you successfully don't use these words, no one notices. You're not losing anything. No one is offended by you not saying something is cr*zy.
In the last few years, I feel like I've done a good job taking cr*zy out of my vocabulary. I think it's been relatively easy because when I used to say, "That's cr*zy!" I didn't mean, "That's illogical and counter-productive to the point of mental illness/disability." I meant, "That's wild! I can't believe it!" So there's a pretty direct 1:1 between "cr*zy" and "wild," so I can just say "wild" instead. Which I do now. All the time.
I've had a lot more trouble with "b*nanas" and "n*ts." I think that's because there's a subtle difference in my brain between something being wild and something being b*nanas. There's an component of endearment and playfulness to calling someone a n*t that doesn't exist in calling someone wild. In my experience, "You n*t," is like a soft way to say, "What you're doing is goofy. You probably should stop, but I know you won't because you can't control your feelings or reactions. I accept this about you and love you, but we both know it's still weird." This connotation doesn't exist in the word "wild." "Goober" or "Goofus" work pretty well, but I'm much more likely to call someone a "pine cone" and have them look at me funny, not knowing what I mean.
I just did a pass on my novel where I tried to search and destroy ablist language. Yeah! Doing good!
The problem wasn't with these above examples, but with "st*pid." When I say, "That's st*pid," I mean "That was poorly thought out." I cannot think of a shorter way to say that. Sometimes I mean "careless," or "reckless," or "thoughtless," which are shorter, but the problem is that in written dialogue, if one character just called someone out for acting "st*pid," changing that to "thoughtless" can mess up the voice. It doesn't sound like a real person talking, or at least not like this character talking.
Then the huge hold up for me was "id*ot." In this novel, there are multiple multiple times when one character will do something so thoughtless and poorly planned that it puts other people in danger and the main character is upset about it. "You put people in danger by not thinking through your actions and I'm upset about it!" does not have the same immediacy and tension and anger as "You id*ot!" I think the problem is that here I do mean it to be insulting. And "id*ot" is meant to be insulting. So I have trouble substituting, because this word is exactly what I want to convey: they were not smart and that is bad.
And that's the real problem with these words. They actively compare lack of intelligence with a decrease in human value. Our culture values being "smart," so when people do unintelligent things, that's viewed as bad. This means that people with learning or intellectual disabilities are seen as having lesser value than someone who doesn't. When I went looking for synonyms I found a list that included not just words like "thoughtless" and "nonsensical" and "outrageous," but also "bad," "contemptible," "gross," "horrible," and "evil." When you say "st*pid," someone with an intellectual disability hears these synonyms, even if going that far is unintended. The very existence of these words says a lot about our cultural values, and who we value and why.
In this novel, I was mostly able to change "id*ot" to "damned fool." But I'm worried about my next novel, in which the main character wrestles with her self-worth, which she (and people around her) have tied to her perceived level of intelligence. She calls herself "st*pid st*pid st*pid," several, several times. So I'm concerned, because it doesn't seem right to soften her negative self-talk and cut her a break, but at the same time, it doesn't seem right to drop ablist slurs left and right, harming readers. So this is an ongoing issue for me to work through.
I like the way you presented your thought process here. It resonates with me.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that your character who calls herself "st*pid" may, indeed, mean to call herself "thoughtless" and "nonsensical" and "outrageous," as well as "bad," "contemptible," "gross," "horrible," and "evil." If that's part of your character's development/struggle in the story, I think you should stay with it.
You may have noticed, anyway, that the word "st*pid" strikes American English speakers (who seem to generally take it to mean "lack of intelligence") more negatively than it does some other English speakers (who seem to take it to mean "poor judgement").
I like your overall view that "When someone tells me, "This hurts me," it's my job to do better rather than explain why I don't get it and how their feelings are incorrect." But obviously, as you also show, there's the matter of what to do absent someone telling you what offends them.
At the moment, for example, I'm trying to tamp down my confusion at the revelation that the term "blind spot" -- referring, for example, to a spot in a car that the driver cannot see -- may be considered offensive. My confusion lies in the fact that "blind" here is not being used metaphorically. On the other hand, the way I see it, if "blind spot" is used to refer to a flaw in a person's way of thinking, then that use is metaphorical and more obviously potentially offensive. (And are "revelation" and "the way I see it" and "obviously" in this paragraph also potentially problematical?)
While you can try not to use metaphors that are actually descriptions of medical conditions or of physical or mental disabilities/limitations/differences, word usage also changes with time. How far back do you go? (The evolution of the use of the word "silly" is interesting/amusing in this regard. Over 800+ years, it sort of went from good to bad to harmless to something akin to endearing. https://www.etymonline.com/word/silly https://www.bl.uk/learning/langlit/dic/oed/silly/silly.html and http://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2016/11/28/the-facinating-evolution-of-the-word-silly/ ) No, I'm not giving up "silly" -- yet.
And then there's the matter of culling language to the point of sounding like C3PO all the time . . . (minus, of course, bits like his "you must be short-circuiting again" slur hurled at R2D2 ---- Hmmm … maybe "bits" is a problem here --?)