Thought Snax

Shit people say to spouses of people who use wheelchairs:

My favorite “I”m so sorry” experience was in my first trial as a young lawyer, when Tim — who was an associate at the same fancy-pants DC law firm that I was — came to watch.  On a break, our loathsome opposing counsel came up to me and said, out of the blue, “I’m so sorry.”  Given the quantity of serious litigation bullshit he had engaged in, I was glad he saw fit to apologize, but thought it was better directed to the senior partner.  I was starting to say something about that when he added, “about your husband…”  Honestly, I still didn’t understand:  Tim wasn’t assigned to the case; what could this dude possibly mean?  He had to stumble on to say something about “injury” and “wheelchair” before it finally dawned on me.  Needless to say, I was speechless.

Years later, I actually wrote and submitted a “Modern Love” column to the New York Times after some lady walked up to us at a baseball game and said something about me being a good caretaker.  How can you explain in a sentence how ordinary life is?  How care is given and taken in equal measure?  Unfortunately, my column couldn’t compete with other important dispatches from the front lines of human relationships, for example, looking for a date on Craigslist or overthinking your boyfriend’s slippers.

That’s the great thing about the blog:  the only thing standing between my thoughts and publication is my own good judgment.  Such as it is.

Having thoroughly enjoyed Shit Sighted People Say to Blind People, Shit White Girls Say to Black Girls, and Shit White Girls Say to Arab Girls, I decided it would be hilarious to make a video out of some of the stupid shit people have said to Tim* over the years.  Only problem, of course:  I have no video production skills, not to mention equipment.  So — as with a couple of previous posts — I relied on the cartoon people over at xtranormal and created this.   I’m sure it doesn’t measure up to the videos that inspired it, but on the upside, I only wasted three hours on it.

*  Yes, it’s weird that it’s me (a walkie) and not Tim who made this little video, but he’s busy actually practicing law, or possibly (we can only hope!) drafting his first guest blog post.  Stay tuned!!

Sam Bagenstos has written a thoughtful post on the use of the word “retard” in movies and our response as a community.  He was responding to this post, which was reacting, in turn, to the use of the word “retard” in the Alexander Payne/George Clooney movie, The Descendents.  I tend to agree — on general free expression and artistic license grounds — that we should not be in the business of telling writers what to write.  But I’m hoping for the day when the casual use of the word “retard” carries the weight that the casual use “nigger” or “cunt” would.  (For example, I’m predicting it was pretty jarring to read those words in my blog.  Was it equally jarring to read the word “retard”?)

Given the intersection of language nerdery and disability rights, this is a subject that interests me and that I’ve written about a couple of times.  Sam’s blog post makes excellent points, including that

People use the r-word in real life, just like they use slurs against other groups (and just like they do other harmful and wrongful things), and it would be wrong to say that movies and literature can’t depict that.  (And I think it’s a cheat to say that the use of the word can be depicted but only if the character who uses it “learns the lesson” that it’s wrong or is otherwise shown to be a bad and unsympathetic character.  That’s not any different than requiring purely idealized depictions of people.)

Very true.  In fact, if the word were restricted to movies, books, or tv shows in which lessons were learned, we’d only hear it in after-school specials, where the bully turns out to have problems of his own, reforms, and everyone has a group hug in the end.  No, rather than requiring lessons be learned or the word avoided, I’m hoping the movie-going public evolves to the point where the writer knows that putting that word in a character’s mouth will communicate something deeply negative about that character.  Right now, the choice to have a white character use the word “nigger,” without the quotes, directed to or about an African-American, communicates something very specific and negative:  the speaker is a racist asshole.  Same with “cunt”:  sexist bastard, or denizen of frontier Deadwood, South Dakota.

The truth is, I find it incredibly jarring and disappointing when a character in a movie with whom I sympathize (or perceive that I’m supposed to sympathize) uses the word “retard” as a casual epithet.  It’s similar to the phenomenon that Ta-Nehisi Coates has called “the John Mayer Rule,” and which I called “drinking with white people”:   that moment when someone you thought was cool says something bigoted  . . . and the concomitant urge to avoid situations (in my case, drinking with acquaintances who don’t get disability rights) where this might happen.  There are good reasons why George Clooney would not say a long list of offensive epithets in a movie of the type I understand The Descendants to be.  I’m hoping for the day when writers and actors will think that way about the word “retard” and use it accordingly.

One final thought:  a laser-focus on one word misses is the many ways movies and TV can be demeaning to people with disabilities while remaining pristine in language use.  One of my favorite examples is Law & Order, which has presented a long string of pathetic and/or criminal people with disabilities, without once (that I can recall) showing, say, an attorney, detective, forensic professional, or random witness in a wheelchair.  Two episodes stick in my mind.  In one, a mother is accused of killing her son, a quadriplegic.  The son is presented as unable to get out of bed and as a result we are asked to sympathize with the homicidal mother.  Scenery-chewing DA Jack McCoy tells the jury — as a fact, I promise, not as a negative comment on the mother’s narrow world view — “she knew he’d never grow up to be a doctor or lawyer.”  Seriously – how hard would it have been for the writers to figure out that there are all sorts of quad doctors and lawyers and other professionals?  The other episode I recall was where the hunt for the killer led toward the brother who was paralyzed and as a result bitter and murderous.  While I can’t recall others off the top of my head, I don’t recall any portrayals of people who use wheelchairs straying beyond vegetative and/or embittered.  I’d take 100 George Clooney “retard” utterances over this.  Although we keep watching the damn show,* we know to turn it off the instant there is mention of a character with a disability.  We know, to a 100% certainty, that L&O will screw it up.

********************
* L&O occupies the very small overlapping area of Tim and my taste in television:

We recently went to trial against a fast-food chain for lack of wheelchair access.  In trial, three of the chain’s customers who use wheelchairs and the son of a fourth, now deceased, took the stand and described their experiences.  They described these experiences as a practical matter — a door that closed on an ankle, a queue line that was too narrow, employees who ignored them or told them they could not even wait off to the side of the line — and as an emotional matter — what it felt like to encounter these barriers, to be ignored, to be told to wait somewhere else. They talked about their own lives, too:  a lay pastor who counseled people with disabilities; an advocate who is working with the Smithsonian on a disability history project; a woman whose parents took her to see Martin Luther King, Jr. and taught her to stand up for her rights; a man whose mother had worked to integrate people with disabilities into her chorus.

The fast-food chain’s response was:  you’re lying.  You’re lying and you’re greedy.  The chain’s lawyers called the restaurant’s assistant manager to the stand to testify that she didn’t recognize any of them.  The lawyers pointed out — in cross-examining the customers — that they might recover damages, that they had filed other lawsuits to challenge other inaccessible conditions, that this wasn’t the closest restaurant to their homes.  The chain’s hired expert — who uses a wheelchair — took the stand to say he didn’t mind the barriers, that he didn’t consider it discrimination.

Four people who took time out of their day, their days, to be deposed, to take the stand in trial.  Work hours missed, long rides on public transportation.  Just to be accused of greed and dishonesty.  To be challenged on the fact that they had a life that took them farther afield than the restaurant closest to their homes.  To be accused — rather than celebrated — for standing up to other facilities and other defendants who had excluded them.

We defended them in the language permitted us by the law, by the rules of civil procedure and evidence.  Objections to relevance.  Quotes from the governing appellate court:  “[f]or the ADA to yield its promise of equal access for the disabled, it may indeed be necessary and desirable for committed individuals to bring serial litigation advancing the time when public accommodations will be compliant with the [ADA].”*

But as always, the late poet Laura Hershey says it best:

Telling**

What you risk telling your story:

You will bore them.

Your voice will break, your ink

spill and stain your coat.

No one will understand, their eyes

become fences.

You will park yourself forever

on the outside, your differentness once

and for all revealed, dangerous.

The names you give to yourself

will become epithets.

 

Your happiness will be called

bravery, denial.

Your sadness will justify their pity.

Your fear will magnify their fears.

Everything you say will prove something about

their god, or their economic system.

Your feelings, that change day

to day, kaleidoscopic,

will freeze in place,

brand you forever,

justify anything they decide to do

with you.

 

Those with power can afford

to tell their story

or not.

 

Those without power

risk everything to tell their story

and must.

 

Someone, somewhere

will hear your story and decide to fight,

to live and refuse compromise.

Someone else will tell

her own story,

risking everything.

A brilliant call to arms — to words? — for those who risk so much in speaking up.  It feels mundane to quote it in the context of a fast food restaurant.  But that’s the point:  in simply describing a visit to a restaurant, ordering food, interacting with staff, you risk being called a liar and having your motives and experiences questioned and belittled.

I devote my professional energies to disability rights law, but mostly I do that sitting at a computer researching or writing.  From that sheltered vantage point, it’s easy to lose sight of the courage it takes to tell your story in a courtroom and to be challenged, belittled, and accused of lying.  I am deeply grateful for those who are willing to tell their stories.

***************************

*  Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., — F. 3d —, 2010 WL 3665525, at *7, slip op. at 16016 (9th Cir. Sept. 22, 2010).

** Quoted with permission. Thanks, Robin!

Next time you are tempted to call someone a retard, or a [clever neologism]tard, or even accuse them of riding the short bus, stop and substitute one of the following offensive first-letter-only words: the N one; the S one; or the K, C, or J ones.

I’m actually going to make the argument that calling someone a r****d is worse than calling an African-American a n****r or a Chinese person a c***k.  Because it is not generally people with cognitive disabilities who are being called r****ds.  It’s not just a word of derision for the minority in question.  It is more commonly used to disparage people who are not cognitively disabled.  It’s saying “you are bad because you are like a person with a cognitive disability.”  Like calling white people n*****rs or c****ks:  “you are bad because you are like a black person . . . or a Chinese person.”

And liberals, I’m looking at you.  Mostly I’m looking at you because you’re all I read these days.  I know I know … echo chamber blah blah blah.  But when I want to read illogical ad hominem bullshit, I’ll stick with opposing counsel’s filings — which I have to read anyway.

I’m also looking at you liberals because you’re supposed to know better.  Remember?  We’re the ones who respect everyone.  Everyone.  Not “I’ve learned the words I’m supposed to use for black people and brown people and girl people but it’s just such a drag to have to learn the ones for disabled people.”  Everyone.

So, anecdotes, anyone?  How about the otherwise hilarious Wonkette, which insists on adding the suffix “tard” to turn random words into insults:

• Paultard
• Palestinetard
• Libtard
• Conservatard

This is seriously like deciding that it’s hilarious to insult people by adding “igger” to the end of other words.  Pauliggers.  Libiggers.  Conserviggers.  Palestiniggers.  That last one is just awful on so many levels, eh?  Now, do you get how truly awful Palestinetards is?

I’m predicting a common response.  Maybe I underestimate you, but what I predict is the response above:  it’s just such a drag to keep track of all this!  I just learned to say Negro, when I was told to say Black, then it was Africa-American.  Oriental? Asian?  Ooooo noooooo!  It’s just so confusing!

A while back I had an email exchange with a fairly prominent liberal blogger who had used the word “retarded” as an epithet.  I called him on it — saying it was equivalent to offensive expressions such as “jew him down.”  Here is the rest of the colloquy – quoted at some length because I think it typifies the common reaction, and sets out my views succinctly:

Prominent Liberal Blogger:  “Unfortunately, it’s hard to keep track of all the words that offend some subsection of the population these days.  I’ll watch myself in the future, although I have to admit that I have a hard time equating this to such a plainly offensive expression as ‘jew him down.’”

Me: I hear you, and I confess that I predicted this response.  The “keep track of” argument segregates groups whose rights and feelings are worth worrying about (Blacks; Jews) from those who aren’t really on the radar screen (people with cognitive disabilities).  The term you used is plainly offensive to a large subsection of the population; just one that you don’t really think about.

PLB: I really don’t think you can dismiss the issue like that.  It really is hard, and there really are lots of groups who get offended over things.  It’s just impossible for any single person to track it all.  It’s not as if there’s some clear rule for figuring out whether a term is legitimately offensive, after all.
Here in [his location], for example, it’s considered offensive to display the flag of Vietnam.  Big Vietnamese population, you see, and they insist that only the old South Vietnamese flag should ever be displayed publicly.  Is that legitimate? Or is the flag of Vietnam the flag of Vietnam, whether you like it or not?

Me: I would argue that there is a difference between using a term in a disparaging or pejorative manner and a political dispute.  I am firmly of the view, for example, that if you think affirmative action is wrong, or that gays should not be allowed to marry (both positions with which I disagree) or that one political system is or is not legitimate in Vietnam (a position on which I am sadly ignorant) there is nothing offensive about asserting and defending your political views.  I’ll argue anything on the merits.

Politely.[*]

On the other hand, you used a slang term that refers to a type of person and you used it in a pejorative sense.  You were not (I hope) expressing a negative political or other substantive view about people with cognitive disabilities.  I think common courtesy, rather than political correctness, would suggest that the word not be used that way.

Hell, even in the political context, a bit of forethought and courtesy would not be a bad thing.  If I were going to be a guest in the home of a Vietnamese person, I might look into the matter and not wear, say, a tee shirt with the wrong flag.  I really do think people with different views can speak to one another politely and respectfully.

* [Full disclosure:  Politely, but with occasional, okay fairly common, use of cuss words.]