Seriously. Just Stop.
The R Word.
I feel like I’ve seen a huge resurgence lately in social media and out in the smelly old real world. I’ve made the argument against it. I don’t want to spend the time and mental and emotional capital doing so again. I don’t want to, partly because so many others have made a more eloquent and intelligent argument than I can, and they do so without the burden of being a past offender, like me, I’m ashamed to say. But mostly, I don’t wish to argue because I’m tired of it. I’m tired of asking the world to be just a tiny bit better, to do something so easy, so inconsequential to their day-to-day lives that it is perhaps LITERALLY the very least they can do. The only way they can do less is to do nothing at all. I’m exhausted. And I’m depressed. So to those still using that word, go ahead. Say retard.
But understand what that means.
You’re not ignorant of the meaning of the word. You make that clear with your arguments. The word was once an accepted medical term, you point out, as if you’re at home putting leeches on your neck because that’s how they did it back in the day. Why is this such a popular argument? It’s like excusing blatantly horrible racism because that’s the way they did back in Grandpa’s day. Go back far enough and you’ll be hunting with rocks and eating the ticks off your family members. Evolution is supposed to be a one-way process.
There are still accepted uses of the word, you say, such as when you refer to “a plant’s growth being retarded by lack of water”, as if anyone actually uses that word without trying to make a point. According to the Global Language Monitor, there are 1,025,109.8 words in the English language as of January 1, 2014. (I assume the .8 word is “uh”.) You’ve got choices. Using “retarded” in a specifically non-related way is like using the term “niggardly” to describe someone’s behavior. You know exactly what you’re doing. You’re not being a champion for language. And the point you’re making isn’t the one you probably think. If you’re using the word “retard”, really in just about any context, you’re being judged. Using that word “innocently” is a little like eating the part of the cheese that ISN’T covered with mold. Sure, you can do it. But you look gross in doing so.
Is it fair, taking that word away from you? Don’t you have a right to use whatever word you please? Surely brave patriots gave their lives at Lexington and Bunker Hill so that King George the Third couldn’t keep you from watching reality TV and saying “This show is so retarded.” I don’t have an answer for you, because at this point, the question isn’t about your rights. It’s not. You’re an American; you’ve got the right to say whatever you please. (If you’re not an American, then check your local listings, I guess.) You’ve also got the right to eat that pizza with the hot dogs in the crust or vote for Donald Trump. Being an American means you can do all sorts of horrible things.
But that right doesn’t grant you immunity from the reaction you’ll receive.
If you use that word, either in an unrelated context so you can pull the “aha, but I’m not using it that way, so never you mind”, or as an insult even though “I don’t mean it that way, I just meant something that’s stupid”, then you’re making a choice. You’re choosing to make a whole group of people with intellectual disabilities into the punchline of a joke.
Schuyler understands that word, even though she never heard it at home. She learned it out in the world, in the crucible of the public school system. Schuyler knows that it refers to people like her, and that it is meant not just as an insult, but as pretty much the worst insult. You have no value. You are the template for “stupid”. And you are fair game, because you lack both the inherent ability and the societal cache to fight back effectively.
If you use this word, knowing what you’ve been told by people who live with this every day, you’re not some kind of freedom fighter for free speech. You’re not dabbling in etymology. You’re not a champion fighting against out-of-control political correctness (a term that gets tossed around frequently because it’s harder to make a case for being against common human decency). You’re not being cute, and you’re not being clever. You’re choosing to use a word that you know hurts people, and people for whom your clever justifications are the hardest to understand. Given the vast expanse of word choices in the English language, you’ve chosen this hill to die on, in defense of this one hateful word.
And that’s fine. Just know, as I’m pretty certain you already do, that the price for your heroic stand in defense of this ugly turd of a word is the very real pain you cause others, both those whom you’re using as a template for an insult and the people who love and take care of them. Schuyler. Her friends. Me. And probably lots of people you know and work with or attend church with. People you don’t even realize have loved ones with developmental disabilities, but hear you say it and quietly remark to themselves, “What an asshole.”
One more thing. Someday, after years of throwing this word around carelessly, you may finally understand. You may come to love someone who is very intentionally at the center of that insult, and you’ll finally get it. I promise you, as one who knows, when that day comes, you will despise yourself. And no amount of penance will wash that away.
Note: To support the site we make money on some products, product categories and services that we talk about on this website through affiliate relationships with the merchants in question. We get a small commission on sales of those products.That in no way affects our opinions of those products and services.
Share this:
About The Author
Rob
Robert Rummel-Hudson is the author of "Schuyler’s Monster: A Father’s Journey with His Wordless Daughter", which tells the story of raising a little girl with a disability and learning to become the father she needs. It was published in February 2008 by St. Martin’s Press.
Um… we’re not talking about a term that was current back in the days of leeches: We’re talking about a term which was the correct, medical term in all contexts until 2010 when “Rosa’s Law” passed. I repeat: 2010.
Look, when you’re referring to the use of “retard” as a slur or an insult, I’m behind you 100%. I’ve called people on this usage before. You’re right; it has to go.
But when you pillory people for absent-mindedly using the term “mentally retarded” as a synonym for “intellectually disabled” in a respectful or neutral sense, you’re not accomplishing anything to advance the rights of the cognitively impaired. In fact, when you make it The Word Which May Never Be Uttered, you alienate the mentally handicapped from their own Civil Rights history.
Here’s an interesting tidbit for you about Civil Rights History: “Black” used to be the worst thing you could call someone of African ancestry, even in some way worse than the “niggardly” cousin. But the leaders of the Civil Rights movement decided to push back by EMBRACING the term “Black”. They started a “Black is beautiful” meme, and spoke of “Black Power” and “Black Pride”. They eliminated “Black” as an insult by adopting it as a point of pride.
Dumbledore was right; refusing to say Voldemort’s name makes him more fearsome, not less.
I’m simply going to say that I disagree probably about as vigorously as I can, but I appreciate your respectful tone. I guess the important thing is the dialogue.
I will say that the subtleties in usage that you’re talking about can be easily lost on the very people who stand to be the most easily hurt. The civil rights history of people with intellectual disabilities is full of sorrow and inhumanity. More to the point, I believe the history of their civil rights movement lies mostly in the future. The choices we make now matter a very great deal.
Honestly, I can’t see anything “subtle” about the distinction. A teacher who says “It’s common for mentally retarded kids to have problems with social boundaries” because she’s concentrating too hard on problem-solving a Special Needs student’s behavior problems to remember the new term is in a totally difficult category than a group of teens who surround an intellectually-disabled classmate and start mocking her by calling her a retard. Making it about “the word” obscures that.
Think about it: Would the second scenario be any less heinous if they were calling her “dummy” instead of “retard”? The problem is the belief that it’s allowable to bully and harass those below you on the social ladder.
You’re arguing for people’s right to use out-of-date medical terminology. Why? If they’re people of good intention, they deserve to be taught that the language has changed — and as people of good intention, one correction is all they’ll need. Correction isn’t the same as “pillory.”
Your argument places the speaker’s discomfort with being told he or she has said something offensive above the discomfort of the person hurt by it. I disagree with your priorities.
If it were just a civil correction, I wouldn’t be so bothered. I’ve seen internet comments calling for middle-aged doctors to be fired for using this “newly outdated” terminology in conference with parents. I’ve also read Special Needs bloggers bragging about going off on a volunteer collecting money because his vest read “Help the retarded”.
BTW, that’s not how language “changes”. Linguistic replacement of an older term with a new one involves a long period of overlap during which both terms are in use. So far, I’m betting that most people outside the disability community haven’t encountered the new term yet. It’s not surprising– I haven’t noted that many parents are willing to USE the term “intellectual disability” very often to refer to their kids, preferring to either use the umbrella term “special needs” or to simply use another one of their children’s diagnoses as their primary “disability identification”.
Rosa’s Law only covers the terminology used on federal forms; actual language change will only occur when and if the general public adopts the new label.
It’s a sad truth that any term used to describe intellectual disabilities will eventually be appropriated as an insult. Idiot and moron both used to be medical terms; at some point we had to abandon those as the way to describe people who deserve more respect than the new connotations allow. “Retarded” has been a crappy choice since the 90s, so if you’re still fighting this one it may be time to give in.
It’s a shame that the acceptable term for intellectual disability is a moving target but it’s just not that big a deal to have to switch to a new term once the old one becomes hurtful.”Special” will be on the hurtful list in another decade or two, and we will all survive finding another word to use. People before things, compassion before technicalities.
Astrin, if you look carefully at your own language, you will notice that you are making a HUGE faux pas right here in this discussion of correct language ussage, by calling the children you teach not children, but Special Needs Children. You do this twice.
These are people who are so much more than their label. Just as you have taken the time to adjust your thinking to say “someone OF African ancestry”, in the same way, don’t you think you could say ” children WITH special needs”?
I can promise you that every parent and child you have unknowingly offended will be gratefull if you could see them as more than their disability.
And sometimes I use that construction. But not when I think that the sentence is involved enough already, and additional clunkiness might obscure my meaning.
I also use “blacks” or “African Americans” at times, because it’s bad writing to always use the exact same words and phrases over and over again in a short. English is a very rich and diverse language; we should celebrate that fact to the utmost.
BTW, I’m no longer working with children, and the example above came purely from my imagination.
Do you think saying ‘women’ instead of ‘people with a female gender’ is sexist or denying their humanity? Or saying that someone is a college student, or a musician, or a Christian, in some way denies their humanity?
Person first language is awkward and unnecessary. Non-person first language is used all the time in many contexts without implying a lack of humanity. Meanwhile, I’ve ran into plenty of people who use person first language without seeing our humanity.
To break the stigma, we need to see disability as just another descriptor, rather than putting it in its own category. I’m autistic. I’m a woman. I’m a college student. I really do see those things all as essentially value-neutral, but I doubt you do.
Thank you for this article.
My own father, Robin Elliott, used to throw the word around on his Facebook like it was nothing, all the while knowing that his friends list included many of my own friends… All of us painfully aware that his grandson has Down Syndrome.
When I politely asked him to remove one particular post where he was ranting on about the school system pushing the “retards, losers and gangsters being pushed ahead at the cost of the intelligent and strong students”, my father retaliated with the same arguments you put forth in your article. Freedom of speech, etc.
He no longer phones or visits me or my sons. I think we are better off without him anyway, but it is so sad that some people can discriminate so blatantly against the innocent.
Thank you. I so enjoy your articles.
It does suck to have to let words go. Niggardly is a fun example of an unfairly targeted word that still shouldn’t be used. It comes from a completely different root, truly has zero to do with Black people. Still, I avoid using it because there are less controversial options that won’t offend people. One of my favorite writing professors insisted that there are no perfect synonyms in English. Niggardly means something slightly different from stingy, parsimonious, etc. The best synonym I can think of is Scroogey. Which on the one hand isn’t a word but on the other hand is more fun to say because it sounds a little like screwy.
Still… do we need to do away with ALL uses of offensive words? Or just those that could be misconstrued as insults. For example, what about retard as a verb? If you retard the growth of something, that’s a useful distinction. Limit or curb don’t quite convey the same thing. In chemistry a retardant is the opposite of a catalyst. Hmmm. Need to think about this one.
You know, that’s a fair question, and it deserves a better answer than I can give.
I guess my answer would come in the form of a question. If you were standing next to someone with an intellectual disability, someone who is familiar with that word in the worst possible way, would you use it, even in an innocent, utilitarian way? Knowing that you could justify your use of it, would you still do it?
I know what my answer would be, and I’m pretty sure I know what most people would say. So it becomes less about what we should or shouldn’t do away with and more about awareness, of who is listening, who is understanding our meaning, etc. And honestly, if there are people around or if we’re writing in a public place, it’s impossible to have that awareness.
Having said that, this is a little bit of a distraction. Despite an earlier assertion, I don’t believe I’ve ever “pilloried” anyone for using it in a non-insulting manner. But honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard someone defend their use of it in a real world sort of way, as in “here’s a situation in which I need to use it”. Perhaps I just don’t know enough fire jumpers in real life. Mostly, I hear it in situations like this, in a “what if” scenario.
Which is fine, because it’s a discussion worth having. But it’s also not the problem, in general. And way too often, it’s a point that is often made in a smug, “you can’t police my language” sort of tone. (Not by you!) And that’s just contrarian time-wasting, in my opinion.
I agree with you in theory and in practice. I don’t use that word and discourage others from doing so. However, as someone with a different disability, I had two parents who came at the problem from different angles (I lived with them separately). One parent took your approach to the language used to humiliate me and worked hard to educate others as to why it was wrong to use (and encouraged me to do so.) The other focused on encouraging me to reclaim those very same words as my own identity and ’embrace and erase’ the false negativity given them by others (similar to what black activists did to reclaim “black”.) In the short run the parent who fought for me was more appreciated; however, in the long run the parent who taught me not to care what others did or said was more valuable to my development as a strong and resilient human being. Just food for thought from a longtime reader.
…a smug, “you can’t police my language” sort of tone…
Oh, yeah. Like a sibling in the back seat going, “Not touching…not touching…not touching! Can’t tell mom and dad!”
It seems like when some people insist on their “right” to offend others, for them the whole conversation turns on control. Who has it, how far it extends, who deserves and doesn’t deserve it, etc. So when you ask them to show respect for another’s feelings/viewpoint/boundaries/whatever, they actually interpret this as a gesture of coercion. These are probably the same people who try to instill “respect” in others by exerting control over them.
It can be really, really hard to set boundaries with someone who equates respect with submission. Or, on the flip side, really, really easy to walk all over them. Not that I speak from experience…it’s really a harmful and limiting way to view the world.
On the positive side, there are also plenty of people who simply don’t understand the level of hurt caused by the R-word and other offensive language because they’ve never experienced it themselves. In some ways I find these latter types even more aggravating, because I feel like their good intentions should have taught them more compassion. But those two concepts also are not as closely related as I used to think.
Good points about people who try to equate respect with submission… I had never thought of that angle.
I was certain you were referring to the ridiculous term “special needs.” People don’t have “special” needs. They have needs. Keep labeling. We’ll keep fighting. Yeah, I support screwing with people who stupidly use the “R” word.