FF Strikes Again-- Lame!

So I thought I'd break my fast from posting at last. Not much has caught my interest, partially because I've been too exhausted to look for it, so I have sought out good old FF for some inspiration and I didn't have to look far.

Today's rant will be focused on ableism. Not familiar? Well, here is an article, quoted by FF, on ableism to give you an idea from an ableist's perspective.

Ready for the fun? Here I go:

I will stick to the major points of contention as it is a long article and I don't want to ramble too much by going through everything I take issue with.

In the very first paragraph I want to comment on the use of the word "uncritical" in two different places. As we all know, uncritical means- not expressing criticism. Basically, that we are accepting the state of things as they are. The examples that they give- walking vs. rolling, speaking vs. signing- really make me wonder because is it not "better" for a child to walk and speak? These things are the natural human state. I'm not saying you shouldn't be proud and confident as a person if you can't walk or speak, but given the choice, very few people would choose to lose these abilities. At the same time, every medical advance to assist the handicapped is designed to give them a life that is a closer representation of the non-handicapped. You wouldn't take a non-handicapped person and make them handicapped because the desirable state to be in is non-handicapped (for an excellent satire on this subject please read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut).

The second paragraph I just find funny as they criticize the use of the word bitch and yet the article is featured on Bitchmedia. I really don't see the difference between using the term lame as meaning uncool and their use of the term bitch in this non-derogatory manner. I am also amused by the their assumption that a person who calls a career women "cold" and "bitchy" is somehow implying that women should be kind, supportive, and have and prioritize family. If you're going to be that broad about it you could also put "independent" on the list of no-nos so why don't we step out of the 1920s and back into the 21st century.

Moving on to the thirst paragraph we start out with this doosy of a sentence: "there is a plethora of words which rely on a shared assumption that to be disabled is inherently bad, inherently less than a person without a disability, inherently unworthy of attention, consideration, or care." Now let's back up a second a get a few things straight. When we determined above that being handicapped was a less desirable state than being non-handicapped we were not speaking of the value of the individual. This is where their linguistic argument has the biggest break down as they make the enormous leap from an assumption about a physical state of being to an assumption about the unique qualities, personality, value, etc. of a human being. These are entirely different things. A healthy, active man who becomes a paraplegic in a car accident does not suddenly have less value, but there has been a detrimental impact on his physical state of being.

And now we turn to the use of words such as "lame". Now, traditionally lame refers to a person's physical state, but in this day and age has come to mean something very different. The linguistic transition from one use to the other had steps where it was a derogatory term for the handicapped, but that is not the common implication today. As a child, I first learned the term lame as a synonym for uncool, not as fun, and even boring, it was not until I got a little older that I was taught (not from social use but through book learning) the term's origin. At the rate things are going, in 100 years the only people who will associate lame with the disabled will be linguists and trying to the eliminate the word's usage through so called "ableist" thinking will only retard the progress. (and yes, the use of the word retard was intentional, as the same concept applies to this word as well)

There are cases where people still use terms like lame, retarded, gimpy, etc. in a derogatory manner which is not only distasteful but downright mean. However, the name of the game is context, context, context. In all speech it is not just what words we use, it is how we use them that matters.

Body Mod

As I drove home today an ad came on the radio for laser hair removal and it got me thinking. When you consider the term "body modification" what do you think of?

The first things that come to my mind are tattoos, piercings, and the more extreme miscellaneous items like people who have their tongues split in a snake like style.

In reality, by its pure definition, body modification is anything that changes the body from it's natural state. By this definition things like boob jobs, laser hair removal, face-lifts, botox, etc. are all body modifications in the same sense as the snake-tongue people. But, you'll notice, it is never called body modification in ads, and for obvious reasons. The people who sell these things know that you want your boob job to make you look more like the superstars, not the side show. It is a game of perceptions and connotation in order to sell their product.

You'll also notice that most people who are into "body modification" in the traditional use of the term are regulated to the fringe of society in many respects. The man who has tattooed his entire body to look like a lizard is unlikely to get a job in an executive office because of his modification but the woman with the boob job is, in some cases, more likely to get the position because of her modifications.

Obviously society has no problem with the general idea of altering your body from its natural state, you just have to do it in the ways they tell you to.