|
Post by Buddy on Oct 7, 2012 5:52:57 GMT -5
I like to call this a "Late-night thought". Sometimes, before my medication takes effect I have thoughts, most of the time just insightful based on things I saw earlier, others being negative, but negative thoughts go into a journal, not in public. So here I shoot
I was on the Toys 'r' Us website, examining things, browsing for Transformers and other such-like...And suddenly I came across something interesting; A section of the site for "Children who are Differently-Abled" and, y'know what? I like this term, from the second I saw it. The reason Toys 'r' Us uses the term is because they do not believe children are "Disabled", that some just function differently. And in the case of most children like this, whether it be Down-Syndrome, Autism, or just being born differently. I've all my life avoided saying the "R" Word, (Retard...Ew. Why ;_; ) And to be honest, I've found the word "Disabled" a bit off-putting as well. However, I may have found a term I can use that doesn't feel offensive or humiliating to myself or anyone else who is disabled.
To anyone else, disabled or not. I wish to ask, what are your thoughts? Do you like this term? Why or why not? I'm perfectly open to discuss this. :3
-Buddy
|
|
|
Post by Cruella on Oct 26, 2012 14:41:51 GMT -5
I'm psychologically disabled, and I respectfully disagree.
I can see why Toys 'R' Us would use the term differently-abled. Kids pick up on negativity quickly and internalize it, so trying for positive spins in advertising to children makes sense to me. That said, I find it weird that Toys 'R' Us markets specific toys to disabled children that they might or might not be interested in. Disabled children are individuals as much any kids are individuals, and I would be pretty insulted (all right, I would be angry) if I were a kid and people gave me "special toys" instead of just toys, especially at the cost of never getting anything I actually wanted. I know that's not Toys 'R' Us' intention, I think their intentions with the matter are sweet, but a number of people translate things in an insulting narrow way and make kids feel bad for it.
As for the phrase differently-abled when used more generally, I don't like it. Can disabled people be differently abled? Oh yes. But to use that term in place of disabled implies that we're also not disabled, that we're just different. This is inaccurate. We are disabled and we can be, most of us probably are, also differently abled. It shouldn't be seen as an "either/or" situation, and a whole lot of well-meaning people do see it as an "either/or" situation.
It seems a lot of people get the idea that disabled means unable... to do anything. That's not what it means. I don't like how I had to lie just today by telling someone I don't think of myself as disabled, because given the circumstances of the phone meeting I was in, that stranger who bought into that line of thinking wouldn't have had heard me out otherwise. I don't think of myself as incapable and helpless, but I do think of myself as disabled, and there is a difference. I'll always struggle harder than most people with some things. That doesn't mean I can't do things, though there are some things I can't do and some things I can do sometimes and not on other times, and being able to do any number of things doesn't mean it's not hard for me to them. To use a mild example, I'm dyslexic and almost no one can tell. What they don't see is how my brain works overtime to compensate, and when I do mess up, I'm just seen as ditzy.
The phrase differently-abled doesn't offend me, but I don't see it as accurate. The word disabled shouldn't be humiliating, and the fact that is used to be humiliating should be changed. The word retard has devolved into just being an insult. This coming from the Family Retard of her extended family, the family I was born to isn't very nice. My mother never did believe anything was wrong with the word retarded. She grew up in a different era, but she was never affected by the word herself and I don't see how she could ignore how obviously it became nothing but an insult.
Disabled out to be saved and used as a means to educate, not turned into the next version of retarded. We're running out of words in the English language!
I also think the word crazy can be reclaimed, for what it's worth, although I see a whole lot less of people doing that. Similarly to disabled, every single thing I do is not crazy even though parts of my brain can be defined that way.
|
|
|
Post by Belchic on Oct 26, 2012 15:50:37 GMT -5
As one who is autistic, I don't see how this could effect me, but I do find it rather interesting nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by Cruella on Oct 26, 2012 16:11:38 GMT -5
As one who is autistic, I don't see how this could effect me, but I do find it rather interesting nonetheless. Oh, I think autism is definitely something that is effected by this language. There's so much variety in autism. It's not fair, for instance, for some autistic people to say autism is a difference and not a disability when it is both. That's not fair to other autistic people or even to the people who say that, because abilities can be inconsistent. Yes, I'm autistic. So is my husband. So are four of our children (at least, the youngest two are too young to tell) and one of my nephews. We're all very different in how we present, though we have some things in common. I'm surprised with Toys 'R' Us' current line-up of toys for autistic children, I have to say. I still don't agree with the concept, as I said before, but at least Toys 'R' Us isn't listening to the stereotype that autistic people can't be creative. Or maybe they do believe the stereotype and recommended some of the toys they did to teach creativity, although I don't think natural creativity can be taught. Still, at least this year's line-up does have actual fun toys instead of fifty million puzzles and LEARN TO TALK LIKE A NORMAL PERSON things, although there are those, too.
|
|