Why is Ohio ret*d but Connecticut Isn't? (Article)

Post Reply New Topic

ARTICLE FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST

by Kim Stagliano

You've probably heard of the uproar over the use of the word "ret*d" in the new Ben Stiller movie, Tropic Thunder. It has practically whitewashed the fact that Robert Downey Jr.'s character performs in blackface. No small feat.

As a writer, and the mother of three girls with autism, I choose my words carefully when writing about people with disabilities. Not because I have a need to be politically correct. I can be as vulgar and irreverent as Ben Stiller or even the Farrelly brothers (hang on, I have to kneel for a moment to thank God for the Farrelly brothers.) Inside this middle aged woman lives the sense of humor of a 14 year old boy. My Sirius XM radio alternates between channel 75 (Siriusly Sinatra) and Howard 100, where the Howard Stern show airs all day long.

I try to avoid using the term autistic to describe a person - except in cases where brevity is a requirement, like a headline. I dislike calling my own kids autistic. It says so much, yet tells so little about them. They have autism. But autism is not who they are.

Is the person with an IQ of 70 (the psychiatric cut off point for "mental retardation") damaged compared to his friend with an IQ of 71? I don't think so. If you want to grab one more book for end of summer reading, buy Lottery from Patricia Wood. It's about a man with a borderline IQ who wins $12,000,000 in the Lottery. We should all be as smart as main character Perry L. Crandall. OK, back on track. I'm home with the three girls and it's hard to keep my focus. I think I just put laundry in the dishwasher.

I've noticed that the nomenclature rules seem to change by disease and diagnosis. For instance, children with cancer are never called cancerous. Yet children with diabetes are diabetic. People with Down syndrome are not "Downers" (pun fully intended.) There's no rhyme or reason why a gnarled grandmother is called arthritic and yet her husband has Alzheimers. We aren't calling him Alzheimerian... yet. Speaking of which...

My friend John Robison, (Augusten Burrough's big brother and author of the memoir Look Me In The Eye) calls himself "Aspergian," preferring that name to the snake-like sound of "Aspie." Since he has Asperger's, I think he should be allowed to call himself whatever he wants. It's when others decide the word is a pejorative and use it with malice that the word morphs into something sinister.

But what about when it's a state that uses the term? Ohio still has "MRDD" which is the Department of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability Services. Connecticut has "DDS" which is the Department of Developmental Disability Services. What does your state call its department? Surely Ohio intends no malice, and yet it appears to be painfully out of date, out of touch with the times. Or is it? Tropic Thunder may make Ohio au courant after all.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-stagl ... 20021.html

And:



She hit it there.

(As of note, Downey has me laughing like a moron every time I think of him in said movie.)

I just left Ohio, and FWIW, their services for autistics suck, at least in the areas I was. In school, I was forced to drop IEP and all accommodations in order to enroll in gifted courses, even though that's a clear violation of ADA. And diagnostic services are difficult to find.

But what about when autistics are offended by being called "people with autism" and prefer to be called autistic?

I remember in the 1950's when blacks were deciding what they wanted to define themselves as, rather than be defined by the other. And gays came to be known as what they wanted to be defined as rather than being defined by the "other."

I always thought that is what being politically correct was. . allowing people to define themselves rather than be defined by others.

I like this Kim Stagliano if I am going to be labeled I would really prefer to use one I can live with instead of what NTs come up with.

Orwell,

People can call themselves whatever they like, and take offense to the same likeness.

To me, it's like someone calling themselves a "black person", "cancerous person", "ret*d person"; there's nothing to these descriptions but what the viewer sees with his or her biases. If I'm an "Autistic person", people will see me through whatever set of eyes they have, and what "Autistic" means to them.

Whilst it's "pervasive", "Autistic" is only a small part of who I actually am; it'd be just as descriptive to call myself a "white person", and equally silly if I want others to view me without bias.

I'm a person, nothing more, nothing less (whatever label or skin colour I have, it doesn't define me as a person).

Except that she's notorious for being a curebie.

lol

Yes, but again, if the label is to be used at all, I am an autistic person, not a person with autism. I am a white person, not a person with whiteness.

lmao

We can help her with that unlike most stupid NTs this one has hope.

of course you can back this up with references?

Merle

Orwell,

If labels are important; there's about a zillion people will need to apply to themselves if they're to be seen as who they actually are, i.e., I'm an Autistic, white, blah, blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum, person. With all of these attached, people may have a better insight into who I am compared to that single label reference, like "Autistic person".

I am a person who is melanin deficient [for where I now live].

LOL. I was born and raised in Ohio, with the exception of a few years as a child in South Dakota, and lived there until I was forty, a few years ago; I now live permanently in South Dakota. I can definitely tell you that Ohio is, indeed, "ret*d", in many senses of the word. Even though most of my family and lifelong friends remain there, I will never go back except to visit. This doesn't surprise me at all.

I saw the movie, and...there's nothing to be upset over in relation to the word "ret*d"; it's even pointed out that the depiction of "Simple Jack" was over the top (the word "ret*d" is actually used in its correct definition by depicting someone who is "backwards", even if it was over the top). Sure, it's a depiction that's supposed to draw laughter from the crowd, but that in itself isn't a "bad" thing, and the movie isn't biased either, as it makes fun of just about everyone and everything.

(When Downey [with his skin pigmentation alteration and stereotypical "black man" sarge characterisation] was telling Stiller why "Simple Jack" was such a flop, it had me laughing like a moron, as he pointed out that Hoffman didn't go "full ret*d" in "Rain Man", he went "Autistic", and Hanks didn't go "full ret*d" in "Forrest Gump", as he was a ping-pong champion [amongst other things].)