We've had lots of emails including this:
There's nothing derogatory about using the word "handicapped". It's a descriptive word and was correctly used.
If he'd said 'cripple' I'd have been shocked, but would have cheered him for exercising his right to use the language as he sees fit.
Pete
Feel free to add your comment.
Jump to more content from this blog
PM The evening news and current affairs programme presented by Eddie Mair.
iPM The programme that starts with its listeners. Join the discussions online and contribute ideas for a weekly programme presented by Eddie Mair and Jennifer Tracey.
Read the final report of the PM Privacy Commission.
Meet the commissioners, view the terms of reference and hear the Commission Chair Sir Michael Lyons explain his approach.
91热爆 漏 2014 The 91热爆 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.
RSS feed
Email us
Listen to PM
I do wish presenters would stop asking peole to add their comments to "the BLOG" - its not a blog its a message board
Of course using the term 'handicapped' is offensive.
The MP is out of order to park in a disabled bay - does he think he is above the rules that apply to the rest of us. It is people like him who give Tories a bad name. I hope the Council crush his car!
Colin
Is the word 鈥榓sterixes鈥 offensive?
No. It's a blog.
The MP who parked in a disabled space doesn't believe that a disproportionately large allowance should be made for minorities. It scares me to think this person is shaping the laws of the land. It might be that disabled driver spaces are commonly empty. It is only right that able-bodied drivers make an allowance for their disabled fellows. At least they are able to park elsewhere and walk.
I always thought it was the thoroughbreds who were handicapped to give the less adequate a chance, you never handicap a donkey, guess what that makes this MP
I am American and the accepted term in the US is 'handicapped'. Disabled is not PC. However, in living in the UK I've had to keep reminding myself to use the term 'disabled' instead of 'handicapped'. I have used the right word in the wrong country and been the recipient of evil glares.
I really don't see the difference. Aren't handicapped and disabled the same? I certainly can't find a difference in dictionaries.
Use of the word handicapped is as bad as use of the words mongol, spastic, lunatic and cretin. Such oppressive language belongs in a history of discrimination against disabled people which we are slowly moving out of. This Tory MP is a dinosuar. As for there being too many spaces, there is a golden opportunity under the DDA and for Public Authorities under the Equalities Act to make rail travel inclusive of disabled people. The parking bays will be filled - if only society would assume that disabled people need the opportunity to travel by rail.
What is offensive about the descriptive term "handicapped"?
Of course if people aren't able but would like to do things that most other people can do then they are handicapped.
To say that this is an offensive word is just ridiculous political correctness on a par with saying that it is society that disables people not their physical or mental attributes.
This is a blog. A message board has a completely different format.
"of course" is not a reasoned argument.
Of course... the bay was not disabled - had it been the miscreant would not have been able to park there.
(just to demonstrate the tediousness of taking people to task for sloppy English usage).
Of course 'handicapped' is not offensive. If disabled people are not thereby handicapped, they've no business using car parking spaces put aside for such people.
[Colin might note that a 'disabled bay' is of no use to man or beast].
Yes handicapped is offensive and labelling. It's not just a descriptive word - it implies negative values that someone who has a disability is unable to do something. Disability is a more neutral term and simply notes the fact of the disability rather than assuming the person is "handicapped" by it. Glass half full not half empty please!!
He was wrong to use a parking space reserved for the disabled, but insisting that he should stick to the current acceptable term for people who suffer a physical handicap is ridiculous.
Mark my words: "disabled" will be deemed offensive at some time in the near future.
I am a wordsmith for a living, careful of and sensitive to the words I use.
Some people are clearly offended by 'handicapped', others by 'disabled', and yet more by any reference to differences of any kind.
Trust me: you'll never please everybody. All you can hope to be is understood by the majority.
Fifi
The words 'handicapped,' 'crippled,' and 'invalid' are factually accurate adjectives, and we are deluding ouselves if we think they are not. They are used to draw a distinction between them and 'able bodied' as in 'able bodied seaman,' or AB, a job which has existed for hudreds of years. Is this now to be considered politically incorrect?
My expensive dictionary gives the definition of 'handicapped' as being mentally or physically disabled. No mention of it being a pejorative term. Who decided it was? why wasn't I told? Should I buy a more expensive dictionary?
Pete Smith took the words out of my mouth in his second paragraph.
So any suggestions as to what the PC pundits will come up with next? Something with "challenged" no doubt.
PS I went to school with Anthony Steen MP. I remember he won the long jump. Could that have any bearing on his wretched attitude?
Andrew Webster (1) : Strictly speaking, it is a FROG. i.e. a combination of a blog and a forum. But certainly not a message board.
Perhaps you should ask Mr Mair to invite comments to the Frog instead?
After all, we must be accurate, mustn't we?
;o)
Fifi
Whenever new words replace long-used words which have become offensive, people start to use the replacements as insults.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep a step ahead.
Dr Hackenbush is rightly concerned. I thought 'Asterix' was a Belgian sleuth. How the RSPB can fit four Asterixes into the same space as would have been occupied by 'cock', I do not know. Of course, it could have been a very large cock but blackbirds are not very large. He (Asterix) would have to be severely handicapped to fit in such a small space. It would be much simpler to insert asterisks.
If significant numbers of disabled people find the term 'handicapped' offensive, why do others find it so difficult to respect their feelings and use a different word.
Dr H - I don't know about 'asterixes' being offensive, but it was certainly irritatingly incorrect. I had mental visions of the RSPB page having words then a row of four little cartoon Gauls!
Whether or not individual members of the public are aware that 'handicapped' has been considered a derogatory term by a significant part of the disabled community for quite some time now, an MP should be. The general tenor of Mr Steen's comments suggests to me that he was intentionally trying to be offensive.
The Conservative Party found it necessary to find themselves a new Defence spokesman a couple of months ago because of comments perceived as racist. It's quite clear that Mr Steen is an unapologetic disablist, so I see this as a real test of whether the Conservatives truly consider equality for disabled people as having the same importance as that for other minorities.
For the record, I'm a blue badge holder, it's renewal is currently overdue (application stuck in the council's system) and I'm being absolutely rigorous about not parking anywhere I'm not currently entitled too, even at the cost of considerable pain. Why can't Mr Steen hold himself to the same standard?
Words change, quite rightly, as attitudes do. Adapting shows that we are a society, a polis, a community - not just individuals living by our own rules, but individuals - infinite in diversity - but nonetheless with a necessary care for the common humanity of other folk.
What is more offensive than the words handicapped and disabled is the way both are being used. Who are these archetypes? The Disabled, The Blacks, The 91热爆less, The Poor...
Doubtless this'll be castigated as political correctness run mad but would it not be better if, as many disabled people so often ask, we talked about disabled people rather than The Disabled, thereby according them personhood above disability...
E
I have some sympathy with Mr Steen.
The "disabled lobby" has in common with so many minorities become disproportionately loud leading to the subjugation of the vast majority.
With regard to the tortured nomenclature used by the hand wringers we have a local bus service for the "Differently Abled"!
First - it is most definitely a Blog. A blog is site where the posts are typically presented in date order. The comments are blog comments. Not Forum comments. This blog provides a forum for debate but is not a Forum or Message Board. PHbb is a nessage board or Forum.
Handicapped - the issue is whether disabled people themselves find the term offensive. Once long ago many people used the word "nigger". Black people found this offensive and said so. We stopped using it. Some said " well they shouldnt be so sensitive". Most of us normal rational people said "ok what would you like to be called" and so the world moved on.
It seems to me that is the ommision of the word people which could be offensive to some - compare "the handicapped" to "people with disabilities". I know this comment will be greeted by some with the dreary mantra "this is political correctness gone mad" but I believe that language does carry meaning and implications and therefore it is respectful to think about how perceptions of different groups is affected by how they are described.I would ask Nigel Booth how on earth people with disabilities are "subjugating" the vast majority by having a bit more access to society and by attempts to use more inclusive language. This whole episode shows us the Tories are unchanged despite Cameron's impersonation of Blair !
Learning how to use the correct terminology is easier than shedding an offensive attitude.
That is the simple truth about the whole PC farce. Making the right noises is always easier than putting things right.
>>If significant numbers of disabled people find the term 'handicapped' offensive, why do others find it so difficult to respect their feelings and use a different word.
As I already stated, Americans use the term 'handicapped'. They use disabled as well, but the parking spaces, blue badges, etc are termed for the 'handicapped'. There are 300 million people in the US and as PC mad as they are, handicapped is not derogatory. It is no more derogatory than disabled. Logically, disabled Americans don't feel insulted or it would have been changed.
Now, please do not make some anti-American comment about how we've rubbished the English language anyway......
I think tarin (28) hit the pin on the nose.
Labelling terms, 'the handicapped', 'an epilectic', 'two autistics' is to label a whole entire person by the disease (illness, syndrome etc) that they have. We are more than that.
It might not sound much, but to speak of 'a person with such-and-such' is the first step to treating people with equity.
So, yes, Blog owner, "handicapped" is offensive.
nikki
My mate Dave isn't "one of the disabled"; he's a blind person. That's his take on the matter, anyhow. Call him visually impaired, he'll probably tell you that euphemisms are for the differently brained.
His disability, he adds thoughtfully, is a bit of a handicap when it comes to reading. Or to look at it another way, his handicap has disabled him from reading. It doesn't stop him from drinking, though, and at that point you get to buy him a pint or he sets the dog on you.
Quite seriously, shouldn't it be up to the person being called the thing, what he or she wants it to be called? If Dave said he was crippled, I'd go along with it even though that's deeply offensive to some other blind people. Just the same way that "nigger" could be spoken with affection and cause no offence at all between friends, and "bastard" in Australia seems to be anything from a term of endearment to a cause for a full-scale barroom fight.
Incidentally, Dave reckons that "Specifically Incapacitated Person", SIP for short, is the way to go, and is really looking forward to hearing kids in playgrounds calling each other "sippies" when they want to be rude.
If I called someone stupid or ugly or some other nasty word or gave them a rude nickname, they would be entitled to be offended and I should not be surprised. If I mispronounce someone's name or get it slightly wrong and that person corrects me then I should do them the courtesy of trying to get it right in future. So if someone is offended by being thought of or called handicapped or disabled then I should out of the same courtesy avoid referring to that person in that way. It's plain good manners.
As for either term handicapped or disabled, I cannot quite understand how they have got a hold. My brother had an inherited medical condition which made certain things difficult but not impossible. He couldn't have run or played any form of energetic or contact sports but he could walk (in pain sometimes) read, sing, play a musical instrument, write computer games, paint, talk, eat and so on. In fact he could do more than I can and I don't have his condition. I cannot play sports either but that's because I'm completely useless. He and I were no different really except that he was better at most things than me and a nicer person. And he had some horrible painful experiences and eventually died - haemophiliac with poor quality blood treatments.
We all have limitations. We all have things we are good at. We are all different and all get about and deal with this world in our own ways. What those commonly referred to as handicapped or disabled are trying to get those of us who are not to see is that we are all really the same in many or most ways but we all need common courtesies and considerations to account for our individual differences and abilities.
This is a serious issue and any politician that cannot comprehend this is in the game for him or herself and does not appreciate the people he purports to represent.
Mary
Blog, Frog, message board, - all one of the same in the end --
Text being digitised!
I prefer 'People with disabilities' personally.
I heard Eddie Mair beat up the hapless and helpless spokesman for the alcohol manufacturers on P M today as I drove from Gibraltar , where I live and work , to my weekend place in Spain .
Eddie , you go further than you may think!
The questions were put in a relatively gentle tone , given the plain inability of the spokesman to defend himself , but Eddie was more interested in sounding virtueous than shedding light on the issue.
To say that alcohol is a "drug" is just meaningless.So is paracetomol. The perjorative overtones were intended to smear the interviewee's position without the trouble of rational argument .
To suggest to the spokesman that the drinks vendors should act on the basis of the views of advocacy groups WITHOUT THE NEED FOR EVIDENCE , because it could be said to be self evident , is beneath the forensic dignity of so acute a man as Mair.
My main complaint is that Mair studiously avoided dealing with the killer point ,and it is unfortunate that the interviewee seemed to lack the courage to insist upon makeing it more forcefully.
Mair asserted that it was "wrong " to sell alcoholic drinks "so cheaply" , apparently on the basis that it was self-evident that drinkers would drink more and suffer from the consequences.
This is in fact plainly not the case , as a few moments thought will show.
In my country , Gibraltar , Cigarettes are 90P -拢1
for 20. I don't think we have a higher rate of cigarette smoking or lung cancer and I have family in medical services who would correct an erroneous impression on my part.
Nobody in my family smokes , though it would cost very little to do so.
The cheapest whiskey is 拢1.99 a bottle and a litre of the good stuff is 拢5.60.
We don't have a worse alcoholism problem than U K , and in fact we are much more civilised in our use of alcohol.
In Spain prices are a little higher than in Gibraltar, but you can buy 6 cans of Amstell lager for 拢1 at the supermarket.
Spain does not have the binge drinking problem that U K has. It has other problems , mainly heavy wine consumption by poor rural workers , who drink it like water and often pay nothing for it because they make their own.(It can take 60 years to kill you and there are worse ways to go.)
Mair simply ignored the point that alcohol use is a social phenomenon in which price is not a major driver. Price does ,however, enable those who don't wish to take the trouble to deal with complexity to flex their self-righteous muscles
without the bother of actual mental effort.
Let us just consider for a moment the absolutely bloody obvious : Alcohol is VERY EXPENSIVE in England.
It is never cheap.The taxes are are enormous
compared with many other countries , including those many countries not a million miles away and with very similar social institutions and ways of life , like Gibraltar , Spain and Portugal.
But ,and it is a Big But , England has much more of a promlem with alcohol than other countries where the price is much lower.
Can it be that these problems are not due to "Buy 2 , get 1 Free" , and could it possibly be the case that the huge taxes on alcohol and tobacco in the U K have something to do with
the Government's wish to raise the largest possible amount of revenue and little or nothing to do with public health?
Eddie , you creamed the guy , but are you proud of this piece of work?
I would really like to know.
Tom Phillips
Eddie, you titled this thread 鈥淚s "Handicapped" offensive?鈥 Pretty obvious answer is that currently, 鈥淵es鈥 it is.
A much better question would have been 鈥淚s this MP a Prat?鈥 Again the pretty obvious answer is, 鈥淵es鈥 he is.
It may well be that in 10 years time 鈥渄isabled鈥 may be considered unacceptable, as 鈥渉andicapped鈥 has already been, and a new adjective will come into vogue. Language changes all the time and what is considered acceptable/unacceptable in one decade will change in the next.
I suspect however that said MP, and I am very happy that I have never heard of him before and can鈥檛 remember his name, has been a Prat for a few decades and will continue to be for a few more.
The most unacceptable part of his behaviour is not his inability to recognize the offensiveness of his language but his arrogance in assuming that he has a right to ignore the provision made for those not as able-bodied as the rest of us. Call it arrogance, disrespect or just plain uncaring 鈥 it is an attitude that his constituents should take careful note of, when and if the Prat stands for re-election.
Re: Tom Philips
Your point should have been on 'The Glassbox' - but I wouldn't worry about it.
Listening in Gibraltar - was that on Longwave then?
Re; the alcohol debate. Yes, I agree you have a point. We have a binge drinking problem, however, price *is* a factor.
A local pub near us has a 'pound a pint night'. The place is always heaving on that night (midweek) It's not Amstell - in fact it tastes watered down, however the majority seem to drink it, largely due to the price.
Another example is that Asda have recently introduced 'smart price' gin. It's around 拢6 for a .75 litre bottle. I've tried it - tastes the same as the ASDA branded one which is around 拢9 - so I bought two bottles last week - and must confess - have imbibed a little more this week than would normally - possibly cause I've seen there is a back up bottle.
I had a chat with the man who was loading the shelves who said they can't get enough of it! As fast as they were loading it up it was being sold.
Now I'm sure this argument isn't proven, but given that some people stick to a tight weekly budget they might just be buying two bottles of the Asda smart price Gin instead of one bottle of Gordons.
As for your question:-
Eddie , you creamed the guy , but are you proud of this piece of work?
The 'piece of work' was bog standard journalism. As you know - Eddie is there to ask the questions - to seek responses - to dig out the alternative viewpoint. I haven't done a 'listen again' but, when I heard it, first time, I thought the interview fulfilled it's goal.
You can't please them all Tom but in this instance I don't think Eddie needs to justify himself.
BTW;- still no answer from the person who scheduled that 91热爆2 trail? - maybe next week.
Hello Tom (35). I try in the Glass Box not to dissuade people of their view - radio is how we hear it. But I do try to explain our thinking. I don't think I "creamed" the guy at all - he put up a good case and didn't strike me as hapless.
He also, in a sense, was the wrong guy, in that really the key questions were for the big supermarkets who declined to be interviewed. I mentioned that it was a drug and followed up with a longer question about its addictive nature, at the end of a section where he'd been (to the best of my recollection) saying that lots of goods were competetively priced. I was trying to put back to him the idea that there was a danger with booze that's not in most other products. In the time we had ( and the interview ran longer than almost any other in the programme ) of course we didn't go into the (very important) aspect of the social phenomenon of drinking. Price was the issue during that four minutes or so. In our meetings before the programme we did indeed discuss that, along with smoking policies, happy hours in pubs, drinking on the continent and a range of other things that were pertinent, including the idea that booze in the UK now is, historically, probably more affordable for most people than ever. But the interview had to be about price and discounting. We could have used the four minutes to talk generally about every aspect of alcohol, but we focussed on the point raised by a member of the Scottish Parliament. We have in the past touched on the issues you raised - many times in fact. And we will again. I thought the interview served the purpose in hearing the view from the alcohol industry and challenging it with the sort of questions listeners might want asked. I'm sorry we don't always ask "your" question. Tom, as I said at the start, none of this is to say you're wrong, or to challenge how you heard it. Just to explain our thinking. I'm really glad you listened and cared enough to write.
Tom, you may or may not be a teacher, but the presenter of PM is not a third form pupil in a public school, so I do not think you have a right to describe him, as you did several times in your post as Mair.
Eddie is obviously acceptable to him as he has never queried its widespread use on the frog, Mr Mair is polite. Just 'Mair' comes over as rude and dismissive. I'm sure you didn't mean to be either of those things as you are obviously an educated and articulate person, but it is how it read.
I find it disheartening when non-disabled people try to defend their prejudices by blaming those they oppress by falling back on the old "stop being so politically correct". It's pathetic. I am Disabled in line with The Social Model of Disability, which states that it is the barriers put up by society - societal, environmental and attitudinal - that disable us by preventing our full participation in society, not our individual impairments.
However, some of the reactions to Mr Mair's blog post suggest to me that there are some non-disabled people who are intimidated by Disabled people not conforming to the stereotype of the benign, compliant cripple, grateful for any crumb of comfort from our "masters". That itself is the ugly truth of Disablism.
Sorry for not posting in the Glass Box. I am a first time poster and will get it right next time.
P M is rebroadcast by BFBS Gibraltar so we enjoy
listening to Eddie on our car radios as we drive home from work , no Longwave needed Jonnie.
(In fact, one way or another , we get all 91热爆 television and Radio chanels out here ,for which we are sincerely grateful as we should otherwise suffer the leaden reign of Mr Murdoch)
On second thoughts I should withdraw my question to Eddie as to whether he was proud of the piece as it was uncalled for and I accept that he is there to ask questions , not answer them ,and time is always a constraint.
I also accept what Jonnie suggests as intuitively
probable , that special offers or a lower priced alcohol product will cause some people to buy more of that product and some of them will be
harmed by consuming it , but I think it very likely
that those people would be the same ones as would have a problem with alcohol at any price.
(A piece of evidence -free assertion of the kind Eddie suggested to the interviewee he should accept and act on)
I think I was provoked to write in at all by the idea that anyone in the U K could base an argument on the predicate that alcohol was " Cheap" without howls of laughter. It is very expensive thanks to H M Treasury.
There must be many hundreds of thousands of British expats who can give a view on this from their own experience , but as I spent many years in the U K and also in Gibraltar and Spain it is beyond argument for me that price is not the main or even a significant driver for alcohol problems.
In Gibraltar and Spain prices are much lower than U K and problems much lower also. In Gibraltar and among British expats in Spain they seem to be of the same kind as U K , whereas in Spain there seems to be a significantly different pattern of alcohol problems ,and this varies regionally in quite a marked way. Madrid is like London , but much much better , and Galicia is like 19th century Russia - it's unbelievable there , but a lovely place , though it is hard to understand what the Gallegos are saying to you.
(As a coincidence one of my closest colleagues is a Counsellor who has worked with people with alcohol problems in Gibraltar and Spain for more than 10 years).
The point I thought Eddie missed ,and why I was
discourteous in my - now withdrawn -remark ,is that he simply assumed that price was the significant factor ,when it plainly is not and the example of places with much lower prices and much less alcohol abuse should have been adressed as it went to the heart of the issue.
I am grateful to Eddie for his long response and I note that before the interview tobacco had been discussed and considered as relevant to this point on alcohol.
This is not the place , but ,again , tobacco here is very cheap but we have a consistently falling rate of smokers. Spain has more smokers than U K , but it is also a consistently falling rate. Prices in Spain and Gibraltar are raised from time to time but are less and much less respectively than in U K.
The assertion that high prices are what has caused the decline in smokeing in the U K is
disproved to my satisfaction by the falls in tobacco use in places like Gibraltar , where the
price is 20% of U K.
Public education and public attitudes have changed and fewer people smoke.Here price is certainly not a factor in the decline.
I think that the price issue is one which is driven by the Governments fiscal aggenda and that the pretence that it is to serve a public health purpose is exactly that : a pretence
Etymologically this debate makes no sense whatsoever:
Disability notes a lack of ability, hence if you're going to be picky, it states that a disabled person isn't capable of performing some task.
In comparison, a handicap, especially when related to its sporting connotations, implies that it is more challenging for an individual to perform certain actions.
To be honest - I cant see why people would take offence at one over the other - for someone to compare it to the terms mongol or spastic, as was done earlier - is quite ludicrous, since these are, or have been, commonly used slurs against individuals - I dont see kids in the playground laughing at "handicappy" or something similarly vacuous, and certainly doesn't have the social stigma attached to such terms.
Re Admin Annie
Dear Ms. Annie
Let me apologise for not being familiar with rhe etiquette of a site where I am posting for the first time.
I promise to try harder in the future.
In fact , however , I am a barrister and not a teacher , and the use of the simple second name , no first name or Mr , is a mark of respect to a professional colleague.
"Mr" "Mrs" or "Ms" would be addressed to a Solicitor or a member of the public outside the demands of professional courtesy.
I hope this clarifies for you my great respect for Mair , but I shall look to adopt the prevailing usage in any other postings.
I stand corrected (In the corner faceing the wall).
Tom
Dr H (Is the word 鈥榓sterixes鈥 offensive?) : Only to the Romans.
btw, isn't it silly if this is fussing over the word 'cock'? It means a male bird, sillies. If you want it to mean what the S*n calls a 'manhood' (bah!) you'll read it that way.
Rooster to them, I say.
Toby
It's not being "picky" unless you're against us self-describing in the fashion that we choose. And the H-word does have a heavy amount of stigma attached - as you'd know if you were Disabled.
'Annie' assumes that because America uses 'handicapped' as a synonym for 'disabled' then so should the rest of the English speaking world ('English', hmm bit of a hit to who has precedence in usage there ). But the fact is British and American English are different dialects with differing patterns of usage and acceptability and a few instances of outright different meanings for words (consider British and American definitions of the word 'fag'). This is particularly so in disability terminology, where the US retains the use of 'retarded', long considered unacceptable in the UK, and where in America 'Spazz' is a brand of wheelchair, in the UK it is an insult based on demeaning someone with CP. 'Handicapped' is just another example of this. When in Rome...
Chris,
I have no problem with self-describing - What stigma is there attached to the term though?
So far all we have had has been people declaring that it is extremely offensive or not in the slightest - As someone pointed out earlier, handicapped is deemed the appropriate term in the US, whilst disabled seems to have attached the same stigma which you attach to handicapped. Also, as I said - if being sensible about it, the meaning of disabled should, in theory at least, be more offensive - it's telling people someone with a disability is not able to do something - obviously this works in a literal sense - many people in a wheel chair are not able to walk, but common sense dictates that stating it as a handicap instead is less condemning, since the message is that the individual is capable, but may experience difficulties - I may not myself suffer from disabilities, but to me that seems a far more appropriate way - not dismissive of an individuals prospects.
Also - there is no need for the cheap swipes - an attitude of "you can't possibly understand because you are not afflicted by the issue", as you displayed, is both pathetic and childish - the whole idea of a forum for discussion, as most would agree this is, is for people displaying their opinions and perspective on an issue - I have no problem with you disagreeing with my perspective - I positively encourage it, but acting in such a involuted and dismissive way is hardly good in the long term - the best way to promote understanding of an issue is to give as much evidence as possible - I am willing to admit my knowledge of the issue is not great, which is why I am willing to write in heavily qualified terms, ensureing those who read that these are not my heart-felt convictions but just the way I see the issue. If you wish to bring a conflicting perspective to the discussion, please do not do so if you are not going to explain it - The fact that you stated out of hand that I am not disabled is also quite a concern - Obviously my comment was quite indicative, but the strength of anonymity of the internet means you cannot possibly know, and even more so, you cannot know about the people I mix with, my family or otherwise - if I was to assume you were disabled because of your perspective I'm sure you would be less than pleased - it is merely a matter of judging others by the standards you yourself would wish to be judged.
As said - I may have missed a point somewhere, feel free to enlighten me, not attempt to wave away any potential for understanting I may have due to what you imagine to be my demography.
I'm curious. No one has commented on my posts stating that in America the term handicapped is used. So why is it that you think the disabled in Britain are offended by the term, but that disabled Americans are not?
Re: Tom Philips --
Hello Philips .. :-)
A Barrister with a good sense of humour. That's what we like on the blog.
You can sit back at your desk now.
I'm sure annie has forgiven you! and you did achieve the correct spelling of Mair.
Thanks also for explaining how you were picking up Radio 4.
Good old (BFBS) British Forces Broadcasting Service - Gibraltar -
I should have realised that (being a bit of an anorak)
I see you have BFBS1 and BFBS2 - spoilt for choice then.
PS: You should subscribe to 'Mairs' newsletter, but it's delivery is very unreliable in the UK so you may never receive it in Gibraltar. It would however explain why certain people call 'Mair' - Eric.
Well, I thought I'd just spend a bit of my Sunday morning catching up with action on the frog and have encountered a set of quite challenging views on this item. The question 鈥淚s "Handicapped" offensive?鈥, as RobbieDog points out is a funny one. It would equally been put as 鈥淚s "Handicapped" "offensive?"鈥 because what does "offensive" mean in this context - it's clear from the comments that some people find it offensive and others, who are apparently not trying to be argumentative, do not find it so. I've spent a significant chunk of my adult life studying language and am certainly sensitive to the issues, but also recognise that it's virtually impossible to get these judgements right all of the time because the language related to specialist interest groups evolves more quickly within those groups. Yes, as responsible members of society, we should attempt to keep abreast of what is and is not acceptable when talking about groups within that society, but when it changes, there is always going to be "lag" on the one hand, and uncertainty on the other.
As a trivial example, in my current work, we are concerned with software systems and are currently "evolving" our understanding of terms like "existing system" and "legacy system". I don't expect the distinction as we see it to be recognised by people outside of the field. Fortunately, there is no group of society who have their personal identity wrapped up with the terms (as far as I know!).
But sensitivity to language is always around us. Witness admin annie's response to Tom using "Mair". We find "Eric", "Ernie" and various others acceptable, but "Mair" somehow disrespectful?
The booze issue is also interesting. I heard part of the interview and whilst not as moved to write as Tom, I did think that the tacit assumptions of Eddie's starting position were sufficiently questionable that the interview didn't really do it for me. jonnie's gin comment is an interesting one, but most of us have travelled in Europe and know that cheap booze does not lead to the downfall of society - apart from in the UK, apparently. It would seem that trying to control consumption with pricing is now doomed to failure. It feels a bit like the situation with smoking a decade or so ago - a bit of talk, but no measures to counter consumption/addiction (eg there was no nicotine replacement treatment on the NHS) and massive taxation - at least suggesting a conflict of interests. Now there are treatments available and aggressive action to cut smoking. If there is a problem with drinking, then we need to think about addressing the problem. Interestingly, we used to brew our own - the market for home brew seems to have all but disappeared - "more affordable" now, or just "differently affordable"?
I am disabled and have been so since birth, I prefer to use the word disabled rather than handicapped even though I accept that technically handicapped may be a more accurate word for the reasons mentioned already. I use the word because I prefer not to cause unnecessary offence and think that respect for others is simple good manners.
In recent years there has emerged a highly vocal political movement expousing disability rights, as with the suffragettes and civil rights movements earlier there are strong arguments for saying that disabled people have historically had a raw deal and even that a lot of the provision for disabled people has been paternalistic
It would be fair to sya that most disabled people are unaware of this "political" movement, (I was until about 5 years ago).
I take the approach of challenging specific issues and attitudes without endorsing the political agenda as such the MPs actions speak louder than his words.
Paul
How we treat people is far more important than what we call them, yet more fuss is made about words than actions.
How we treat people is far more important than what we call them, yet more fuss is made about words than actions.
The term handicapped only started to become offensive when the PC brigade wrongly claimed it was derived from "Cap in Hand". Sadly this has stuck. In fact it derives from a schoolboy game "Hand in Cap". Later it was used by the horse racing fraternity as a means of showing acceptance for the weight a racehorse had been alloted. I feel it is a far more suitable word than "Disabled" which rather implies non functioning.
Is 鈥榟andicapped鈥 offensive to golfers?
I always find this sort of discussion more interesting when Specifically Impaired People (see Dave above) start to speak for themselves about what they prefer. This is because I suffer from an inate suspicion of 'Spokespeople' claiming to 'represent the [X] Community'. Whenever they are claiming to speak for *me*, they aren't, and they didn't ever seem to speak for my (polio victim) father, my (paraplegic) mother-in-law, or my (blind, diabetic) father-in-law either. Sometimes it gets downright embarrassing for them, when two sections of the 'Community' they claim to represent have different, incompatible needs: many people who have difficulty walking find steps easier to manage than ramps, for instance, so the lame and the wheel-chair users may disagree quite drastically about the need for a ramp that makes stairs half the width they used to be; beeping noises to inform the blind when the Tube has its doors open may play painful havoc with hearing aids... and may even cause a minor hearing impairment in those who travel on the same trains every day and have the same very loud noise on the same frequency assailing their ears repeatedly.
My personal experience has always been that the more the Great British Public is bullied about behaving decently, the more they resent the rules and whilst not actively wanting to be nasty to someone in a wheelchair, start to say 'why should I give way to her? I've been waiting in this queue for longer!' whereas before they would have given way without a second thought. (This from being the person pushing the wheelchair: notices saying 'give way to wheelchairs' didn't have a good effect at all!)
I was going to make some comments on the use of the term disabled as opposed to the term handicapped but a number of comments kept referring to commenting on "the Frog".
Can anyone enlighten me - who is "the Frog" that they are all talking about? Was it the Frog as in the one who was kissed by the Princess?
If so, was he suffering a handicap during his time as a Frog or was he simply amphibianly disabled? Do tell; because I would like to join in the debate on this blog.
Bunc (57)
Comment away.... this is called a "frog" as it's a cross between a forum and a normal blog, hence the cross-name of frog. That is because the comments are not only made to the entry at the top, but also to each others comments made afterwards.
Hence my comment to your comment helps to make this a frog, rather than a simple blog (whereby I'd ignore your comment).
Welcome, anyway.
Interesting debate. I have a friend in the UK who is paraplegic and refers to himself as a cripple. He also uses other terms which I won't repeat here because I know that others consider them to be highly offensive. However, he says he can call himself what he wants and if others are offended, that's their problem and not his.