But does anyone actually use “lame” as an epithet for the disabled (using that terminology because it seems to be widely, though not universally, accepted even among the disabled community — see: “Disability Studies” etc.)?
I understand offense toward use of the word “retard,” “cripple,” and lots of other offensive reductive terminology used exclusively toward people with particular conditions. But “lame” is a valid and, frankly, potent and important descriptor that does not merely attach to a class of people. There is NO other use of the other words offered in this critique except as racist descriptions of an entire class of people. But lame has important connotations that have nothing to do with perception of disabled people.
When someone says “man, that was so lame,” there is not even an intimation of: “I link that in my mind to someone with a disability.” Whereas in a phrase like “don’t be such a fag,” the original epithet, though arguably not the primary intent (and even if you don’t buy that defense, as I usually don’t, I believe people are genuine when they employ it), is still completely linked via a complex system of homophobic associations. E.g., people, whether they condone it or not, still understand that one might refer to a gay person derogatorily as a “fag,” whereas I can’t even imagine someone referring to a disabled person as “lame.”
“Lame” is too evocative and useful to be deemed off-limits for a “secondary” offense (toward disabled people) that simply has no powerful connection in the minds of people who use it to that particular target. I fall squarely on the side of popular usage here, and will continue using the word in that context until I read a convincing argument otherwise (and by “convincing argument,” I don’t mean replacing “lame” with a more obvious epithet — I mean evidence that “lame” is actually used primarily to refer derogatorily, and in a reasonably contemporary context, to disabled people).
EDIT: One other example — if a public figure in the African-American community decided that for too long the word “black” held negative associations — “black comedy,” say, or “my mood was black” — my position would likely fall on the side of popular usage. Again, for the most part no one thinks “black person” when they say “black comedy,” or read “my mood was black.” It’s not that I’m unsympathetic to eradicating negative associations between blackness and evil or negative qualities (“darkest Africa” has been pretty well annihilated from popular discourse, I hope), it’s that I find the linkage itself in those cases dubious. Again, I’m willing to reconsider my opinion when someone can point me to evidence of people actually using “lame” as an epithet for disabled people.
EDIT 2: Another genuine question: what about uses of words that, similarly, do not simply apply to a class of people — like “disabled” itself — that have nothing to do with people in any capacity? Is it considered inappropriate to say that “I disabled the mechanism so that it wouldn’t cut my fingers off during the repair”? That seems untenable. One problem, I think, is that there simply aren’t as many widely recognized epithets for disabled people as there are for certain ethnic and minority groups. It seems to me from my own (uneducated) vantage that the biggest problem in public perception of disabilities has nothing to do with the kinds of overt hatred directed toward racial, ethnic, and other minority groups through history. The problem with public perception of disabilities — at least insofar as the word “lame” might, in a derogatory way, actually apply to a person — is pretending that it is not a problem, in simply ignoring the physical and cultural differences where they exist, or in wishing the differences away without wanting to seriously engage in the practical and philosophical issues that arise from them. It seems to me that this is not, e.g., the American experience with fear and hatred toward racial, gender, or sexual difference.
This past weekend there was much conversation about a post at Bitch magazine entitled, “We Got Lame.” There has been a fair amount of criticism on Twitter and in the comment section of the [ableist language in the title of the] post in question, without any response from either the author or Bitch Magazine editors.
Just like nigger or tar baby, there are some words that cannot be reconditioned because of a legacy of privilege and pain. It does no real damage to the speaker to refrain from using terms that are known to be reductive. The only reason to continue to use ableist language, is because one has purposefully chosen to express power coercively to maintain the hierarchal social positioning that we have become accustomed to.
What kind of message does it send to differently abled feminists when they see their conditions purposefully used as a descriptor? What does it say about what voices matter in feminist discourse?
I was astounded that some even had the nerve to argue as to whether or not the term used in this way constituted an offense. The oppressor does not get to tell the oppressed what is and is not offensive. It is a very basic concept to understand and yet because we are intent on asserting the idea that certain bodies are worth less, we continually revert to language and or actions that are harmful.
Last September, Bitch magazine was begging for donations to forestall having to close down. Feminists from various backgrounds joined together and pledged their precious disposable income to keep Bitch afloat based in the idea that it would create a space of progressive discourse in line with feminist principles. “We Got Lame”, is how we have been rewarded for our efforts. (womanist musings)
