Someone may have already pointed this out. . . sorry if it is superfluous, but in Massachusetts the DMR is the Department of Mental Retardation. A part of Health and Human Services. . I imagine it is like that in other states as well.
The term itself is descriptive and has been used in behavior plans and such to indicate mild, moderate, or severe mental retardation.
Has this changed?
In Arizona the agency is the Division of Developmental Disabilities. It's a division of the state's social services agency, the Arizona Department of Economic Security.
Somehow, "developmentally disabled" seems more respectful of the individual(s) than "mentally retarded."
It's probably a matter of cultural evolution. In other words, how the meanings of the words and expressions have changed over the years in our society.
You say you have a "retarded" sister. Have you looked in her eyes and seen the person inside?... the person that doesn't get noticed because she's different? The person that gets overlooked and dismissed?
"Quit acting so retarded!"
Are you really going to try and tell me that the sentence above is meant as anything else but an insult?
And you're right - the label won't change her situation - but the label would hurt her if she were to hear it spoken in that fashion.
Does "the label" totally describe her? Her abilities? Her aspirations? Or does that label put limitations on her and those that deal with her.
With all due respect, I wasn't talking about name calling, which is an attack. I was saying that a word is often used correctly when describing a condition or situation. I never said anything about using it to insult someone. Yes, we see her for all her beauty in simplicity. My sister is institutionalized, I see her frequently, and she is happy in her daily life.
Rejoice - I never meant that YOU called your sister names, nor did I mean to imply that you didn't see her. My point was that while YOU and your family looked in her eyes and saw the person inside - others only saw the lablle.
I like and support the President on most of his agenda. Still, I think the use of even "special olympics" to cast comical aspersions of his lack of bowling skills was insensitive, especially since he is claiming to be President of all the people.
I think that's the best description of the problem anyone has posted on this thread. Better than the opening focus on the "r-word". Better than the rush from both sides to knock or defend the President. Even the last phrase is very meaningful. Geez, before I demean his personal character, I could wade through a very long list of my own defects. But it is true that the President of all the people has a higher standard to live up to. But that doesn't mean the rest of us can go to it.
A few years ago, I had to really hold my peace when someone on these forums made fun of special needs people..."apologizing" for it first, then going ahead and doing it anyway. Someone who has posted on this thread. I steamed for quite a while.
More recently, someone I have otherwise respected used the issue politically. I will avoid the details here but it didn't sit well with me.
And yes, I have disabled kids; one physically (spina bifida), and one autistic.
I believe someone pointed out when Obama said what he said, everyone laughed. what does that say about most everybody? It's obama's job to alter the "morals" of a people?
Schwarzenegger pointed out Obama's heart is in the right place and that's what matters.
Schwarzenegger pointed out Obama's heart is in the right place and that's what matters.
I see an implication that it is all that matters, with which I disagree. But I will be glad to stand corrected.
many people in public life, whether in politics, journalism, broadcasting, or whatever, have said or had printed things that were insensitive and that they have really taken heat for. I will spare you myriad examples...for now. If this were a referendum only on the President's character, maybe nothing else would matter. I have seen in many of the above referred to cases where there is a rush, not to aid those hurt by what is said, but to attack the characted of the person who said it. This is followed by an equally mad rush to defend the person, which may be natural, but the defenders also usually leave those hurt out in the cold. Pointing out that many of those in the audience laughed may do the part of defending Obama, but is also pointing out how worse the problem is. That's why I like Oenophile's post so much; I don't think he has any desire to withdraw his support of President Obama, but I am guessing he also knows how hurting to others such a remark is.
I believe someone pointed out when Obama said what he said, everyone laughed. what does that say about most everybody? It's obama's job to alter the "morals" of a people?
Obama's job also requires him to set a good example of what American values are. He can only define his own values, but those of us that elected him did so because we feel he shares our values and that he was the best of the available options to represent us. I personally don't want him, while representing me or my country, to ridicule mentally disabled people. It's true that it was wrong for the rest of the audience to laugh, but he should set a better example.
However, he apologized long ago, it wasn't a huge deal, and I think we should all get over it.
I wouldn't use the word "ridicule", I believe he was trying to be light, he said something common in our culture, he is one of us.
I agree completely, but I can see how someone affected directly, whether a mentally disabled person or a family member of someone who is, would take it as ridicule.
Recommended Posts
Rocky
In Arizona the agency is the Division of Developmental Disabilities. It's a division of the state's social services agency, the Arizona Department of Economic Security.
Somehow, "developmentally disabled" seems more respectful of the individual(s) than "mentally retarded."
It's probably a matter of cultural evolution. In other words, how the meanings of the words and expressions have changed over the years in our society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rejoice
With all due respect, I wasn't talking about name calling, which is an attack. I was saying that a word is often used correctly when describing a condition or situation. I never said anything about using it to insult someone. Yes, we see her for all her beauty in simplicity. My sister is institutionalized, I see her frequently, and she is happy in her daily life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Rejoice - I never meant that YOU called your sister names, nor did I mean to imply that you didn't see her. My point was that while YOU and your family looked in her eyes and saw the person inside - others only saw the lablle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GeorgeStGeorge
He'll just bring a teleprompter next time.
George
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I think that's the best description of the problem anyone has posted on this thread. Better than the opening focus on the "r-word". Better than the rush from both sides to knock or defend the President. Even the last phrase is very meaningful. Geez, before I demean his personal character, I could wade through a very long list of my own defects. But it is true that the President of all the people has a higher standard to live up to. But that doesn't mean the rest of us can go to it.
A few years ago, I had to really hold my peace when someone on these forums made fun of special needs people..."apologizing" for it first, then going ahead and doing it anyway. Someone who has posted on this thread. I steamed for quite a while.
More recently, someone I have otherwise respected used the issue politically. I will avoid the details here but it didn't sit well with me.
And yes, I have disabled kids; one physically (spina bifida), and one autistic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I believe someone pointed out when Obama said what he said, everyone laughed. what does that say about most everybody? It's obama's job to alter the "morals" of a people?
Schwarzenegger pointed out Obama's heart is in the right place and that's what matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I see an implication that it is all that matters, with which I disagree. But I will be glad to stand corrected.
many people in public life, whether in politics, journalism, broadcasting, or whatever, have said or had printed things that were insensitive and that they have really taken heat for. I will spare you myriad examples...for now. If this were a referendum only on the President's character, maybe nothing else would matter. I have seen in many of the above referred to cases where there is a rush, not to aid those hurt by what is said, but to attack the characted of the person who said it. This is followed by an equally mad rush to defend the person, which may be natural, but the defenders also usually leave those hurt out in the cold. Pointing out that many of those in the audience laughed may do the part of defending Obama, but is also pointing out how worse the problem is. That's why I like Oenophile's post so much; I don't think he has any desire to withdraw his support of President Obama, but I am guessing he also knows how hurting to others such a remark is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Obama's job also requires him to set a good example of what American values are. He can only define his own values, but those of us that elected him did so because we feel he shares our values and that he was the best of the available options to represent us. I personally don't want him, while representing me or my country, to ridicule mentally disabled people. It's true that it was wrong for the rest of the audience to laugh, but he should set a better example.
However, he apologized long ago, it wasn't a huge deal, and I think we should all get over it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I wouldn't use the word "ridicule", I believe he was trying to be light, he said something common in our culture, he is one of us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I agree completely, but I can see how someone affected directly, whether a mentally disabled person or a family member of someone who is, would take it as ridicule.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.