I get it. Tough to know what to say I guess.
Cis human …
A long time ago now, I was standing in a line to chat with my son’s math teacher at the high school teacher conferences. A woman in front of me (I didn’t know her) asked me how my son did on the latest test, I said I think ok, but obviously she wanted me to ask how hers did. She replied, “Well, my son is kind of a genius”.
How do you respond to that? My response: “Wow, that’s great. My son is pretty much average.” I figured that would let her keep her superiority, keep me from having to compare SAT scores, and I would probably never see her again.
Who does that?!
The labels are ultimately used to justify inequity and exclusion. In using them, people are categorized and assigned value. They serve no good or useful purpose.
All of this comes zooming into the foreground when you love someone “irregular”. My mother offered condolences at the birth of her great-grandchild with Down syndrome and has expressed no further interest. Boom! Dismissed.
She has never experienced the love, the joy, the overwhelming presentness and perfection of her great-grandchild, because the label served its purpose and instantly summed everything up for her.
So says the generation who thinks it’s okay to respond, “okay, Boomer,” to people they disagree with. So it’s okay to be snarky to people on purpose but not to innocently use words with no intent to harm or judge? There’s no excuse for rudeness, and correcting other people (unless you gave birth to them and they’re under 18) is rude.
I attended a large high school. We had jocks, artists, band kids, STEM whizzes, and (self-described) freaks (Dead Heads). Many belonged to more than one group, yet we were all regular. To us, regular had many faces. And we had more to worry about than innocent comments made by random people. Overt racism, wage disparity, women’s reproductive rights, benefits for our poorest citizens, and secret military actions were just some of the items on our plates.
Challenging people who make innocent statements is divisive. But it’s helpful to the powers that be. If the masses are quibbling with each other over words that meant no harm and hurling rude comments like “check your privilege” to some kid who they know nothing about except the color of their skin then they’re not focusing on desperately needed changes (paid time off for every worker, proper health coverage, development of real jobs rather than dependence on daily hires and temps who are ineligible for benefits…). Has your generation secured those changes yet? Our generation knows, from experience, that it’s an uphill battle.
Being purposely argumentative, divisive, and blatantly disrespectful to the people and work that’s gone before is a waste. And openly stating that a virus might thin the Boomer herd like that’s a good thing is beyond comprehension. Perhaps your generation isn’t as superior to ours as some seem to think.
^Why do you think this is just generational? I am a “Boomer” so I hope to not have my herd thinned! But I do think there’s a place for thinking about the underlying assumptions that language usage carries.
That doesn’t mean I’d respond unkindly. Probably not at all, except when teaching, and there, it is me bringing it up with the younger generation.
Before everyone rants about the PC police, or resorts (like a post a few posts up), to logical fallacy slippery slope arguments, think about the words that were common when we were young, that you would never, ever use now. R—is one, but there are others.
Rudeness is bad. But awareness and open-ness to change are not.
I have learned from this thread and appreciate those who have kindly explained why the word “regular” may be offensive. Especially @romanigypsyeyes Your explanations have been both kind and illuminating.
Have to say, though, that I am perplexed as to why some “regular” words have become offensive, and yet there are still some blatantly offensive words commonly used in our (US) culture. It is very well understood now that racist and homophobic slurs are offensive and should not be used.
So why is B!+¢# still acceptable. It’s a term that has been used for at least decades to demean, degrade and oppress women. Yet it is still acceptable to use on TV shows, in song lyrics, in everyday conversation and even in this thread. And it’s almost always used intentionally to offend, not unintentionally as in the OP’s case.
That is my own personal trigger point. But when it’s used around me, I generally just bite my lip and stay silent. I certainly would never consider lecturing someone I barely know.
If she ripped into you as described, then she was rude. If she explained her points in a neutral way (which may have felt like an attack to you), then she may have made some points worth considering. It also depends on the context in which you were describing this and why she was triggered (a word I would not have used in this context a few years ago).
You could have simply said my son is into sports, video games and ice cream like a lot of 8th grade boys.
I agree there are some who are too easily offended, but there are times when we use language in a way that excludes, without meaning to. It is
I agree about the “b” word, although many young women seem to use it to refer to themselves or to other women as “tough” or something. I especially find it offensive when used by males to put down women.
Many years ago I worked with a woman who was quite superior to all the rest of us (she had graduated from an Ivy, after all, but it never occurred to her that she had the same job as those of us educated at public schools) so I usually didn’t care what her opinion was. But one day in answering someone she said “Rugs are oriental, people are Asian.” It really stuck with me, especially 10 years later when I had an Asian daughter and found myself correcting others (especially members of my family).
Old dogs can learn new tricks (and new words), but IMO some groups try to control words. There were people in my adoption circles who didn’t think ‘adopt’ should be used for anything other than a child being adopted by a parent. No adopting highways, no adopting pets, laws, positions, attitudes. I did not agree and continued to use the word with its dictionary definition - ‘to take as your own.’
I too find this a helpful and enlightening discussion. I can appreciate how once seemingly innocuous words can be interpreted in new ways.
Attitudes are changing. Being closed-minded and fighting it breeds conflict and discord. Educating yourself with the perspectives and experiences of others different from your own breeds understanding and tolerance. Which of these would you prefer the world have more of?
Why do people think that not using swear words around the priest/minister/rabbi/etc is really important, yet get all defensive when asked to treat other people in a similar manner?
A priest will not feel that they are being treated like a lesser being if you say “goddammit” next to them, yet most people will avoid doing so. So why should it bother the same people to avoid saying things that actually make others feel like they are being treated so?
That being said - most people are unaware of the implications of the words they use, so there is no call to be rude when mentioning it. The woman who was speaking to the OP was being rude. Being “woke” also means treating other people who you do not feel to be “woke” in a respectful manner.
It is difficult to fight for equity while perched on a high horse.
My daughter is fluent in sign language. Many signs in sign language are the same or extremely similar. The difference is “context”. Anyone conversing in sign language understands context. I seriously think we need to get to this point.
The OP used the word “regular” and it was obvious in context that she meant no harm and it was not meant to be derogatory. The “friend” should have just left it alone. Instead she went after the OP for her use of the word. In context, she actually meant to berate the OP.
I find that her response was more intentional and therefore more offensive than the use of the word “regular”
The OP was offended, but why are her feelings any less important than the “friends”.
Context and intentionality are so important. By all means if someone is intentionally using a term derogatorily then politely discourage them. If a person is using common language with no intent then just let it go. The moral superiority of some people is just getting exhausting.
CONTEXT!!!
OP, you have nothing to apologize for. That woman was spoiling for a fight. You, or anyone, have a right to use any word you wish. If others assign a different meaning to it, or choose to be offended by it, that’s their problem. I know what you were trying to say. How you described your son also described mine as well. I think by saying he was regular, you meant to say he had interests and traits common to boys of his age. In this context, the opposite of regular isnt irregular or abnormal; it would be one who has more specific, less common interests or talents. Not less worthy interests or talents, just less common. I will add…the world has changed immensely since I was in high school. My son’s class has far greater ethnic and religious diversity than mine did, not to mention people quite militant/in your face about gender issues and their closely held social/political views, with language very much part of the battlefield. The passion with which they hold their views does not negate the validity of your own. One more thing. The college my son chose has a high percentage of those regular boys and a low percent of the perpetually offended. Something to keep in mind as your son looks for a school.
This was interesting. I tried to post this shortly after the original post but it was flagged and has yet to be reviewed (?). So I’m taking out the full words and of what I’m guessing was flagged and replacing them with initials and hoping it goes through:
To the OP, I’m sorry you had such an unpleasant exchange when you were just reaching out to someone you thought you had something in common with who, I’m guessing, agreed to be an ambassador or who, in some way, willingly indicated she was happy to speak with you as a prospective parents.
I’d like to think we should all ‘assume goodwill’. It’s unfortunate she jumped on you. She could have just let it go and ‘known’ what you meant. Or, if this is something important to her (as it clearly seemed to be) she could have more gently shared with you her discomfort with your terminology with a brief explanation why and moved on. No reason to be rude and alienate you.
She would be someone I would do my best to avoid in the future.
I have a sibling who is MR (that’s the term I grew up with; now we say intellectual disability, developmentally delayed, etc.). In any case, it has always really, really bothered me when people said something or someone was “R’ed”. Often times, I would, very calmly, share with the person why that phrasing was offensive to me. No need to be angry or antagonistic; I just shared my feelings and reasoning. Occasionally, depending on the situation, I would stay silent and/or remove myself from the situation. My point with all of this is that the woman could have used this as an opportunity for ‘educating’ (not sure that’s quite the right word) but, instead, while you are questioning your wording, it’s mixed with resentment/anger/negative feelings when it didn’t need to be.
I should also add that I don’t think referring to one’s son as “regular” and saying “She’s so R’ed” are equal by any measure.
@mom2and wrote:
This is what’s bugging me. She had a point to make, and she ruined it by “ripping into” the OP. There’s no way to rationalize a desire to have society appreciate the subtle ways that a word like regular can leave some folks feeling left out, if you have someone trying to do that by basically slapping someone else in the face with it.
Regular people are not offended by the word regular. Good grief.
There is nothing “normal” about either of my sons, which is EXACTLY why I would describe them as normal in the first place. Everyone is struggling silently with something in life.
How you react to someone is a choice. Don’t assume your struggles supersede those of the person you intend to attack.