 Read Chapter One: pdf, epub |
The Wolves, the Pig, and the Retarded BunnyOnce upon a time, a pig and a bunny were walking together through the woods, when up ahead they spotted a wolf in the middle of the path. The wolf was shaking his phone and growling. “Hold my hand,” said the pig. The bunny reached up and took the pig’s hand. “The company guarantees coverage everywhere,” complained the wolf. “But as soon as you walk into the woods, you drop to just one bar. That’s so retarded!” The pig sighed and stopped walking. She looked down at the bunny. From the way his ears sagged, she knew he had heard. “Would you mind not using that word?” asked the pig politely. “What word?” the wolf demanded, holding his phone high in the air. “‘Retarded.’ You see, my stepson is learning disabled, and it’s hurtful when–” “Sounds like your stepson needs to grow a thicker skin,” said the wolf. The pig clutched the bunny’s hand tighter. “He came home a year ago, crying, and asked me, ‘What does retarded mean, mama?’ The kids tease him every day on the bus. He won’t say anything in class anymore, because he’s afraid of being laughed at even more.” “Tell him to stop being so sensitive,” said the wolf. “You’re not doing him any favors by coddling him.” “Why can’t other people just stop saying hurtful things?” asked the pig. The wolf simply growled. The pig’s shoulders sank slightly, and she walked on, leaving the wolf to his phone. It wasn’t long before they encountered a second wolf. She was reading a yellow flyer posted to a tree. When she saw the pig and the bunny, she grinned and pointed. “Look at this,” she said. “These people are offering a reward for their lost dog, but they can’t even spell. They’re so retarded!” The pig sighed. She looked ahead, then looked down at her stepson. The bunny was staring at the ground, but she could tell by the set of his ears that he had heard. “Would you mind not using that word?” asked the pig. “What word?” the wolf demanded, ripping the flyer off the tree. “‘Retarded.’ You see, my stepson is learning disabled, and it’s hurtful when people use that word in such a derogatory way.” “I see,” said the wolf. “Please educate me so that I can decide whether or not to stop using this word that hurts you and your stepson.” The pig’s shoulders slumped a little more, but she looked up at the wolf and did her best. For the next hour, while the bunny played in the dirt, she talked about the challenges her stepson had faced. She talked about how hard it was to get people to treat her stepson with respect, how society treated the mentally challenged as a joke, as stupid or defective. “I see,” said the wolf. “But don’t we all have challenges? Don’t we all have someone who refuses to respect us? Don’t we all get laughed at sometimes? You might be surprised to know that I have a very good friend who’s a bunny, and she uses the word ‘retarded’ all the time.” “What does it cost you to use a different word?” asked the pig. “Nothing,” said the wolf. “But you have failed to adequately educate me, so I will continue to use the word that hurts you and your stepson.” The pig took the bunny’s hand, and they walked on, leaving the wolf to laugh at the flyer. They were almost home when they spotted a third wolf. This wolf was reading a book and laughing. “Oh my goodness,” he said, glancing up. “The grown-ups in this book are so retarded!” The pig sighed and stopped walking. She looked down at the bunny. His ears were now completely flat on his back. “I’d appreciate it if you’d stop using that word,” said the pig. “What word?” the wolf demanded, slipping a leaf into the pages to mark his place. “‘Retarded.’ You see–” “You can’t tell me what to say. I have freedom of speech!” “I understand that,” said the pig. “But I’m trying to tell you that you’re hurting people by using that word.” “It doesn’t hurt me, and I can say whatever I want! If you don’t like it, you should go back to pig country.” The pig looked at the bunny, who was staring at the dirt. She looked at the wolf, who towered over them both. She looked past the wolf, to where the path emerged from the woods into a field. The pig took a deep breath and said, “Mister wolf, I understand what you’re saying, but you are hurting my stepson, and you are hurting me. Mister wolf, you are a jackass.” The wolf bared his teeth. “You can’t say that to me!” “I thought we had freedom of speech,” said the pig. One of the wolf’s ears flicked backward. “Well, you’ll never convince people to do what you want by calling them names.” “So how should I convince them?” the pig asked. She waited, but the wolf didn’t answer. He opened his book and continued to read. The pig looked at her stepson. Her shoulders slumped lower. Holding the bunny’s hand tightly, she walked on. When they reached the edge of the field, the bunny looked up and said, “Mama?” The pig scooped the bunny into her arms and hugged him, hoping he wouldn’t see the tears in her eyes. “What is it, sweetheart?” “I love you.” For a long time, the pig merely stood there, holding her stepson. She wiped her eyes on her sleeve. Slowly, she straightened her shoulders. She kissed the bunny on the head and pet his ears. “I love you too.” 124 comments to The Wolves, the Pig, and the Retarded Bunny |
 Subscribe to RSS feed. |
|
Copyright © 2013 Jim C. Hines - All Rights Reserved |
||
I don’t know if this needs to be said or not, but for the record, this was inspired by a number of different blog posts, comments, and discussions I’ve read over the past week, and is not targeted at any particular individual.
Wow, was not expecting a surprise cry at my desk. Nail on the head, as usual.
*Sniffle*
Brilliant and beautiful. Well done, you.
Mr. Hines,
You have successfully educated me to use the word “douchebag.” Well done, sir!
Seriously, this is great.
==ml
I’m rather fond of that word. I blame George Takei for this.
Personally, I’m a fan of the more absurdist “douche canoe”. But douchebag is equally effective!
My only problem with using the term “douchebag” is that they are actually useful devices, and as such, it’s hurtful to them to be compared to the kind of ratfelchers you depict in your story.
“ratfelchers”
* snerk *
I go with the view that douching is predominately a harmful act for female-bodied folk perpetuated by the patriarchy, but there’s a lot of argument re the term.
I find myself curious how the term evolved into an insult, and the sexual baggage that might be there.
It doesn’t strike me as a directly demeaning sexist term the way “sissy” does (by suggesting that to be feminine is, in itself, the insult), but I’m also thinking through it more and reconsidering the term.
When a publisher comes along and wants to turn this into a bestselling picture book, I’ll probably substitute something like jackass. (Which the publisher would presumably then change to “jerk” or something similar.)
ETA: And really, “jackass” sounds a little more in character for the pig anyway. Tweaks the blog post
ah, but in reality, douches are anything but useful devices. more often than not, they are harmful. douchebag is more appropriate than you’d think.
I just wanted to thank you for my new favorite word! Don’t know where you got it or if it’s your oun creation but I can see some very deseving friends running around with a new name…. at least until the next guy earnes it!
Thanks,
Ben Schrecengost. benschrecengost@yahoo.com
I know what you mean! I always hated, hated, hated the word “douchebag”… Then one day, darn him, George Takei made me love it.
This is simply lovely. Thank you. I think you have the makings of a great children’s book here. (Except for having to explain to your child what a douchebag is, that is. You may need a second book for that!)
THIS. This story needs to be a picture book. This picture book needs to be given to every child. And then given to them again later, when they’re older, and when they object that we’re giving them a children’s book, we say “that’s because you’re acting like a child when you use the word that way.”
I think you’ve encapsulated a large part of internet “discourse” in one post.
So sad, so true.
Wow. Awesome as usual, Mr. Hines!
As the stepmother of a son with a learning disability… thank you. FWIW, he’s grown up to be a sterling young man. And I have to agree w/ Janice in GA – internet discourse seems to give us permission to be thoughtlessly cruel.
It’s a tough issue – when I was a kid “retarded” wasn’t a bad word. We didn’t have the phrase “developmentally disabled” or “learning disability.” It was the polite word. But then again, “colored” used to be polite, too.
Why is it that the word itself is more important (and inflammatory) than the intent behind it?
I agree that the wolf is an insensitive douche bag, there’s no doubt, buy why is “retarded” so much more offensive than stupid, dumb, half-wit, idiot, etc.?
Because it implies a disability rather than just being a bit on the slower side.
The word idiot was used in the past in psychology as a classification of mental retardation.
But in common vernacular it has ceased to carry that meaning.
“Retarded”, however, still carries strong implications of a disability.
Hello!
Congratulations! You have just earned 3 Derailment Points! You have 1) Missed the Point, 2) Replicated the Problematic Behavior Presented, and 3) Made an Unrelated Historical Comparison!
Just 7 more Derailment Points until you level up! Good luck!
why is “retarded” so much more offensive than stupid, dumb, half-wit, idiot,
If it hurts other people, why is it important to use that word? My fourth-grade students know not to use ‘stupid’ and ‘dumb’ because it’s not nice, and hurts other people’s feelings. They don’t know half-wit and idiot, but there are areas of the internet where those are also frowned upon, for the same reason as ‘retarded’.
English is a rich language; why can’t non-offensive words be used when people express themselves? Ridiculous, thoughtless, impractical, useless piece of garbage can describe something without referencing the mental abilities of another person, whether hypothetical or not.
I actually have schooled myself in recent years to avoid words like idiot and stupid, because they belittle people of low intelligence, which is a condition a person doesn’t control, and a disability. Think about it. When you call someone an idiot, you are comparing them to a person who is mentally retarded. What must it be like to have a developmental disability, and have yourself used as a comparator for everyone who makes a poor decision, does not think through their actions, or is just rude? Most people I know with developmental disabilities work harder for their achievements and are actually quite good at making decisions and thinking things through–they have to be. They have nothing in common with the jerk who cut you off on the highway and nearly caused an accident. Of course, this leaves me without a handy insult for someone that I think is making logical choices or thinking well about their problems, but maybe that’s the point, too. Do we really need to show our cleverness by calling names or assigning people we don’t like to some lesser class of human?
Thanks, Cath. You just saved me a ton of typing.
You are the second wolf.
Thank you, Jim. I think this is really beautiful, and I’m now going to do my best to tweet the shit out of it.
Chris: Because people who are living with learning disabilities, and those who care for them, are telling you that it is. Don’t argue. Don’t try to prove that you’re more clever than the average bear by dicing around it. Don’t list a bunch of other nasty words and point at them as if you can change the meaning of THIS word, the word that we are talking about, by derailing or sleight of hand. Just stop. Using. The. Damn. Word.
God. How hard is it? Argh.
I try not to use the word retarded because I understand that it offends people.
What I don’t understand is why the word is so inflammatory. I’m looking for discussion, not argument. Your response is short sighted and not helpful.
For most people, being satisfied with an answer of: “Because I said so” stopped working years ago.
Chris, it’s not “because I said so,” it’s because THEY said so. I.E., the people to whom the word might apply find it offensive and they wish you to respect that.
You get to decide what’s offensive to you. They get to decide what’s offensive to them. Of course, you also get to decide whether you’re going to respect their feelings or not, but don’t expect anyone to admire or defend you if you decide not to respect their wishes.
OK, I’m not going to get into an extended debate over this, but I’ll give it one more try. After that, you’re on your own. I didn’t ‘say so’. I have no authority to do that. However, many, many people with learning disabilties and those who care for them have expressed their distress over the use of this particular word, and the way that it has become common parlance for ‘stupid’, ‘idiotic’, ‘dumb’ etc.
There is no ‘discussion’ to be had on this topic. If the fact that this particular word, for WHATEVER reason, hurts people with learning difficulties and those who care for them, is not good enough for you, then you are being exactly like the wolf with the yellow flyer. People who are hurt and offended by this word do not owe it to you to explain fully why they find this word inflammatory. Indeed, unless you were yourself learning disabled or caring for someone who is, it would be highly unlikely that you would be able to grasp the emotions of someone who walks through the world without the privilege of being *unoffended* by it.
Don’t discuss. Don’t try to get people to justify why it hurts. Just don’t use the word and support those who speak out against it.
You have every right not to participate in the discussion, Zoe, but it’s not an unreasonable question. Chris said he knows it’s an offensive term and he doesn’t use it; he just wants to know why. As for myself, I’m not learning disabled and I’ve never had to care for a learning disabled person, but I think I can in fact grasp the emotions of those who do.
This beautiful story we’re discussing is about learning to empathize with those who do. It’s one way of explaining. I’m a big fan of the appeal to emotion, since I think a lot of people use that term without realizing they’re hurting people they don’t mean to hurt.
But the appeal to reason is not invalid. Logic and history and explanation work. Certainly you’re not “owed” an explanation before you change your behavior. (We don’t have to explicate the entire concept of the power of the state, or the laws of physics, in order to say “respect the speed limit.”) But if you’re willing to change your behavior, it’s not inappropriate to ask why it was so important. Maybe a good logical answer would equip people to stand up when they hear others speaking rudely.
Chris, my answer is this. “Retarded” refers to a state of being. People with learning disabilities are playing the hand they’ve been dealt, usually with an immense amount of effort to make the best of it. On the other hand, “stupid” refers to a behavior. “Stupid”
is kind of a choice, or at least a mistake. It’s pretty close to “ignorant”, and personally I think ignorant people need to be called on it.
Put simply, the learning disabled people I’ve known have generally worked a lot harder and been a lot kinder than the stupid ones. Of course it’s inflammatory to compare them.
Your examples of “idiot” and “half-wit” are interesting, since in the past they did refer to people who would now be diagnosed as “disabled.” (For that matter, “dumb” used to refer to people who were merely “mute,” or I suppose now we probably say “speech disabled.”) All I can say is that language changes, and words do become more and less hurtful over time. My guess is that there’s a cycle of a technical term leading to a vernacular slur, leading to the technical term changing to get away from the negativity. Then the new technical term gradually becomes the slur, while the old one becomes less powerful (or less specific) in some way.
It’s interesting to note here that my 5-year old has been taught at day care that “stupid” is just about the worst word in his (or my) vocabulary. Language changes.
Thanks for the insight Joe, very interesting. My oldest is about to start preschool in the fall, it’ll be interesting to see what he comes home with.
I’m going to assume that you actually need this explained, as opposed to trying to subtly troll.
It’s not the word that is inflammatory. It’s the usage. Someone with a learning disability may or may not be “retarded” (developmentally retarded, amongst other diagnoses, depending on the situation and diagnosis.
However, using the word “retarded” to indicate a bad situation, or a poor choice, or a willfully ignorant person, changes the context of the word. It’s like calling something you don’t like “gay”. It’s not that being retarded, is a bad thing in and of itself. The person using it in a poor context adds a layer of disrespect and insult, by equating a word that doesn’t signify in the situation, and implying that the word (and those associated with it) are bad in some way. And it’s people using that word repeatedly, making the word a common epithet, that makes it even more insulting to those who are associated with it.
Very well said, Evan!
Evan, I really like that analogy, and I’m going to borrow and use it.
The “gay” example is a great illustration of the concept. I’ve used the example of using “___ like a girl” to indicate that somebody’s doing something really badly. I.e., “throw like a girl” – there’s actually nothing wrong with girls (believe it or not!) but to continually use it as an insult makes it *seem* like there’s something wrong with being a girl. Same with “gay,” same with “retarded.”
Hello!
Congratulations! You have just earned 3 Derailment Points! You have 1) Claimed To Look For A Discussion, Requiring Other People to Do Your Thinking For You, 2) Belittled The Response Of A Person Trying To Help You Understand, and 3) Immaturely and Backhandedly Accused People You’re Talking To Of Being Immature!
You now have 6 Derailment Points! Just 4 more until you level up! Good luck!
I understand that questioning something you know to be absolutely true is uncomfortable. Try and give these words a few minutes of thought before you call me a troll or the wolf with the yellow flyer. I would appreciate it.
Chris – I can’t tell who you’re replying to here…
I think this is a general comment for everyone here.
My original question was “why?”. Joe had a very interesting response but the rest can be mostly summed up by “don’t ask why, you troll”.
Sorry to have cluttered up your blog.
Chris – while some people were not interested in engaging with you, others did give you their time and attention to try to help you understand. I’m sorry that this is all you took from those people’s efforts.
Hello!
Congratulations! You have just earned 3 Derailment Points! You have 1) Claimed That People Think You’re Right And Are Only Attacking You Because You’re Right And They’re Wrong (x2 Value!) and 2) Claimed That You Are The Victim!
Just 1 more Derailment Point until you level up! Good luck!
Ian – while I’m all for gaming/geek-related humor, I think you’ve made your point.
Okay, sorry.
Ian – can you post or give a link to a list of the Derailment Points? I like this game – I’ve seen far too many people end up playing it – and I think I want to know more about it
I’m just making up the exact phrases here, but here’s a good basic guide:
http://derailingfordummies.com/
Hello Chris,
It may be useful to read blogs by people with disabilities who have talked about the r-word campaign and why they think it is important. While this is just one example from Dave Hingsburger (from Rolling Around in my Head), he has written about this extensively, discussing how and why he thinks this is important: http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/2010/08/people-who-are.html
If you search his blog for “the word” or “the r word” you’ll see a lot more of his arguments. You can also search elsewhere for the R-Word Campaign and its reasons.
This is amazing. Thank you. I wish I had something more substantial to say than “me too.”
Thanks for the unexpected tears (subtle sarcastic tone) LOL.
Great post, story, and yes I’d love to see the children’s book. And as always, thanks for sticking up for people from all walks.
My jaw officially has keyboard/desk/floor marks on it. This story was amazing. I started worrying that I might have to object to your use of the r word. But I didn’t have to, and I’m so amazingly happy. This was spot-on, perfect.
I love your books, and I’m so glad I can admire you as a person as well as an author.
Thank you.
Also, if you get a picture book made, this is going in my classroom once I start teaching. Anytime one of my students acts like a douchecanoe, they get to read it (I might read it to the entire class, just so I can emphasize that being a douchecanoe punishes everyone). Yes, even if I manage to teach college-level. Maybe I should make costumes so groups of douchecanoes can act the story out?
Well written.
Good job Jim
As the sister of someone with Down syndrome, I just want to say thank you.
I feel an occasionally “sea-worthy douche canoe” can add spice to the conversation.
Agh, that was supposed to be a reply to another comment.
I’ve seen stuff like this going around too and it bugs me. Thank you for this.
Question: Would this fall under the category of “icky speech” as outline by Neil Gaiman in his blog entry here: http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html. Referring to all the wolves, but mostly to the second part in which the pig says “what does it cost you to use a different word?”
I am not trying to trigger things, I am not trying to incite. I’m asking to be educated, like the second wolf, by putting forth a counter-point in an accepting way. And I’m trying to consolidate in view of the current debate today of “freedom of speech is not the same thing as freedom from the consequences of that speech.”
Eric – I’m not entirely clear what you’re asking. I don’t think anything in the post or the comments tries to argue that people are not free to use the word “retarded” or any other language they choose.
One of the things I was trying to put forth was that one’s choice of language can be hurtful, and that I think it’s important to consider that pain when choosing one’s speech.
I guess my short version would be:
Free speech = Good.
Responsible free speech = Better.
My interpretation is that the pig is trying to stop the use of the word “retarded”. And if the pig had his way, if he were a supreme court judge, he would try to get that word banned. Maybe I’m assigning something that’s not there, but the parable nature of the story gives the pig one single goal, and I feel the pig will only be satisfied when people to stop using that word. And if he had some magic power to do that, he would.
And the reason I don’t like this story is that it angrys (angries?) up my blood when people try and tell me what words I can and can’t say. Yes, words can hurt. We are all part of a generation that knows that now. But it’s not the words themselves, it’s the contest, as nicely illustrated in George Carlin’s philosophy: http://www.iceboxman.com/carlin/pael.php#track14.
At no time did any of the wolves call the bunny retarded — they were all referring to something else. They didn’t even know the bunny was there, or what his condition was. What made the bunny feel bad was that the word evoked a memory of kids teasing him. Those are the bad guys. Those are the ones that the pig should be talking to.
And I have a problem with many people getting punished because of one person. We all have bad days. We have hurt in our lives. If you live a life without hurt, then you’re doing something wrong. We all end up with scars. I have a problem with other people telling others how to act when the consequences of that action are, in reality, quite small.
IMO, the only real appropriate action the pig made was calling the wolf a “jackass”/”douchebag”. That’s all one really has the power to do in that situation, and it’s all one should be able to do, whether fortunately or unfortunately.
First: the pig is clearly referred to as She.
Second: There’s a vast difference between wanting people to watch their choice of words lest they hurt (not offend, but wound) someone, and wanting a word banned. I can tell people book X contains some hurtful material, and to avoid reading it, or even (as in a recent case) want a warning label on the cover so people know what they’re getting into, without wanting it banned.
Third: No, the wolves weren’t villains when they used the word without realising someone nearby might be hurt by it. They became villains when they were made aware the bunny was hurt and refused to avoid using it. Also, the bunny WAS hurt by their inadvertent insult. It was there; their ignorance of his presence doesn’t cure the fact that the harm was done. You say because it was inadvertent, they shouldn’t be asked to stop. I say that’s the best person to call on it as the pig did; politely. Someone who insults on purpose knows the damage they’re doing. Someone who hurts someone by accident is much more likely to be willing and able to change their behaviour, more likely to feel chagrin at their thoughtlessness.
And you’re falling right into “the person who was hurt should just have a thicker skin”, which is a nasty rhetorical trap used against every member of every minority who dares to object to demeaning treatment. Now, if you have a magic wand that can make people impervious to being inadvertently hurt, great. But this is not the ideal world, and accommodating people who aren’t tough as nails seems to me to bring it closer to a better world than trampling over their sensibilities because you happen to be made of sterner stuff.
Eric,
“And if the pig had his way, if he were a supreme court judge, he would try to get that word banned. Maybe I’m assigning something that’s not there…”
You’re assigning something that’s not there.
“And the reason I don’t like this story is that it angrys (angries?) up my blood when people try and tell me what words I can and can’t say.”
The pig *asks* the wolves not to use that word, and explains that it hurts people.
Look, you wrote a blog post explaining how you think this parable advocates censorship. Which, to me, says that you don’t really understand what censorship is.
Censorship is not someone saying, “Would you mind not using that word, because it’s hurtful?” Censorship is not someone writing a parable about talking animals, either.
If a supreme court judge says that nobody is allowed to say the word “retarded,” then yes, that would be censorship. Since that scenario came out of your mind, and has nothing to do with anything being advocated here, I don’t think it applies in the slightest.
You talked about all of the kneejerk praise and the unthinking applause from the commenters who liked this piece. In my experience, the urge to cry “Censorship!!!” can be just as unthinking and kneejerk as any other reflex.
Then you need to tell me what the Pig does want. What is her ultimate goal? What would the Pig do if she got one wish? Because what I see is a scenario that leads to elimination of that word. Because while censorship does have a legal definition, it also has a colloquial definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor (definitions 2 and 3).
The Pig’s underlying motivation is obvioulsy beyond disciplining these three Wolves. His goal is for people to stop using that word in a “hurtful” way. “Stop using a word” sounds like censorship to me. It’s clear the Pig does not like the use of that word. She may be asking, not telling or demanding. But it’s clear what the Pig *wants*. My question is, to what end?
As you can see, I have given this thought. There’s nothing kneejerk about this reaction.
Eric,
Well, no, I don’t actually need to do that. You want me to, and that’s fine.
I wrote a follow-up post today talking about censorship and freedom of speech, and I debated including something about how I figured someone would promptly run to an online dictionary to try to prove their point with some secondary definition.
By the definition you’re quoting:
My copy-editor is censoring me every time she fixes a comma. (She’s faultfinding!)
I’m censoring you if I point out that you misspelled “obvioulsy.” (Again, faultfinding.)
Every minister I’ve ever listened to is pro-censorship. (Supervising morality.)
I’m censoring my kids when I tell them to chew with their mouths closed. (Supervising manners.)
Is that really how you want to frame your argument? By using definitions so broad as to make the term relatively useless?
Also, you say, “The Pig’s underlying motivation is obvioulsy beyond disciplining these three Wolves.”
The Pig’s underlying motivation, in my opinion, has nothing to do with “disciplining” anyone. But as the author, I also recognize that my interpretation isn’t the only possible reading of a piece.
My use of the word ‘need’ was meant to apply to me — sorry for the ambiguity. If you can’t tell by my comments, I, as a reader, ‘don’t get it’. So I need to know what the Pig’s goal is, in terms of a protagonist’s wants and needs. Because I cannot reconcile this story within my personal convictions of ‘not wanting to hurt people with words’ versus ‘telling people what they should and shouldn’t say’ — which, to me, is a jerk move.
I’m not talking about legality here. And I find it petty that you’re now arguing semantics. Ms. Elise (below) already explained that there is a difference between the legality of freedom of speech, and I already mentioned that I’m trying to understand this in the wake of recent “freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences of that speech”.
I think the problem in communication here is you’re assuming the pig must have a huge ultimate end regarding the word.
What the pig wants is, “I want my child not to be hurt by others, whether they do it intentionally or accidentally.” That’s it. That’s all. Asking people not to use a certain word in front of him is in service to that goal, not a goal in itself.
I’m also not totally sure that asking someone to think about their word choices is necessarily a jerk move; there are more than a few situations where asking someone to please think before speaking is in fact the nicest possible response.
Question: Do you really think ti was a perfectly acceptable thing for the wolves to say what they did, just because it wasn’t directly addressed to the rabbit? The wolves didn’t just happen to use the word neutrally, as you might get with someone discussing a medical condition (the term does have a legitimate meaning in therapy) or testing a flame retardant product. IF they had, I might agree it’s a jerk move to take offence. Each of the wolves was using the word specifically to refer to a situation they didn’t like, adding to the implication that being retarded is bad — and while they didn’t address the bunny, neither did they take the least care to make sure nobody around them would be hurt.
Eric,
Yes, I can tell that you don’t get it. A number of of people, myself included, have taken a lot of time trying to explain it to you in a number of different ways. You’ve responded by repeating yourself, accusing me of pettiness, and disregarding what people have said to you.
I’m done with this conversation.
I think it’s important to note that Mr. Gaiman was talking about whether certain speech should be made ILLEGAL in his post. So, yes, you can defend someone’s legal right to use the r word, while at the same time thinking they shouldn’t use it. And, in fact, the Supreme Court has done something similar in the Westboro Baptist Church case (ruling that they had the right to speak at funerals, while still noting the speech they chose was abominable). What we’re discussing is NOT the legal right to freedom of speech, but whether people should strive to be less offensive in their speech. It’s the difference between “can” and “should.”
Thank you, that makes more sense to me — the “is it illegal” vs. “is it personal preference” thing is what needed clarification for me.
I will state up front that I do not use the word retarded and I would not let my child use it either.
However, here’s my problem with pinpointing particular words and their possible connotations.
When I was young, we used the word retarded to refer to the . Then people used that word in a derogatory manner, so the word became *bad*. Then people began to use the word special. Again, people used it as an insult, and the word became *bad*.
It’s not the WORDS that matter here, it’s the way they’re used…right? I hope we can all agree on that. Now, we can keep throwing new words out there, but if people are continually turning them into insults…we’re just going to run out of words.
It is NOT OKAY to make fun of disabled individuals or people who are different than you. When people stop turning these words into insults, and when we teach our children that this behavior is NOT OKAY, then and only then will it stop.
I’ve seen dozens of reports of hate crimes against the disabled in the past few weeks and it makes my blood boil. I believe this is a symptom of a much larger problem, and I’d rather see discussion on the underlying issue (hatred) and how we as a society can put an end to the ridicule and abuse of disabled individuals.
Another problem with singling out words is that no one agrees on which words are safe. I see heated debates on every form of social media with vastly different opinions on which words are offensive and which ones are not. If we can’t agree, how are we supposed to avoid offending people? Yes, retarded is not the right word to use, but what is the correct term? Someone today was offended by “differently-abled.” Others are offended by “mentally challenged.” I’m so confused on what to say that I’m afraid to speak at all.
Sarah – do you mind if I ask why you don’t let your children use that word?
“If we can’t agree, how are we supposed to avoid offending people? Yes, retarded is not the right word to use, but what is the correct term? Someone today was offended by “differently-abled.” Others are offended by “mentally challenged.” I’m so confused on what to say that I’m afraid to speak at all.”
Well, when referring to my son, who is autistic, I call him Jackson. Or I say that he’s autistic, or has ASD.
Well, my daughter’s only two, so she probably can’t even say it yet. But as I said, the word retarded offends many people, so I will teach her not to use it. I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings.
Regarding your son, it’s one thing if you know the disability of the person in question. It’s not always obvious to everyone else. I can’t look at someone and say, “they’re obviously autistic.” And if I did, I would probably get it wrong and offend someone. (Something similar happened to me once, when a woman noticed me walking with a crutch and assumed I must have MS. It was just a broken foot.)
I meant it more as a blanket term. How do you refer to individuals with learning disabilities without offense? I’ve heard too many voices crying out against seemingly innocuous terms. How do we know the “correct” term to use? It doesn’t seem like there is a consensus that will satisfy everyone.
One of the best places to start is to ask people with disabilities. For instance, something I learned relatively recently – it is considered incorrect/insulting to refer to people with disabilities (sometimes abbreviated as “PWDs”) as “the disabled,” because it has an effect of placing their conditions before their separate selves. The preferred phrase is “people with disabilities” or, abbreviated, PWDs. That’s also the only blanket term I’ve found.
And no, you will probably never be able to satisfy everyone. That’s just sorta how it goes, sometimes. The best you can do is apologize sincerely and try to change when you mess up, because everyone messes up some time.
That doesn’t really fly for me either. I have a disability myself (though mine is “invisible,” so many people don’t know about it). Many of the people who have my disability are offended by things that don’t bother me in the slightest. The guy I referenced who didn’t like the term “differently-abled” was invited to join a G+ support group, but decided against it because that term was used in the invitation. The woman who sent the invite was also disabled, and didn’t understand how she caused offense.
This is where my confusion becomes outright frustration. People with disabilities can’t even agree on a term to use WITH EACH OTHER.
I think it depends on context and the purpose of the discussion, but is there any reason you can’t say “people with learning disabilities”? That’s basically what you just did in your comment, and I don’t see why that wouldn’t work.
I used that term because it was the one you used in your story. I figured it was the least likely to cause offense.
I’ve heard complaints about the term “disabled” from others. They prefer “challenged” or some other variation.
Well, this story has been seen by several thousand people now, and not one has complained about that phrase, so by that sampling I’d say it’s a pretty safe way to go.
I’m not sure what else to say here. Like Ms. Elise said, you’re never going to get 100% consensus from absolutely everyone. But after years of writing on a public platform, including posts on race and sexual orientation and disabilities, I’ve never run into the kinds of difficulties you’re describing. I’m not questioning your veracity; it just hasn’t matched my own experience, so I’m at a loss as to what else to say.
For me, it comes down to listening and trying to treat people as they ask to be treated. If someone says they find a term offensive, it costs me nothing to stop using that term with them, or to cut that term out of my vocabulary. There are lots of other words to choose from.
I’ve been involved in a lot of forums so perhaps that’s the difference. It’s a real annoyance for me. However, that wasn’t the real issue I was trying to address.
My real concern is WHY people are continuing to turn these words into *bad* words. If we can’t stop that, then this cycle will just continue.
I’ll leave it at that.
That I don’t have an answer for. I think part of it ties into a larger societal acceptance when it comes to insulting or looking down on those who are different, particularly those with disabilities.
Thank you, Jim. This was beautiful, and it would make a lovely picture book (though you may have to use some other term than “Douchebag.”)
Hmm
I’m actually thinking about the picture book thing now.
I wonder if it would work to substitute cartoon-style swearing.
“Mister wolf, you are a !@#$%^.”
Hm … probably not.
“Mister Wolf, you are just a mean, no-good, not very nice person.”
So, the moral of the story, is that:
1. You can’t modify the speech/behavior of others by asking.
2. You can’t modify the speech/behavior of others by explaining.
3. The only way to modify the speech/behavior of others is to lower yourself to their level and be as (or more) rude/hurtful than the others?
Hmmm?
If I was still teaching, I’d give this a D- in reading comprehension. You’re welcome to try again if you’d like.
I guess, I will have to get the Cliff’s Notes, then. I thought that I was being insightful.
It was obvious that the Wolves were in the wrong in using the hurtful language. Furthermore, they were uncaring and unwilling to change. Again, obvious.
However, that does not excuse Pig from doing the same thing. IMHO, a poor example to give for Bunny. Now Pig will seem like a hypocrite if Bunny uses hurtful language and Pig tries to correct it. In fact, it would seem to Bunny that hurtful language is justified and effective.
In addition, there is another, subtle, message here. Pig did nothing, not even acknowledging the problems/issues of the Wolves. She expected them to care about her and Bunny’s issues without caring about theirs.
Please explain what I am missing in my comprehension.
Well, let’s start by asking where are you getting the idea that the third wolf modified his speech/behavior? I’m also rather curious what problems/issues the wolves were having that you feel were so important for the pig to acknowledge. And then there’s your assertion that the pig’s use of the word “jackass” is “as (or more) rude/hurtful” than the wolves’ own behavior. I’m not sure what your basis is for making that judgment.
Not to feed the trolls, but I do wonder how appropriate “jackass” is as an insult in a world full of talking animals!
Yeah, that thought occurred to me late last night, too.
How would you feel about “dungmuncher”?
A little on the gross side for my tastes; what about a simple, straightforward “jerk”? Or its so-classy cousins, “jerkwad”, “jerkoff” and “jerkass”?
‘The wolf bared his teeth. “You can’t say that to me!”
“I thought we had freedom of speech,” said the pig.
One of the wolf’s ears flicked backward. “Well, you’ll never convince people to do what you want by calling them names.”
“So how should I convince them?” the pig asked. She waited, but the wolf didn’t answer. He opened his book and continued to read.’
I read this as the Wolf would think twice before using the hurtful word. Perhaps, I misread this.
The story has been slightly modified from when I first read it (“jackass” replacing “douchebag”). But the term does not matter. Either term or the proposed “dungmuncher” is intended as a hurtful term. If she would have called him “insensitive, selfish lobo”, it would have been both descriptive and accurate. Instead, “jackass”, “douchebag”, and “dungmuncher” are inaccurate in describing the wolf with the sole purpose of hurting. This, in my opinion, is _worse_ than what the wolf was saying, as the wolf might not have intended hurt with each first statement, whereas Pig did, when speaking to the 3rd wolf.
@Iona, not intending to be a Troll. Just pointing out some difficulties (IMHO) in the story.
I’m mostly done with this conversation, but the argument “He didn’t intend hurt!” comes up a lot in these conversations. If I run over a kid with my car, is that kid any less injured because I didn’t intend to hit him?
No, but intent is the difference between Manslaughter and Murder.
Intent doesn’t make a difference to the run-over kid’s injuries (which is a pretty clear point made in this story and in the comments here). It just made a change in the punishment of the perpetrator. So you made a pretty derailing statement there.
The worst that any of the wolves was suffering was poor cell phone reception, where the bunny was being visibly hurt. So the pig behaved poorly by saying, “Please don’t hurt my child and not saying, “oh, you poor wolf”?
And the bit you cited about the third wolf sounded to me like the end of any number of internet debates, where the wolf-like writer would fail to answer just such a question. And later appear on the same or another forum using the very same words they’d been asked not to use before. Maybe you’ve been luckier with your internet than I.
I think anyone who “got” Jim’s story will also enjoy the following song from one of my all time favorite singer/songwriters, Susan Werner. Just saw her at The Ark in Ann Arbor MI a couple weekends ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NyXvdnPmxI
It seems like an endless uphill battle, but I take comfort knowing that there are similarly hurtful racial slurs that used to be common and are now universally considered rude. I imagine those seemed like endless uphill battles too, but people chipped away at it and more or less won.
Here’s the lyrics to the song I mentioned, My Different Son by Susan Werner
(Yeah, I’m trying to push them on people, but they fit SO well with the sentiment)
My Different Son
my little boy plays all alone
lives in a world that’s all his own
my different son, my different son
he’s not the same as everyone -
he’s my different son
my little boy doesn’t quite fit in
schools and rules were never made for him
my different son, my different son
won’t have anybody making fun
of my different son
my different son already knows by now
he’s always gonna be a different boy somehow
but there’s so much passion, so much pride
so much possibility inside
my different son, my different son
wanna set him free and watch him run
for my different son, i’m doing all i can
one day my different son is gonna be a man
want him to build a life he can be proud of
find his purpose, find some love
my different son, my different son
cause he’s just the same as everyone
but he’s not the same as everyone
he’s – he’s – my -
son
Why is the wolf ALWAYS the bad guy?
I wanted to stick with the traditional fairy tale tropes for this one … though it might have been interesting to make the wolf the parent and the pigs the bad guys.
The pigs are allready the bad guys in Angry Bird so there is a precedense
Yeah, I was wondering what was the implication of the wolves being the bad guy too. It kind of felt to me like that it was pointless addressing the wolves because they are wolves, the incarnation of fairytail evil and they will never be anything else. It’s not like wolves can ever think hard about the situation at hand, educate themselves as to privilege and become puppydogs. I am a tiny bit uncomfortable with the idea that oppression is not a problem of understanding but of character.
Well, wolves *DID* leave their horrible wild ways behind, and domesticate, joining in with the rest of civilization, as it were.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t bad examples of dogs, or even dogs who make poor choices, but most people would rather live with a happy-go-lucky retriever then a wolf.
I was waiting for the JACKASS to come down the path from the field behind the wolf and kick the sh!t out of him!!
Good stuff, everybody! Thanks for speaking up.
“Douche Canoe”…. pffftt!!
KD
regardless of what one thinks, no one but THOSE who are battling this, exposed to the torment of having adults or their children shy away ( or worse yet laugh at) from/a disabled child/adult is lack of understanding. Most people are fortunate not to deal with this sort of embarrassment/misunderstanding. And do I mean that for the “retarded” child/adult” or those of the parents/children. You tell me if its a lack of education, we are all different and some of us need more help than others. There is no right, no wrong, but the acceptance of each other only makes a difference. And to say, we, those dealing with it, struggling for acceptance is only dealing with the hand that was dealt, is rather shallow. WE as parents or child of a disability NEVER for once, asked for this, and yes we are dealing with it. We see the disappointment, we see the hurt, we see what happens to those who are suffering. Does that make us differnent? Perhaps, that we can see beyond our own selves, and to put someone elses well being before our own self, would make us exceptional. Who will care for you when you are “gone” and when you can’t care for yourself. You have US. Those of us who always saw beyond our on self needs but those of others.
The world is selfish and self centered most of the time, yet you don’t have to be one of them to do so. Stand for yourself and the rights of others who can’t do it for themselves, that shows true courage and compassion.
I’m slightly with Brian on this one. At the end of the story, no one has grown or learned anything of any value. And by using rude language, the Pig set a poor example for his stepson. Furthermore, the lesson that the Bunny learned at the end of all of this is: “What other people (even complete strangers) say affects your self-worth.” The Pig should teach her stepson that even if/when people are mean, it is a reflection on them and not on him, and he should not take it personally because he’s absolutely perfect the way he is.
The wolves were clearly insensitive and their behavior was inexcusable, but it seems to me the Pig is exerting far too much effort trying to make other people be decent people, and not enough effort teaching her stepson to be strong despite the fact that other people aren’t always decent.
Yes, people should not use this word this way. But because this is a parable, it is not just about THIS word, it is about anything that others do that hurts someone’s feelings. And the unfortunate fact of life is that you can’t control what other people say or do, but you can control how you react and how you feel about it.
Not to put too fine a point on it, Brittany, but what other people (even complete strangers) say about us DOES affect our self-worth. We’re social animals, and we take what other people say about us to heart. It’s not the only thing, but if I were to call you stupid, you would discount my opinion. If I called you smart, however, you wouldn’t. That’s still letting what a complete stranger says about you affect your self worth.
“At the end of the story, no one has grown or learned anything of any value.”
In my experience, a lot of these conversations go pretty much the way I described them in the story … but I’ve also spoken to folks who walked away from such a confrontation and didn’t think about it or decide to make a change until much later. This might be the first time the wolves have been called on their words. They might not make a change right there on the spot, but it’s also possible the pig’s words — or just the fact that the pig protested — will stick with them and lead to learning or change down the road.
It’s also possible, perhaps more likely, that they won’t change or learn anything at all, of course.
“The Pig should teach her stepson that even if/when people are mean, it is a reflection on them and not on him, and he should not take it personally because he’s absolutely perfect the way he is.”
This seems a lot like the “Just ignore them, they only pick on you because they’re jealous or because they have problems!” advice that used to be so popular for teachers and parents to give bullied children … while simultaneously ignoring the bullies, telling the victims to toughen up, and allowing the bullying to continue.
“At the end of the story, no one has grown or learned anything of any value.” Really? I thought a lot had been learned. To me, the lesson of this story is that sometimes people say hurtful things and that we can try to explain this to these people but this may not change their behavior. Because we can’t change other people’s behaviors – they have to do the changing. So all we can do is speak up (or not) and go on. But I think that the mom cared enough to defend her son is the important lesson for the son – that someone has his back and he doesn’t have to face the bullying alone. Because it is the isolation that hurts as much as the bullying. And love is way more important that a few thoughtless words.
The pig seemed to me to be teaching her son that she would speak up for him even against impossible odds. Which IS actually a huge way of teaching a child self-worth; when he’s older and alone, he’ll remember that feeling of not having to face the hurt in silence.
I think what you’re saying here is what they call the “tone argument”. “How do you ever expect to get people on your side if you take that tone?” The pig had tried appealing to empathy, she’d tried educating, and the wolves still weren’t willing to modify their language because they privileged their own convenience over the little bunny’s hurt feelings. The pig, pretty understandably, became frustrated.
Besides which, the wolves calling the bunny retarded (a direct attack on something he had no control over and which is in no way morally reprehensible) is not the same thing as the pig calling the wolf a jackass (a comment on a specific behaviour over which they absolutely have control they choose not to exercise because they care more for their opinions or convenience than for other people’s feelings).
That aside, though, although the wolves might not have learned anything by the end of the story, the bunny (which is the surrogate for the child reader in this story) absolutely has. He’s learned that although there are people in this world who won’t think about his feelings, either because they’re mean or lazy or think other things that are more important), there are other people who care more about his feelings than anything and will stick up for him no matter what.
I often feel like this IRL, like I’m fighting a battle I will never win.
Thank you for writing this <3
Too late, sorry. You’ve already trained me to call jackasses douchebags.
I think the lesson here is larger than don’t use the word ‘retard’ or ‘retarded’.
I think it’s don’t use a word that names a person or group of people as an insult or a curse.
That was so sad, & sweet. Any chance you could make some toys to go with your picture book? I want to give the bunny a hug make it all better.
Thank you! I’m not much of a toymaker, but I’ll definitely let folks know if someone offers me a merchandising deal
Well, as someone who loves rats, I will say that rat-felching is a pretty horrible term altogether… I’m not sure it’s better to swap to animal abuse, just to be fair.
Jim,
Thank you for the story. As the mother of a 7 yr old with ASD, I would love to see this made into a book.
Jim,
You just proved yet again why you are one of the truly good people on this planet.
I’d like to add my voice to those who think this would make an absolutely wonderful children’s book.
It teaches a lesson, gently and well and empathetically, without preaching. Which is why I’m perplexed that there are so many wolves in the comments…
I work for an organization that helps people with all kinds of issues and or impairments. I too have a few and I can say people daily reject and rebuke those I work with as well as myself andoff I have learned that it is THEY who are challenged, not us. We don’t see our personal issues as a barrier, we just work a little harder to reach our goals and try not to pity those who are challenged by stupidity.
[...] The Wolves, the Pig, and the Retarded Bunny Once upon a time, a pig and a bunny were walking together through the woods, when up ahead they spotted a wolf in the middle of the path. The wolf was shaking his phone and growling.“Hold my hand,” said the pig. The bunny reached up and took the pig’s hand.“The company guarantees coverage everywhere,” complained the wolf. “But as soon as you walk into the woods, you drop to just one bar. That’s so retarded!”The pig sighed and stopped walking. She looked down at the bunny. From the way his … [...]
[...] a follow up, Jim offers this delightful (if bittersweet) fable: “Would you mind not using that word?” asked the [...]