I thought this article was interesting. I don't find the dolls offensive. I actually feel like they would be a good teaching tool. When kids only have toys that are white, thin, and this hollywood ideal of pretty, I think it gives them a distorted perception of how people really are. I know kids don't want to be different but I think having dolls that look like them would not emphasize a difference but show it as a natural variance that people have.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And think of all the nice Virtue Points the parents can get by buying their children boring, politically correct toys! Yay!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
They could have made the doll smile. As it is the Downs Syndrome doll just looks rather confused. You wouldn't buy a regular doll looking rather confused, so why would they make a Downs Syndrome doll look confused?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Teshi, I think it's actually a fairly accurate representation of how people with Down's usually look. i suppose your experience might be different from mine though.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
Heaven forbid I be pc!!! I might actually wind up with a child with virtues. Then whatever would I do!
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I think the dolls are adorable. I would consider getting my future kids one, disabled or not. But then, I'm a fan of reverse integration, so YMMV.
quote:‘They are totally one-dimensional — they can’t show that a child with Down’s syndrome can be funny, bright and articulate.
But no doll of any sort does that! A doll takes on the personality a child gives it!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think these are great.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by theresa51282: Heaven forbid I be pc!!! I might actually wind up with a child with virtues. Then whatever would I do!
Brag about it until people learned to avoid you, most likely.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I already read as simular article. This woman said something obnoxious along the lines of how when they were trying to do something about intergration in schools they should black children white dolls and blacks. They went for the white ones because they thought the black ones were ugly. The person who made the comment took it to mean that the girls wanted dolls that were trendy and popular, but I took it to mean they were ashamed of their blackness which is rather sad. The reality is some kids ARE disabled. Potraying disability as tragic and sad and NOT letting a child have a doll that reflected their disability really won't help in the long run, I think. I think it depends on a person's view of Down Syndrome and things like that. If they have a negative few of it, perhaps they will be repulsed by the dolls. Which doesn't really help people with Down Syndrome deal with the fact that they have Down Syndrome....
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
People are scared the PC means Politically Correct, that succumbing to its pleasant patter will result in turning the country into some kind of police state. They fear that not being politically correct may in the future have you thrown in jail.
I believe that PC stands for Polite Conversation. While freedom of expression and freedom of speech means that you have the lawful right to talk rudely and behave poorly, it is only polite to call people what they want to be called, and to see people, even people with disabilities, or differently-abled, as people and not as their afflictions, disabilities or differences.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Pretty much, but one can't IGNORE their so-called disabilities either. It isn't anything to be ashamed of or to fear.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:They could have made the doll smile. As it is the Downs Syndrome doll just looks rather confused. You wouldn't buy a regular doll looking rather confused, so why would they make a Downs Syndrome doll look confused?
I agree that the doll should be smiling, at least have the corners of the mouth turned up and a little crinkle around the eyes. The facial expression is just blank, and the downs kids I've known have a real strong tendency to twinkle. I don't think the doll looks confused, necessarily, just tired and expressionless. Which is unflattering, to say the least.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What Glenn said. That may be how children with Downs Syndrome look when they're tired and expressionless, but in my experience they're quite happy people with a wide grin.
Why not reflect that in the doll?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
" believe that PC stands for Polite Conversation. While freedom of expression and freedom of speech means that you have the lawful right to talk rudely and behave poorly, it is only polite to call people what they want to be called, and to see people, even people with disabilities, or differently-abled, as people and not as their afflictions, disabilities or differences."
Thank you, Dan.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I would note that action figures from, Daredevil, Geordi La Forge, and any number of 'Blind Swordsman' action figures from wuxia or anime predate this latest development *shrug*
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I want a blind swordman action figure.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
"Heaven forbid I be pc!!! I might actually wind up with a child with virtues. Then whatever would I do!"
I hope you don't honestly mean what you just implied, that being politically correct(!!!) is important in instilling virtue into a child of yours.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If these things get known about, plenty of people gonna buy them for all the wrong reasons. lulz content in the down's syndrome doll is high.
which is a shame because on the whole these dolls are a good thing and they should exist.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Great article, EL. My mom wasn't a fan of mainstreaming her (severely) disabled kids she worked with because she felt it wasn't in their best interests. When they were at their own school, they had friends and cliques and boyfriends and girlfriends and all the drama you'd expect from middle and high schoolers. But when they ended up over at the regular school, they seemed to just get by. Their academics would drop and their social skills would grind to a halt.
I wonder if reverse integration would prevent those problems. By being the majority, would the disabled kids go on being normal with each other and accept the "others"? Or would it repress one or both groups from acheiving what they would on their own? Would the answer be left to the whim of the most dominant personality? I think the principal's right; there probably is a PhD thesis waiting to be discovered in their program. Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: "Heaven forbid I be pc!!! I might actually wind up with a child with virtues. Then whatever would I do!"
I hope you don't honestly mean what you just implied, that being politically correct(!!!) is important in instilling virtue into a child of yours.
You might want to reread what Dan wrote without your bias glasses on.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I hope you don't honestly mean what you just implied, that being politically correct(!!!) is important in instilling virtue into a child of yours.
The term "politically correct" has a lot of meanings to different people. To me, it just means being polite. Just because self-righteous conservatives have co-opted the term to imply ridiculousness in the attempt to satisfy everybody doesn't make it so.
And yes, being polite is a virtue.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To me, it just means being polite. Just because self-righteous conservatives have co-opted the term to imply ridiculousness in the attempt to satisfy everybody doesn't make it so.
Politically correct has been used by some of its advocates to mean much more than mere politeness. I know many people don't use it that way, but some do.
quote:it is only polite to call people what they want to be called
The problem arises when someone decides that failure to use a particular word for a particular group as a moral failing - especially when members of that group disagree
I've been variously informed that "Indian" and "Native American" are variously either each politically incorrect or the only politically correct term to use. There are a not insignificant number of people who view use of the word "Jew" as a noun to refer to a particular person (as opposed to "Jewish person") as politically incorrect. There are many people who don't agree with that.
I don't particularly care to resolve any of those differences, nor do I have any problem with the fact that people have different preferences for such things. But I do care when people assign failure to conform to their view on such things as a moral failing.
And I've seen it a lot. Not all, and possibly not a majority of the time I've seen the term used. But a sufficient amount of time that I can see why people like to avoid the whole concept.
Personally, I generally like to be polite. I don't see a need for another word for it. Those who do see a need for another word for politeness (not all who use the other word for it, but for those who can't convey their meaning with the word "politeness") generally annoy me.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why not just treat people with respect and compassion instead of viewing them as walking stereotypes?
Also, abolishing the concept of "normal" or expanding the definition of normal can't hurt either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why not just treat people with respect and compassion instead of viewing them as walking stereotypes?
To whom was this addressed/in response?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Why not just treat people with respect and compassion instead of viewing them as walking stereotypes?
To whom was this addressed/in response to?
I don't know, it's just something that has to be said and done. It's not about PCness or unPCness, both concepts are confusing and annoying, but plain old simple respect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Your suggestion doesn't begin to cover all the instances at issue. One needs to use group identifiers in a host of contexts other than viewing people as walking stereotypes. That being the case, the question of what words to use as group identifiers will arise.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Too bad it's too early to do away with group identifiers altogether. They can be so misleading. Especially when it comes to race, with probably doesn't exist the way people think it does in the first place...
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Politically correct has been used by some of its advocates to mean much more than mere politeness.
I would say that the term was coined to describe a specific kind of politeness, or a certain subset of etiquette. And I think the distinction is important enough that the term deserves to exist, even if it is cumbersome.
quote:The problem arises when someone decides that failure to use a particular word for a particular group as a moral failing - especially when members of that group disagree
I agree. I think it would serve people better to recognize that there isn't necessarily a specific politically correct term that must be used, but that there are definitely specific politically incorrect terms that should be avoided.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I think the Down's doll is awful and not at all reflective of the many Down's children I know personally. I would never buy one of those. I don't have a problem with the other ones, except that they don't seem very well made.
I disagree with the notion of a "person with disabilities." Aerin is autistic, she's not a "person with autism." It's not something that's separate from her, it's something that's completely a part of her and will be for her entire life. I understand that the idea of separating a person from his disability is to keep people from thinking of them as sub-human, but I don't think it serves that function. The people who do feel that way won't be persuaded by being forced to use different terminology and the people who don't feel that way will just be made to feel unnecessarily uncomfortable and guilty if they use the "incorrect" term.
quote:I don't particularly care to resolve any of those differences, nor do I have any problem with the fact that people have different preferences for such things. But I do care when people assign failure to conform to their view on such things as a moral failing.
I agree. And, for the record, I've never met any Jew who would even think to insist on being called a Jewish person. I wouldn't have either.
I also think compassion needs to work both ways. It's okay for people to feel uncomfortable around people with disabilities or deformities, so long as they aren't rude or ugly. It's wrong to force people to accept something they aren't ready to or don't want to and it never works anyway. I have found that the best way to get people to accept my autistic child is to be as matter-of-fact and open as possible and to be as understanding of them as I want them to be of Aerin. We've had nothing but kindness and acceptance from our family and community.
Aerin has had a lot of disabilties and deformities in her short little life. When she had her hemangioma, I never got offended if people stared or looked upset. It was huge and gross. No one ever made any ugly comment to me or pointed or anything like that. I did get very polite questions that I was happy to answer. It's the same with her scar, which is smaller and not gross at all. It's still quite large and people look. That's okay. I'm happy to answer questions. I look at it as an opportunity to educate people about hemangiomas and to help Aerin realize that it's not something she should be self-conscious of. She had an apnea monitor for a long time when she was an infant and we would get lots of questons and concerned looks. Again, I was happy to answer them and I understood the concern - it's alarming to see a tiny infant hooked up to a piece of medical equipment. I was able to educate a lot of people about prematurity.
I think people are very compassionate and accepting, in general. Through my personal life and my work with the March of Dimes, I know many families with disabled children and all of us are touched and encouraged by the support and acceptance we've gotten.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just had an frustrating argument with someone on Gentle Christian Mothers about austistic person vs person with autism. It was a confusing argument. I don't think enough things are know about autism, and I don't really like the mainstream point of view or the way Autism Speaks or DAN looks at it. I like the way the woman on Autism Vox sees it a lot better. And also the point of view of a really nice manga called With the Light which I cannot read at the bookstore without having my eyes get wet.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Dag, I know what you are talking about when you say being un-pc is being morally deficient. Then again, cultures through out recorded history have attached far more shame and retribution on those who broke rules of etiquette than those who broke the law.
The problem is not the requirement that people speak politely, its those who change the rules of polite or politic with out informing the rest of us.
Unfortunately the biggest anti-PC spokesmen are loud mouthed talk radio people who are routinely rude, are paid to be rude, and are just looking for an excuse to complain about anyone who doesn't like their rudeness.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would say that the term was coined to describe a specific kind of politeness, or a certain subset of etiquette. And I think the distinction is important enough that the term deserves to exist, even if it is cumbersome.
When I was an undergrad - almost 20 years ago, now (YIKES!) - political correctness was used as the justification for a proposed speech code at UVA. Those advocating the speech code publicly identified themselves as advocates of political correctness.
This doesn't contradict what you say about its beginnings. But it does demonstrate that the term itself has been used for far more than mere politeness or a subset thereof.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
To add onto Dagonee's point, I may also note that politeness and political correctness are even less synonymous in other societies where political correctness has made less in-roads than our own.
I must say, the idea that being "not politically correct by Western standards = moral failing" is not an idea that fills me with childish glee nor I think is one that is particularly practical in much of the cultures that I spend time in.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Isn't a speech code just a formal attempt to avoid upsetting people? In an etiquette the parties involved essentially agree not to be (or act) upset as long as the code of etiquette is not broken. But if the accepted term is "african american" and you call someone "colored", you've broken the code of the etiquette, and they're entitled to be upset.
The other side of this is that if the content of someone's speech is inherently racist, but they use all the politically correct terms, the rest of us are supposed to sit patiently and hear them out. At least they're following the rules, and that shows they're making an attempt to be civil, even if their views are upsetting. And since it's so rare for people of opposing viewpoints to practice polite discourse, the existence of a speech code can allow people of differing opinions to air their views and learn from each other, which is extremely valuable.
quote:Those advocating the speech code publicly identified themselves as advocates of political correctness.
Isn't the moderated format here at Hatrack essentially a speech code? I'm pretty much in favor of it, so you can put me down as an advocate. Bear in mind that the definition of PC that I'm comparing it to is "ridiculousness in the attempt to satisfy everybody," which has an intentionally self defeating quality. We can't satisfy everybody, but we can make a reasonable attempt to avoid language that has a history of being used to intimidate or trivialize.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I think the dolls are CUTE. Man, I hate it when people want to be treated equally and then complain about it when they are. How is creating disabled dolls singling people out when there are TONS of 'healthy' dolls out there?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Isn't a speech code just a formal attempt to avoid upsetting people? In an etiquette the parties involved essentially agree not to be (or act) upset as long as the code of etiquette is not broken. But if the accepted term is "african american" and you call someone "colored", you've broken the code of the etiquette, and they're entitled to be upset.
We're not talking about entitlement to be upset. We're talking about formal punishment for violations - up to and including expulsion. Although expulsion would probably be rare, mandatory "sensitivity training" and "relevant community service" were mentioned as the common punishments.
quote:And since it's so rare for people of opposing viewpoints to practice polite discourse, the existence of a speech code can allow people of differing opinions to air their views and learn from each other, which is extremely valuable.
If I had ever seen an even-handed speech code I might agree with you. But I haven't. (I've seen codes that go in either direction, mind you.)
The people who proposed this had no problem calling me (as a white male, and with no other reason given) "oppressive," "racist," and "sexist." These statements would not be subject to regulation by the code - in fact, they featured prominently in the justification of the code.
I'm not opposed to politeness, generally accepted norms of civility, or informal societal censure of violations of those norms. I'm opposed to formal codification and formal punishment.
quote:Isn't the moderated format here at Hatrack essentially a speech code?
Hatrack is a voluntary association not funded by the state. My university, on the other hand, was an arm of the government. The speech code would have been using the coercive power of that arm of government to punish particular modes of expression.
quote:We can't satisfy everybody, but we can make a reasonable attempt to avoid language that has a history of being used to intimidate or trivialize.
Except that the very act of defining which language has a history of being used to intimidate or trivialize means taking a side that, in many specific cases, is a highly subjective issue. Certainly there are clear-cut cases that come to mind, but many are not.
One of the specific examples given was an argument about affirmative action in college admissions. A statement such as "affirmative action allows people who aren't prepared to be admitted over people who are prepared" as a violation of the proposed speech code. I'm not particularly fond of that sentence as a reason to oppose affirmative action (I think it greatly oversimplifies the issue), but I don't think banning that sentence from public discourse is a good thing.
I want to be clear, I don't think you're advocating a speech code like the one I've been discussion. My point in bringing it up was not to say "PC = this code." Rather it was to provide an example where PC was not used as a bugaboo, and where some of the more egregious claims raised against PC have been justified.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:We're not talking about entitlement to be upset. We're talking about formal punishment for violations - up to and including expulsion. Although expulsion would probably be rare, mandatory "sensitivity training" and "relevant community service" were mentioned as the common punishments.
Whoa! Was the code enacted in any form?
quote:My point in bringing it up was not to say "PC = this code." Rather it was to provide an example where PC was not used as a bugaboo, and where some of the more egregious claims raised against PC have been justified.
That's fair enough. As I said in my original post, PC means different things to different people. And it's certainly valid to use the term to indicate PC gone overboard, provided the appropriate context. But theresa51282's post implies that she equates PC with certain virtues. Starsnuffer's response indicates that he is applying his definition of PC to her statement, instead of accepting her statement as she intended it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Whoa! Was the code enacted in any form?
No. It got hammered pretty hard, as you might imagine. But it did get decently far along in the process. It was the product of an investigatory committee, chartered (I think) by the Board of Visitors. Together with a series of other anti-free speech issues (including my magazine case, a more egregious magazine defunding that didn't even have an establishment clause argument to justify it, threatened honor charges against me for advertising related to a speech by a self-described pro-life feminist, a series of shout-downs of conservative speakers, and a series of perfectly legal fliers being removed from bulletin boards by political opponents), there was a small but significant anti-free-speech movement at my school.
quote:As I said in my original post, PC means different things to different people.
To me it's been so tainted as to be a useless word. I don't use it to describe anything, and if someone else does, I generally have to ask for a clarification. It's kind of like the words "affirmative action."
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion: I think the dolls are CUTE. Man, I hate it when people want to be treated equally and then complain about it when they are. How is creating disabled dolls singling people out when there are TONS of 'healthy' dolls out there?
True. Perhaps dolls like that would make some disabled people feel, well, more *hand gestures*, less, OTHER.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)