Some of you may be aware that a few of us contacted the blog's author, Michelle, about the title of her blog. Here is what I commented to her:
It would be thoughtful of you to change the title of your blog...yes, this probably comes across as uptight oldness or just plain uptight, but people who actually are labeled as retarded cannot defend themselves when someone uses this term for amusement. While the word itself should not be used as a label, it is still, and we all know exactly what it means. It's painful to people who love someone who is intellectually disabled to see a word like this used for humor by someone who is patently not intellectually disabled. If you must use a term that refers to cognitive deficiency as a result of being overwhelmed by love or made a fool of by love, I suggest "Stupid, " as in "Stupid in Love." God knows that's enough of a norm to avoid being offensive.
I thought that was pretty damned diplo-freaking-matic of me given that what I really wanted to say was, You stupid little young person, get that offensive word out of the name of your blog. It's an idiotic blog title anyway. (Yes, this coming from someone who has "daisymayfattypants" as her URL. Hey, it's my dog. And who's going to be offended by that?).
Ah...callow youth. Here is the self-assured young woman's response:
I realize my blog has come up as a topic on Twitter. I am going to give you the same response I just gave to my last e-mailer.
As long as I've had my blog, I'm sure you know you're not the first person to e-mail me something along these lines.
In my previous experience in debates with others, it comes down to this: agree to disagree. Here's why.
I am not calling any person retarded. In fact, if anything, I am only calling myself retarded. I am not even calling an animal, object, or idea retarded. I am using the word "retarded" in the way of modern slang, without directing it at anyone with the intention of harming feelings. So, the way I see it, it's just others choosing to be offended by my title - it is not being offered that way.
There are plenty of "normal" blog titles I could choose to be offended by, but I choose not to be so sensitive. It's really up to my visitors how far they want to take the meaning behind my title - and if they don't like it, they certainly don't have to come back, or support my blog in any way.
She's decided that this is an "agree to disagree" situation. She chooses "not to be so sensitive." I guess that's pretty easy for her given that she's presumably *not* someone who's actually been labeled as retarded.
Well, I don't agree to that. She defends the word "retarded" as "modern slang." Ah, the old "modern slang" excuse. She probably thinks that's novel, that no one's ever pulled that old chestnut out of their pockets before. I'm pretty sure that the n-word gets that defense, too, but you know what? It's not acceptable to use in a blog name, and it's still damned offensive. Without equivocation, she's in a completely indefensible position, modern slang or not. Hilariously, she thinks that a word that has been in use in this very context (i.e., "retarded in love") is "modern" slang...not realizing, evidently, that even really old people in their 40s like me grew up hearing it used in exactly this way.
So, nope. I don't agree to disagree. I continue to disagree. I urge anyone else who feels the same to do the same.
Oh, and Michelle, you infant, you child, if you read this, good luck with that to-do list. Life evidently has quite a few lessons to teach you. If you're blessed with a special needs child, perhaps you'll gain a better understanding, and--dare I say it--sensitivity about the "modern slang" you choose to toss around so casually.
