I agree. I just think it's incredibly presumptuous to lump every little person into the same group assuming there is a single rule about how to treat them.
Politeness question for little people
- Thread starter Nerys Ghemor
- Start date
How do you feel when you're talking to someone much taller than yourself?
Do what you would have that tall person do.
Do what you would have that tall person do.
First I'd bully the "tall person". Like "How's the air up there" and other silly shit.
Really? I didn’t know the word “midget” was considered offensive. To me, “little people” sounds rather condescendingly twee. It makes me think of elves or leprechauns.
Did a bit of research, and here’s some interesting correspondence on the subject.
I find Nerys' question perfectly legitimate. She's just cautious about accidentally giving offense. Some people like to be careful about these things. I, for instance, find physically unusual people interesting, and I have to be very careful not to be seen as "staring", because that's usually seen as judgemental or, at the least, rude in the sense that people don't like being reminded that they stick out in a crowd. It's about realizing that even if your responses, body language and manner of relating to them are harmless and non-judgemental, you can still make people ill at ease, or feel embarrassed or judged unfairly, simply by the way you hold yourself or interact with them.
Sometimes it's easy to broach the subject and get it out of the way with - a boy I knew in my early teens had a very disfiguring scar that I found interesting, so I flat out asked him (after getting to know him a bit) where it came from. He was quite happy to tell me. But it's not as easy to bring it up with many people, and while asking the person in question is good advice, bringing the topic up is not easy, and might itself be seen as rude. Which I imagine is part of the reason Nerys wants to ask around and get as much advice as possible.
Also, when dealing with those of reduced height (and "little people" is indeed a commonly accepted term last I checked, no matter what some people might think of it), it makes perfect sense to check your reactions before hand, and be a little wary of what you might accidentally communicate without realizing it. I mean, for one thing, your interactions with people of that height are usually made with children. Who's to know if your body language might inadvertently cause offense by suggesting a "protective" or even "authoritative" presence that undercuts the person's dignity? You don't need to have any intention of treating them different to fall into familiar patterns and accidentally communicate something that might be discomforting. Knowing how others with more experience of the very small deal with this seems sensible to me.
Sometimes it's easy to broach the subject and get it out of the way with - a boy I knew in my early teens had a very disfiguring scar that I found interesting, so I flat out asked him (after getting to know him a bit) where it came from. He was quite happy to tell me. But it's not as easy to bring it up with many people, and while asking the person in question is good advice, bringing the topic up is not easy, and might itself be seen as rude. Which I imagine is part of the reason Nerys wants to ask around and get as much advice as possible.
Also, when dealing with those of reduced height (and "little people" is indeed a commonly accepted term last I checked, no matter what some people might think of it), it makes perfect sense to check your reactions before hand, and be a little wary of what you might accidentally communicate without realizing it. I mean, for one thing, your interactions with people of that height are usually made with children. Who's to know if your body language might inadvertently cause offense by suggesting a "protective" or even "authoritative" presence that undercuts the person's dignity? You don't need to have any intention of treating them different to fall into familiar patterns and accidentally communicate something that might be discomforting. Knowing how others with more experience of the very small deal with this seems sensible to me.
A long-term friend of my family is born very little. Besides of course treating everyone as an individual, there is no difference in talking to each other really. When we meet we hug and talk. The seize doesn´t matter.
Though if you are unsure about something I guess, if the situation and manner is right, you can also bring it to the open.
TerokNor
Though if you are unsure about something I guess, if the situation and manner is right, you can also bring it to the open.
TerokNor
They embrace that term. They actually have "little people conventions". Don't decide what's offensive to a group of people you aren't part of. It can be annoying. Trust me, I know.
We loathe "hearing impaired".
That's actually where I got the term--from the LPA. If it's different in countries other than America, I'm unaware of it.
I will probably just ask my co-worker, next time, something like, "Are there any things people do that get on your nerves?" (I think she's cool enough that I could ask something like that.) That will tell me what not to do.
And Deranged Nasat--that is exactly why I asked. I don't have some sort of problem. I don't, however, want to send a signal that runs contrary to my actual attitudes, without knowing.
I will probably just ask my co-worker, next time, something like, "Are there any things people do that get on your nerves?" (I think she's cool enough that I could ask something like that.) That will tell me what not to do.
And Deranged Nasat--that is exactly why I asked. I don't have some sort of problem. I don't, however, want to send a signal that runs contrary to my actual attitudes, without knowing.
I agree with TSQ and Deranged Nasat. There are often times we (people in the mainstream) THINK we're being respectful or accommodating, when we're really coming across as condescending or annoying. If you consider this person a friend or a potential friend, you can always ask, Would you prefer that I...? or Does it bother you if I...? And then use that as a benchmark with dealing with others who are similarly situated. Unless it's completely off the wall, I don't think you'll end up offending subsequent little people. By this point, they've probably seen the gamut anyway.
I once had a little person who worked for me, and I had no problem treating her just like any other person. We got along just fine.
But can give examples of how not to act. There were customers who came into the business and just stared at her. One man even crouched down and waved at her like she was a small child in a stroller. Another time, I had to chase off a group of teenage boys who were chasing her and laughing. She eventually moved away because much of the community was not very accepting.
But can give examples of how not to act. There were customers who came into the business and just stared at her. One man even crouched down and waved at her like she was a small child in a stroller. Another time, I had to chase off a group of teenage boys who were chasing her and laughing. She eventually moved away because much of the community was not very accepting.
This is exactly why I say to just approach them as people, and don't draw any attention to their size. I know that as a disabled man, I am more likely to respect people who simply look me in the eye, and talk to me as one person to another, and don't try to give me any special treatment out of some misguided notion of "respecting my feelings", whatever the hell that means. THOSE people I have NO respect for.
If the conversation is going to be brief, just stand a little further away to reduce the upward angle at which they must meet your eyes. (Someone else said that earlier.) If the conversation can be expected to be longer or seems to be heading that direction, quickly find a place you can both sit down. That way, the height difference is reduced and the distance is automatically somewhat greater.
While excellent advice, I got the impression she was looking for practical pointers. That is, a useful response to "How do I make my business wheelchair-accessible?" is not "Treat them like a human being."
Finn said:
Out of curiosity, what's the correct term?
Well, there’s nothing wrong with the word “deaf” — or so I’ve heard.Finn said:
Out of curiosity, what's the correct term?
Hm, fair enough. I was under the impression that "hearing impaired" represented a wider class, ranging from "substantial but not total inability to hear" to "actually deaf," and more often that not used to refer to the former.
I can see why a deaf person could find it offensive. (What a hearing person would consider an "impairment" a deaf person would consider "normal," etc.)
I can see why a deaf person could find it offensive. (What a hearing person would consider an "impairment" a deaf person would consider "normal," etc.)
This has been a minefield for 50 years or so, along with the names of the specialists who work with them. Deaf is especially difficult for hearing people because it means several things. Capital 'D' deaf means Deaf Community and small 'd' deaf means deaf spectrum. Also within Deaf Community you have big-D-small-D migration, which means someone who has ceased to be active in the Deaf Community. Then you have the whole Sign Language minefield which is seen as part of a cultural identity and therefore anything which threatens it, for instance cochlear implant, is seen as cultural genocide. Then you have the people who regard themselves as Hard of Hearing and object to the hardline approach of the Deaf Community, especially in the context of television.
It was just an attempt, like all other attempts (like Visually Impaired), to embrace the spectrum of hearing from slight high frequency loss to severe and profound deafness. If we take the label 'blind' for instance, many people who are registered blind can see enough to walk around unaided, which is fine until someone challenges them with "he can't be blind, he's walking around unaided". Then where do you go? The truth is that only a very small percentage of people who are VI are completely blind. There is even something called 'blindsight' where a child who is functionally blind can actually detect movement using another part of her brain. There is no judgement placed on the word 'impaired'; it's just yet another essay at describing a continuum.
But it does, doesn't it? Or are you telling me that a deaf person would want to stay that way given a choice?
Many would.
Deckerd said:
I'm actually passingly familiar with the deaf community, although I wasn't familiar with the idea that "hearing impaired" was an unpreferred term for some of them.
My limited acquaintance with it came largely from looking at some stuff about genetic engineering. Evidently, some deaf folk would prefer to raise a deaf child. This sort of ties in with the anti-cochlear implant thing, which I'd also heard about, and Finn's point about it not being anything to be fixed.
I find the idea of a deaf culture pretty cool and respect intensely an individual's right to resist being "fixed" when they like the way they are, but I take a relatively dim view of artificially imposing an inability to hear upon someone without their consent.
Similar threads
