Anita-- Respectfully, I disagree with your notion that "ability" doesn't
have a biological dimension. Perhaps I'm putting words in someone's mouth
or thought, but it seems to me that the disability holocaust, people who
advocate gene science, etc. under the guise of "giving the child every
possible advantage" etc. has very much to do with the idea of a supposed
biological configuration/property to the concept of ability, and by
extension of normalcy.
Not that this helps the lex. debate, but for currency reasons, I'm inclined
to agree with Simi on this one.
--Johnson
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 06:11:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Anita Silvers <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Request for Lexical Advice - Radical Philosophy
To: Johnson Cheu <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Because it isn't parallel with the other notions. Race and sex are
typically taken to be biological dimensions. Racism and sexism are the
repression of people with certain configurations of (supposed) biological
properties. Howeveer, "ability" is not a biological dimension. Impairment
is parallel to race and sex, but the word "impairmentism" doesn't exist.
On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, Johnson Cheu wrote:
> Anita (and everyone else) Why not Ablism? Is there a reason disablement
> seems more popular than the Ablism?
>
> --Johnson
Johnson Cheu
[log in to unmask]
The Ohio State University*English Dept.*421 Denney Hall*164 W. 17th. Ave.*
Columbus, OH 43210*(614) 292-1730 (O)*(614) 292-6065 (D)*(614) 292-7816 (Fax)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|