Sensitive Language for Oppressed Groups: Who Decides?

I was raised in the early 90's, as there was a rising awareness of multiculturalism and efforts toward gender equality in the workplace and society as a whole- with accompanying controversies. The culture wars raged around me, demanding that I take a side. My parents were active in the peace and civil rights movements in the 80's and 90's (being a little young during the beginnings of these movements. So I learned to use words like "African American" and "chairperson" (chair sounds like a piece of furniture to me) But I wonder, where do these terms come from, who decides they are better to use? . Since "political correctness" is a derogatory phrase coined by the Right in the United States, for lack of a better term I'll say "sensitive language for oppressed groups" Long-winded, but it gets the concept across.

Some words like the "n-word" and the "r-word"  are agreed to be offensive by most people, even those who are less politically or culturally savvy. Others, while not as blatantly offensive, mostly just sound old-fashioned, and insensitive if said in a certain way. Homosexual is a neutral term by itself, though most use gay or lesbian, and I typically hear "homosexual" being used in anti-gay rhetoric.

Advocacy groups, and academics who think and write about various "isms" and the connotations of language usage, are the ones who coin these words for the most part. The problem is that it is rather elitist to expect most people outside of these settings to know and use these terms. I would not know many of these things if I had not been raised by educated activist parents, and gone to a liberal arts college. How many people would know for example, that they should use "little person" instead of "midget" to refer to very short people- without having watched or heard of the reality show "Little People Big World".

So I think we need to be careful to understand where others are coming from when it comes to their language usage in these areas. Polite correction, without condescencion, and suggestions of books and resources to learn more about groups that we are unfamiliar with is much more helpful that accusing a well-meaning person of racism/sexism/ableism etc. Also not every individual in a particular identity group is going to be aware of or prefer to be called by the latest term. It's often amused me that in spite of all the white teachers who have told us to say "African-American" and "Native American", the folks I meet typically call themselves Black and Indian or American Indian.  It makes the most sense to me to use the terms members of the groups use themselves (aside from "reclaimed" words that they use among themselves) and simply being (gasp!) being respectful.

Adults with Autism & Employment Study

A study on employment and adults with autism just came out in May. This is specifically about young adults, though I have some thoughts on the subject more broadly.

What I found especially interesting was that adults with other developmental disabilities (e.g. some degree of mental retardation) have a higher rate of employment.  That made some sense to me, as there does seem to be more services set up for people with Down's Syndrome and other such conditions. Also society as a whole may better understand these disabilities. Autism is more difficult to wrap one's head around.

Since I have a degree in political science, I've been trained to be skeptical of statistics. How did they get these numbers? What methods did they use?
First off, the unemployment rate in general only includes people applying for unemployment benefits or report looking for work.  People who have given up or taken a major break in job searching aren't included- that would describe many people with disabilities.

Other factors: many adults on the spectrum especially past 35 or so, are unlabeled. In fact, probably most of them. Some of them fall under the radar, as they may have better adjusted to mainstream society, or maybe dropped out of high school, or are homeless or move frequently due to poverty.

Tipping Customs

I have many talents, but math is not one of them, far from it. So, I have difficulty figuring out a 15% tip when I go to restaurants. Dan (my fiancé) taught me a trick of finding 10%, (moving the decimal point a digit) then halving that and adding the 5%. I'm not sure if 20% would be any easier. Aside from that, I find this method of tipping illogical, and rather unjust. For one thing, the quality of service has nothing to do with how much you spend on food and drinks, in fact it can be the opposite.


A couple times, I and/or Dan have gone to restaurants where the waitperson tried to push a product we didn't want. On one occasion, at an Applebee's, a waiter obnoxiously promoted a new appletini every time he came by. (Really are you sure? It's really good!) And it was lunch! Needless to say, he didn't get a very good tip. Tipping is the service industry's equivalent of commissions, but it makes no sense since they are not supposed to be salespeople. I'm fine with it, and these folks need the money, but I've decided a flat amount like $2-5 seems about right, depending on the class of restaurant and the quality of service, including them putting up with my indecisiveness. 


Give more at cheaper restaurants, as they need the money the most. And at fancier places, I suspect the valet parking guy needs it more. It also seems arbitrary and ambiguous who you are supposed to tip. It may vary from place to place. Hairdressers, cab drivers, sometimes hotel maids. Basically, tip well any service-person who makes a good effort, is helpful, is patient with inconvenience and probably gets a low wage. And, if the person treating you stiffs them, and you think they deserve more, sneak some dead presidents onto the table. Also, I do not tip people who only serve me at the counter, unless they have to put up with me being difficult, or go out of their way for a special request (hold x, y and replace z)