The Wolves, the Pig, the Bunny, and the R-Word
Once upon a time, a pig and a bunny were walking together through the woods, when up ahead they spotted a wolf in the middle of the path. The wolf was shaking his phone and growling.
“Hold my hand,” said the pig. The bunny reached up and took the pig’s hand.
“The company guarantees coverage everywhere,” complained the wolf. “But as soon as you walk into the woods, you drop to just one bar. That’s so retarded!”
The pig sighed and stopped walking. She looked down at the bunny. From the way his ears sagged, she knew he had heard.
“Would you mind not using that word?” asked the pig politely.
“What word?” the wolf demanded, holding his phone high in the air.
“‘Retarded.’ You see, my stepson is learning disabled, and it’s hurtful when–”
“Sounds like your stepson needs to grow a thicker skin,” said the wolf.
The pig clutched the bunny’s hand tighter. “He came home a year ago, crying, and asked me, ‘What does retarded mean, mama?’ The kids tease him every day on the bus. He won’t say anything in class anymore, because he’s afraid of being laughed at even more.”
“Tell him to stop being so sensitive,” said the wolf. “You’re not doing him any favors by coddling him.”
“Why can’t other people just stop saying hurtful things?” asked the pig.
The wolf simply growled.
The pig’s shoulders sank slightly, and she walked on, leaving the wolf to his phone. It wasn’t long before they encountered a second wolf. She was reading a yellow flyer posted to a tree. When she saw the pig and the bunny, she grinned and pointed.
“Look at this,” she said. “These people are offering a reward for their lost dog, but they can’t even spell. They’re so retarded!”
The pig sighed. She looked ahead, then looked down at her stepson. The bunny was staring at the ground, but she could tell by the set of his ears that he had heard.
“Would you mind not using that word?” asked the pig.
“What word?” the wolf demanded, ripping the flyer off the tree.
“‘Retarded.’ You see, my stepson is learning disabled, and it’s hurtful when people use that word in such a derogatory way.”
“I see,” said the wolf. “Please educate me so that I can decide whether or not to stop using this word that hurts you and your stepson.”
The pig’s shoulders slumped a little more, but she looked up at the wolf and did her best. For the next hour, while the bunny played in the dirt, she talked about the challenges her stepson had faced. She talked about how hard it was to get people to treat her stepson with respect, how society treated the mentally challenged as a joke, as stupid or defective.
“I see,” said the wolf. “But don’t we all have challenges? Don’t we all have someone who refuses to respect us? Don’t we all get laughed at sometimes? You might be surprised to know that I have a very good friend who’s a bunny, and she uses the word ‘retarded’ all the time.”
“What does it cost you to use a different word?” asked the pig.
“Nothing,” said the wolf. “But you have failed to adequately educate me, so I will continue to use the word that hurts you and your stepson.”
The pig took the bunny’s hand, and they walked on, leaving the wolf to laugh at the flyer.
They were almost home when they spotted a third wolf. This wolf was reading a book and laughing. “Oh my goodness,” he said, glancing up. “The grown-ups in this book are so retarded!”
The pig sighed and stopped walking. She looked down at the bunny. His ears were now completely flat on his back.
“I’d appreciate it if you’d stop using that word,” said the pig.
“What word?” the wolf demanded, slipping a leaf into the pages to mark his place.
“‘Retarded.’ You see–”
“You can’t tell me what to say. I have freedom of speech!”
“I understand that,” said the pig. “But I’m trying to tell you that you’re hurting people by using that word.”
“It doesn’t hurt me, and I can say whatever I want! If you don’t like it, you should go back to pig country.”
The pig looked at the bunny, who was staring at the dirt. She looked at the wolf, who towered over them both. She looked past the wolf, to where the path emerged from the woods into a field.
The pig took a deep breath and said, “Mister wolf, I understand what you’re saying, but you are hurting my stepson, and you are hurting me. Mister wolf, you are a jackass.”
The wolf bared his teeth. “You can’t say that to me!”
“I thought we had freedom of speech,” said the pig.
One of the wolf’s ears flicked backward. “Well, you’ll never convince people to do what you want by calling them names.”
“So how should I convince them?” the pig asked. She waited, but the wolf didn’t answer. He opened his book and continued to read.
The pig looked at her stepson. Her shoulders slumped lower. Holding the bunny’s hand tightly, she walked on.
When they reached the edge of the field, the bunny looked up and said, “Mama?”
The pig scooped the bunny into her arms and hugged him, hoping he wouldn’t see the tears in her eyes. “What is it, sweetheart?”
“I love you.”
For a long time, the pig merely stood there, holding her stepson. She wiped her eyes on her sleeve. Slowly, she straightened her shoulders. She kissed the bunny on the head and pet his ears. “I love you too.”
Ginny
March 9, 2012 @ 11:09 am
That was so sad, & sweet. Any chance you could make some toys to go with your picture book? I want to give the bunny a hug make it all better.
Jann M.
March 9, 2012 @ 11:14 am
“At the end of the story, no one has grown or learned anything of any value.” Really? I thought a lot had been learned. To me, the lesson of this story is that sometimes people say hurtful things and that we can try to explain this to these people but this may not change their behavior. Because we can’t change other people’s behaviors – they have to do the changing. So all we can do is speak up (or not) and go on. But I think that the mom cared enough to defend her son is the important lesson for the son – that someone has his back and he doesn’t have to face the bullying alone. Because it is the isolation that hurts as much as the bullying. And love is way more important that a few thoughtless words.
Jim C. Hines
March 9, 2012 @ 11:27 am
Thank you! I’m not much of a toymaker, but I’ll definitely let folks know if someone offers me a merchandising deal 🙂
Brian
March 9, 2012 @ 11:58 am
No, but intent is the difference between Manslaughter and Murder.
Gabriel
March 9, 2012 @ 2:38 pm
Well, as someone who loves rats, I will say that rat-felching is a pretty horrible term altogether… I’m not sure it’s better to swap to animal abuse, just to be fair.
Lenora Rose
March 9, 2012 @ 4:55 pm
First: the pig is clearly referred to as She.
Second: There’s a vast difference between wanting people to watch their choice of words lest they hurt (not offend, but wound) someone, and wanting a word banned. I can tell people book X contains some hurtful material, and to avoid reading it, or even (as in a recent case) want a warning label on the cover so people know what they’re getting into, without wanting it banned.
Third: No, the wolves weren’t villains when they used the word without realising someone nearby might be hurt by it. They became villains when they were made aware the bunny was hurt and refused to avoid using it. Also, the bunny WAS hurt by their inadvertent insult. It was there; their ignorance of his presence doesn’t cure the fact that the harm was done. You say because it was inadvertent, they shouldn’t be asked to stop. I say that’s the best person to call on it as the pig did; politely. Someone who insults on purpose knows the damage they’re doing. Someone who hurts someone by accident is much more likely to be willing and able to change their behaviour, more likely to feel chagrin at their thoughtlessness.
And you’re falling right into “the person who was hurt should just have a thicker skin”, which is a nasty rhetorical trap used against every member of every minority who dares to object to demeaning treatment. Now, if you have a magic wand that can make people impervious to being inadvertently hurt, great. But this is not the ideal world, and accommodating people who aren’t tough as nails seems to me to bring it closer to a better world than trampling over their sensibilities because you happen to be made of sterner stuff.
Lenora Rose
March 9, 2012 @ 5:06 pm
The worst that any of the wolves was suffering was poor cell phone reception, where the bunny was being visibly hurt. So the pig behaved poorly by saying, “Please don’t hurt my child and not saying, “oh, you poor wolf”?
And the bit you cited about the third wolf sounded to me like the end of any number of internet debates, where the wolf-like writer would fail to answer just such a question. And later appear on the same or another forum using the very same words they’d been asked not to use before. Maybe you’ve been luckier with your internet than I.
Lenora Rose
March 9, 2012 @ 5:18 pm
The pig seemed to me to be teaching her son that she would speak up for him even against impossible odds. Which IS actually a huge way of teaching a child self-worth; when he’s older and alone, he’ll remember that feeling of not having to face the hurt in silence.
Paula Handley
March 9, 2012 @ 8:58 pm
Jim,
Thank you for the story. As the mother of a 7 yr old with ASD, I would love to see this made into a book.
Dave Hogg
March 9, 2012 @ 10:53 pm
Thanks, Cath. You just saved me a ton of typing.
Dave Hogg
March 9, 2012 @ 10:55 pm
Jim,
You just proved yet again why you are one of the truly good people on this planet.
Laura Resnick
March 11, 2012 @ 5:51 pm
I know what you mean! I always hated, hated, hated the word “douchebag”… Then one day, darn him, George Takei made me love it.
Jim C. Hines
March 12, 2012 @ 7:12 am
Eric,
“And if the pig had his way, if he were a supreme court judge, he would try to get that word banned. Maybe I’m assigning something that’s not there…”
You’re assigning something that’s not there.
“And the reason I don’t like this story is that it angrys (angries?) up my blood when people try and tell me what words I can and can’t say.”
The pig *asks* the wolves not to use that word, and explains that it hurts people.
Look, you wrote a blog post explaining how you think this parable advocates censorship. Which, to me, says that you don’t really understand what censorship is.
Censorship is not someone saying, “Would you mind not using that word, because it’s hurtful?” Censorship is not someone writing a parable about talking animals, either.
If a supreme court judge says that nobody is allowed to say the word “retarded,” then yes, that would be censorship. Since that scenario came out of your mind, and has nothing to do with anything being advocated here, I don’t think it applies in the slightest.
You talked about all of the kneejerk praise and the unthinking applause from the commenters who liked this piece. In my experience, the urge to cry “Censorship!!!” can be just as unthinking and kneejerk as any other reflex.
Eric Juneau
March 12, 2012 @ 11:14 am
Then you need to tell me what the Pig does want. What is her ultimate goal? What would the Pig do if she got one wish? Because what I see is a scenario that leads to elimination of that word. Because while censorship does have a legal definition, it also has a colloquial definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor (definitions 2 and 3).
The Pig’s underlying motivation is obvioulsy beyond disciplining these three Wolves. His goal is for people to stop using that word in a “hurtful” way. “Stop using a word” sounds like censorship to me. It’s clear the Pig does not like the use of that word. She may be asking, not telling or demanding. But it’s clear what the Pig *wants*. My question is, to what end?
As you can see, I have given this thought. There’s nothing kneejerk about this reaction.
Jim C. Hines
March 12, 2012 @ 11:23 am
Eric,
Well, no, I don’t actually need to do that. You want me to, and that’s fine.
I wrote a follow-up post today talking about censorship and freedom of speech, and I debated including something about how I figured someone would promptly run to an online dictionary to try to prove their point with some secondary definition.
By the definition you’re quoting:
My copy-editor is censoring me every time she fixes a comma. (She’s faultfinding!)
I’m censoring you if I point out that you misspelled “obvioulsy.” (Again, faultfinding.)
Every minister I’ve ever listened to is pro-censorship. (Supervising morality.)
I’m censoring my kids when I tell them to chew with their mouths closed. (Supervising manners.)
Is that really how you want to frame your argument? By using definitions so broad as to make the term relatively useless?
Also, you say, “The Pig’s underlying motivation is obvioulsy beyond disciplining these three Wolves.”
The Pig’s underlying motivation, in my opinion, has nothing to do with “disciplining” anyone. But as the author, I also recognize that my interpretation isn’t the only possible reading of a piece.
Eric Juneau
March 12, 2012 @ 4:47 pm
My use of the word ‘need’ was meant to apply to me — sorry for the ambiguity. If you can’t tell by my comments, I, as a reader, ‘don’t get it’. So I need to know what the Pig’s goal is, in terms of a protagonist’s wants and needs. Because I cannot reconcile this story within my personal convictions of ‘not wanting to hurt people with words’ versus ‘telling people what they should and shouldn’t say’ — which, to me, is a jerk move.
I’m not talking about legality here. And I find it petty that you’re now arguing semantics. Ms. Elise (below) already explained that there is a difference between the legality of freedom of speech, and I already mentioned that I’m trying to understand this in the wake of recent “freedom of speech =/= freedom from consequences of that speech”.
Rebecca Hill
March 12, 2012 @ 5:08 pm
I’d like to add my voice to those who think this would make an absolutely wonderful children’s book.
It teaches a lesson, gently and well and empathetically, without preaching. Which is why I’m perplexed that there are so many wolves in the comments…
Rebecca Hill
March 12, 2012 @ 5:22 pm
I think what you’re saying here is what they call the “tone argument”. “How do you ever expect to get people on your side if you take that tone?” The pig had tried appealing to empathy, she’d tried educating, and the wolves still weren’t willing to modify their language because they privileged their own convenience over the little bunny’s hurt feelings. The pig, pretty understandably, became frustrated.
Besides which, the wolves calling the bunny retarded (a direct attack on something he had no control over and which is in no way morally reprehensible) is not the same thing as the pig calling the wolf a jackass (a comment on a specific behaviour over which they absolutely have control they choose not to exercise because they care more for their opinions or convenience than for other people’s feelings).
That aside, though, although the wolves might not have learned anything by the end of the story, the bunny (which is the surrogate for the child reader in this story) absolutely has. He’s learned that although there are people in this world who won’t think about his feelings, either because they’re mean or lazy or think other things that are more important), there are other people who care more about his feelings than anything and will stick up for him no matter what.
Lenora Rose
March 12, 2012 @ 5:50 pm
I think the problem in communication here is you’re assuming the pig must have a huge ultimate end regarding the word.
What the pig wants is, “I want my child not to be hurt by others, whether they do it intentionally or accidentally.” That’s it. That’s all. Asking people not to use a certain word in front of him is in service to that goal, not a goal in itself.
I’m also not totally sure that asking someone to think about their word choices is necessarily a jerk move; there are more than a few situations where asking someone to please think before speaking is in fact the nicest possible response.
Question: Do you really think ti was a perfectly acceptable thing for the wolves to say what they did, just because it wasn’t directly addressed to the rabbit? The wolves didn’t just happen to use the word neutrally, as you might get with someone discussing a medical condition (the term does have a legitimate meaning in therapy) or testing a flame retardant product. IF they had, I might agree it’s a jerk move to take offence. Each of the wolves was using the word specifically to refer to a situation they didn’t like, adding to the implication that being retarded is bad — and while they didn’t address the bunny, neither did they take the least care to make sure nobody around them would be hurt.
Jim C. Hines
March 12, 2012 @ 9:57 pm
Eric,
Yes, I can tell that you don’t get it. A number of of people, myself included, have taken a lot of time trying to explain it to you in a number of different ways. You’ve responded by repeating yourself, accusing me of pettiness, and disregarding what people have said to you.
I’m done with this conversation.
Galena
March 14, 2012 @ 2:11 pm
Intent doesn’t make a difference to the run-over kid’s injuries (which is a pretty clear point made in this story and in the comments here). It just made a change in the punishment of the perpetrator. So you made a pretty derailing statement there.
Around the Web, 3/16 | Safe From Shame
March 16, 2012 @ 3:56 pm
[…] a follow up, Jim offers this delightful (if bittersweet) fable: “Would you mind not using that word?” asked the […]
Ben Schrecengost
March 18, 2012 @ 5:46 pm
I just wanted to thank you for my new favorite word! Don’t know where you got it or if it’s your oun creation but I can see some very deseving friends running around with a new name…. at least until the next guy earnes it!
Thanks,
Ben Schrecengost. benschrecengost@yahoo.com
Ben Schrecengost
March 18, 2012 @ 6:02 pm
I work for an organization that helps people with all kinds of issues and or impairments. I too have a few and I can say people daily reject and rebuke those I work with as well as myself andoff I have learned that it is THEY who are challenged, not us. We don’t see our personal issues as a barrier, we just work a little harder to reach our goals and try not to pity those who are challenged by stupidity.