Law of what?

[Davis, Megan]

Ralph - and all-

I submit that it is not at all callow to acknowledge differences and want to
be inclusive in our language. It is important for us to work on these ideas
and this is a good forum for that conversation. I'm not waiting for someone
to complain. Why should we do that?

Being bipedally mobile, I find the "Law of Two Feet" a wonderfully pithy
title for a concept of personal choice and responsibility. I don't want to
trade the pith in, either. I want to have my cake and eat it too - include
everyone and use language with great emotional guts and depth.

Why not simply use "mobility" in a subtitle sort of way, similar to Ralph's
example below?

Megan Davis
Organizational Development Consultant, WSDOT OD Services
(360) 705-7412
FAX: (360) 705-6803
davisme at wsdot.wa.gov


        Ralph's comments:

> Law of "Mobility"!?
>
> I resist this phrase.  It smacks of callow political correctness.  It also
> shows creeping latinization of language.  In other words, it has no
> emotional guts.
>
> Have you found otherwise-abled folks who have expressly stated their
> objection?  If so, fine, change it, but if not, why do so?
>
> I always say something like, "the law of two feet ...(short pause) or
> equivalent for those who may be otherwise abled, and I say this even when
> their are no such otherwise-abled folks in the room.
>
> And to tell you the truth, I feel very proper and fair when I say this,
> and
> a little bit cowardly.
> --
> Ralph Copleman
> http://www.earthdreams.net
> 609-895-1629
>