On July 15, GQ magazine published a list of Worst Dressed American Cities, written by John B. Thompson, complete with commentary on why each city deserved the dubious honor. Boston ranked first and the author described it this way: “Due to so much local in-breeding, Boston suffers from a kind of Style Down Syndrome, where a little extra ends up ruining everything.” Dr. Brian Skotko, a Children’s Hospital physician who is an expert in Down syndrome studies, wrote a compelling piece denouncing the comment, which was picked up by a number of media outlets, not just in the Boston area. GQ scrubbed that portion of the article, though as of this writing, no explanation, retraction or apology has been added.
A number of items related to the GQ controversy showed up in my Google reader this week, and I actually included it in Sun-Beams, though I did not intend to create a separate post about it. One of the items in my reader was a commentary in the Boston Globe, and while it was well-written, the comments below the article were what stood out to me the most. Some commenters were supportive of the author’s position, while others balked at how hyper-sensitive our society has become. One person expressed the opinion that “Words will only offend you if you let them.” I agree.
But that’s not the point.
Did GQ offend me? Honestly? Only mildly, because I don’t consider the individual who wrote it to be worth my time. Having a child with special needs gives you Magical A-Hole Radar, and I was upgraded to the Premium Model when Nathan came along. The real issue isn’t offense – it’s that Mr. Thompson’s comment reinforced a dangerous stereotype that exists in our society: that people with Down syndrome are worth less than everyone else.
Knowing that the termination rate for children diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome is approximately 90%, why is there a test currently being developed to detect Down syndrome earlier during pregnancy? Even a GQ magazine writer is smart enough to know that it’s not to celebrate the arrival of these unique infants into the world, but to stop it. Would the rush to market this test be just as strong if the researchers believed that people with Down syndrome had value that equaled or surpassed their own?
In 2009, President Barack Obama, in an effort to joke about his lack of bowling skill, famously said it was “like the Special Olympics or something.” I doubt that he intended to offend individuals with intellectual disabilities when he made that comment. However, something inside him – a man who is powerful, intelligent and media-savvy – told him that it was okay to use an organization devoted to bettering the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities as a punch line. He apologized, but damage was still done.
At one time, slavery was legal in this country. Men, women, and children were bought and sold at will, with regard only for their worth as labor, not as individuals. A war was fought and blood was shed to free them from the bonds of slavery, but equality and inclusion in society would come much later. A century later, African-Americans had gained freedom, but they still fell far short of being valued. Some still believed it was acceptable to ridicule African-Americans in the name of humor; they probably thought that they were “better” than those they ridiculed. Their friends laughed. As a people, African-Americans and those who supported equality rose up and said We Aren’t Going to Take It Anymore! and today many African-Americans hold positions of power and influence in government and business in our country, including President of the United States.
People like me who protest remarks like Mr. Thompson’s are often dismissed as hypersensitive – just a bunch of crazies who see an insult at every turn. What we understand that they don’t, is that all language – whether an intentional insult or a bit of pop culture humor – has an impact on our society. If the message that one segment of our population is an acceptable target for insult (or extinction) is repeated often enough, then society will accept it as truth, until the day comes when the targeted group stands up and says No More. But as the technology to detect Down syndrome in utero becomes more advanced, the number of individuals with Down syndrome, and the friends and family members of this unique and precious segment of society, will continue to dwindle.
And when that day comes, who will stand up and declare No More?
I’ve been a little out of the loop the last two weeks, so I’d missed this whole thing. But Oh. My. Gosh. I read that line from the GQ article and my jaw dropped. I’m going to have to take some time to formulate an intelligent reponse to this because right now I’m simply dumbfounded.
I read the article when you linked to it on Sunday, and thought most of the comments were horrible. He was trying to make a joke, I get that. It was a bad one. You don’t use a group of people that have not intentionally put themselves out there or done anything to draw ridicule to themselves as a punchline. And the people who tried to argue he was saying “style-down syndrome”, are obviously idiots, in that they couldn’t figure out that his “where a little something extra ruins everything” referred to the extra chromosome that Down syndrome people have.
Oh excellent, it’s ‘pick on Down’s syndrome time’. well done to the writer for setting back the cause of promoting a positive image of disabilities. Maybe if they had a child with a chromosomal abnormality they wouldnt be quite so quick to insult it. Very disappointing.
The comments under the GQ article online were mostly against the Down Syndrome cheap shot. I (and others) pointed out that that comment was just one of the stupid elements of their writing, including some offensive class comments. As it turns out, the entire thing was a stunt to get secondary coverage of local news in each of the cities it listed. It only partially worked. We ended our subscription over the Down Syndrome comment though.
For those who haven’t read, the article itself was clearly written with the purpose of being “snarky” and to poke fun/offend the residents of each city. Snark is frequently used for humor (sometimes successfully, sometimes not) and the article was clearly intended to “stir the pot” by getting the residents of each of the cities “all riled up” and talking about the article. The problem is that the writer (and the associated editors who read and approved the piece) didn’t know when to stop. Offend Bostonians (or anyone else) all you want, because they can stand up and fight back. Unfortunately, they also chose to insult a group who, for the most part, is less able (and, truth be told, probably less willing) to fight back. It crossed the line. I never intended to write about the controversy, as I prefer not to draw attention to those who clearly are grasping for attention, but when GQ opted to remove the offensive text with neither an explanation nor an apology, I realized just how deeply the thread of classlessness was woven into the magazine’s fabric.
I am still scratching my head as to how such an obviously offensive, classless, ugly comment got by all the proof-readers and higher-ups in order to get printed in a national magazine like that in the first place. It doesn’t surprise me that one individual writer would display ignorance and narcissism on that level—what worries me considerably more is that such a comment was clearly read by numerous others in the magazine’s production process who did not see the comment for what it was. And *that* is what scares me—how many other people who work there might conceivably share the article author’s viewpoint? What kind of “corporate culture” does GQ have going on there, anyway? Ugh…
Unfortunately, Cara, I think it’s a reflection of our society as a whole. That’s why it’s so important for us to speak up – some people are just a-holes, but I think most people merely need to be educated.