I suppose there truly is a euphamism for just about every horrible, offensive, sad, unfair or cruel concept or thing. Michael Richards’ rant was just described by British bigot John Derbyshire as an “etiquette malfunction.” The Menendez brothers were described as “parentally challenged” after they shot their parents (please, no jokes about them throwing themselves upon the mercy of the court because they were orphans).
Now comes “geographically challenged,” a phrase which was used to describe a non-existent relationship. Today, at my firm’s holiday luncheon, the managing attorney asked me about the one-man play also known as my love life, and I am not being Wildean here but am rather merely identifying by default or process of elimination. I told here that I didn’t have a GF (when I first heard this term, I thought it meant “George Foreman!”) in Atlanta. She then asked if, since I went to college a decade ago, I ever, while in Ithaca or some other God-forsaken wasteland (other than Atlanta) ever had a long-distance relationship. After I told her that my fingers really WEREN’T all that long, I told her that I never did have such a relationship. “That’s a good thing,” she cheerfully observed. “Take it from me, geographically challenged relationships don’t work.” Kind of like telling a man who is dying of hunger and incurable pain that it would be unwise for him to wear a jacket, I guess.
What will the PC mavens think of next? With someone like me, they’d probably have to keep a straight face and a clear head when coming up with the appropriate term. I initially had a preference for “non-challenged challenged,” but that phrase does sound rather stupid. Doesn’t it?