When a parent dares to speak plainly about harm—especially when that harm is systemic, ongoing, and inflicted upon a disabled child—they are swiftly met with a familiar response: watch your tone.
They may be told they’re too negative. Too emotional. Too angry. They may be advised to reframe, to assume good intentions, to be patient and polite. They are told to bring solutions, not just complaints. They are reminded—again and again—that their effectiveness depends on staying diplomatic.
This is not neutral advice. It is not about fostering collaboration. It is tone-policing, and it functions as a mechanism of control. Its purpose is to discipline how, when, and whether a parent is allowed to express dissent.
In schools, the burden of maintaining a calm and constructive tone falls disproportionately on mothers, especially those advocating for neurodivergent or disabled children. The more systemic the failure, the more intense the expectation that they remain cheerful, composed, and deferential. They must make their pain palatable. They must dress it in gratitude. They must never make anyone uncomfortable.
But harm is uncomfortable. And naming it truthfully is not unkind.
What tone-policing demands is not civility—it is performance. It requires parents to translate their grief and fury into bureaucratic euphemism. It turns righteous indignation into “concern,” and structural negligence into “communication breakdowns.” It turns child protection into conflict resolution.
And for neurodivergent parents, there is an added weight. Many of us experience a phenomenon sometimes called hyper-empathy—the capacity to feel our children’s pain as if it were our own. When our children are mistreated, excluded, or misunderstood, it doesn’t simply upset us—it devastates us. We feel it in our bodies. We grieve it like it happened to us. We come out the other side of advocacy feeling like we’ve been to war.
One parent said: “I said fuck in a meeting once, and the director of inclusion called me uncivil.”
Let that settle. A parent, under siege, speaking from the depths of stress and heartbreak—after months or years of institutional neglect—is chastised not for inaccuracy, but for tone. Not for being wrong, but for being human. The word fuck, rather than the exclusion of her child, was what crossed the line.
This is the essence of tone-policing. It demands composure from those living in chaos, deference from those fighting for survival. It elevates the comfort of bureaucrats above the rights of children. It offers a chilling lesson: that truth only matters if it is spoken in a way that flatters power.
But the stakes are too high for performance. Rage is not the problem. Exclusion is. Indifference is. Harm is. And when civility is wielded to uphold injustice, profanity becomes a kind of clarity.
There is no right tone when your child is being hurt. There is only the truth, and the courage it takes to speak it.
-
I wish I had your problems
I’ve spent most of my life editing myself for other people—shaping my sentences so I won’t be seen as difficult, framing my pain in acceptable ways so no one feels accused.
-
The end of the school year never feels like a celebration
We are scouring the comments for signs that our kids are OK. Supported. Happy. Trying not to spiral when we read ‘developing’ or ’emerging’ or don’t see the words, ‘It was a pleasure to have your child in my class this year.
