PC

53 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sun, 2006-12-17 23:34

No¦ not computers or members of the constabulary, but everyone's favourite or least favourite concept: political correctness.

Historically, the term only ever seems to have been used pejoratively, by the right and the left, and its excesses have been well documented (speech codes, capability-neutral terminology, and so on). But I feel it also gets used as a lazy catch-all term by reactionaries, who see it as some sort of cap on their freedom to voice controversial or disrespectful opinions.

For myself, I acknowledge the excesses. I used to work with a guy who criticised me for liking the music of Wagner ' for reasons you can all probably guess. My liking it offended his sensibilities because he felt it was disrespectful towards Jews ' and he felt I should have acknowledged that. Well? Did he have a case, or is that PC gone mad? I ask because I have to admit that I get confused by it all sometimes. I like to think of myself as respectful and sensitive in my dealings with others ' especially if they're people I don't know very well. In my view, therefore, nothing could be more disrespectful of someone than to presuppose that they share my opinions, sense of humour, tastes, etc.

Here's an example of what I mean. I went for a haircut a few weeks back, at a place I'd never been before. The hairdresser got me on the subject of football. I mentioned that I used to follow football in my teens, in the 70s, but not now. "Ah, he chimed in, "You mean back in the good old days when the coach didn't need to speak a dozen languages to make himself understood. Okay, a harmless enough remark, maybe¦ but I could tell what this guy's agenda was, really, and I could see where it was going. We got onto the subject of work ' and Bob's yer uncle, off he goes on the problems of immigration. 'Foreigners' (perhaps preceded by an offensive adjective) were obviously his pet thing and he liked to take every opportunity he could to bring the subject up. He assumed I would automatically agree with him, probably because he saw me in a certain light: white, seemingly English, and with a working-class-sounding voice (yeah, a whole load of assumptions there). The whole thing had me seething ' and you can bet your life that if I'd come back at him, he'd have categorised me as 'another politically correct wanker.' He might even have cut my ears off. Yet, for all he knew, I could be an immigrant, or married to a foreigner. I classed his behaviour as presumptuous and, therefore, disrespectful. Oversensitivity on my part? PC?

What's do you think? What's your definition?

Mon, 2006-12-18 09:37

archergirl

I think the whole PC thing is way OTT. Like I said on the other thread, people who are looking to feel offended by something will usually find it. I don't dig racism, however. My mother-in-law, who, ironically, immigrated from Yugoslavia in the 40s, conveniently forgets she was stateless during WWII, and is convinced that immigrants (meaning, non-white immigrants) nowdays come to the UK to spread disease and steal from people, but fer chrissakes: trying to use PC language at all times will render the English language unintelligible at some point.

Mon, 2006-12-18 11:10

bobblehat2023

I mostly agree with BBF on this. The right-wing press and some politicians always have and continue to twist PC stories so they can justify their general racism and nastiness. There is some stupid stuff, though, particularly in local government. I used to work for a community youth magazine and I remember being told by the lady from agency commissioning a particular article - on sex and relationships - that it was inappropriate to illustrate the article with a picture of a white couple because this was 'not representative of the borough as a whole'. Aside from the bizarre notion that it's possible or desirable to accurately represent the entire demographic make-up of a whole London Borough in every picture in every article in a magazine, this position was simply factually wrong. The borough where I was working had a 'white, British' population of around 55% and as people are generally more likely to date people from the same backgrounds as them, if you picked a couple in the borough at random, they would be more likely to be two 'white, British' people than any other combination. I should probably have pointed this out but I didn't really care that much.

Mon, 2006-12-18 11:41

alan_benefit

I agree with BBF, too - and you, Buk. That example you cite is something I used to come across when I worked in local government. I agree, archergirl, that itâ€™s gone too far in many ways. Part of the issue is, I suppose â€“ how far do you go with it? I work with special needs adults. I hope none of us wants to go back to the bad old days of referring to them as spastics and cripples â€“ even though those terms may be accurate in describing their condition. Everyone I work with is comfortable with the terms â€˜special needsâ€™ and â€˜challenging behaviourâ€™, and no one uses the terms â€˜handicappedâ€™ or â€˜retardedâ€™ â€“ even though, again, they are accurate descriptions. We all KNOW they are handicapped and retarded, but theyâ€™re not discussed in those terms in the working environment. With most of our service users (company policy that we use that term), it wouldnâ€™t make the slightest difference what sort of terminology you used. With their families, though, itâ€™s a different matter. Some are very sensitive on the issue â€“ even if you refer to someone as â€˜suffering from cerebral palsyâ€™ or whatever. Itâ€™s the idea of their â€˜sufferingâ€™. So we have to be sensitive to that. Yet even there, there are disagreements. One mother insists on referring to her son as handicapped and retarded. Well, so be it, as far as Iâ€™m concerned. What we have to do is find some middle ground. â€˜Special needsâ€™ seems to cover it. But whoâ€™s right and whoâ€™s wrong in a circumstance like that? Is the mother right because sheâ€™s being realistic?

Mon, 2006-12-18 13:14

maddan

I agree with BBF too, he *is* a 'big orrible looking skinhead'

Mon, 2006-12-18 13:45

archergirl

Ha, alan_benefit, I understand completely. I work for a council, and also work with special needs children, specifically 'hearing impaired'. 'Deaf' still seems to be an okay term to use, however, so I'm lucky I don't have to watch my language too much; but some of the kids have a whole range of disabilities (not 'handicaps', but why not make it ultra-PC and call them 'challenges'?). It seems silly to have to have such a 'softly, softly' approach. I do agree about the 'cripple and spastic' terminology, although I occasionally slip and say something like, "What a retarded thing to do!" and then wince, ever so slightly.

Mon, 2006-12-18 13:53

poetjude

errm racism is bad mmmmkay but the days when they could air something like this ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRhSHSNVVV8 jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Mon, 2006-12-18 13:58

archergirl

Ha ha! Classic! But in truth, I *have* met a couple of nice ones.

Mon, 2006-12-18 14:34

alan_benefit

Don't know if anyone caught this when I posted it a few weeks ago. I didn't write it, but I wish I had. It says it all: "Please accept with no obligation, implicit or explicit, my best wishes for an environmentally-conscious, socially-responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practised within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice, with total respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, and their choice not to practise religious or secular traditions at all... and a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make Britain great (not to imply that Britain is necessarily greater than any other country nor is it the only "BRITAIN" in the northern hemisphere), and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, sexual orientation and choice of computer platform of the wishee. By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wishee actually to implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher." ...well, have a good one, anyway!

Mon, 2006-12-18 15:34

#10

bobblehat2023

"but some of the kids have a whole range of disabilities (not 'handicaps', but why not make it ultra-PC and call them 'challenges'?)." I obviously can't speak for the people who write the policies but the reason why I'd use disability rather than handicap is that handicap is more likely to be used to describe a restriction that's imposed - either by a person or by specific circumstances - and can be removed. That's not in terms of the dictionary definition - the dictionary describes a 'disability' as a 'disadvantage or handicap' - but in terms of general usage.

Tue, 2006-12-19 10:11

#11

PC

Pages