When is PC too PC?

[anthriel]

Well, I did say that my avoidance of the word would be subconscious.

I do believe that I do this... if I find that my choices are offending people, especially when I did not know that I was being offensive, it is actually upsetting to ME.

I agree with vison that it is far easier simply to choose words less likely to create sparks, even when I do not agree that they should. I truly believe this tendency is not fully at the conscious level.

For you who are writers, I can see avoiding this particular word as more of a burden than it is for me. As a microbiologist, and the mother of grade-school-aged children, I have a far easier time not worrying much about using the word "niggardly" in my daily pursuits.

Although I may just whip that word out, tomorrow, somehow, at work, just to enjoy its effect on the crowd.

For anyone who might think me too careful to never offend, I must say this: if I know my words to be provocative, and have carefully chosen, nonetheless, to say them, I will certainly stand by my choices.

It is the unintended slights that worry me, not the intended ones. If that makes any sense at all.

I am no angel.

[Whistler]

"House Master?" Fine with me, though this is the sort of reasonable compromise that usually sinks like a stone.

I understand the Wagner moratorium. Even as an American Christian, I feel some embarrassment at finding his work as great as I do. I can't imagine what a Jew from a death camp would think on hearing it in Israel. So I think, even now, that it is probably improper to play it in (let us say) an Israeli public park, or on the radio.

However, I'm not sure I agree with the idea of suppressing it in places where one can hear it only by purchasing a ticket and going behind closed doors. My compromise would be to perform it only when and where it is heard by choice.

Is that unreasonable? It may be; this is a tricky issue for which I can find no real parallel.

[yovargas]

I'm with Whistler on this one.

[nerdanel]

Results thus far:

Think that there should be a change: Voronwë, vison, Jn
Think there should not be a change: Whistler, Sassy, Alatar, Impy (good to see you back, btw)
In the middle, as far as I can tell: Anthy, Frelga, Prim

Whistler, you stated that no reasonable person could take offense to the use of the word Master, thus, of course, labeling all the African-Americans students who did so as "unreasonable". No one here has taken personal offense, and no one in this discussion is black. However, 3-6 people have said (paraphrasing) either that they think there should be a change in terminology, or that they would understand if one was made. Do you believe that they, too, are unreasonable?

To respond to your examples of potential "offensiveness" in academia - actually, one of them in particular is a pet peeve of mine - the "bachelor's" degree. I find it to be perversely gendered, it annoys me that this is the name of my undergraduate degree, and I would shed no tears if it was discarded. But of all the problems that need solving in this world, that does not even make it onto the list. It's a minor annoyance that might cross my mind once every couple of years, not something requiring a Holy Crusade. I think that the same is true for most of these word-choice issues - people on both sides of the game need to realize that we're ordinarily not dealing with life or death. I think that people should make an effort to accommodate others' sensibilities (with some weight given to the value of history and tradition), but that if it doesn't happen, life should go on because there are more important things to focus on.

Anthy, I'm glad you took the time to draw out that example, because it proves something, I think. It suggests that Alatar's phrase - "Come on, enough's enough. There's nothing offensive here and you need to back down" - probably rings true to all of us at some point. I'm pretty certain we would all agree that seeing a KKK endorsement in that decorative pattern is entirely, flatly unreasonable.

If this is true, then, as Voronwë suggests, it's simply that we all draw the lines differently.

Impy --

The title Master in academic circles goes back far in history and it exasperates me that the only connotation that bears weight is the negative one associated the one aspect of the American experience.

Well, y'know...I did give an example of American students residing in America who were reacting to an American university's word-choice in light of American history, so it turns out that American connotations are the most relevant for the purposes of this particular example. I see no reason to believe that these students would react the same if they were studying abroad - and if they did, I think my sympathies would lie much more strongly with the universities.

Also, if the Harvard administration ever seriously considered a name change - which I don't believe they have - one of the counter-arguments to changing the title "Master" WOULD be the historical significance of the title in academic circles. The slavery-related connotation is not the only one that bears weight; it's simply the one that caused certain people to take offense.

Lastly, although I posted this example with no firm opinion in mind - and in fact was more sympathetic to Whistler's and Alatar's stance going in - I find myself persuaded by Jnyusa's incredibly well-written post. Well said.

[Whistler]

TP:

My opinion remains the same, but I concede that it was improper of me to dismiss others' complaints as unreasonable based on my idea of reasonableness.

Understand that I do not exactly object to a change, even though I personally (being who and what I am) find the whole business much ado about nothing. I have no objection to the compromise Jn suggests, which accommodates others' sensitivities while retaining respect for tradition.

In the future I shall respond to your questions with greater care, knowing that any careless utterance will bring upon me the full and merciless analytical powers of your magnificent legal mind.

[Jnyusa]

Thank you, vison and tp.

Jn

[Frelga]

TP, I'm sorry I was unclear. I am not in the middle on Master issue, I am in favor of changing the title. Even though I don't believe any of my ancestors have been slaves since we walked out of Egypt, if I had to hear "What did your Master tell you?" more than once a year, I would be most seriously (yikes! an adverb!) displeased. I hate to think what it sounds like to black students.

Impish, I dislike the X-American labels. They imply that only lily-white pure WASP folks are real Americans and the rest of us must hyphenate ourselves. But hey, I always make an effort to refer to people any way they want to be referred to.

* checks for adverbs*

[Whistler]

Tolkien is my favorite Afro-British writer.

[nerdanel]

Whistler --

Now I fear I have offended you, which was not my intention.

This question of reasonableness is a frustrating one, is it not?

Perhaps we should reword Anthy's suggestion ("When is PC too PC? When the word or phrase in question does not offend you, personally.") as follows:

Political correctness has gone too far for A when objections to a word or phrase strike A as unreasonable. This is so even if B, who A knows to be otherwise a reasonable person, believes these objections to be perfectly reasonable.

Before you think that I am targeting you with the full and merciless analytical powers (such as they are) of my convoluted mind, allow me to point the finger at myself. In the very paragraph after I responded to you, I responded to Anthy that the people who took offense in her example were "entirely, flatly unreasonable." It seems that we're all person A at some point.

The problem is this:

In my experience, people who are in the majority on a given issue are more likely to be A; people in the minority are more likely to be B. In my experience, it is frustrating when you're B and are just told you should "lighten up" or "get a sense of humor" when you are genuinely offended about something directed towards a group to which you belong, especially a historically disadvantaged group. Also, in my experience, it is frustrating when you're A, you mean no offense, you consider yourself to be generally free from prejudice, and you are told that you should not say or do something that you view as perfectly neutral.

I have no idea what the solution is.

Lest I come off as too bleeding heart PC, though: let me cite an example where I think that people went way over the top with political correctness and made complete fools of themselves. For consistency, let's turn again to those politically correct police officers known as Harvard undergraduates. Whistler, you might appreciate this one.

About nine months ago, Jada Pinkett Smith was on campus to accept some sort of an award and make a speech. I don't really know. During her speech, she made the following remark: "Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career."

Now, not all of us want all of these things, it's true. However, Ms. Smith was speaking from her personal experience. Clearly, she considers these things to be "having it all" - and why should she not? Those of us who have differently ordered priorities can simply disregard her assessment. Or so I thought when I read her remarks.

But fear not, the PC Police were in attendance and at the ready! The BGLTSA made national headlines in the following days by proclaiming that "Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable." They were referring to the very line I quoted above.

And they got roasted. Especially for the use of the word "heteronormative" - the right-wing press had a heyday with it! (google "BGLTSA" with "heteronormative" and look what comes up) "Does that mean that heterosexuals aren't normal?" "Are we not allowed to talk about heterosexuality anymore?" "Imagine that! Some women want a loving husband, kids, and a career - isn't that what the feminists have always said they should be able to have?" "Next thing you know, we'll only be able to talk about homosexual relationships so as not to give offense to anyone."

I thought that the BGLTSA's reaction was over-the-top, in itself offensive, and made the GLBT community generally look oversensitive and unreasonable. (Even though the BGLTSA acknowledged they were speaking for a minority of their members, the story was not reported that way.)

This example illustrates, for me, another conundrum - what do you do when you're person A, but you identify as a member of the same community as person B? (the same situation as the African-American students who thought the hubbub over "Master" was ridiculous) This is the "Stop speaking for me!" problem - and believe me, we left-leaning minorities confront it over and over again.

[Whistler]

Offend me? Never!

All you do is scare me. In a nice way, I mean.

[nerdanel]

I'll have you know that I take offense to that!

[Whistler]

[eborr]

Much sense has been written in the debate thus far, I would like to make a couple of additional points.

Firstly, whilst it is right and proper that when we are using language we should be mindful of other peoples sensibilities, it seems that in many cases that this has become the imperative, whixh is a sad thing.

Secondly as someone whose opinion on most matters is well left of centre, I am disappointed that the issue of political correctness has diverted energy from other more pressing challenges, I have known a number of genuine freedom fighters, and though they may not be represent a significant political sample, political correctness was never high on their list of priorities.

Picking folk up on PC failings is not difficult, and this why it has become popular, people who make such "errors" of judgment in their writings are easy targets for woosy armchair/coffee-shop activists, who maintain their personal profile and "right-on" credibility with continual commentary in the media on the latest thought crime

[vison]

Tolkien is my favorite Afro-British writer.

Mine, too.

[Whistler]

TP:

Along the same lines as your story, I have read of companies (in California, of course) that forbid employees to display photos of spouses and children in their personal offices.

The reason? Gay co-workers might find that this creates a hostile environment.

Then there was the justice of the peace (or somebody functioning in that capacity) who displayed an antique painting of a bride and groom signing a marriage license. After many complaints, he had to take it down and replace it with a landscape.

For some reason, the nineteenth-century painter had lacked the foresight to include a gay couple also.

[anthriel]

Yes. Yes, I think you have it there, TP.

Person "A" is in the wrong, sometimes. Well, not to them. They are in the right. But they seem wrong to person "B".

Person "B" is in the wrong, sometimes. Well, not to them. They are in the right. But they seem wrong to person "A".

I have been person "B", at times, almost as many times as I have been person "A"; yes, me, the lily-white unhyphenate-able pure WASP. Even those of us whose lives look seamlessly easy can have tender psychic spots which others may not understand.

I had a handicapped brother, who died as a young man from his terrible illness. He lived an extraordinary life, filled with pain and phenomenal bravery and challenge and unexpected humor and relentless difficulty. I will never forget him, or be able to shake the branding of my soul that took place every single day. I am a different person today than I would have been without him, and, yes, a bit defensive from time to time about the casual comments from strangers who haven't a clue what such a life was like.

Yes, I have, personally, a bit of a hair trigger when I hear people make "jokes" about handicapped people. Am I being unreasonable? Not in the least. Not to me, anyway. Those "jokers" should spend the time they take to denigrate the handicapped and instead prostrate themselves in thankfulness before a merciful God that that particular burden is not theirs to bear.

That is, of course, my point of view.

When is PC too PC? When the word or phrase-- or joke-- in question does not offend you, personally.

Am I reasonable about these "jokes"? Not in the least. Nor will I ever be. I will never "lighten up" nor will I "get a sense of humor". It is not light. And it is certainly not funny.

To me.

I have also been person "C", watching from the sidelines, wondering what in the Sam Hill could possibly have ruffled so many feathers. Not being "A", or "B", at these times, I have a sneaking suspicion I may never know the depth of hurt, or embarrassment, or even the corrosion of slow, smoldering anger, that those particular words can invoke. To those who would object to them, and to those who would defend their use.


But I would like to respect their feelings. Simply because I cannot understand them, if that is the case, does not mean they are not relevant.


Which puts me, yes, exactly in the middle of these types of discussions.


As usual.

[vison]

We never know where our neighbour's shoe pinches.

That's the same neighbour whose shoes we should walk a mile in.............

Hm.

Do I sense a pattern?


There are always going to be humourless and judgemental twerps. And there are always going to be moments when a careless or thoughtless or unknowing word cuts very deep. Don't we all have a vulnerable place?

Seriously, I think most of us never mean to offend anyone. And I suppose most of us DO offend now and again. I think we get credit for good will, though, and shouldn't be too hard on ourselves or each other.

What goes around comes around. The Karma Chameleon will get us all, in the end.

[Frelga]

I'm really striking out today, aren't I? First TP and now Anthy.

Anthy-pet, it was rather a stupid way of me to express myself and I apologize. I tried to say, as I'm guessing you understand, that only a certain group of people is accepted as "real" Americans, and certainly didn't mean to imply anything negative about the group itself. Sorry...

[Erunáme]

And, I think there's a key point in Frelga's post - these generalized stereotypes, which according to Sassy have a modicum of truth, are only directed against minorities. Question for any of the Americans or Europeans (especially you, Sassy ): I would like for you to provide me with generalizations containing a modicum of truth that apply to white people.

Prim, that's precisely my point. Because most of us belong to white race, we can see that our own group is too diverse to be covered by one stereotype. So the best we can do is to split into subgroups and stereotype those to which we don't belong.

Don't you think that Japanese people have generalized stereotypes for Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Philipinos, etc and then whites, blacks, arabs, and latinos?

...that people from Iran have generalized sterotypes for people from Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc and whites, blacks, asians, and latinos?

...that people from Zimbabwe have generalized stereotypes for people from Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Rwanda, etc and whites, asians, arabs, and latinos?

...that people from Colombia have generalized stereotypes for people from Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, etc and whites, asians, blacks, and arabs?

Whites (I won't use the word race because there is only one race...human) are no more diverse than all the other different skin colors. All the other skin color groups surely are able to see that their group is too diverse to be covered by one stereotype. So of course they too split into subgroups and stereotype those to which they do not belong.

I'm quite sure if you asked a person from Japan, Iran, Zimbabwe, and Columbia that they could all give a generalized stereotype for white people.

The fact is, people all over the world, from all different cultures and skin colors have generalized stereotypes for all the cultures and skin color groups they are not part of.

ETA: I remembered that looking at the world (and soon in the United States), whites are not the majority. They are very much a minority.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1305063.stm

[Primula Baggins]

Excellent point, Eru, and well put.