Do you have swine flu? No. Do you know anybody who does have swine flu? Probably not. So what's all the fuss about?
Can't afford ethical clothing but can afford a night out at Ziggy's? Jennifer Heyes discusses where students' priorities should really lie.
Three of The Yorker's blogs team have had a hard think about what general rules they live their lives by and written them down in the form of their own Personal Philosophies.
Walking out of the cinema after seeing ‘He’s Just Not That Into You’, I nod in agreement to my friend’s comments of "that was soooo good", "what a feel good film", but I have a sneaking suspicion I may be lying.
I love political correctness. I really do. I feel safe in the knowledge that racist, sexist or homophobic remarks will not (technically) be tolerated. We are living in a still progressing society. The issue of the pay gap between men and women is still being recognised and protested against, and, despite occasional opposition, gay people can legally secure their rights as a couple. We are, however, far from living in an equal rights Utopia.
The most worrying aspect of modern opinion is that suddenly the term ‘political correctness’ is being used as a shield for astounding bigotry. The defence by people who spout bigoted vile is simply to say that ‘political correctness has gone too far’. The most empowered people in society (i.e. white heterosexual men) can demand that their rights are protected, by labelling the defence of other’s as ‘a step too far’. The comment sections on the Daily Mail website are, obviously, frequently home to such absurdity, with one P.C.-phobe even suggesting that “Political correctness should be made illegal as much as the fraud of racial superiority.” I hope I am not alone in detecting the irony...
In our own University of York, we are seeing it for ourselves. The huge backlash against Peter Warner-Medley’s request for the word ‘sex’ on data response forms to be changed to ‘gender’ seems to stem exactly from this. The most frequent opposition I have heard has been based wholly around the idea that it is just unnecessary. This is the result of people making a big deal about nothing, and it is ‘political correctness gone mad’.
I cannot stand it when lecturers or students use the terms ‘man’ or ‘mankind’, when they could easily substitute this for ‘people’ or ‘humankind’. It is an unnecessary clinging-on to an age gone by when the only people recognised for their contribution to society were male. We are not in that time anymore: move on.
I want to reclaim the word ‘politically correct’, and reuse it as a symbol of the intolerance of bigotry and people hating
Likewise, if we are living in a time (and we are) when some people do not feel comfortable putting their birth sex on a form, unless the answers are needed to research biological differences between men and women, it is simply not a big issue. Men can still let everyone know they are male if they want; women can still let everyone know they are female if they want. Most questionnaires now do feature ‘gender’ as opposed to ‘sex’. More importantly, Facebook does.
Also, if a form asks for a person’s ethnicity, there is always an option of ‘other’, and generally, ‘prefer not to specify’. This is particularly common with questions of age and sexuality. If so, why the surge of resentment towards this particular UGM motion? Possibly, and worryingly, because of a complete fear of change. If the term were in use in the 1800s, I’m sure that some would have applied it to the 1882 Married Woman’s Property Act. Maybe even in 1967, when homosexual sex was finally decriminalised in Britain.
Why, then, should we accept its pejorative usage today? In ten or twenty years time, I feel positive that more people will support the rights of the trans community in labelling, or refusing to label, their own gender. Refusal to accept this now is only reflective of the previous opposition to changes in culture that most today see as right. Nobody else is hurt if a person chooses to not declare a specific gender. Repulsion of such re-wording simply stems from some people refusing to allow others a more comfortable life because of a complete aversion to change and diversity. I want to reclaim the word ‘politically correct’, and reuse it as a symbol of the intolerance of bigotry and people hating. I will quite happily be the first person on here to say that I, Hannah Cann, am politically correct and proud.
> And Chris, what is my motivation for spending quite a bit of time on here today if it's not believing strongly in what I say?
I've spent hardly any time on here today. tbh, I'm not really following what's going on in this thread. If you don't believe what you say enough to put your own name to it, why should I take any notice to it?
Aris:
"As Chris said, being anonymous weakens your arguments - why would one trust someone who does not sign their name beneath what they write?"
I thought a good debate was about ideas, not personality. Again, you lose. Go home.
You are wrong, #42, debate is about personality as well. No matter how good ideas a person may have, I would not trust them if they are dishonest. This shows that they may only be expressing these ideas from a safe position. I would like to know that one really believes their ideas, enough to sign their name underneath them.
Sure, debates at the debating society are just about ideas - they are games. But real debates, you need to know whether the person who expresses them is showing their true colours. In addition, I find it funny you should say that, when whenever Dan Taylor comments on something, everyone turns against him, just because he is Dan Taylor, rather than examining his arguments.
A.
#43: this is one of those controversial topics where there is a high risk of being labeled a bigot, whatever-phobe, or people-hater for suggesting anything remotely contrary to the views expressed in the article.
That anon does not want to identify themselves does not imply that anon does not believe the expressed ideas. They may just prefer to avoid persecution and unfair discrimination based on something publicly accessible worldwide for the foreseeable future.
After all the article author has already vowed intolerance towards people she disagrees with.
#44, seeing as the point of the article was to say how the author dislikes racism, homophobia, and any other forms of bigotry, I don't think she'd care about being called intolerant of bigots.
#45: Indeed. My point was that it's risky to disagree non-anonymously and publicly with a person who labels people bigots and people-haters.
Right... Who's a bigot and people-hater in this article? The article seems to be saying that by claiming 'political correctness has gone mad', people can say what they want, and also that objections people have now to certain changes will be seen as crazy in a few years time... a quote, please, #46.
I didn't see evidence of people-hating in the article. It sounds as if she is labeling those who don't like P.C. as bigots and people haters, otherwise what has the second last sentence got to do with the rest of the article?
I disagree, James. I think that she is suggesting that political correctness PROTECTS AGAINST bigots and people haters, not that anyone who is against PC is necessarily a bigot themselves.
And it does: political correctness is all about making sure we don't use terms that can offend people. The only people that should be against it are those who enjoy calling people racist names etc... but unfortunately political correctness has been synonymous with changing "blackboard" to "chalkboard" because of "racist undercurrents" (quote not from York Uni but the same thing still happened here) so it's understandable. Reclaiming the phrase as a good thing can't be bad, surely?
#49: fair enough, forget i mentioned that last sentence of #44
The problem Jason is that political correctness has reached the level that no matter what you say, you will offend someone. I cannot disagree with a UGM without being called a bigot!
A.
Again Aris, I don't recall anyone who has called you a bigot on this thread - you're the only one who has attached that label to yourself. And political correctness isn't a problem - you can evidently say what you like, vote how you like, as you have done without anyone stopping you. People will never agree with each other 100% on any issue as we are not all clones and have different belief systems..so why do you seem so aghast that people disagree with you and have tried to debate your views with theirs in a constructive way? Instead of debating thoughtfully, you appear to have resorted to anon-bashing and dismissing the credible arguments of others by suggesting that their aim is simply to wave the personal 'bigot banner' at you. There's far more to this thread that your opposition to the motion (frankly, who cares how you voted?) and you should try to engage constructively with the debate as a whole. Ironically, I'd say that your personality is getting in the way of the good ideas on this thread.
People opposed your opinions because they had good reason to support the UGMs, not because they were using the trying to label you anything. Saying that you think gender neutral toilets are pointless didn't offend anyone - saying that you think trans people are suffering from mental problems *did* and that's why you were labeled in that way. It's fairly simple stuff! Don't insult people (whether intentionally or not) and you don't offend people.
#52, not in this thread, but in Nouse, it has been stated that the opposition to this motion consists of bigots and transphobes. I am not the one who applied this term to myself.
Jason, how many times must I repeat this: I never said trans people have mental problems because they are trans. I said that hating yourself is an issue, regardless of the reason. The fact that I've had to repeat this point over 10 times indicates that it is not I who gets in the way of good ideas in this discussion. It is not even I who claimed that trans people hate themselves, I never made any such assertions. This was claimed by trans people themselves!
Finally, although it does not apply in this case, some times it is better to insult people. The problem with political correctness is that now, it is unacceptable to insult anyone, no matter how stupid the things they claim might be.
A.
There's never a need to insult anyone; no matter how stupid you deem their views. If anything has been gleaned from the recent BNP victory, it is that simply dismissing seemingly stupid beliefs, through insults or otherwise, is not productive. Instead, challenging these views with reason and respect will allow 'stupid' views to show their true colours, and have more of an impact. Debates do not consist of insulting others because of 'political correctness gone mad'; rather, insulting others reveals one's own lack of reason and strong arguments and thus deprives one of credibility. Challenging views you don't agree with is not, and should not be, synonymous with insulting others.
Whilst I understand this articles perspective, with a staunce feminist at the helm, I also feel, as a man that it goes beyond politically correct.
"The most empowered people in society (i.e. white heterosexual men) can demand that their rights are protected, by labelling the defence of other’s as ‘a step too far’"
Thats true, but most of us don't. I have no problem with women exercising their rights alongside fellow men, with equal fervour. Is it a step too far to claim some women are so aggressive in their hatred of men they aren't politically correct either??
Perhaps we should all be nameless, genderless and ultimately dull and faceless to support the rights of the trans community. Afterall if I don't know the gender of the people writing articles I'm unable to point the sexist finger at a man or woman.
Society isn't perfect, if you want a utopia read the bible. Garden of Eden and all that, except, didn't they muck that up too? Human nature is a bitch isn't it.
I don't think Hannah would appreciate the suggestion that she hates men... or that she is aggressive... the most empowered people ARE white, heterosexual men. If they aren't, who is??? This article is not aggressive towards anyone except those who resent change that would make a minority of people more comfortable. I think you, #56, misunderstood.
Also, the article stipulates that the change encouraged by the UGM would not result in white, hetero men being marginalised in any way.
#56: 'Is it a step too far to claim some women are so aggressive in their hatred of men they aren't politically correct either??'
Staunch feminists don't hate men; they hate the inequality that has been perpetuated by a long tradition of patriarchal social structures. Consequently, challenging (not hating) the root of the problem (i.e. the people with the most privileges, that is, white heterosexual men) isn't politically incorrect..it's a rather sensible place to start. Conflating feminism with men-hating rather undermines the integrity of a feminist campaign and is, ironically, a little counterintuitive to your point in that you try to claim your liberal manhood by diminishing the character of feminists.
#59
Out of interest, your reply to no.56 seemed a little narrow-minded. If you accept that there are men out there who hate women, surely there are also women who hate men - women who very easily could take up the self-defined role as a hardline feminist?
To the article: As to replacing 'sex' with 'gender' could not both remain, though it creates extra paperwork? 'Sex' as a definition has huge statistical uses which could be used by YUSU and the Uni. Simply replacing 'sex' with 'gender' would result in the loss of a valuble resource.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report