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.
#60 - The UGM accepted that 'sex' would be vital in some surveys. when unnecessary, gender would replace sex.
#60 I didn't refer to men who hated women. I talked about patriarchal structures which have been designed to perpetuate inequality between the sexes, and #56's presumptuous conflation of feminists with 'men-hating'. Of course, I'm sure there are some women who hate men and define as feminist, but it is not fair to paint all feminists with the same brush. Extremist individuals following any kind of doctrine are not helpful or representative of the doctrine; hating men is not at the heart of feminism, just as terrorist attacks in the name of jihad are not at the heart of Islam. There are a lot of deep-rooted negative ideas and stereotypes about feminists - men-hating, or men-hating lesbians, to name but a few. So..challenging the way that #56 almost unconsciously assumed that a staunch feminist equated with a 'man-hater' doesn't seem narrow-minded to me at all. Rather the opposite. In fact, I think that your (and #56's) ability to talk about feminism and gender politics only in terms of 'hating' or 'not hating' the opposite sex reflects a simplistic and narrow-minded way of thinking.
#61 Ah, thanks for clearing that up, seems a reasonable solution.
#62 I am not attacking the feminist movement, just simply stating feminism is a very wide bracket with a whole range of viewpoints - yes some which will involve some sort of flipped mysognistic views (there is probably a word for that). I am also not relegating gender politics to that of hate, just defending the quote (from #56) you attacked earlier, a quote which I felt was reasonable. Hope that clears my position up.
Yes that does clear up you position, thanks. I think I fundamentally disagree with you though because while yes, there are a whole range of viewpoints of feminism, hating-men is not considered a feminist viewpoint by feminists, only by inward-looking spectators. Feminism is about gaining equality and rights for women - how would hating men advance these social ambitions? The assumption of many that feminists are men-haters only serves to undermine a true feminist goal by making feminists out to be some kind of wackos who want to create an all-female utopia. To take a parallel, most Muslims would not consider Islamic terrorists to represent Islam-proper and would not want to be associated with their warped views. Yet some secular entity, (perhaps the Daily Mail?!) has decided to perpetuate a belief that Muslims are, mostly, terrorists and that we should all be very worried about them; resulting in a great deal of Islamophobia in this country. I believe the similar thing has happened with feminism, and has alienated many men and women from sympathising with feminists. Often I hear women remark something along the lines of 'but I'm not a feminist or anything', after expressing a remotely sympathetic opinion. The feminist stereotype is so strong that people fear being swept up in it, but why? Feminists want what many women and men would probably agree with - equal rights, equal pay etc. Consequently, it seems to me (and other feminist scholars) that this negative stereotype is socially constructed to suppress the advancement of feminism, rather than accurately reflecting the character of the majority of feminists.
On a different not, I find the nuances of the language you use pretty interesting. Emotive words such as 'attacking' and 'hate' have been bandied around. I don't recall attacking anything myself - I challenged #56, and the irrelevant and fear-mongering quote used, I certainly didn't 'attack. And I definitely didn't accuse you of attacking the feminist movement, I defended my initial post against your suggestion that it was narrow-minded because I think you misunderstood my key points about feminism-proper being nothing to do with hating. I wonder if this language use is linked to socially embedded feminist stereotypes; the fear that feminists are some kind of terrifying, ball-breaking matriarchs. I suspect this is the case, though I doubt you'll agree.
Quite a claim.
Good article, couldn't agree more. "Political correctness" as a term has always been used negatively - it's a dog-whistle pejorative that people use when they're annoyed at being reproved for saying something that offends people. Most of the classic "PC gone mad!!!" stories are urban myths, pure and simple, strawmen used to undermine the very real truth that words can be harmful.
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.
You're unnecessarily living in an oversexed left world where women are subordinated to men, I can't help but think women that harp on about gender inequality in our society are using it as an excuse to moan and excuse personal failings. We are not in that time anymore: move on.
#67 This always strikes me as the most nebulous and ill-informed of all anti-feminist arguments since it supposes that since York university (or wherever you are writing from) is a microcosm of gender equality then on the macro level we (society; the world) are no longer 'in a time' in which women are subordinated to men. Yet, even if it conceded that gender equality has been achieved at York uni, maybe even Britain (in some places sure... I'd still argue that female stand-ups have a shit time of it) how do you argue that, for example, the existence of female castration in parts of Africa or bride burning in parts of India are not evidence of female subordination and abuse?
Precisely why I put 'our society'. Meaning where the author is writing from.
ah ok then! Though it was 'unnecessarily living in an oversexed left world where women are subordinated to men' that suggested, to me, that you believe that such a 'world' does not still exist.
Yeah I meant world in a general microcosm-y type sense of the word, my bad!
This must be the first disagreement in the history of the yorker, settled on the comments page, without an argument.
Sweet!
It's a proud moment!
people are using 'gender' on forms nowadays because they got sick of everyone writing 'yes please' when it said 'sex'.
For goodness sake. Do you not realise that the term 'politically correct' was devised and first used by those of us who would mock your language-policing and notions of thought-crime? This article reads, to me, in exactly the same way as it would if you wrote "I love nitpicking moral pedantry and an insistence on barmy doublethink." Political correctness is the Right's word. It mocks and derides you. Get your own!
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report