Political correctness

[bigmart]

Re: Magic...Magic.....

The great & awful truth is that we all make assumptions about people when we first see them. Its part of the human condition that we do this. If you, as a woman feel this is unfair & there are no similar situations when this happens to a man you are wrong.

As a parent I remember the condescending way the health visitor looked at me when I first met her. Then she opened her mouth & somewhat patronisingly said "Oh you must be Hubby". I think that was the nearest I have come to smacking a woman. Further on in my career as a parent I well remember the way the mothers at my kids junior school treat a male as a Lepper when, on the odd occaision, I went to collect my kids from school.

Try telling a black person that instant judgements aren't made about them everyday in our society.

I think the main difference is that, when you feel confident & happy with who you are, then you can look back & laugh at these things. Its those people who feel insecure, or unhappy with themselves, that feel the need to complain.

The complainers are forcing our society to change in a way that stifles our personalities. This is what I dislike about political correctness.

Martin

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Yes, it is a simple truth..

..and yes it must be irritating.

I can't imagine that there aren't many more males here who can accept this without any problem at all.

I truely can't see the issue, after all several women now have high profiles in this field, single handing or skippering male and female crews, and have been cheered on by many on these forums who have stated they couldn't do what these women do.

There'll always be a few dinosaurs, but they often wind up other men as much as they do women

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Joe_Cole]

Re: Yes, it is a simple truth..

You're right.
Of course many women are dinosaurs too!

Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Violetta]

Eh?

A patronising Health Visitor riles you so badly you nearly smack her! (Where’s your sense of humour, man? Why so insecure?)

We are talking here about assumptions, attributions, stereotypes. Some funny, some trivial, some damaging, some desperately harmful – all the way along the continuum. On that much, I think, we agree.

But no-body can challenge any of these assumptions, attributions, stereotypes, for fear of “stifling someone’s personality” (Oh, come on! A little hyperbole, perhaps? Really your personality is quite such a delicate flower, is it? No, that I cannot believe)

For heaven’s sake – who is doing the stifling here? And who’s being stifled? Maybe the needle prick of PC isn’t such a bad thing after all, if it makes us stop and think for a moment about the stifling effects of our comfortable stereotypes. But to judge by the predictable furore those words invariably precipitate, we’d rather do anything but that.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Violetta]

Talk of the devil... nm

nm

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bigmart]

Re: Eh?

OK I think I used the wrong terminology with the health visitor. A good slapping (as in wake up you pathetic person) may have been more appropriate. If you are a parent don't you remember how insecure you felt the first time you handled that pink screaming thing that you are supposed to be adult enough to handle. I'm over 50, I still don't consider myself grown up enough for parenthood & I've got three kids.

Yes I am a delicate flower & so is my personality, sometimes. On other occaisions I can be a pig ignorant moron, incredibly sensitive, tender & many, many other things, some good & some bad. How varied is your personality & moods.

As to who is being stifled. I would have thought the answer was obvious. We all are. None of us are allowed to express ourselves as we really are. The real point about steriotypes is that they can & will change over time. That is a natural evolution that is desireable. This oppression of our thought processes called Political Correctness will ultimately drive subversive thought underground & who knows where that will end.

There are some who would say that Political Correctness carried to its ultimate ends has a lot in common with Nazism (is that spelt correctly). I must confess there are times when I feel myself sympathising with that view.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Heckler]

used to work offshore with jocks

and always called them jocks and i was a taff, at home was on the dog and bone to a call centre, innocently called the operator a jockette, was told that she found that offensive and she was going to report me to her supervisor, i told her to stuff her biz where the sun dont shine and to get her supervisor, and then proceeded to tell the superv where to go as well!
s


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

Re: Eh?

We are lucky. Our Health Visitor is brilliant. Never a cross word, always smiling and relaxed. Can cope quite calmly with my wife's East Asian (very different!) approach to child care. He is called Simon, is much bigger than I, and plays rugger!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

A disgraceful story

I learned my lesson many years ago. I had recently left university and started working and living in London. Travelling home on the Underground, late one evening, I was alone in a carriage when a black man, much larger than I, got in, looking remarkably urbanised and cool, dressed in a then-fashionable trenchcoat. I started to make myself as inconspicuous as possible when he looked up and said "Hello!" He and I were friends, and exact contemporaries at the same Cambridge college, where both our fathers (more distinguished than either of us- we were bone idle!) had been Fellows. Moral - context can make a difference - someone whom I had sunk umpteen pints with in the JCR and sundry student pubs suddenly looked like a drug dealer just because we were in a train late at night.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

words matter

I agree that some words like "personhole" are silly. But if, as this thread seems to be tending to say, that words "don't matter" and that women should not be offended, then they are mistaken. Our entire language is heftily and noticeably non-PC. It is sexist. Others may be too.

I was once invited to think of any casual/slang word describing a man. Bloke, geezer, guy, chap, dude, and so on. These words all have positive connotations.

Now, think of any slang/colloquial word that describes a woman. Bird, Chick, Tart, Bimbo. These all have negative connotations, as does "lass" or even "girl".

There's no way of avoiding political incorrectness to a degree, given the language as it is. Though the worst hangovers of a different era are gradually disappaering, I don't have any problem with referring to the "helm" and "pilot" as there's no real need to tack on "-man" as a suffix to keep the meaning, yet lose the inference that the "norm" or preference is that a man would do the task.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: words matter

There remains the slight matter, after we take all the pc rubbish out of the equation, that very few women genuinely enjoy taking to the water in the same way that men do.

There are women who love it when it's wet and wild, but they are few and far between, unfortunately. This is not a pc or anti pc statement, but anything above flat calm causes marital mayhem for many boating couples..other women are happy in F4, but we are talking a diminishing quantity here, and those that would happily take to the seas in F7 and above are gems beyond price.

I met a lovely lady this weekend, who joined our club for the annual shakedown as a guest. She's a skipper/owner of a 28' powerboat, and is a member of a south coast club. They seem to believe she shouldn't be doing cruises to Weymouth or France in a boat of such size. I'm not commenting for fear of being Kimmerized

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Violetta]

Maybe

We should occasionally consider the possibility that "who we really are" might make it a little more difficult for other people to be "who they really are." You implied as much yourself with your reference to the experiences of black people.

I have had a lot of dealings recently with psychiatric patients and also some with learning difficulties. Much hurt and many problems arise from people expressing "who they really are". I wish they would think first. "Who we really are" is all too often signally lacking in imagination and empathy.

I have no doubt that hatred of Jewish people was highly PC in Nazi Germany. Expressing "who you really were" wouldn't be wise if you were really horrified by the treatment meeted out to them. Works both ways, I am afraid.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Violetta]

Mirror image

Some people claim they are being silenced for fear of being accused of being "non PC". Others, with equal justification, claim they are being silenced for fear of being labelled "PC". Which is more PC? Being PC or opposing PC? Funny old world.

You are right about the numbers of women that really take to sailing. However, if you sailed with groups of women (and no men) as I do regularly, you would see that many (by no means all) are both interested and motivated to do more - but have taken on board with a vengeance the rooted assumption that it's a men's game. It's amazing what happens when they get a taste of the pleasures and responsibilities of being in charge - if only they can get over that basic lack of confidence and self belief. One thing I always notice is that women tend to give up more quickly on difficult tasks - because the habit of mind is that "he" will do it. And if "he" is there, he also assumes that he will do it. So the status quo is maintained (very tempting) All that changes when they see that they CAN do it. Much is down to attitude, and attitude is profoundly influenced by prevailing assumptions - especially when these are never questioned.

How many skippers would willingly go back to being dependent crew? Sorry, but it really is a lot less fun - especially with a skipper that lacks some confidence him or herself.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: Mirror image

I think praps it is a male tendency to bang ones head against a brick wall, perhaps animalistic tendencies of seeking a mate, survival of the species et cetera.

I did go out with a very pc/feminist girl once, foiund myself trying to make food whilke she was wrestling with some wallpaper, both of us doping the things we wer rubbish at just for the sake of "equality". Best is to play to strengths, I think, and the desire to do something must be there in order to do it well. Something in the male psyche draws them to technical things, less so for females, thougfh there are lots of exceptions.

For me, it is quite clear. One makes allowances for everyone of course, but for true equality and avoidance of PC silliness, a good route is to giove people the right to be wrong. Far too many parents let their kids think or do wrong thing, simply ecasue they thinks that they'' learn otherwise. But they should learn sooner not later. The right to be wrong means that one never says that someone did well "considering they are a woman" or any such nonsense. It also means that old people can't blurt out rubbish and then hide behind "respect for elders" when in fact, they are wrong.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[drawp]

One of the boys.

A few years ago, we had a female Engineer assigned to our rig. The crew who usually live up to their name as Roughnecks were unsuccessfully making a visible effort to stop swearing, picking their noses and scratching their bollocks in front of her. After one embarrassing (for the crew!) indescretion, the lass told the guys to stop worrying about her and to just treat her as one of the boys. At that, one of them sidled up to her and whispered out of the side of his mouth, "Got any girlie magazines you want to swap?"

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: Magic...Magic.....

>>I was miffed? Did I say that?>>
 
Well, no.  Not in those words.  But you self-evidently felt sufficiently strongly about what was somewhere between a mildly insensitive (and not very funny) comment and a display of downright discourtesy to use it as an illustration of an attitude which you not unreasonably find offensive.  So I would conclude that you were, to a greater or lesser extent, "miffed".
 
As for "illustration of a simple truth", I'm not so sure.  What is that truth?  That [all/most/many/some/a few men/that particular man] look(s) on women as an inferior class who are capable of no more than scrubbing decks?  Apart (possibly) from the last alternative, that's a fairly extreme conclusion to extrapolate from the incident you described.
 
So, I'm not sure if the illustration you used is a good example of any truth, simple or complex.
 
I sympathise with your point that you find it irritating to experience unthinking prejudice (the presumption that you're less qualified because of your sex).  Being unable to experience it, I can do no more.  However, prejudice is not an exclusive characteristic of the male sex.  Surely you have experienced prejudice of the same type displayed by women?
 
My view is that what was said was not well said - not on the grounds of political correctness but, simply, because it was unfunny and insensitive.  If you were "crew" (male or female) it would have been patronising and if (as is the case) you weren't, it was, as you no doubt felt, presumptuous.  However, it also appears, from what you said, that you did not take offence on that occasion because, I suspect, you believed that none was intended.  So the offence committed was perhaps no greater than a somewhat clumsy attempt at humour?
 
On the general point of "political correctness" (as it applies to language), it seems to me that there are (at least) three categories of words which can be made subject to a test of political correctness: (i) those which are inherently offensive because they carry an implicit insult (such as "nigger", "paki" and "raghead"); (ii) those which have masculine and feminine forms and the feminine form (because of past usage) carry an implication of lesser status or other negative connotation (such as "manageress"); and (iii) those which have a masculine and feminine form but do not (in common usage) carry any negative connotation (such as "chairman", "fireman" and "helmsman"). I have no difficulty with the PC lobby in cases (i) and (ii).
 
I do not agree that words (such as "chairman" and "helmsman") have to be "neutered" as a matter of course merely because they contain the word "man". This achieves nothing more than emasculation (a fortuitous double entendre!) of the English language. Men and women are all part of "mankind" and the "man" can reasonably be taken to indicate nothing more than a person - of either sex.
 
Nevertheless, as a matter of courtesy, there is no reason not to respect the preference of individuals or groups of individuals.  Thus, if a female chairman wishes to be referred to and addressed as "Chair" (instead of "Chairman" and "Madam Chairman"), that's fine by me, although I personally find it rather clumsy.  Similarly, if fire fighting personnel, individually or collectively, have a preference for "firefighters" that's also fine. However, where a non-sex-specific alternative doesn't exist in common usage, it think it's unnecessary to contrive a neutral alternative if it lacks natural rhythm or is clearly unwieldy (as is the case with "chairperson" and "spokesperson").


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Violetta]

Fact is, Observer

My post was not a complaint and I was not miffed, but mildly amused. The passer-by and I had a joke about it and stopped to chat for a good half hour - a pleasant interlude. Indeed, I took it far less seriously than you seem to do (maybe because I have had a long time to get used to and observe these attitudes at work. They, in their many and various manifestations interest me greatly) It wasn't said with an intention to offend and no offence was taken. I am much more interested in intentions than in words. No, I'm afraid the post was a windup. Never fails.......

What it does bring out is the mass of assumptions we make about each other. (Of which the prevalent assumption that female = subordinate in sailing - still very widespread despite the efforts of Tracey, Ellen, Emma, etc. is but one example. Or do you think otherwise?) For example, I post a snippet about one aspect of the experience of women in sailing and all kinds everything get read into it. You seem to assume, for example, that I don't know, think or care about all the other belittling assumptions you mention? Why? Maybe the "art of debate" would flourish a little more if we responded to what people actually said, rather than what we project on to them.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

Re: Fact is, violetta

But aren't some of the perceived assumptions one's own? I've been mistaken as crew too perhaps because was I young, or scruffy or both. I assume some women will be less use hauling a bowline because they are smaller in build, not because they are women. I mistake kids as not much good at painting the ceiling because they are short. Once a few of these have been proven right, and especially they are very very often proven right, it's not unreasonable to carry the assumption.

That feminist girlfriend, years ago, asked what the solicitor was doing about buying the house and so on - and assumed that solicitor was male. tee hee. And it seems a great deal of PC-ness is just that - a trip-up, a gotcha. Fancy thinking one thing (which normally applies) when the other is true on this one occassion.

Sailing wise, it's true and great that ellen etc are great sailors. I'm sure they don't see women as surbordinate in sailing. But usually for lots of reasons, some perhaps biological such as they are generally stronger and some mor3 hidden such as they generally seem to be drawn to sailing whereas generally more women tend not to be so drawn, and ellen chose an all-male crew.

If there's a lone sailor, generally it'll be male. But not always. But that doesn't give another meber of that group the inalienable right to jeer or mock at thiose who make an assumption which was most definitely in line with the norm. For whilst the person who made the wrong assumption is certainly wrong, so some of the PC-brigade seem determined to make the vast majority feel as uncomfortable as possible for no better reason than they can. Bullying, I suppose.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ghostwriter]

Re: A cancer?

you know , dear lady of the mudfields , this reminds me of a discussion we once witnessed in that quirky bar , where one person made a remark on other people , an that made somebody very well known to you leave the premises , on account of "you being racist"....until today , as an observer , I'm still thinking that the one leaving was also mistaking political correctness with a trial to explain something that can not be explained properly if the other side is too hung up on being 200% PC.

I'll bring the wine dear , we'll fight over it under the muddy stars /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

But, Vi, I did ..

respond carefully to what you actually said.

You said (in effect) "I was not miffed" [by the remark] and >>I was illustrating a simple truth>> and >>it might be a bit irritating to be an independent sailor, an instructor, a qualified and experienced skipper, who is assumed, over and over again, to be the subordinate one>>.

It's hard not to draw the conclusion that you were "a bit irritated" (read "miffed") when you said yourself that such a comment as you were referring to "might be a bit irritating".

You passed a comment (a separate thread) about the incident so invited comment on it. In this thread you refer to the same incident as "illustration of a simple truth".

My points were: (i) the illustration is not, fairly, a valid one, for the reasons I mentioned; (ii) I do not see the "simple truth" you assert, for the reasons I mentioned; (iii) the comment which you reported was possibly clumsy at best or offensive at worst (depending on how it was delivered) whether said (a) by a woman rather than a man; or (b) to a man rather than a woman; but perhaps was no more than a misplaced attempt at humour (which I think you agree with?); and (iv) otherwise, I sympathise with your point about "prejudice".

It is not up to me to take the comment seriously or otherwise as it was not addressed to me. However, as you used it as an illustration of an attitude you find - can I say 'unwelcome' - you invited others to consider it seriously, and I did.

The final three paragraphs of my post were a response on the subject matter of the thread generally and not a specific response to your post(s). I am sorry if this was not clear.

I have not assumed (and wonder why you think I have) >>that [you] don't know, think or care about all the other belittling assumptions {I} mention>>. I was setting out my view on the matter of "political correctness" (in its admittedly rather narrow application to language). Finally, I hope that I sustain the "art of debate" by expressing a reasoned position.



<hr width=100% size=1>