Okay..I watched Calender Girls (good movie, kinda chick flicky though) and she said.. "chairperson" when addressing the head of the WI. and it just irritates the pure snot outta me. African American....do we say.. European American for whites? No! Why can't we just say black and white? The only one that doesn't piss me off is native american. And that's because we already have Indians.. from India, ya know? And get this.. Females have it so good (I'm ashamed to be a female when it comes to crap like this) Feminist...okay.. and a guy who's a Masculinist (not actually a word) is called a Pig!! But feminists don't get looked down upon. And uhh.. yeah!! Gay females are called Lesbians..but gay men are called gays.. why can't guys have a name just for them too? Mailperson, Chairperson. It's ridiculous. Gah.. people who come up with this stuff "have every right to be hung...for the cold blooded murder of the english tongue"-Prof. Higgins. If you disagree say so.. if you agree.. then uhh.. say so. I think this would make a fine friendly debate.

I agree that being politically correct has been taken too far. It's ok making sure you don't insult anyone, but it has been going over the top. I just shudder to think when people will be referring to the fatherboards in their computers, and saying about how the huwoman race has become too dependant on technology.

I've seen feminists spell "woman" and "women" as womyn, "human" as humyn. Nevermind that I think this looks silly, the protest against implied linguistic chauvinism is patently inaccurate: those words are derived from the Old English man which simply meant "person" - it was entirely gender-neutral.

I mistrust euphemisms. People do not pass away and become dearly departed, they die and are dead. People are not vertically challenged, they are short. I am not "cuddly" or "big-boned", I'm fat. I can understand "African-American" as opposed to "black", since it distinguishes between black people of African descent and black people of, say, Caribbean or West Indian descent. And as you said, Aislinn, I use "Native American" because "Indian" is inaccurate.

That went all over the place, didn't it? I think I got my point across, though.

the words change but attitudes stay the same how can anybody ever believe we live in an equal society when we all consider everyone who isn't like us different sure we make laws that say we cant be racist but we still are because the walls of segregation still exist very strongly in our society and untill those walls are torn down there will never be a change in the hearts of the general population

I totally agree that it has been taken way too far, but in some cases this is appropriate. Im not saying the money thing isnt stupid, but, for example, when i went to visit my grandad in an old peoples home, the people there were very se tin their ways and some of them would actually have been offended if you used the less euphamistic terms. It all depends on who you're trying not to upset.

While political correctness can get out of hand, there tends to be a very good reason behind many of the ways our language is changing. "Black" refers to a large group of people, African American is more specific. I don't know about in America, but it's not uncommon to hear European Canadian or Caucasian used to describe white people -- after all, white people have pink skin, not white. (But, in my books, you can call me any of the above terms, I don't really care. )Native American is fairly descriptive, but it excludes the Inuit, so the proper term there is Aboriginal (to include both Inuit and Native peoples). I'm a feminist, and it means nothing more than standing up for female rights in a male-dominated world where women are objectified and underappreciated (women *still* get paid less than men for doing the same jobs). There's no need for a Masculinist, because men are not marginalized, in general, and don't have to fight for their rights. Male Chauvinist Pig is a derogatory term, but it deals specifically with a type of male who specifically infringes on the rights of women or degrades them. Sadly, your point about feminists not getting looked down upon is untrue -- there are many many women and men alike in the world who look down on feminists (even if they hold true to feminist values) merely because of Radical Feminism (a branch of feminism which looks to superiority, and not equality.) Actually, homosexual women are lesbians, homosexual men are gay. The term gay, however, can be applied to lesbians as well, but this is more an issue of semantics than anything.

As for Chairperson... *shrugs*... I've heard it used commonly enough. It's just a matter of making language more inclusive. As Commie pointed out, man was originally neuter, but it's become quite exclusive these days. I have no problem using Chairperson, or using the phrase "he or she" or other ways of being inclusive.

Where I think political correctness gets out of hand is when people start objecting to things like... we shouldn't use the word "handicapped" because it meant that they were begging for money ("Hand in Cap")... which, honestly, I'm not sure of the etymology of. Or, calling someone a "moron," because it can also be used in a medical sense. Give it up, people.

"Feminism" is one of those words that I wish would be more clearly defined. If it means equal rights for both sexes, then I'm definitely a feminist, sure, great. If, as I am taught in my sociology classes, it means the theory that society is characterised by the patriarchal oppression of women - much as Marxist theory characterises society by the oppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie - then I'm not a feminist, I lean much more in the direction of postmodernism.

Sexism goes beyond just the choice of words, it permeates into grammar as well. Example : non-specific or plural referents being assumed as male for pronoun usage.

"Someone who shares views such as these will have a hard time defending his belliefs."

I believe this is a grammatically acceptable utterance. Can anyone explain why the pronoun "his" can be used when whoever "someone" is has a 50% chance of being a woman?

(I've seen incredibly convoulted and nearly unreadable sentences being perpetrated in the name of a pc-desire to avoid this kind of thing.)

See, I like the idea of titling an office or whatever with "person." Chairperson, spokesperson, etc. are all good, but the person himself/herself could be construed as a chairman or spokeswoman.

The only problem is when political correctness goes to far. Regarding the gender department, George Carlin (a great modern-day philosopher) pointed out that when it goes to far, the round metal things in the streets are called personhole covers; you wear a letterperson jacket; a lady's man is a person's person; kids get scared by the bogey person; the list goes on. Sure, it may not get that bad, but you cats get the point.

And look, I'm against any kind of power regarding men, women, blacks hispanics, whites, whatever. I hate that whole notion. I'm for people power and equality for people. There's inequality and descrimination from all angles whether you want to believe it or not. Let's tackel the whole problem, not bits and pieces.

BTW, a quick note: I hate political correctness and will fight it however possible, mainly by not adhering to it.

EDIT:

That's just the way the English language works. I prefer "his/her," "he/she," "him/her" and "himself/herself" not because I like to be PC (proceeds to vomit) but to be completely clear when talking in abstract.

PS- Is the band HIM sexist because they don't have the name "HER" or "THEM" or "NON-GENDER SPACIFIC"?

I don't think a lot of people are really offended when you say things like "black" or "short" or "fat". They argue for the sake of arguing. If they really wanted to be treated equally, they wouldn't make it a big deal in the first place. By blowing political corectness out of proportion like they are, the "victims" are drawing a thicker line between them and majorities.

PC is all about not hurting anyone's feelings. But if there were no political corectness in the first place, then no one would know what and what not to be offended about. It's a set of rules we made ourselves.

But, you see, it's a fairly easy task to use inclusive language in these cases and the incredibly unreadable and/or convoluted sentences could easily be rewritten in order to use the inclusive language.

The thing is, 50% of the time, you're wrong if you use "he" alone.

"Someone who shares views such as these will have a hard time defending his or her beliefs."

Really no more difficult.

Feminism is a vague word, indeed, and has many definitions. But so does any group that one belongs to. Easy example: What is a Christian? A follower of Christ? A believer in Christ? Someone who has accepted Jesus into their hearts? Someone who believes in Jesus as "The Saviour of the World"? A Mormon? A Catholic? A Protestant? Do they have to believe the Bible is the Word of God? What if they are from the Coptic Church and accept the Book of Enoch as inspired canon? What if they view Christ as a philosopher, but still regularly attend church? What if they deny the Trinity? What if... any number of heresies are part of their belief system?

[EDIT: That was rather convoluted. I think my point was that everyone has a different definition, so when it comes down to it, its what the individual believes, or calls themselves, that gives their own particular spin on it. If I say I'm a feminist, then by my definition of feminism, I'm a feminist.]

At its most basic, the dictionary defines feminism as "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes." Whether or not you believe society itself is characterised by the patriarchy or not is really but one aspect of the feminist theory.

I also hate political correctness. I recently had a geography exam where i had to explain why the poorer area of a city had a higher percentage of 'ethnic minority' population as opposed to a richer area of a city. that question, based on the information given, was practically impossible to answer without potentially offending someone because of being politically incorrect.

Arg!

Some people will go out of their way to be offended on behalf of a certain race/age group/ gender/ sexual orientation and its just cack when the people they are 'pretecting', on the whole, are sensible enough not to care less.

The thing is women moan about men not being a "gentleman" and letting them go first, but are feminists. I then loudly shout "Get Stuffed!" at them.

The real point about the first point is that originally in society men were alot more important, and woman were only good for cooking and cleaning. Meaning that they wouldn't be chairpeople or chairpersons. What is it? Anyway they didn't bother with it and chairwoman sounds stupid. So they make it chairperson. But people don't complain about spokesperson.

Tigersong


I agree that this is easy to do, but it has one flaw that is a little bit important to me : it lacks beauty.

One sentence standing alone like this is tolerable, but scatter five or six of them over the space of 2 or 3 paragraphs on a page? No, thank you. It creates clunky prose and very often it's going to mess up the rhythm of the sentence as a whole, and probbaly alter to some degree the overall effect of whatever piece I'm writing.

Basically, if I have to choose between truth and beauty, I guess I'll vote for the supermodel, haha ...

But I have another solution, which I've seen used from time to time to good effect : use "he" and then later "she," and alternate "him" and "her," in a similar manner when writng abstract and specific sentences.

"If the pilot is experiencing difficulty, she needs to radio the control tower immediately."

I like this because the only clunkiness involved is a slight challenge to my set of preconcieved notions - pilot? she? what? - and the truth is I like being challenged in that way ... true, it can be distracting because it's not what we are used to hearing or reading, but after one gfets used it there's very little problem.

The very best solution of all, of course, is to avoid abstract and nonspecific sentences altogether, or as much as possible. Fortunately, I'm not a bureaucrat, so there's not much need for me to have to use that kind of writing. The best sort of prose, the kind people want to read and enjoy reading is very specific and uses very little in the way of abstractions - if there are overarching ideas to be conveyed, the reader is given credit to possess the tools needed to reach those conclusions naturally, and the ideas that percolate up as a result of that process are more profound and valuable for the route they took.



I agree that people need to be allowed to define themselves, but unfortunately most people who discourse on such matters do not give enough attention to nuanced differences, do they?* If you are a feminist, what texture is your particular variety? Steinem or Dworkin? de Beauvior or Emma Goldman?

I think inclusiveness is vital, but I think what many people are reacting to is that language is being harnessed as part of a struggle about race and class - what this at times results in is attempts to "include" everyone EXCEPT those identified as from a group labeled as "exploiters." Within certain groups of people I have found myself needing to make all kinds of clear statements about my views in order to provide credentials to offset the fact that I am male, with pale skin and blue eyes and have an Anglo-Saxon surname - another person might not need to provide the same assurances in such a group merely due to the fact of being a woman, or having an hispanic surname, or havingdark-toned skin.

It's "identity politics." It's pc-ville. It's why a lot of people get fed up with the whole thing.
_______

* Another solution to the non-specifiic referent conundrum is to use plurals. Thankfully, English needs no gender sistinctions for plural pronouns.
________

Mutilation


In a lot of places, you can just say, "Chair," for man or woman. Doesn't work for "Spokes," though ...

(Thing is, to me, if you call someone a "spokeswoman," it gives the impression that she is expressing a specifically female point of view, and that's usually not accurate if they are making statements on behalf of a govt or corp.)

acid_rain_child


It's true to some extent about most rules, the fact that we made them ourselves. In the case of grammar, as I was referring to before, it's a slow and gradual process, but in most cases the "rules" that became written down were done so by male grammarians. Prior to that, most of the written communication that happened was between men or between a very small minority women from the ruling families of a society. In many cultures, and for a long time, it was not considered proper or necessary even to teach reading and writing to young girls at all.

And I don't want to offend, so I hope I won't, but I think you are mistaken if you think people need pc-culture to tell them when to be offended. If I become offended by something, believe me, it's pretty natural and I seldom need anyone to tell me when I ought to feel that way.

And it's a little more than just hurting people's feelings. As Tigersong hinted, it's about including people or excluding tham. That's a pretty important thing, I think.

righteous:

Language constantly evolves, and we have the choice to try and alter that evolution if we care to. Every time you write or speak or chat you are participating or cooperating in the creation of new language forms or the perpetuating of old ones. We can decide what we want to keep and what we want to throw out. It's not something you or I decide, it's a thing that whole societies gradually arrive at a consensus about, then later perhaps decide to challenge the consensus ... them maybe challenge it again and put it back.

If we choose to participate, that is. Even trying to opt out of it is itself a decision, though.

Bobster,

I agree with the majority of your points. For a long time, I argued with my fiancee about using phrases like "him or her" or "he or she" and how clunky it can sometimes sound... in the end though, I have to fall back on this method of inclusiveness. I agree that alternating between "he" and "she" can work, but I find it horribly distracting, and for me that ruins the writing more than "he or she" would.


The unfortunate thing that comes out of this, however, is that people tend to abuse the word "they." They use it as a singular non-gender specific pronoun.

"If the pilot is experiencing difficulty, they need to radio the control tower immediately."

This really gets on my nerves, because pilot is singular and needs a singular pronoun. Probably the one area where I become a bit grammar-Nazi-ish!

We should go with Jaq's solution she has suggested to me on many occasions... it comes from some science fiction novel, but I don't remember which one. (Anyone want to help me out here?) Use the word "per" as a singular, non-gender specific pronoun.

"If the pilot is experiencing difficulty, per needs to radio the control tower immediately."

A creative solution, although probably not practical!

I agree that this is word abuse of such a high order that statutory penalties ought to be imposed. (Joking. Sort of.) The worst crime is that it invites confusion such that we might logically theink that "they" refers to the passengers ... or something.




Might be able to help you. I'm not sure, but the title you could be trying to think of is poking its nose at me from the depths of your signature.

The one I'm thinking of is called The Left Hand of Darkness and the author, Ursula K LeGuin, has been on my list of 20th Century Geniuses since I first discovered her novels as a teenager. It posits a planet populated by a race that had obviously been genetically engineered to have no gender (why remains a mystery) where everyone is completely lacking in sexual characteristics until a particular moment arrives when they need to copulate, at which point their bodies decide the issue for them as a temporary compromise - the point being of course, that this is the only part of our existence that truly requires any distinctions between men and women.

(I've read there are certain species of insects where individuals can sometimes change gender when the need arises, so don't discount this as merel fantasy.)

Now, obviously, the author had to make some decisions about grammar, so she invented some pronouns that don't actually exist. Yeah, it's distracting, but she wanted it to be - I believe the first sentence of the novel reads, "The King was pregnant," and every page after that continues to challenge your assumptions in much the same way.

An incredible work of fiction - you read it and most of the time you are wondering why it is anyone thought they could get it published.

(I often make this kind of mistake, by the way - I seriously thought West Wing would never last beyond half a season when I saw how good it was. "Wait a minute. This IS American television, right?")

Thing is, despite the novel set of pronouns and the carefully explained planetary culture, I found myself mentally assigning genders to the characters depending on what their roles in the society happened to be. If a character was a soldier, in my mind this was a male character, didn't matter how clearly the author had explained otherwise, and if the character was primarily devoted to raising children, well, that's female ... had to read the darn book a second time before I realized the tricks my mind was playing with it.

I think this hints at the underlying conundrum faced by feminism even today : we do this, and I don't think I am unique. Even women do this - maybe especially women. And no one forces them to. Here in Korea - a very conservative society - I often despair that the brightest of my girl stiudents aspire to be a nurse, but seldom a doctor, a secretary but seldom an entrepreneur, and (back to the airlines) so many want to be stewardesses but so very few ever do dream of being the pilot ....

And it's tempting to blame some constructed notion of "The Patriarchy" as being the source of all this, but no such thing actually exists. I used to have this theory that The Patriarchy is an actual bunch of old guys puffing on cigars in a room some place, making decisions that ultimately result in racism/sexism/ageism/classism (fill in your own -ism), and ... well, you know, like, if we could just find those guys, if we could FIND them, we could confront them and say, "Hey! We know what you're doing - we know know everything you're up to, so just KNOCK IT OFF! Got that?"

Truth is, and it's a sad one ... we human beings usually make our own cages, don't we?

I've not got the time at the moment to put in a long post about this so I'll summarise:

1. from the original post on the idea of the use of gay, I've found it frustrating from the opposite direction. I find it a little annoying that when you want to describe a homosexual that is male you have to say 'gay man', whereas if I was describing a homosexual woman I can say 'lesbian'. I find it annoying that there isn't really any mainstream acceptable term for a gay male purely because of the non-gender specific nature of the term 'gay' (which, as a sidenote, was originally an acronym for 'Good As You').

2. The elegance of the sentance can often be preserved while keeping it gender neutral by using 'them', 'their', and 'they', so the example that's been used would end up like this:

'Someone who shares views such as these will have a hard time defending their beliefs.'

This preserves the universality of the reference as well as the stylistic impact of the prose.

Agghhh! *puts a red slash through that sentence*

Number agreement, Mata. "Their" and "them" both imply more than one person. Like Geoff already pointed out, you cannot refer to one person as a "them." I myself prefer to use s/he when writing, and simply choose either she or he to say out loud while reading it. You could also refer to them as "one," but I don't really like the sound of that.

Anyway, back on topic. Political correctness. I don't mind words like white or black. I personally have never even known any black people who wanted to be referred to as African American. However, I cannot stand slurs. There are certain instances where groups try to take a slur that was derogatory towards them and turn it around into being a positive thing...and that I'm okay with. But beyond that...using slurs isn't a matter of not being politically correct. It's a matter of simply having no class.

Agreed. I clearly recall Dennis Miller using words like "camel jockey" in the months leading up to the war, and how I cringed and felt ashamed that it was tolerated - I really think if anyone had called him on it their patriotism would have been in question.

Using race, social class or religion to make an argument tends to show that a position is untenable if it can't be persuaded by other means.



I have to agree that, as a grammar teacher I would probably use the dreaded red pen on that one .... pronouns do commuicate meaning in English, after all.

You could just use it. It is very intelligent. It is a homosexual etc.

Unfortunately not, Mutilation, because I believe there's a rule that people aren't referred to as "it", but other animals are.

I like that idea of writing it s/he...

Bothersome language at times

"One" is a good pronoun when used in abstract. One could ask why one must use non-gender specific pronouns. One could be referring to either gender. One doesn't have to specify which.

It's great for everyone!

One could also be accused of overblown pompousness, as well.

It's not meant to sound pompous. I use it all the time and no one has accused me of being as such for it. Besides, it's never my intention to be pompous in the first place, so what does it matter?

*... coughhack*

Alrighty. I apologize in advance for reiterating previous points and perhaps, in fact, being somewhat rude - but it's how I operate.

When used in the abstract, the term 'he' is generally used, yes; even my english teachers have been guilty of such indiscretions. It is MOST LIKELY because of that little two-thousand-year-old book that's been translated all to hell (no pun intended) that was, of course, written and translated by men, and therefore the use of the term 'he' in all gender-inspecific situations. Yes. The Bible. I'm willing to believe that it all started there - male priests, male scholars, things like that. While in some countries and religions women are worshipped (being, of course, the bearers of children and such) men are still the ones to write the books and preach to the proverbial choir.

So. In the recent thing with PC-ness, women have decided that they want to be equal, which I fully believe in. I think it's wrong that whether or not one has a penis shouldn't justify a higher pay or a comfier office seat. I also don't think that skin color should have anything to do with it.

(Although, as a side note, I could rant all day about how illegal aliens are stealing taxpaying American's jobs and reaping the benefits of a governmental system that they do not help support. Not to be racist, but all the Mexicans, all the Asians and Puetro Ricans and Europeans and everyone here that works and sends money back to their families in where-ever needs to get the hell out. They're draining the economy. And if they want to stay, then they need to get citizenship and pay the taxes. Anyway.)

I live in a town that is, by my definition, segregated. There are two sides of the tracks; the black side, and the white side. The people here are racist, even if they don't admit it, and it makes me sick to my stomach. I'll readily admit to being a left-wing, a liberal, and a potential civil-rights activist (do near-fistfights in social studies over gay rights count as activism?) and I believe... that people should be equal.

But I also think that taking this too far... is already making everyone suffer. I am a female, I think that everyone should have equal oppourtunity and whatnot, and I think that saying "Someone who shares views such as these will have a hard time defending his beliefs." is perfectly alright. I also think that the phrase Someone who shares views such as these will have a hard time defending her beliefs." is fine. In the abstract, sex doesn't matter. The statement's purpose is to convey the fact that whatever view it is would be hard to defend when challenged. A man saying that would likely go with 'he' and a woman would go with 'she'; there's also the issue of who you're speaking to. I prefer the phrase as below, though.

"A person trying to defend that particular view would be faced with a rather difficult opposition."

... Or something along those lines. I think I've burned out, so I'll stop there.

(Oh, yes. And the racist terms - "ch*nks, g**ks, n***ers, k**ks etc" - are completely, absolutely out of line. There is no reason to judge an entire group of people in that manner, whether you're referring to a religion, race, or gender.)

Also. The band HIM is "His Infernal Majesty" or something like that. The acronym could also be "HER Infernal Majesty" so. *smile* It's 'his' because the singer (gasp) is MALE!

If you really do use it all the time and nobody has accused you of being pompous, then I can only surmise that they must fear you in some way ... no, seriously, there are times when you want to speak with an air of authority and using "one" is a grammatical construction that lends itself to that - there are other times, possibly the majority of cases, when that will simply put people off and annoy them so much that they don't listen to the ideas you are expressing.

Sorry my comment came off as snide and insulting. I've been criticized elsewhere for being too verbose on message boards, and one reason I know I tend to use 7 seven paragraphs when one would do the job is that I can expalin my case in more detail and avoid the sort of bluntness that is likely to offend, which is more often likely to happen in posts when I try to do it one sentence.

I persist in thinking the root problem is one of trying to write abstract sentences when creating an example or building a scenario or offering anecdote from personal experience is a better solution for the writer.

Well, factor in my occasional seventies vernacular, skate slang, swearing and the hundreds of inside terms I use, my guess is people who meet me, especially upon learning at least part of who and what I am, disregard it as pompous and just see it as another odd part of me. That and I have an obsessive-compulsive personality and just want to have my English be as good as possible.



What makes you think I don't? I am a writer and do want to get my points accross so why not use an ecclectic mix of techniques?


Dude, you've never seen me. I'm a short, fat guy who alsmost always looks like a semi-organized haggard mess. When it comes to appearence and the general way I do my best for my friends and family and even cats I've only just met, I'm like a disheveled puppy-dog (with an occasional bad temper...). Spiffy, DOH and Aislinn can account for that.

Okay. Back to business.


Agreed, especially when one factors in that gender won't effect the outcome of the abstract situation.


And I'm somewhere between a minarchist and an anarcho-capitalist and an all for civil rights (yes the near-fistfights count; I've been in a few myself). My question is, does political correctness help, hurt, hinder, both or neither? If so, whom?

Some bloke told me last weekend that he'd read an article in a newspaper about the Postman Pat theme song. For those of you who are unfamiliar with his-postyness, the song goes:

"Postman Pat, Postman Pat, Postman Pat and his black and white cat"

Now apparently, this is rascist in some obscure way, and the theme song has to be changed. This is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. I'm not entirely sure about the validity of this, since it was only told to me by someone else (that I had never met before), but it's a good example of going too far. Way too far. The cat is black and white, and that's a fact. In no way does it discriminate against anyone because of the colour of their skin. In my opinion, the fact that someone wants it changed is almost rascist in itself, as it is bringing up the issue where is no reason for it. This is not being politically correct.
I think the bloke also said that a gay character had to be introduced, which is stupid. From what I remember of Postman Pat there isn't a lot of focus on relationships in the story, so a lot of the characters could already be gay. I feel that emphasising things like this does not help the problem, if indeed there is any problem at all.

After all that, the bloke was probably wrong.

Maybe the ginger cats felt left out...? Were threatening to riot on the streets, that kind of thing.

I hear it happens a lot, is all...

I'll shut up now.