In what ways have you politically corrected yourself?

29 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sat, 2008-01-05 16:03

I'm talking about in formal speech or writing. For example if you were speaking in a meeting or writing a business letter.

Have you changed your use of language in any way to be a bit more PC?

Most people seem wary of political correctness especially when it is taken to extremes, but I must admit I have made a few changes.

When talking about people in general I now say 'he or she' or more likely 'they' whereas a few years ago I would have just used 'he'.

I also avoid saying 'husbands and wives' and instead talk about 'partners'. I also tend to avoid words or phrases like 'Christian name' or 'crusade'.

Hardly earth shattering changes but they are undoubtedly PC inspired.

So what changes have you noticed yourself making? Do you find yourself expressing certain things differently now from the way you did a few years ago, just to play safe or avoid causing offence?

Sat, 2008-01-05 17:00

drew_gummerson

I haven't really had to correct myself as I wasn't in the past a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot.

Sat, 2008-01-05 17:13

Lorraine_Mace

www.lorrainemace.com I do edit carefully to avoid any non-pc wording when I'm writing articles, but only because that is what is required from most editors today. In everyday speech, I haven't found it necessary to change the words I use.

www.lorrainemace.com

Tue, 2008-01-08 00:07

brooosh

I've often wondered how he reconciles the two things, Margharita. One theory is that his racist jokes are a way of releasing his negative thoughts about people of other races in what he considers to be a relatively harmless way. Alternatively it could be that he tells the mean jokes so people won't think him a goody goody when he helps others. Being a do gooder is not considered cool in certain places. The important point is that when it really counts he behaves as a good citizen. Having seen him in action I believe it is not an act, but comes from a genuine desire to help other people. As for the words versus deeds debate, the older I get the less important I think words are. Words are cheap. You can use them to say any old bullshit, and people invariably do. Actions on the other hand generally involve time and effort and in my view say a lot more about the person behind them.

Sat, 2008-01-05 17:29

crush

I work in a multicultural workplace and before Christmas found myself saying to everyone, Christian, Atheist, Hindu, Muslim or whatever - hope you have a happy holiday! or even worse - Happy holidays! Whereas what I wanted to say was Merry Christmas! - a phrase that makes me hear the jingle of bells.

Sat, 2008-01-05 18:24

Foster

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying 'Happy Holidays'. When I say that, am I being PC? Never thought of it that way.

Mon, 2008-01-07 09:25

poetjude

In the Catholic Church there has been a move lately to follow some of the Anglicans and use inclusive language in services and not to refer to God by gender specific pronoun. So the old vs new: '...and all His church - 'and all God's church' 'He gave His only begotten Son' - 'God's only begotten Son was given' 'it is right to give Him thanks and praise' - 'it is right to give God thanks and praise' etc. So when it comes to these points in the service I use the old language. The choice is left to the individual and 90%+ of the congregation agree with me. In fact, the call for change is coming from a minority of people of a particular (older) generation and there is huge resistance from the younger faithful. It's a metaphor, not at all sexist and quite obviously does not mean that we believe God is sitting in heaven scratching His nads. jude

Mon, 2008-01-07 09:29

poetjude

...I haven't yet heard anyone saying the Our Parent (who art in heaven) but it's probably only a matter of time!!!

Mon, 2008-01-07 09:39

maddan

Doubtlessly some of it has crept in, but I don't think I've consciously changed the way I talk. I don't tell my "there's a nip in the air - as they said at pearl harbour" joke so much these days, but that's mostly because everyone's already heard it.

Mon, 2008-01-07 10:55

#10

ggggareth

Hadn't heard that, Dan. Now I'm going to use it at every opportunity.

Mon, 2008-01-07 10:56

#11

ggggareth

I bet Biggus could make that joke rhyme!

Mon, 2008-01-07 11:41

#12

Margharita

I think it's easy to forget how casually racist and sexist some of our language used to be, and I don't think there's anything wrong with being sensitive to things that might cause offence. The phrase 'politically correct' is often, I think, used as a scaremongering tactic to imply that 'they' want to take away Christmas, Baa Baa Black Sheep and manhole covers, all of which is nonsense. Language develops and changes all the time. And nothing should be off limits to humour, as Dan illustrates!

Mon, 2008-01-07 11:53

#13

ggggareth

Quite right Margharita. This thread puts me in mind of the film "Breakfast at Tiffany's" - in so many ways a timeless classic - which has Mickey Rooney's dreadful portrayal of Mr Yunioshi as something neither Japanese nor Chinese. This dates the film more than the New York streets bereft of traffic.

Mon, 2008-01-07 12:16

#14

bobblehat2023

"I think it's easy to forget how casually racist and sexist some of our language used to be, and I don't think there's anything wrong with being sensitive to things that might cause offence." I agree, although what annoys me more is the jokers who ring up radio phone-ins bemoaning the fact that they're no longer 'allowed' to use words that have no function other than to cause offence. I've never worked when, as a white English male, these people plan to give me a vote on whether unprovoked nastiness is a fundamental and valuable part of my culture. That said, I think Broosh is talking more about things that become old fashioned rather than nasty.

Mon, 2008-01-07 12:53

#15

markbrown

I can never see why people would want to stick to using language that they know causes offence, unless they really want to cause offence. It's "I'll call a spade a spade, especially if he's black", isn't it? I have always been quite fastitidious in my attempts to write and speak in a way that isn't based upon a series of outdated suppositions about the way the world is put together. When I say partner, I mean partner of whatever legal status or gender, as I feel those things have equivilence. I don't think that being married is more important than co-habiting, or being heterosexual more important than being homosexual so I don't want to use language that implies that I do. The same with holidays and religious festivals. I don't really want to say 'Merry Christmas' to people who don't celebrate Christmas, because it's a bit like wishing someone happy birthday when it's not their birthday. The rule for me is precision: I want to make sure that the only people I offend are the ones that I intend to offend. Cheers, Mark

Mon, 2008-01-07 14:02

#16

poetjude

How do people think we should treat outdated books and tv? Should we censor 'Dad's Army' because Jones persistently refers to the 'fuzzy wuzzys'? Or should we accept that it was the way war veterans of his generation spoke and is an accurate though fictitious snapshot of history. And then there was the recent brou ha ha over the reprinted 'Tintin in the Congo' comic which depicted black people in a derogatory manner. Borders moved it to adult comic section and Waterstones, WHSMiths and many other stores continued to sell it. Should we accept that a comic written in 1931 is going to reflect the prevalent attitudes in the colonies at the time... or should we consign it to the rubbish bin forever? jude

Mon, 2008-01-07 14:02

#17

drew_gummerson

I don't think you will ever offend anyone by wishing them a happy anything. I wouldn't be offended to be wished a happy Eid, or Diwali, or Chinese New Year etc. In fact, I would be pleased to be so. So Happy Christmas!

Mon, 2008-01-07 14:35

#18

crush

Good point Drew - I always like it when I get a happy diwali or whatever - so why am I being so sensitive?

Mon, 2008-01-07 17:16

#19

bobblehat2023

"How do people think we should treat outdated books and tv? Should we censor 'Dad's Army' because Jones persistently refers to the 'fuzzy wuzzys'?" Well, no because the main reason why that was a joke in the series (produced in the 1970s, mocking life in Britain in the 1940s) because he was a befuddled old bloke using an anachronistic description. I certainly wouldn't call for a ban on old fashioned phrases spoken by fictional characters. And, in many cases, it's perfectly legitimate for actively nasty language to be used by fictional characters. It's different when groups of people are seen as being portrayed in a derogatory manner. Charles Dickens was asked some awkward questions at the time of publication about the seemingly anti-semitic insinuations of at least one of his books (can't remember which one) and I think actually ended up making significant changes to a serialised version when it became a book.

Mon, 2008-01-07 17:19

#20

bobblehat2023

It was, I suppose inevitably, Oliver Twist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4117609.stm

Mon, 2008-01-07 21:22

#21

brooosh

Having started this thread I ought to come clean and say I think that over zealous observance of political correctness can make spoken and written communication hard to follow, not to mention wholly impenetrable. So when that happens it has to be a bad thing, and I try to resist it wherever I reasonably can. There is also something horribly Orwellian about having the language artificially changed (often by people who have no sensitivity to language) rather than it changing naturally through usage. For me the problem lies not so much with the words but with the attitudes of those using them. I have met people who are punctiliously PC in their language yet in their actions display worrying signs of homophobia or racism. On the other hand I have a friend who is very non-PC and tells racist jokes (which make me cringe) but who I have observed being unfailingly respectful and helpful to people of different races. On one occasion in particular I remember a Pakistani colleague losing his job and my friend going to great lengths to find him new employment, while many of his more PC colleagues did nothing. So in my humble view the words are not quite as important as some would have us think. Ultimately the things that really matter are the thoughts and deeds that lie behind the words.

Mon, 2008-01-07 21:55

#22

Lorraine_Mace

www.lorrainemace.com "So in my humble view the words are not quite as important as some would have us think. Ultimately the things that really matter are the thoughts and deeds that lie behind the words." Well said.

www.lorrainemace.com

Mon, 2008-01-07 22:55

#23

Margharita

I think this shows just how complicated the whole thing is. I don't always subscribe to the view that actions speak louder; people can publicly go through the motions but their private conversation indicates that they're only doing what they do because they feel they have to. I'm not suggesting for one moment that this is the case with your friend, broosh, but it would be interesting to know how he or she reconciles racist jokes with what sounds like an otherwise caring and compassionate nature. The thoughts and deeds do indeed really matter, but I firmly believe the words do too.

Tue, 2008-01-08 02:45

#24

Dendrite

At what point slang comes from hate or a wish to oppress or intimidate depends. The problem is you don’t know who to trust and the stakes are so high and history so vile that it seems like we had to institutionalize a distrust of intentions. This is the bothersome thing that seems to make everything a priori in bad faith (not religion) but maybe it shouldn’t be bothersome. It does seem like the war on slang is in the vein of turn in your smoking neighbor though. To come is raise your rates or taxes for obesity, 2 drink maximums and other domicile laws. I predict disappearance of standup, pulp, some noir fiction.

Tue, 2008-01-08 09:10

#25

poetjude

The definition of 'racism' is a broad one but it can be taken to mean holding a paticular set of beliefs about an ethnic group (as a collective). Even positive racist stereotypes are still rascist (for example that Chinese students are study freaks who have no social lives because they're always at their books). If that is the case then I and many people are rascist in some sense in that I feel that if somebody is X they are more likely to be Y (although it is not of course an absolute). For example, I am looking to employ a domestic cleaner for my flat just for a few hours each week and I will employ either an Estonian or a Pole because of mine (and those of friends) previous experiences of employing them. It is a racial stereotype to assume that she will be hard working, thorough, punctual and quite possibly educated to degree level (and that somebody from another ethnic background won't be) but when it comes to spending my own cash, I absolutely trust my own judgement. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

Tue, 2008-01-08 09:28

#26

poetjude

'I've often wondered how he reconciles the two things' Broosh, it is not as hard as you think. I hold some economically right beliefs and have strong convictions about people who play the welfare system and yet I have many friends on job seekers allowance, long term incapacity benefit and income support. I may not always approve of the way they live their lives but that doesn't give me license to be rude, snobbish and ultimately throw away some valuable friendships. On the racist issue, notorious 'scientific rascist' Chris Brand of Edinburgh university (who believes that black people are inherently less intelligent), has according to one of his Phd students been known to regularly entertain people from Ghana and Central Africa and welcomed their company (providing they are intelligent academics)! So holding a belief or telling racist jokes does not make one a full-blooded neo Nazi. jude

Tue, 2008-01-08 11:34

#27

bobblehat2023

"So in my humble view the words are not quite as important as some would have us think. Ultimately the things that really matter are the thoughts and deeds that lie behind the words." I think this depends very much on the basis of the interaction. In most professional contexts, both words and deeds are important (and often inseparable) and thoughts are largely irrelevant. For example, it's right that 'PC' procedures force people working in shops or council offices talk to and treat the interests of people of different races, genders and sexualities with equal value. It's more Orwellian for employers to subject people to interviews to seek out the inner racism or homophobia in the depths of their souls. In a professional context, I think people's unpleasant views are a private matter as long as they don't impact on the job. "I have met people who are punctiliously PC in their language yet in their actions display worrying signs of homophobia or racism." So have I but I don't think that's an argument in favour of racist, sexist or homophobic language.

Tue, 2008-01-08 11:58

#28

poetjude

'In most professional contexts, both words and deeds are important (and often inseparable) and thoughts are largely irrelevant.' That is maybe true but thoughts influence action but intent can be covered up. I know somebody who doesn't employ Africans (its a service industry with high staff turnover). He says the work ethic of Eastern Europeans is better. He follows recruitment procedure to the letter and has a grading/ points system in interview (carried out by two people). It's not hard to disguise intent. Similarly one of his colleagues at a different branch is from a Muslim country and doesn't really believe women should work. His staff team is always predominantly if not exclusively male and again, the paperwork will demonstrate the recruitment process was 'fair'. The fact that thoughts are hard to prove means that people can be discriminated against in a way that cannot be proven. And the reverse side of the coin are the discrimination tribunals that may be won by people who were sacked on perfectly legitimate grounds just trying their luck because they're from a minority group. Most of the fraudulent claims are ruled against but there is a huge cost involved plus the employee has to pay them until the outcome.

Tue, 2008-01-08 17:18

#29

bobblehat2023

What you're talking about there are deeds and there deeds that are wrong. The paperwork isn't really the issue, if a case were brought, it would be extremely difficult for an employer in a semi-skilled industry to justify employing lots of people one ethnic group and none from another if he'd received applications from similar numbers from each. The point is that in the service industries, which are generally non-unionised and where the people applying for the jobs will just apply somewhere else, this kind of practice is unlikely to be formally challenged. "And the reverse side of the coin are the discrimination tribunals that may be won by people who were sacked on perfectly legitimate grounds just trying their luck because they're from a minority group." I agree this happens (there's a few stories about colleagues from my council days that I'll steer clear of to keep TC out of the libel courts) but it's one of the necessary evils of trying to have a system where everyone is equal before the law. The lazy chancers have to have just as much right to put their case as the people who've genuinely been screwed over because, until the case has been heard, you can't tell which is which.

Topic locked