Political Correctness... Too far, or absolutely correct?


I find political correctness is just a term people use to describe something they disagree with. What they actually mean is it is incorrect, but they can’t come up with the argument to support it, so they just term it politically correct. It is like fouls in football that are described as ‘technically correct’. In other words, I know it’s illegal, but all right thinking people (i.e. people who agree with me), wouldn’t actually give it even through its against the rules.

A useful thing for people who think stuff is too politically correct is to go back 50 years and consider where the world was at then in relation to similar type issues and what the people back then thought was politically correct or not. Or go back further.

But basically I think things are correct or incorrect, to label something politically correct is to disingenuously put a motive to something to further enhance your point that something is just incorrect.


Or it requires them to make a change to their thinking. Or admit their current away of thinking is wrong/out dated/insensitive. People are naturally wired to not want to do that.


I get ya. Upfront, the tissue thing does seem daft. In a very basic marketing sense, a man size tissue is one for men, because they have bigger noses that produce more snot, so they need a bigger tissue. Right. Easy peasy. That is that sorted so.

It’s not always that simple.

In pure marketing terms, ‘man sized’ is often used to imply something large, strong, powerful, durable…all traits that are prized and valued by society.

But what if something does not have the word ‘man’ in its description, or even worse, has a female description, does it automatically follow that it is small, soft, weak, lacking in durabilty etc? All traits that are often a lesser value in society.

At what point do you start to think that gender neutral phrases and descriptions are fairer, are more correct and will lead to less implicit assumptions that Item A is always good/strong/ because of its name and Item B is weak/puny because of its name?

For what it’s worth, I think both the tissue & snowman debates are silly. But where do you draw the line? What about the recent debate on the BBC about using the word “masterpiece” to describe a great work by an artist?
Why should that have a purely male noun?

Once upon a time, all artists and composers and authors of note were men, so that may explain that. That is starting to change now, not fast enough for my liking, but it is changing. Should language not change with it sometimes, to reflect the changes in society?


So, there will be a new series on the Beeb called mistresschef?


Oh I do love it when other Ressers make my point for me.

Good man Beeks ! :wink:


The term " man " (from Proto-Germanic *mannaz or *manwaz “man, person”) and words derived from it can designate any or even all of the human race regardless of their sex or age. In traditional usage, man (without an article) itself refers to the species, to humanity, or “mankind”, as a whole.




Have a friend is a teacher in California.
Some schools don’t have Christmas trees now, they are referred to as “holiday trees”.
Or the job centre in England who wouldn’t post a vacancy ad containing the words “hardworking & reliable “, as it may offend “unreliable people”.
Effin madness.


The job centre ad is seriously taking the piss, but replacing ‘Christmas’ with the ‘Holiday’ or ‘Seasonal’ has been done in the States for ages. I’ve no problem with it, given that Hanukkah is so close to Christmas & the one word covers both.


Friend’s issue is that it was enforced by the district education board, even though it had never been an issue in a lot of schools.


How would she know though?

Did she do a poll of every pupil & every parent in every school in the school district, every morning?

If it is a state school, it’s supposed to be non-denominational. Just because no parent or child ever went to her & said they found overtly religious symbols (I know, I know…it’s just an effin’ tree) in the school to be offensive, it doesn’t mean they aren’t bothered by them.

Mind you, they still have to do that stupid flag pledge thing every morning and that references God, so what the heck do I know? :woman_shrugging:


Of course she didn’t. But the majority of students are of Mexican descent.
Putting up the tree each year was a big occasion.


So by that logic, if the majority of the kids in your kids school are Protestant, it is ok for them to put up nice big posters of the Queen all over the place?

Eh, okey dokey then. :wink:


They did.
In my daughter’s primary school
& sent her home with a poppy every year!
When I asked if they would be issuing Easter Lilys I was met with looks of horror.
But comparing a Christmas celebration to displaying Unionist/Loyalist emblems is
a separate issue in my humble opinion.



The same principle is at play here.

The majority imposing the symbols of their culture on a minority that do not share their beliefs.


Is a Christmas Tree, or calling it a Christmas Tree, that offensive to some?


The world is fucked.


A Christmas tree will aways be a Christmas tree to me and to anyone with half a brain, given the bloody things were invented to celebrate Christmas specifically. Calling it a Seasons Greetings tree or a Holiday Tree is just stupid to me.

But that is just me. And you. And possibly your California friend, who were all raised in the same Christian traditions & grew up celebrating Christmas & all it represents. But not everyone did.

If you are a Sikh kid in that school, or a Jewish kid, or a Muslim kid, or maybe from an atheist background, the presence of Christian symbols (including our poor, forlorn tree) may make you feel left out, or different.

As much as I love all things Christmas related, it’s not the most inclusive of words, especially if it’s being used in an environment (like a school) that is supposed to be non denominational.


That’s a good post.
I couldn’t take issue with any of it.
But I still think we are at a point where there is far too much sensitivity on certain issues.
I suppose it’s the point of this thread.
Do you think that some protests against symbols, language, opinions are sometimes made for the sake of scoring points & not a genuine objection?


Maybe. Some times. It depends on the topic & the context I suppose. Different people prioritize different things to be bothered by. Institutionalized sexism in the work place, bothers me far more than it does you. Anti Catholic discrimination in Northern Ireland bothers you, more than it does me. Our own life & life experiences will dictate that.

But as long as we all hate Vincent’s, langers and putting lentils in coddle, we’ll be ok.