• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Political correctness

Pah

Uber all member
Mr_Spinkles said:
I am a supposed beneficiary of the tradition of white males "being on top" but I would say the pendulum has swung the other way...it is a disadvantage to be a white male nowadays in many respects. I am made to feel like I, being a white male, am the "bad guy" all the time....in movies, TV, etc. it's always a white male killer, or a white male boss sexually harassing a woman. In American history, the main bad guys are white men--Nazis, slave owners, British redcoats, the KKK, and Native American killers. It's socially acceptable to make criticisms of white men, like they have no rhythm, or they are boring. Even in the classroom, I can't make the following comment without being ganged up on by all the girls as a sexist pig: "Why is it that there are more girls than boys in the AP classes, yet girls score lower than boys on the SAT's?" These facts are accurate, but coming from a white male they are more readily interpreted as sexist or racist. Plus I am at a disadvantage applying to colleges and jobs before my credentials are even looked at simply because I am a white male--no other reason.

My great grandpa came to the U.S. because life was so terrible in Germany and war was about to break out. My dad was very poor but he worked his way through college. Many of his classes in the engineering school were filled with foreign students getting free tuition. He skipped meals a lot during college, worked multiple jobs and night shifts, and spent many years afterwards paying off debts. Is this the "being on top" tradition of which I am a beneficiary?

I am not saying PC is totally wrong, I just think reverse discrimination is wrong.

Let's leave aside your youth for the moment.

One only has to look at the power structure in politics and the corporate world to see where being white and male has it's most prevasive advantages. Heads of state and companies are overwhelmingly male - a woman has far less chance of acheiving that post in relation to the population pool. Blacks are not in positions of power commesurate with their percentage of the general population The "ol' boy network" is alive and well.and works to the disadvantge of blacks and women. Searches for candiates amongst women and blacks, in both spheres, is frequently viewed as "tokenism" when the "odd" minority is chosen.

The military favors males in the structure of the chain of command. Women can serve in the military but are largely kept on the periphery of combat. Women take the brunt of most cases of fratenization and adultery.

The church is another area where males predominate. Where women are "allowed" to become clergy, they infrequently ascending to the top of ladder in sectarian governence.

In the whole of the job matket and apart from minimum wage jobs, women are still paid less for the same amount and quality of work. Suits against this practice are still being filed against giants like Wal-Mart. The work place is crudely sexist in character in many places.

You could also look at the "profiling" security officials use. Being in the "wrong" neighborhood will generate different responses from passing police depending on your color and sex. You are far more likely to be stopped while driving a car if you are black. Airport security is based in part upon racial characteristics - a woman with a head scarf is suspicious.

In academia, the world of youth, primary education escapes some of the injustice but it is still prevelanct amongst the private acadamies. Students from the "wrong side of the tracks" are largely seen as tokens to diversity. Money is a basic requirement in admission and the poor are disproportionally black. State secondary education is largely responsive to the population but depends on acheivement from primary education. Black neighborhood schools still are inferior to the white, middle class sunburbia. and the students of these schools suffer from lack of elementary training. Poverty and education are vicious blocks to admission to the mainstream and can only produce a larger poor population. Education is the only way out - a "leveling of the field" so to speak.

There is a question of justice here. Are blacks to be relegated to the second tier of wealth because thier ancestors were forced into a secondary way of life by whites? When and where does that cycle end if not in secondary education? Are you personally disadvanteged? - perhaps. Is is a "payment" for the disadvantage imposed by our ancestors? - yes. I dare say that your great grandfather would not have been able to work his way through a secondary education if he had had dark skin ( it also sounds like so many of the stories of today's youth whose parents can not afford tuition - it is not uncommon). There is every likelyhood that you would be iin a lower level of middle class until some male in your lineage was able to get through college and better afford the opportunity available to you. (I realize I know nothing of your circumstances so take this as a generality if it doen't apply personally).

I also think that any disadvantage you suffer for education at a lesser known secondary school, disappears when it is time to secure your place in the job market. You will be judged on performance and acheivement and that will transfer to other , better compensated positions within and without your employ.

Your feelings of being a "bad guy" are reflective in the "evil" population. Until intergration began to take hold, many black heros (cowboys, civil war soldiers, black units in the World Wars, etc) were ignored. America was the white, two (predominently male) children, family (with the "homemaker" staying home) in movies and television. It is time for a little reality.
 
pah-- You make some very good points, and I agree with you for the most part. However, there are still some things that are not clear.

Just because the workforce is predominantly white and male, does not necessarily mean that the *cause* of this is discrimination against blacks or women. The NFL and the NBA are largely black, but I'm sure we agree that this is not the result of discrimination against whites. Jews have a much higher average income than non-Jews...but that does not necessarily mean discrimination occurs against non-Jews. There are reasons, other than blatant sexism, that women make less than men on average. And just as discrimination against whites is not the reason the NBA is primarily black, discrimination against women is not the reason the military is primarily male. Let's look at reality, as you said--on the whole, men have more physical strength than women, and women can disrupt combat efficiency (men feel obligated to risk their lives saving a woman who is wounded moreso than a man). Not to mention a lot fewer women than men feel inclined to join the military.

In the business world, women have to be given maternity leave...from a company's standpoint, that makes them a slightly worse investment than a man. Also, women tend not to be as aggressive as men in seeking a raise or negotiating their starting salary. I am not saying sexism never occurs...just that the issue is more complicated than simple sexism. Keep in mind the example of the NBA and NFL.

The poor folks in inner cities are mostly black, and this is due to historical discrimination against blacks--I agree with you there. However, continuing poverty among blacks does not necessarily mean discrimination is also continuing. All it means is that disadvantaged people (whether they are black or white) have disadvantaged kids, who have a harder time being successful. I do not think it is a race issue as much as it is a financial issue. You have to consider the question: are they less successful because they are black, or because they are poor? In my opinion (though I could be wrong) it is mainly because they are poor...that is why I am against reverse racial discrimination--it sidesteps the real causes.

Maybe instead of having racial quotas we should have 'financial quotas' based on family income. All the truly disadvantaged blacks would still benefit greatly from this, and plus it would not be discriminatory against all whites. I doubt many colleges would go for this, though...they want those rich kids with legacy so badly they can taste it...they know full well those are the alums who donate the most.

Also, my father might have had a much easier time getting through college if he had dark skin--particularly if he had been Indian or Chinese, as many of the other engineering students received scholarships for being foreign. Besides, my ancestors did not impose a disadvantage on anyone...they came from Europe at the beginning of the 20th century, and were too poor to "impose" a disadvantage on others. That's the problem with political correctness--it lumps people into groups, rather than treating people as individuals. Maybe all the aristocrats in Europe should send me money for the disadvantage they imposed on my peasant ancestors...

I definitely agree with you that its time for reality. But to be fair: back in the 50's most women did stay home as a homemaker--and America was predominantly white--that was reality. I agree black heroes should not be ignored. (The Tuskegee Airmen is one of my favorite movies!) Still, we do not accomplish reality by making every angel on TV or in movies a black person, for example...that's just PC hypocrisy.
 

Rex

Founder
Mr. Spinkles

I don't think the equal rights movement for women has even passed congress yet, as suprising as that sounds.

Thus they are being descriminated against, still today.

:roll:
 

trishtrish10

Active Member
for uncommon carnal knowledge. the first letters of each of these words were engraved at the bottom of the stockade where adulterers during the puritanical age sere secured and eggs and stones and sticks were thrown at them. of course this word is now pic, or politically incorrect like smoking which bothers some people.
 

standing_on_one_foot

Well-Known Member
trishtrish10 said:
for uncommon carnal knowledge. the first letters of each of these words were engraved at the bottom of the stockade where adulterers during the puritanical age sere secured and eggs and stones and sticks were thrown at them. of course this word is now pic, or politically incorrect like smoking which bothers some people.

Hmm. Interesting play on words there, then (the original word is from Old English). Didn't know that before. Learn something new every day, don't you?

Anyway, about PC. Too much is bad, I think, if taken to ridiculous levels. However, a certain amount certainly seems more than reasonable. Actually, it's almost more the effort than the actual language used that I approve of. The fact that people recognize some of the biases in our language and culture and try to deal with them (even if it's not always in the best way) seems, to me, a good thing. The fact that some people use politically incorrect terms *because* they're shocking is an interesting turn of things. It means that we're noticing that sort of thing more, and we're uncomfortable with it. At the least, it strikes me as a step in the right direction.
 

trishtrish10

Active Member
pc is just society's way of saying what may be morally right or a way of ethics. u may scratch urself at home in a certain way u wouldn't in public. course there are immoral pc's such as some immoral beliefs made out to look plausibly right as in abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment etc.
 
Top