Treating Other People With Respect

[Upchurch]

Just want to point out the "superior" part is something you just added to this hypothetical story, ad hoc.

If we're talking the 1950s or 60s, it's pretty safely assumed.

What went through my head reading ThunderChunky's examples was two dating colleagues being playful at work and a third one eyeing them from afar and muttering to themself "This is so politically incorrect. I will promptly report it to my boss."

Clearly not the situation Mr. Abdul-Jabbar was describing.

ETA: and more of an ad hoc than anything I've said.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

If we're talking the 1950s or 60s, it's pretty safely assumed.

Women had no male colleagues in the 1950s or 60s?

Clearly not the situation Mr. Abdul-Jabbar was describing.

May I suggest that's because it was a situation ThunderChunky was describing?

ETA: and more of an ad hoc than anything I've said.

This makes no sense to me. I'm not sure what you're saying here.

 

[theprestige]

This makes no sense to me. I'm not sure what you're saying here.

He's saying that he doesn't want to consider your scenario because it doesn't match any of the scenarios proposed by other people.

 

[Upchurch]

May I suggest that's because it was a situation ThunderChunky was describing?

This makes no sense to me. I'm not sure what you're saying here.

It means that it is a more unlikely situation given that time period. Even if they are merely coworkers, "Nice job, honey" is demeaning. It's what I say to my 4 year old when she cleans her room, not to my adult coworkers.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

It means that it is a more unlikely situation given that time period. Even if they are merely coworkers, "Nice job, honey" is demeaning. It's what I say to my 4 year old when she cleans her room, not to my adult coworkers.

It's obvious you're not following the conversation. Read what ThunderChunky wrote that example for, how you objected, and how what you're saying here has nothing to do with either of the previous issues.

 

[ThunderChunky]

"Nice job, honey"

What's that supposed to mean, you still haven't separated the harassment from the alleged "degrading" behavior? Some women may like being called honey (by perhaps a specific person or in general) and not find it degrading or harassing. They may actually enjoy it, but it's still not a PC thing to do.

Although, I find your argument that maybe she likes sexual harassment in the workplace a little dubious. Can one really give consent to a workplace superior when they are in a position to treated worse or lose their job if they don't "give consent" to the harassment?

It's not an argument that she "likes sexual harassment" (by definition if she likes it, it's not harassment). It's an example designed to illuminate for you what PC is (since you still don't get it after 16 pages). Something is STILL objectionable to the PC crowd even if everyone involved likes it, consents to it, and wants it. Even if there is no harassment or perceived degradation, an action can still be viewed as non-PC. And of course a subordinate can consent to something like this, to deny them that is to deny their agency.

Regardless, insisting that businessmen not do that to their female coworkers 50 or 60 years ago would certainly be considered "PC". Hell, feminism today is considered "PC".

No, insisting businessmen not harass (by the actual definition of harassment meaning "unwanted") their workers would not be considered PC, this is just an assertion by you as someone who doesn't understand what PC is.. Feminism today often IS PC (for example feminists attacking comedians for making jokes).

 

[Upchurch]

What's that supposed to mean, you still haven't separated the harassment from the alleged "degrading" behavior?

That is the degrading behavior. You seem to have missed a post.

Some women may like being called honey (by perhaps a specific person or in general) and not find it degrading or harassing.

You're going to stick with the "maybe she likes sexism" argument?

It's not an argument that she "likes sexual harassment" (by definition if she likes it, it's not harassment).

Now you're conflating sexism and sexual harassment.

It's an example designed to illuminate for you what PC is (since you still don't get it after 16 pages).

I have a far better understanding than I did a few pages ago. You need to try actually reading what was said.

No, insisting businessmen not harass (by the actual definition of harassment meaning "unwanted") their workers would not be considered PC, this is just an assertion by you as someone who doesn't understand what PC is.. Feminism today often IS PC (for example feminists attacking comedians for making jokes).

This is laughably self-contradictory and proves my point. I'll let you think about it for a while.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

He's saying that he doesn't want to consider your scenario because it doesn't match any of the scenarios proposed by other people.

But it actually matches ThunderChunky's scenario to a T, the very scenario we were talking about.

You can separate them by considering the situation where the woman has consented to being patted on the butt and a third party is the one taking offense.

What went through my head reading ThunderChunky's examples was two dating colleagues being playful at work and a third one eyeing them from afar and muttering to themself "This is so politically incorrect. I will promptly report it to my boss."

And then Upchurch changed the scenario to be about subordinate and superior (where no consent is supposedly possible) and claiming the above mentioned scenarios suggest "she likes sexual harassment".

 

[phiwum]

You're going to stick with the "maybe she likes sexism" argument?

If you call it sexism to enjoy being called "honey", then I'll stick with that argument. I think that there are still places where a term of endearment like "honey" is regarded as acceptable and friendly even in the workplace.

In my experience, such terms are more likely to go the other way around. Surely, those who've lived in the South have had waitresses call them "dear" on occasion.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that terms of endearment are necessarily appropriate in the workplace, but I think it is plausible that some women regard them as a merely friendly gesture and welcome the term. I don't know that I would say such women "like sexism".

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Obama weighs in on PC culture in colleges

"It’s not just sometimes folks who are mad that colleges are too liberal that have a problem. Sometimes there are folks on college campuses who are liberal, and maybe even agree with me on a bunch of issues, who sometimes aren’t listening to the other side, and that’s a problem too. I’ve heard some college campuses where they don’t want to have a guest speaker who is too conservative or they don’t want to read a book if it has language that is offensive to African-Americans or somehow sends a demeaning signal towards women. I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with that either. I don’t agree that you, when you become students at colleges, have to be coddled and protected from different points of view. I think you should be able to — anybody who comes to speak to you and you disagree with, you should have an argument with ‘em. But you shouldn’t silence them by saying, "You can’t come because I'm too sensitive to hear what you have to say." That’s not the way we learn either."​

Source

Seems most news outlets had no problem identifying that what he's talking about is called political correctness, even though Obama never uttered that term.

 

[ThunderChunky]

That is the degrading behavior. You seem to have missed a post.

So it's degrading even if none of the people involved think it is? Can you explain why?

You're going to stick with the "maybe she likes sexism" argument?

Some people actually do like certain forms of sexism (using a very broad definition of the term). Now, can you actually address the point being made that actions between two fully consenting adults can be considered un-PC?

Now you're conflating sexism and sexual harassment.

No, that's what you did when you claimed that a person could want sexual harassment. It's not harassment, by definition, if they want it, but it could theoretically be sexist.

I have a far better understanding than I did a few pages ago. You need to try actually reading what was said.

Right back at you. I explained why your example was incorrect and gave you a better one. One that separates the issues at hand, you have thus far refused to address it.

This is laughably self-contradictory and proves my point. I'll let you think about it for a while.

Are you still letting me think or was that just an excuse for you to fail to address the point? Or maybe you really believe that when comedians make un-PC jokes they are harassing people...

 

[Corsair 115]

So it's degrading even if none of the people involved think it is? Can you explain why?

Moral high horse-ism?

 

[phiwum]

So it's degrading even if none of the people involved think it is? Can you explain why?

Although I disagree with Upchurch on this point, let me suggest that this position is not necessarily stupid. I think that many of us may feel the the practice of covering the face of women in certain Muslim cultures is degrading to women even if the devout women involved deny it. Similarly, suppose that in a devout society, women of a mature age volunteer to FGM (rather than having it done prior to the age of consent). I think a number of us would think that's a custom that is degrading to those women, even though they choose it.

So, it's only that I don't think that accepting the word "honey" rises quite to the level of harm and degradation that I decide Upchurch is wrong. I think I can accept that there are certain customs that are accepted by devout people, but that are harmful to them.

 

[The Atheist]

Seems most news outlets had no problem identifying that what he's talking about is called political correctness, even though Obama never uttered that term.

Bravo for Obama!

Pity he's left it to the last 18 months of his reign to start making sense.

Good guy to say it, too. He's probably been the victim of racial abuse or discrimination at some stage of his life, I'm betting.

 

[theprestige]

Although I disagree with Upchurch on this point, let me suggest that this position is not necessarily stupid. I think that many of us may feel the the practice of covering the face of women in certain Muslim cultures is degrading to women even if the devout women involved deny it. Similarly, suppose that in a devout society, women of a mature age volunteer to FGM (rather than having it done prior to the age of consent). I think a number of us would think that's a custom that is degrading to those women, even though they choose it.

And that right there is the essence of political correctness: The man in that society has no objection. The woman in that society has no objection. But a third person, from outside that society altogether, is butthurt about it.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Although I disagree with Upchurch on this point, let me suggest that this position is not necessarily stupid. I think that many of us may feel the the practice of covering the face of women in certain Muslim cultures is degrading to women even if the devout women involved deny it. Similarly, suppose that in a devout society, women of a mature age volunteer to FGM (rather than having it done prior to the age of consent). I think a number of us would think that's a custom that is degrading to those women, even though they choose it.

I don't think any choice that is done out of free will, ie without coercion, is degrading, or if it is then I can not call that degradation a moral wrong - perhaps that degradation is a "fetish" desired by the one making that choice.

So, I for one, am not a part of that 'many of us'.

 

[The Atheist]

I don't think any choice that is done out of free will, ie without coercion, is degrading, ...

Then you raise the question of how much free will is involved.

Are the slaves women really cheering for slavery burqas, or are they just beaten down, deluded and victims of Stockholm syndrome to the extent that they really believe they want to wear a woollen tent in blazing heat while the man wears shorts.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Although I disagree with Upchurch on this point, let me suggest that this position is not necessarily stupid. I think that many of us may feel the the practice of covering the face of women in certain Muslim cultures is degrading to women even if the devout women involved deny it. Similarly, suppose that in a devout society, women of a mature age volunteer to FGM (rather than having it done prior to the age of consent). I think a number of us would think that's a custom that is degrading to those women, even though they choose it.

So, it's only that I don't think that accepting the word "honey" rises quite to the level of harm and degradation that I decide Upchurch is wrong. I think I can accept that there are certain customs that are accepted by devout people, but that are harmful to them.

Muslim women covering their face is not necessarily degrading, to them it's often a form of modesty and they would find a dressing scantily clad or in western clothes to be degrading. The issue with the veil (and some other customs) is that it's often not a free choice. Women who don't wear it can be ostracized or threatened.

 

[Lorentz]

Then you raise the question of how much free will is involved.

Are the slaves women really cheering for slavery burqas, or are they just beaten down, deluded and victims of Stockholm syndrome to the extent that they really believe they want to wear a woollen tent in blazing heat while the man wears shorts.

If the latter, how would this be determined? By careful research involving thousands of representative slaves women? Or by decree from someone outside that group who knows deep inside it must be so?

 

[Upchurch]

So it's degrading even if none of the people involved think it is?.

This has been cute and all, but how did you decide that none of the people in Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's scenario found the treatment degrading? That seems like a big assumption you've tacked on there with little-to-no reason for it.

How is treating a grown coworker in such an unprofessional manner not degrading? In the same vein, is calling an adult black man a "boy" not racist if he doesn't complain?