Treating Other People With Respect

[Dani]

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?

This started with Phiwum offering a counterexample to argue that something can be degrading without the victim thinking (or more precisely, admitting) it is.

I have a different example: Back to the Future. "Hello, hello, anybody home? Huh? Think, McFly, think!", while tapping him on the head.

McFly at that time doesn't admit that what's been done to him is degrading, but everyone else in the movie and the audience think it is (or at least, most of the audience).

I tend to think that not being able to show your own face because you happen to belong to a certain gender is degrading. My opinion on whether burqas are degrading to women depends not on what they publicly admit, but on their actual freedom to choose to wear it or not (that is, the social consequences of not wearing a burqa).

 

[ThunderChunky]

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?

The point, that you are still tirelessly avoiding, is that is doesn't matter to the PC crowd whether or not the person finds it degrading. They may find it degrading or they may not, either way it's an un-PC action. Kareem's examples fail precisely because they do not separate these issues, so you have my "assumption" completely backwards.

Unprofessional is not inherently degrading. It's unprofessional to gossip with a coworker, doesn't make it degrading. Likewise, even if we assume that calling a black man "boy" is always racist, that doesn't mean it's always degrading.

 

[Lorentz]

This started with Phiwum offering a counterexample to argue that something can be degrading without the victim thinking (or more precisely, admitting) it is.

I have a different example: Back to the Future. "Hello, hello, anybody home? Huh? Think, McFly, think!", while tapping him on the head.

McFly at that time doesn't admit that what's been done to him is degrading, but everyone else in the movie and the audience think it is (or at least, most of the audience).

I tend to think that not being able to show your own face because you happen to belong to a certain gender is degrading. My opinion on whether burqas are degrading to women depends not on what they publicly admit, but on their actual freedom to choose to wear it or not (that is, the social consequences of not wearing a burqa).

I assume that from my post you noticed I'm not denying that the phenomenon exists. My question is who shall judge whether it applies and on what basis?

We have a long history of people who do not belong to a group deciding for themselves that the members of that group are deluded, victims of Stockholm syndrome or the like, and then deciding what should be done to 'help' them. These have typically not been our proudest moments.

You say you base your view on the social consequences of defying the custom. If I understand you correctly, you say that 'the consequences are bad, then the custom is bad'.

I don't see how that reasoning works, but more to the point, you can apply the exact same logic to the custom that you do not walk the streets naked or tweet pictures of your genitals. In either case, the social consequences would be pretty bad. Does that mean that not walking naked in public and not tweeting pictures of your genitals are also bad?

In short: that's just not reasoning that holds water. It gives me the impression that it was made up on the fly, to justify previously held views.

 

[Upchurch]

The point, that you are still tirelessly avoiding, is that is doesn't matter to the PC crowd whether or not the person finds it degrading.

I'm not avoiding it. It's just immaterial.

They may find it degrading or they may not, either way it's an un-PC action.

That doesn't really mean anything. It is a disrespectful action.

Kareem's examples fail precisely because they do not separate these issues, so you have my "assumption" completely backwards.

Backwards how?

Unprofessional is not inherently degrading. It's unprofessional to gossip with a coworker, doesn't make it degrading. Likewise, even if we assume that calling a black man "boy" is always racist, that doesn't mean it's always degrading.

In both cases, it's both. In the first case, it is unprofessional to call a coworker by such an personal pet name and it is demeaning because it assigns the woman to a status lower than a professional peer.

Moreover, and I can't believe this still has to be explained, calling an adult black man "boy" is racist because it is degrading.

 

[The Atheist]

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?

I have no idea how it could or would be tested for, but blithely saying "Women want to wear it" doesn't explore the likelihood of a Stockholm-type situation being in play.

We know battered women often have terrible trouble leaving an abusive relationship - this could easily be similar.

Some muslim women see it that way.

 

[Corsair 115]

I have no idea how it could or would be tested for, but blithely saying "Women want to wear it" doesn't explore the likelihood of a Stockholm-type situation being in play.

Understood, but then, might not the same sort of issue apply to other things? Say, for example, how about women routinely wearing makeup or having earrings? Is that free individual choice? Is it from cultural pressure? Something in-between?

 

[Dani]

I assume that from my post you noticed I'm not denying that the phenomenon exists. My question is who shall judge whether it applies and on what basis?

Yes, I understand what you said. I was trying to point out that the question you raised (which is interesting in itself) doesn't represent an objection to what Phiwum and The Atheist argued so far, which, to sum up, is that something can be degrading even if one doesn't think it is. To avoid any kind of ambiguity over what has been argued, can you answer if you agree with this?

We have a long history of people who do not belong to a group deciding for themselves that the members of that group are deluded, victims of Stockholm syndrome or the like, and then deciding what should be done to 'help' them. These have typically not been our proudest moments.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what's being discussed. There's a long way from "I think it degrades women" to what you're describing.

You say you base your view on the social consequences of defying the custom. If I understand you correctly, you say that 'the consequences are bad, then the custom is bad'.

I don't see how that reasoning works, but more to the point, you can apply the exact same logic to the custom that you do not walk the streets naked or tweet pictures of your genitals. In either case, the social consequences would be pretty bad. Does that mean that not walking naked in public and not tweeting pictures of your genitals are also bad?

In short: that's just not reasoning that holds water. It gives me the impression that it was made up on the fly, to justify previously held views.

You missed the other premise to make sense of my argument. I'll repeat the same exact words:

"I tend to think that not being able to show your own face because you happen to belong to a certain gender is degrading".

 

[Corsair 115]

You missed the other premise to make sense of my argument. I'll repeat the same exact words:

"I tend to think that not being able to show your own face because you happen to belong to a certain gender is degrading".

And what about having to have facial hair—i.e. a beard—as a part of a culture or religion? In such a case one is not able to show one's clean-shaven face. Does that qualify as 'degrading' as well?

I ask because I'm curious where the line should be drawn and what criteria go into making such decisions.

 

[rwguinn]

PC always exists when a 3rd party objects to something between 2 parties, on behalf of an uninvolved 4th party...

 

[Dani]

And what about having to have facial hair—i.e. a beard—as a part of a culture or religion? In such a case one is not able to show one's clean-shaven face. Does that qualify as 'degrading' as well?

First, I'd argue that beards in no way hide someone's identity the way burqas do.

But, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that they do, and that growing beards serves the purpose of precisely hidding someone's identity. If women could also grow beards, but only men were forced to grow them in order to hide their identity, then it would be degrading to men.

I ask because I'm curious where the line should be drawn and what criteria go into making such decisions.

These are not easy topics. These types of lines can't be drawn in labs, but I agree that once you draw a line you have to try to be consistent.

 

[p0lka]

ooh im offended, what should I do?

do nothing,

oh ok...

the world becomes a better place.

 

[The Atheist]

Understood, but then, might not the same sort of issue apply to other things? Say, for example, how about women routinely wearing makeup or having earrings? Is that free individual choice? Is it from cultural pressure? Something in-between?

I think something similar is in play there, too.

I see a woman talk about sexism - and the woman from the LinkedIn thread is a classic example - who wear heavy makeup and spend lots on hairdressers. They are clearly buying into the male fantasy in terms of presentation, but they're also realists who accept that a good-looking woman is always going to be hired over a drab one.

As I always say, who is exploiting whom?

 

[Corsair 115]

First, I'd argue that beards in no way hide someone's identity the way burqas do.

A fair point. But beards can certainly change someone's appearance.

But, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that they do, and that growing beards serves the purpose of precisely hidding someone's identity. If women could also grow beards, but only men were forced to grow them in order to hide their identity, then it would be degrading to men.

If a culture says women must be covered up and men must have full beards, what then?

These are not easy topics. These types of lines can't be drawn in labs, but I agree that once you draw a line you have to try to be consistent.

Well, if the topic was easy, there wouldn't be much to discuss, would there?

I think something similar is in play there, too.

I see a woman talk about sexism - and the woman from the LinkedIn thread is a classic example - who wear heavy makeup and spend lots on hairdressers. They are clearly buying into the male fantasy in terms of presentation, but they're also realists who accept that a good-looking woman is always going to be hired over a drab one.

As I always say, who is exploiting whom?

I'm probably an outlier on the subject, as I personally have never liked when women wear makeup or jewellery. I find it all distracting and thoroughly unnecessary. The natural, unadorned face is a thousand times better than any face with makeup. I would applaud if tomorrow women collectively kicked the cosmetics industry to the curb. However, I recognize that this view is perhaps the minority opinion amongst both men and women.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm probably an outlier on the subject, as I personally have never liked when women wear makeup or jewellery. I find it all distracting and thoroughly unnecessary. The natural, unadorned face is a thousand times better than any face with makeup. I would applaud if tomorrow women collectively kicked the cosmetics industry to the curb. However, I recognize that this view is perhaps the minority opinion amongst both men and women.

You'd get on well with Mrs Atheist. She doesn't spend a cent on cosmetics and she is most definitely in a minority.

 

[ThunderChunky]

I'm not avoiding it. It's just immaterial.

You are intentionally using misleading examples that conflate multiple issues. That is not immaterial.

That doesn't really mean anything. It is a disrespectful action.

It refutes you point, so yes it does mean some thing. Now you have switched from degrading to disrespectful which fits well with your pattern of avoidance. What's disrespectful to you is not disrespectful to others. If a coworker came to me with some gossip I would not consider it degrading or disrespectful, but it would be unprofessional. We can easily separate "unprofessional" from both "disrespectful" and "degrading."

Backwards how?

My point did not rely on any assumption about whether the people in those examples found the actions degrading. His examples are used precisely because most people would assume that the actions were taking as degrading, which is the opposite of precisely what you claimed I assumed. He's trying to conflate un-PC actions with degrading actions My point is that we can separate those notions and get a better understanding of what PC is.

In both cases, it's both. In the first case, it is unprofessional to call a coworker by such an personal pet name and it is demeaning because it assigns the woman to a status lower than a professional peer.

You don't know that it assigns the woman a lower status, you'd have to actually know the context to make the judgement. But at least you have finally reached a breakthrough in acknowledging that unprofessional can be separated from demeaning.

Moreover, and I can't believe this still has to be explained, calling an adult black man "boy" is racist because it is degrading.

Cancel that breakthrough we thought you had. It's racist because of the historical context, not because it is degrading. Those are two separate features. It can be both racist and degrading, but it not one just because it's the other. For example, it can be degrading to call a white man boy, but it's not racist because the racial historical context is not there.

 

[Lorentz]

Yes, I understand what you said. I was trying to point out that the question you raised (which is interesting in itself) doesn't represent an objection to what Phiwum and The Atheist argued so far, which, to sum up, is that something can be degrading even if one doesn't think it is. To avoid any kind of ambiguity over what has been argued, can you answer if you agree with this?

I do agree that there are situations people can be in, that they don't find degrading, that the majority of reasonable people could still judge to be degrading. In many cases, I would find myself a member of that majority.

That said, I don't think something can 'be' degrading. It's a completely subjective judgement call, made by either the object of the degradation, or by bystanders.

When it comes to what is, or is not, degrading, anyone can have an opinion, and it's all subjective, so I don't find that question very interesting to pursue.

Which is why I focus instead on the question of whose opinions should matter.

You missed the other premise to make sense of my argument. I'll repeat the same exact words:

"I tend to think that not being able to show your own face because you happen to belong to a certain gender is degrading".

That premise was noted. I take it as read, although just to be sure, it's only degrading to the person having to hider her own face, right?

What I responded to was your claimed reason as to why you find it degrading. I don't think that reasoning holds water, but I've said my bit on the subject.

 

[Dani]

If a culture says women must be covered up and men must have full beards, what then?

In the actual situation, my stance is that it's degrading to women because they still are in a much worse situation.

In the hypothetical situation I described earlier, it would be either degrading or not degrading for both men and women.

If I'm using "degrading" in a way that demands us to contrast whether men or women are subject to qualitatively different standards, then it is not. If I'm using "degrading" based on an ideal standard for which anything lower is degrading, I would probably say it is. I'm more inclined to use the former, although I probably never used this word in this context until now.

 

[Dani]

I do agree that there are situations people can be in, that they don't find degrading, that the majority of reasonable people could still judge to be degrading. In many cases, I would find myself a member of that majority.

That said, I don't think something can 'be' degrading. It's a completely subjective judgement call, made by either the object of the degradation, or by bystanders.

When it comes to what is, or is not, degrading, anyone can have an opinion, and it's all subjective, so I don't find that question very interesting to pursue.

Well, that's how language evolved. This happens whenever someone is talking about something that involves values or aesthetics. You don't usually go around in circles like you just did to point out that some judgment call is a subjective opinion, do you? "Great tune". That's enough for me to assume that you mean you like that tune a lot.

Which is why I focus instead on the question of whose opinions should matter.

You'll need some judgment call for "should matter" anyway. You're not going to get rid of subjectivity with this type of question.

That premise was noted. I take it as read, although just to be sure, it's only degrading to the person having to hider her own face, right?

What I responded to was your claimed reason as to why you find it degrading. I don't think that reasoning holds water, but I've said my bit on the subject.

Just to make it clear, I didn't state the reasons why I find being forced to cover one's face degrading. I just asserted it is degrading. What I said is that in order to know whether someone is actually forced to wear or not wear a burqa within a particular society, you just need to look at the consequences a woman faces for choosing to not wear a burqa.

 

[theprestige]

What about syntactic variations trumped up as semantic differences?

"People of color" vs. "colored people". Slightly different syntax, the exact same semantic content. But the former is considered Politically Correct and the latter is not.

You use the former to show respect to someone who has internalized an artificial and incorrect idea of how English works to convey meaning, not because it's semantically more respectful or less degrading than the latter.

It's like helping an agitated crazy person to calm down by playing along with their delusion. In fact, it's almost exactly like that.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

PC always exists when a 3rd party objects to something between 2 parties, on behalf of an uninvolved 4th party...

That ironically fits a scenario where fundamentalists object against gay marriage because it offends God's sensibilities.