Terms Which Have Disappeared

[Fading Fast]

No, it's simply a reflection of reality. Both men and women serve as police officers, and have for the better part of the past century, so there's no practical reason for gendering the job title. No hidden agenda at all, except perhaps among those who argue that there *is* one.

The British have the right idea, calling their cops "constables."

I stand behind my above statement and the cited agenda that there is a hidden agenda, but am quite happy to not agree, especially since I think we have veered well off Fedora Lounge's mission.

On a more fun front, but on the same topic and a term which is, somewhat, trying to disappear, I've noticed that actresses have chosen to be called actors. Hence, the term actress is starting to disappear, except for one thing - award shows.

There I've noticed actors or actresses, male or female - none of them want to lose an award category. But if their logic was completely consistent, wouldn't there just be one best actor and one supporting actor award?

 

[Fading Fast]

I don't disagree that it can be spin, but I don't see how that can accurately be described as "political correctness".

It gets to the cored of one's definition of political correctness. In the company I used to work for, we called it political correctness when the company used euphemisms or created new terms to describe something in a way that hid its true meaning, especially when it was doing something that it knew the employees wouldn't like, but they wanted to mask it and make it sound better.

Hence, in addition to the "lay-offs" for "firings" and "opportunities" for "challenges," they would tell us about all the new "flexibility" and "options" we would have in next year's healthcare plan, but when / if one took the time to compare the new plans to the old (and it was never easy to do it), it was always the case that the new ones cost more and provided less. The company didn't want to say this, so it masked its hidden agenda behind euphemisms, new words an spin. Again, in the company I worked for, we called that being P.C. and it was to P.C. to point out that it cost more.

So we all walked around talking about how the "new" plan was this or that, when in truth we all wanted to just say the truth - it cost more and gives us less, but we knew it wasn't political correct in the company to say so. Maybe, we were all using the term wrong, but for at least 15 years in three companies, that how the term was used.

 

[tonyb]

It was maybe 20 years ago when I first heard what we used to call a "manhole" a "utility vault."

Gender neutral, sure. More accurate? Gotta give 'em that.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I stand behind my above statement and the cited agenda that there is a hidden agenda, but am quite happy to not agree, especially since I think we have veered well off Fedora Lounge's mission.

I'm wondering...what is the FL mission and why do you think the discussion has veered well off of it? I'm just curious, as something like this is often cited when there are differing points of view being expressed in a discussion. Why is the discussion of the change in language over the last 100 years, and the sociopolitical changes that precipitated it, not well *within* the FL's mission?

 

[HudsonHawk]

It gets to the cored of one's definition of political correctness. In the company I used to work for, we called it political correctness when the company used euphemisms or created new terms to describe something in a way that hid its true meaning, especially when it was doing something that it knew the employees wouldn't like, but they wanted to mask it and make it sound better.

Hence, in addition to the "lay-offs" for "firings" and "opportunities" for "challenges," they would tell us about all the new "flexibility" and "options" we would have in next year's healthcare plan, but when / if one took the time to compare the new plans to the old (and it was never easy to do it), it was always the case that the new ones cost more and provided less. The company didn't want to say this, so it masked its hidden agenda behind euphemisms, new words an spin. Again, in the company I worked for, we called that being P.C. and it was to P.C. to point out that it cost more.

So we all walked around talking about how the "new" plan was this or that, when in truth we all wanted to just say the truth - it cost more and gives us less, but we knew it wasn't political correct in the company to say so. Maybe, we were all using the term wrong, but for at least 15 years in three companies, that how the term was used.

I suppose it could be accurate to call it "political correctness", if using the older terminology would be considered offensive to the object of the description. I just don't see management using the euphemism as a way to soften the blow as being "PC". "PC" would be the other way around...the employees insisting that management call it a "layoff" rather than a "firing" or an "opportunity" rather than a "fault". That's the way I think of the term. Perhaps in your situation that was the case.

 

[HudsonHawk]

It was maybe 20 years ago when I first heard what we used to call a "manhole" a "utility vault."

Gender neutral, sure. More accurate? Gotta give 'em that.

I've heard both terms, but to be honest...if it was round, it was a "manhole" and if it was square, it was a "utility vault". Perhaps that's just a silly definition, but that was how it was used. Or perhaps it's just regional? In my business (oil and gas), what they call a "sump" in California, we call a "pit" in Texas. A "sump" is something else entirely. Imagine my confusion.

 

[Fading Fast]

I'm wondering...what is the FL mission and why do you think the discussion has veered well off of it? I'm just curious, as something like this is often cited when there are differing points of view being expressed in a discussion. Why is the discussion of the change in language over the last 100 years, and the sociopolitical changes that precipitated it, not well *within* the FL's mission?

I have made an assumption which is we that while we absolutely want to discuss language changes and the social political forces behind them, I felt that trying to define out political correctness and whether or not something happening in the society today that is controversial - like gender titles - was more about modern politics than changes from the Golden Era. I get that it is a continuum and not an absolute, but it was (again) my assumption that the spirit of the board is to avoid discussions of modern controversial political topics even if it is related to changes from the Golden Era.

I am quite happy to debate all these points, and do regularly, but I was / am trying to be respectful to the purpose of this board - which I acknowledge is an assumption I made.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I have made an assumption which is we that while we absolutely want to discuss language changes and the social political forces behind them, I felt that trying to define out political correctness and whether or not something happening in the society today that is controversial - like gender titles - was more about modern politics than changes from the Golden Era. I get that it is a continuum and not an absolute, but it was (again) my assumption that the spirit of the board is to avoid discussions of modern controversial political topics even if it is related to changes from the Golden Era.

I am quite happy to debate all these points, and do regularly, but I was / am trying to be respectful to the purpose of this board - which I acknowledge is an assumption I made.

From where I sit, I think it's entirely appropriate to discuss modern political philosophy from an analytical perspective, especially as it relates to the "golden era". I think the ban on politics is more about debating current affairs and pushing a political agenda, and that civil discussions that analyze political thought on a historical level are allowed and even encouraged, especially in these "open" forums. Of course, I have been known to be wrong before. It's just there are often those who interject into an interesting conversation on historical perspective with "don't you people know politics are banned". I find it both odd and annoying. Not that I find you posts so. Quite the opposite, which is why I brought it up.

 

[Fading Fast]

I suppose it could be accurate to call it "political correctness", if using the older terminology would be considered offensive to the object of the description. I just don't see management using the euphemism as a way to soften the blow as being "PC". "PC" would be the other way around...the employees insisting that management call it a "layoff" rather than a "firing" or an "opportunity" rather than a "fault". That's the way I think of the term. Perhaps in your situation that was the case.

Any public or private entity - a government, a company, an advocacy group, a political group, a charity, a trade union, a business roundtable or whatever - trying to use euphemism, new words and distorting logic to hide, obfuscate, mislead or palliate something's real meaning and agenda and, then, trying to make it wrong not to use their chosen words or logic to discuss the issue is Political Correctness to me.

I don't care if it is a company calling an increase in costs more flexibility, a political party calling a "tax increase" a "revenue enhancement" or a "benefit cut" a "change in the program" it's all PC nonsense to me. Just say, we are increasing your costs, raising your taxes or cutting your benefits.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I don't care if it is a company calling an increase in costs more flexibility, a political party calling a "tax increase" a "revenue enhancement" or a "benefit cut" a "change in the program" it's all PC nonsense to me. Just say, we are increasing your costs, raising your taxes or cutting your benefits.

Even if those descriptors are accurate, or even provide some sort of benefit? For example, say an increase in county taxes will fund a new water treatment facility that the county residents really need. Is it "PC nonsense" to describe it as a "revenue increase that allows for a public benefit" as opposed to simply calling it a "tax hike"?

 

[Fading Fast]

From where I sit, I think it's entirely appropriate to discuss modern political philosophy from an analytical perspective, especially as it relates to the "golden era". I think the ban on politics is more about debating current affairs and pushing a political agenda, and that civil discussions that analyze political thought on a historical level are allowed and even encouraged, especially in these "open" forums. Of course, I have been known to be wrong before. It's just there are often those who interject into an interesting conversation on historical perspective with "don't you people know politics are banned". I find it both odd and annoying. Not that I find you posts so. Quite the opposite, which is why I brought it up.

I just thought we were, to your point, getting away from "as it relates to the 'golden era'" and we're getting pretty close to just debating modern politics. It's a continuum and I have no special skill as to when we've move too far to one side, I just try to police myself as my tendency is to be willing to debate anything.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I dislike all of those things as well. I just don't see what they have to do with "political correctness," either in the Marxist sense or in the modern sense. It's all marketingspeak.

That said, I really, really, really loathe the term "political correctness," which has, itself, become a trite bit of marketingspeak for anything the speaker dislikes, or a boogeyman dragged out and shoved in the faces of anyone with whom the speaker disagrees.

I'm an author, not an authoress, because gender is not essential to the writing of a book. Actress/Actor are legitimate differentiations because gender is, usually, essential to the roles the performer plays -- women usually play female roles, men usually play male roles. But it's equally proper to refer to all actorkind as "Actors," because it simply means "one who acts," and there's no gender attached to the word.

Makes perfect sense once people stop looking for things to complain about.

 

[HudsonHawk]

I just thought we were, to your point, getting away from "as it relates to the 'golden era'" and we're getting pretty close to just debating modern politics. It's a continuum and I have no special skill as to when we've move too far to one side, I just try to police myself as my tendency is to be willing to debate anything.

Fair enough. I can respect that. I just didn't think anyone was getting out of line.

 

[Fading Fast]

Even if those descriptors are accurate, or even provide some sort of benefit? For example, say an increase in county taxes will fund a new water treatment facility that the county residents really need. Is it "PC nonsense" to describe it as a "revenue increase that allows for a public benefit" as opposed to simply calling it a "tax hike"?

It is fine, IMHO, to say both, we are increasing your taxes to fund a new water treatment facility - nothing PC there. But if the benefit - the water facility - is highlighted and the tax hike gets buried as a "revenue enhancement" and everyone in the government is told to read from the same script, i.e., talk about the benefit, downplay the revenue increase and try not to say "tax increase," then we are in PC land.

 

[Fading Fast]

I dislike all of those things as well. I just don't see what they have to do with "political correctness," either in the Marxist sense or in the modern sense. It's all marketingspeak.

That said, I really, really, really loathe the term "political correctness," which has, itself, become a trite bit of marketingspeak for anything the speaker dislikes, or a boogeyman dragged out and shoved in the faces of anyone with whom the speaker disagrees.

I'm an author, not an authoress, because gender is not essential to the writing of a book. Actress/Actor are legitimate differentiations because gender is, usually, essential to the roles the performer plays -- women usually play female roles, men usually play male roles. But it's equally proper to refer to all actorkind as "Actors," because it simply means "one who acts," and there's no gender attached to the word.

Makes perfect sense once people stop looking for things to complain about.

Should there be separate awards for male and female actors?

 

[LizzieMaine]

That's euphemistic speech -- the desire to couch unpleasant realities in palatable language. If I understand how it's used in the modern sense "Political correctness" refers to the redefinition of language to be inclusionary. Calling a cop a "police officer" doesn't soften or obscure the meaning of the word. Calling a garbage-truck worker a "solid waste remediation engineer" is euphemism, not political correctness.

There *is* too much euphemism in modern American speech. Author Paul Fussell railed against this in his book "BAD: The Dumbing Of America," and blamed it on the rise of the modern suburban middle class, which he condemned for its steadfast refusal to acknowledge the unpleasant realities of daily life. He further emphasized this in his book "Class," which discussed among other things the nuances of language use among the various American social classes. Both of these books pre-dated the rise of modern "political correctness."

 

[HudsonHawk]

It is fine, IMHO, to say both, we are increasing your taxes to fund a new water treatment facility - nothing PC there. But if the benefit - the water facility - is highlighted and the tax hike gets buried as a "revenue enhancement" and everyone in the government is told to read from the same script, i.e., talk about the benefit, downplay the revenue increase and try not to say "tax increase," then we are in PC land.

I disagree, and I think this highlight's Lizzie's point...it's not political correctness, it's marketing; "we have to increase revenue so we can finance you a much needed benefit". Everyone knows what that means, but I think highlighting the tax increase as the mechanism to fund the benefit, rather than "we're jacking up your taxes", is just good (and in this case appropriate) salesmanship.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Should there be separate awards for male and female actors?

Of course there should. They're giving the awards for the best male and female performances.

I'd think it was stupid and offensive if, say, the Maine Association of Broadcasters gave out "Best Reporting by a Man" or "Best Reporting by a Woman" awards, because gender has nothing to do with the performance of a journalistic job. But there's nothing wrong with recognizing actors and actresses for the performances they give in roles that are very obviously gendered.

 

[Fading Fast]

That's euphemistic speech -- the desire to couch unpleasant realities in palatable language. If I understand how it's used in the modern sense "Political correctness" refers to the redefinition of language to be inclusionary. Calling a cop a "police officer" doesn't soften or obscure the meaning of the word. Calling a garbage-truck worker a "solid waste remediation engineer" is euphemism, not political correctness.

There *is* too much euphemism in modern American speech. Author Paul Fussell railed against this in his book "BAD: The Dumbing Of America," and blamed it on the rise of the modern suburban middle class, which he condemned for its steadfast refusal to acknowledge the unpleasant realities of daily life. He further emphasized this in his book "Class," which discussed among other things the nuances of language use among the various American social classes. Both of these books pre-dated the rise of modern "political correctness."

I understand all the above, but again, in three companies over the last 15+ years, the term "political correctness" has come to mean something closer to euphemistic speech - at least in the part of Corporate America that I've been in. And my friends also use it that way in casual conversation - "oh, that's just the landlord PC' B.S. - they are putting in more expensive washers and dryers - it's not an 'improvement' to the laundry room, but a price increase." This might be absolute wrong with respect to what the phrase did mean, but again, I am seeing the phrase being used in the way I am describing. Maybe the companies I've worked for and the people I socialize with are atypical.

 

[Fading Fast]

I disagree, and I think this highlight's Lizzie's point...it's not political correctness, it's marketing; "we have to increase revenue so we can finance you a much needed benefit". Everyone knows what that means, but I think highlighting the tax increase as the mechanism to fund the benefit, rather than "we're jacking up your taxes", is just good (and in this case appropriate) salesmanship.

See post #1419, we have a different definition of Political Correctness - my defense is that I am - as noted in 1419 - using it the way I hear it being used in the situations I describe.