AIBU to think Political Correctness never actually went too far?

[Lessthanaballpark]

AIBU to think that as soon as Political correctness actually started to gain any traction there was a backlash against it that dampened its effect from the outset?

That as soon as the idea that people should check themselves before expressing any racist, sexist or disablist opinion an equally powerful feeling of resentment emerged to counter it and frame those do-gooders as hysterical feminazi killjoys (if female)/manginas(if male)?

That from the moment that women's rights started to have any effect on society, cries of "pussification" and "political correctness gone too far" erupted before anything actually had a chance to "go too far"? That from the privileged viewpoint of someone who is used to seeing themselves reflected in the media, sport and politics, any step towards including other groups feels like a step too far.

That it is far far far more common to hear people saying "well I know this is politically incorrect but I'm going to say it anyway" than it is for people to actually chide others for being politically incorrect.

And that this nostalgia for a time before political correctness existed incorrectly assumes that we have already reached racial/sexual equality and have gone beyond it when really we are only half way there?

I think I have said this before but I am not sure Rotherham was mainly about political correctness. I think it was about the view held about the young girls involved. Young girls some of whom were in care, some of whom will have been very difficult to help, the way those young women were perceived was awful, I think it was about misogyny. I also think those involved may have been worried about being perceived as racist, but in fact their behaviour was intrinsically racist. They had a view that Asian people would behave in this way. Abusing young white girls was what they thought all Asian men did, they therefore didn't challenge it because they thought it was a cultural issue. They weren't being politically correct they were being racist. Their expectations of Asian men were so low. And this time the ones who suffered were young white girls.

Yes bird that is true indeed. Just like the Saville coverup was to do with attitudes towards girls in general and their credibility.

Regarding describing an individual by their colour, i remember a case where a 3 year old at Nursery was accused by the staff of displaying "racist" behaviour. His crime? He said he wanted to sit next to his friend (a boy he already knew,) not next to the black boy (he didn't know his name). It was a true case, i heard the dad being interviewed on tv, and the Nursery defended their decision as they said the 3 year old was being racist by calling the child "the black boy" and by saying he didn't want to sit by him. They didn't stop to consider that he just wanted to sit next to his mate, and could just as easily said "the ginger boy" which would probably have been considered perfectly acceptable.

Hopefully this sort of nonsense is rare (I like to think most people have some intelligence).

YesBlanch. At a training the other day we were told those are now The Rules. To do otherwise would be discrimination.

herat I don't think what you are describing is political correctness but more to do with the trans rights movement. This is an emotive topic on mumsnet and so it is probably not best to derail the current topic which could offend or rile a number of people.

PC has been around since the late 1980s & yes it has often gone 'too far'. That's what PC meant... PC was originally a pointed ironic grimace from the liberals at their own well-intentioned excesses.

However, any time a right winger says PC , they probably mean they never wanted to show any respect, anyway.

I agree that there are other factors at play, but the Trojan Horse issue in schools in Birmingham was much like Rotherham in that authorities who should have intervened didn't do so in part because they were concerned at being branded racist.

I don't think that is "PC gorn mad" as such, but there is an (ill informed) school of thought in many public institutions and offices that has replaced common sense in dealing with things like race and religion

I really can't accept that Rotherham was no uni- dimensional - I think sexism and classism was far far far more relevant in xplsiningbthe behaviour of the police

Sorry for all the typos - lying on settee and typing at funny angle

Evidence about the 'banning' of 'brainstorming':

www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/jun/26/uk.politicalnews

It was obviously a limited thing, and I suspect has been quietly forgotten, but it did happen.

As a side note, I wonder how much social media has contributed to people's resentment about being attacked when they innocently use a word that is now regarded as offensive? If you're speaking to someone face to face, it's much easier to tell that they don't mean to be offensive, and harder to be really nasty and aggressive toward them.

"they innocently use a word that is now regarded as offensive?"

Ah. Now you see, I am always very suspicious of the "I never know what to say any more, it's always changing" narrative. Because a)no it isn't, and b) all you have to do is ask.

Well people have always used the skin colour/background for negative reasons and when it was not relavant. so yes it is better to avoid such descriptions , how can you draw the line?

A recent example of that was the paper headline 'Polish driver killed..' .He didn't kill because he was Polish but because his was holding a phone. Sadly we are going backwards like when the news were saying 'the black bulgar....'. That's why we have to be careful - even if we sound over the top.
I don't think that PC has gone far but even if it had, i would prefer it to the racism that sadly rises.

I think in terms of people's general day-to-day attitudes it hasn't gone too far; but there are instances where employers/organisations/red tape has got slightly out of hand. These are two examples from my own experience:

1. about 10 years ago my ballet teacher was hauled over the coals by the NATD and accused of racism and exclusion because she wasn't submitting the requisite percentage of black/Asian students for exams. This was in a small town in south Dorset. There were only two black children in my secondary school (approx 1000 pupils) and no Asian children. The fact that she had entered a large number of Eastern European students, a blind girl, two boys with downs and another with severe learning difficulties was not taken into account. She had failed to hit 'equality targets' and was threatened with the withdrawal of her license to enter students for exams. In the end she successfully took them to court, but she shouldn't have had to do more than point out the ethnic demographic of the area in which she worked, which would have been easily verified.

2. My father was, last year, told by his boss (local government) that the interviews dad was conducting for a role within his department were a mere formality because it was vital the girl with disabilities be given the job, regardless of whether she was the best candidate. He was concerned they would be seen as disablist if she was unsuccessful. In the end she actually was the best candidate for the job, but dad was very uncomfortable about what would have happened had she not been. He was incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of giving her a job based on her disability rather than her ability to do it well.

well your dad should have reported that really - it's not acceptable and against the law

I am with you OP - no one can give any really (you know not hearsay actual examples backed up with evidence) examples of PC gorn mad can they?

Your dad would probably have been under an obligation to interview the woman with disabilities. That is very different from being under an obligation to give her the job!

And the ballet exam story? I would put money on it being apocryphal.

Not apocryphal Bert, I was a pupil there at the time and it was really awful. Just worked out it was actually nearer 15 years ago (it was just before I started uni so must have been before 2003) but it definitely happened.

As I said; I don't think PC has gone too far in general, just that there are instances where people have misinterpreted things. Or where they have been so afraid of being labelled racist/disablist/ageist that they go too far.

So OP asks for examples of where Political Correctness really has gone too far, most people agree it hasn't, but when Captain gives two examples from personal/family experience she is basically called a liar

Not calling her a liar. Butt would actually be illegal to do what her dad was asked to do so it's not political correctness going too far, it's someone not understanding the law, and telling him to do something illegal.

And the ballet exam thing happened 15 years ago- and not really commentable on without more facts. I used to be an equal opportunities officer, and I can't actually see the situation happening the way the poster remembers- there must have been more to it than that. Maybe they were amazed by the number of other minorities in a small town in Dorset and thought she must have been excluding the black and Asian children........[

But the one with her dad's manager is a local government employee who is behaving inappropriately. So one person is interpreting legislation wrongly. That is not pc gone mad, it is someone who doesn't know how to do their job.

I can state an example of PC gone too far. A school not doing a nativity at Xmas, because it excludes other cultures. This happened at my DD's last term at primary school. Traditionally it was the nativity for the primary school children at Xmas, and always had been. But because there were four children of a different race, and the nativity was classed as a Christian 'play', it was dumped in favour of a story about animals, and totally unrelated to Christmas. When a parent (actually a number of parents) raised this with the head, she found out that the parents of the four children had not objected at all, but that the school had taken it upon themselves to do it on their behalf. This is what generally happens; the people who it is allegedly going to affect/offend are not part of these decisions, but others misinterpret what they 'think' people want.

I have noticed the more right wing people will say PC has gone too far and use it to insult people...same as they use the terms 'Lefty' and 'womens libber' as an insult.
It's a way for them to justify their misogyny or racist views.

"A school not doing a nativity at Xmas, because it excludes other cultures"

Why not do something everyone can be involved in? I'd go for that every time.

Well thank you for putting me in my place Lean back

I can't see how anyone could feel offended or insulted at being called a 'lefty' or a 'women's libber', Gotta. Surely if you sway towards the left in politics, that's what you believe in, and you are proud of your beliefs? Same if you are a women's libber - you are championing the rights of women, so why feel offended if someone chooses to describe you as one?

That was the point about the thing with my dad though Bert and bird; that whilst political correctness in and of itself hasn't gone too far, there are people so afraid of being politically incorrect that they misinterpret things/make mistakes.