Politically correct terms and words we aren't allowed to use anymore

Continued from the US Education thread...

How do we decide what words to use anymore in the PC world? I'm talking about black, coloured, retard etc etc.

In Medicine, I was learning about skulls and learnt it as Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid +/- Australoid.
Later I used the term Mongoloid and was severly told off because you're not allow to use the term Mongoloid because it has non-PC connitations for Downs syndrome...
But these terms are still helpful in Forensic Anthropolgy...
So, someone decided to call Down's Syndrome people "Mongs" and it caught on and suddenly, the term Mongoloid wasn't allowed to be used anymore.

Same with Retard. Retardate was a word used in Medicine for many years (and still is with the STYCAR) , then people started to use the term "retard" derogatively. SO retard was struck off the language.

I can definietly understand how words like 'coloured' are offensive. Coloured creates an us and other polarisation.

The word 'black' has historical meaning... but if it didn't, would it still be offensive? Travelling in Africa, I got called "whitey". Is this racist? is it not racist because it doesn't have historical meaning and links to slavery and oppression?

Will we ever be able to 'claim' these words back?
i.e. can doctors use retardate again?
Or maybe can we decide that retardate ISN'T used to describe disabled/differently abled individuals and then youngsters are allowed to call each other 'retard' because it has taken on a whole new meaning in their language?

The word idiot had a similar history, being used to describe someone who was mentally deficient/differently abled (hell, even I don't know what terms to use) but now, most people could use idiot without someone saying "Hey, my borhter has a mental deficiency, I find that offensive" like would happen with the word retard.

Same goes for 'gay'.

When can we use these words? Should they be taken out of the language all together? Are they offensive if we use then in their original meaning i.e. retardate?

context is everything. School yard vs Hospital for eg. Mechanic's shop vs city street, friend you've known for years vs a stranger etc etc



J

I always thought the use of "retard" came from the latin "tardus" meaning slow. So I use that instead of retard when someone is being a bit slow witted, but I blame that on being forced to take latin at school.

I think using gay has fallen slightly out of vogue recently. I hardly hear it anymore I'm more likely to hear someone say
"_____ Fail" and nominate a "type" of fail be it "epic" or "walking" when someone falls over. I also think it has far too happy a connitation for it to remain a negative word.

I think medicine should stick with what it has, if people understand it wrong then maybe they should learn language correctly. Doctors have so much to learn without them having to relearn new terms because teenagers find them amusing as insults, or people find terms offensive due to their own perception. so what if people feel are offended, nothing actually happpens and what gives offense can differ between individuals.

I'd rather be called a retard than an idiot nowadays, when I'm called retard it's generally a jovial way of saying I made a silly mistake by a friend. i find being called idiot offends me more because it suggests that someone feels i'm unintelligent (which i do not feel I am )

I think we're finding a whole new range of slang at the moment, I saw something on TV on how predicitve text is causing some words to change meanings (slang) because when entered, a different word comes up to what's been meant the best example given was teenagers using "book" to describe things as "cool" because book comes up first on some predictive text memories.

Language is fluid so I think there is always a chance of reclaiming lost words afte they have been out of fashion for a while. "gay" used to be "pants" after all and that was only in the last 10 years. That's why I like numbers they stay the same, they are eternal it will always be the 3 billy goats gruff even if Billy, goats and gruff all change their meanings there will still be 3 of them

Haha.. I've done that! I use "yup" a lot and it always comes out as "zur" so now I use zur.

And my sister (Roslyn) comes up as Porky.. so now I call her Porky.

In general I think it comes down to what the word means to whomever you are talking to. If you know that you are talking to a medical professional in that capacity, calling someone a retard is very different to calling someone at school a retard wen talking to your friends.

It comes down to context, like pyrolific said.

Were you using 'gay' and 'black' as the PG versions? I've never seen these used in offensive contexts ever. Unless followed by an offensive term refering a womans genitalia. Personnaly, I like the charm of being called 'corn-bread' but it never happens here in England.

Black is one I have an issue with. The PC-crap behind it that is.

Living in Vanuatu, among the black people, black and white were simply adjectives used to describe people, just like how we'd say "oh the girl with the brown hair." They honestly couldn't understand why white people got so hung up on colour. And I agree with them.

Now I know that I'm about to open up a massive can of worms, but I feel that the infiltration of US culture into Australian culture is the reason behind this. "Nigger" is a word of US offence, yet the influence lead that nickname for a famous rugby player become taboo. Or made some bloke with nothing better to do try and sue the brand of cheese, Coon. Similarly the incident with Bert Newton, Muhammed Ali and "boy" and the more recent 'blackface' skit.

Anyways, I've completely digressed - Political correctness was probably a good idea when it started, but it's now gone so out of hand we're now being offended by things that were never meant to be offensive simply because the PC gods told us to be.

Jaded Flesh - no, I'm pretty sure describing an African American as black is offensive to many people... I think maybe we need Americans in the discussion...

And I know some people who are offended if you say "oh that is so GAY" because you are inferring that to be gay is a bad thing.

The blackface thing is something I had a big discussion with my friends about.

(Backstory)
A group of people dressed up as the Jackson Five, painted their faces black and performed a Jackson Five skit on Australian TV.

Harry Connick Jnr was one of the hosts and went "OMG thats so racist" and the next day lots of international media went "OMG Australia is so racist".

Lots of Australians were like "huh?". Most because they had never heard of "blackface" or Vaudeville theatre.

So is it only racist from a historical point of view? Does intent matter in racism?

If they were emulating the artist, is that different to if they were making fun of the artist?

Nat, correct me if I'm wrong, but further information on the blackface skit... wasn't it not thought of as racist when it was first aired and it was only really picked out on the 'best of' show that aired more recently??

Also... my two cents after only skim reading this conversation, I think a lot of the "PC" issue is that these words are often meant offensively.. and often they're quite simply descriptive... "black" is the perfect example... without any connotation or history the word 'black' is just a descriptive word, though used with connotation in mind, its offensive.

Without knowing a persons intent we judge the usage of the words in question. Its not overall productive to combat the prejudice that the PC movement is apparently against... it merely creates more divisions than it does areas of common ground.

"You are black, I am white" is rarely interpreted as "you are a black <b>human</b> and I am a white <b>human</b>.




To just throw something else out there... the "queer" movement... Queer means strange, not quite right, almost... wrong... and it was used as a derogatory term for homosexuals, now the term has been reappropriated as a symbol of pride, thus disarming the word for those that used it negatively.

"You are queer" "Yes I am, whats your point?"

"You are black" "Thats racist!"

"You are black" "You have a keen eye, sir... Well spotted"



Excuse the above ramblings, I kinda like the lack of cohesiveness in my response.

I stand by the fact that if someone is offended it's their problem not mine. everybody is offended by something and it differs so widely between people that if we weren't allowed to do things that offended someone somewhere we'd get nothing done or be able to say nothing. so what we do is we take terms that "someone" believes offends a unproven / unknown number of a group or population that crosses a make-believe threshold and we make it taboo or ban it or some other nonsense.

I'd really like to know how many people or what percentage of people have to be offended by a term before it can be considered taboo to a nation, where is the turning point from word or action to national insult. It's amazing that we can create such a fuss about words that invoke feelings. they are just words (apologies in advance for this) but to me the word "nigger" isn't offensive. If it can be used by the people it was meant to insult, to each other as a term of familiarity or respect then they aren't offended by the word. What they are offended by is the word being used by an white person therefore if anyone should be offended it should be the white person to the racism of the veiwpoint. I agree this isn't always true as the word has a long history or use in a derogatory manner and this is the way of reclaiming back an offensive word as mentioned in the first post, however the way with which is being regained has offensive connotations so does this make it right?

The above shows how offense is such a transient thing that it can be justified in any number of ways, how can you set stock by something at once both important and yet immaterial to different people. how can you tell someone what is offensive when be definition offensiveness can only be decided by the people experiencing the situation, some may be offended and some not, just because some find it offensive is that a reason to give it credance and if so how do you set the threashold for that so it becomes known to all?

I Belive context to be much more important than the actual words used. If offensive words are used in a light and jovial manner with no offense intended then it is the responsibility of the person listening to HEAR the words correctly and the manner in which they were spoken and not to take offense at mere language, it is after all only a tool to communicate information and feelings, to get the language confused is to get the emotion behind it confused. Therefore any offense can only be inferred by the listener, whether the offense was meant or not,

*hug* to anyone I offended with any of my language - it was to prove a point not to offend

or was it? see I can't stop

Here's something I've noticed, not sure how widespread it is.
The people who would be offended and call me racist when I say black and not mean anything bad by it at all, are nearly always the people that only shop at stores that are members of the black chamber of commerce, go exclusively to black clubs, black churches, black colleges, join black only organizations. These are the people I avoid associating with, not because I'm racist, but because they're hypocrites. They fault me for something completely harmless, say I'm racist, then go out of their way to alienate themselves. And it's not just one race I'm picking out. Every group that has been, or still is, discriminated against has people that do it.

Personally I don't take offense to any words. My best friend, my brother, some of my co workers, even my boyfriend call me queer, gay, homo, fag. I don't care. It's not what people say, it's how they say it. People just really need to lighten up and quit looking for something negative in everything.

Just say what you want....no matter how hard you try someone is going to be offended. I don't curse (mostly) around kids...i don't talk gangsta around "thugs"...but then again i don't do that stuff much anyways


stop worrying so much, tard-os

Please explain? seriously I don't understand what the issue is about using the word black to describe a skin tone. Is that racist? that I don't get it? because I was watching this program the other week about this woman called Jane Elliot and she totaly made me feel 'passively rasict' but normaly I wouldn't think of myself as racist what so ever.

don't you think that describing black people as African American is pretty racist...i mean there are a TON of black people who do not live in the US

No I think he meant black people in america find the term 'black' offensive like in England black people don't like the 'N' word unless it's from a 'true bruv'. God I hate that gansta talk.

when using predictive text cider = aides.

can you pass the aides?

If it's 'white lightining' cider then it is aides.

Well, no ones come to affirm my statement but I always thought that 'black' was considered an offensive term by many as it was used interchangably with 'native' etc - i.e. Heart of Darkness...

I would love it if no one found this describing word racist... I just thought many people did...


I think that it would be mainly African Americans who would be offended by it because of their history re slavery etc etc...

From my travels in Africa, they didn't have a problem with 'white person, black person' and I'm pretty sure most Indigenous Australians wouldn't have a problem with 'blackfella'... These are the extent of my travels though so I cant include ALL black people in my summary.


They did the skit for Red Faces in the 80s (or early 90s) when they were students and were asked back... Yes, when they first performed the skit, there was no outrage and Im pretty sure that if there wasn't an American on the show this time, there wouldn't have been either.

I'll affirm your statement, Nat! I've noticed that using the word "black" if often perceived as being offensive.

When I got back from Vanuatu, someone asked me if my employer over there was a volunteer like me and when I replied with "no, she's black" the person I was speaking to got all tense. Likewise, when I mention my "black mum" (as opposed to my white one lol!) I have often seen people get uncomfortable.

Oh and I completely agree with your comment about what would have happened without an American on the show.

American checking in here. I know Poje is from texas, so here's the point of view as far as east coast US. As far as US politics there's thought to be a difference in the regions as far as differences in people from east, west, and south. North is pretty fair. lol. Anyway, I'm in nursing school and when charting on patients it's an important fact in discribing someone. I had a talk with one of my classmates, she is a lovley shade of dark chocolate brown, I myself am I light olive, another girl was a nice shade of mocha. Yet I would be charted as a white adolescent male, they would be middle aged adult black adult females.

From a medical perspective it's silly to think that people are the same. It's just not true. Ethno-pharmacology is a big topic. Also back to the retarded topic. Medicine is still a safe haven for words somewhat. If something is retarding a child's growth, it doesn't mean that their growth is drooling all over itself. Fetal insult doesn't mean you're yelling at a pregnant woman's stomach.

But I digress. PC is getting out of hand. And its far beyond the white/black thing and I don't see any signs of it stopping. ::sigh::

lol could it have not been because, you brought up the fact she was black when all she was asking was if she was volunteering like you? I think I would have looked at you all weird too XD

About sums it up.

It is getting silly, soon you won't be allowed to call people chavs or emos or goths because they will be termed as derogatory comments regarding a particular group irregardless of ethnicity. to give credance to a word as offensive only becuase it is based upon race, faculty or ethnicity devalues labels as a whole even if a comment is meant as derogatory it's no different to using common slanders in front of an authorised word to descibe a group. you could say "F**king C**nting african americans" piss me off with their racism, it should be no more or less offensive than using the famous "N" word as the sentiment is exactly the same and the different words do not change the underlying meaning behind them or the message. I find the PC world so frustrating and annoying that I honestly don't care about it. if a word frowned on by others fits the use I wish to put it to then that's the word I'll use, censorship is one thing but to censor language means you have to censor peoples thoughts

Nah, context meant "is she a white aussie on the same program as yourself?" I didn't explain it well.

I am SO not from Texas...stop stereo typing

Ah right makes sense now lol On different note, so we agree that words in themselves can't be racist... But if someone uses a word with racist conotations in a series of verbal assaults does that make the person instantly racist? You see isn't that person just using the term to cause offend and they know using thoughs kind of terms will offend the other individual so does it make them racist?

So someone who has no problem with the (minority group) gets cut off in traffic and lets out a range of explicits, including ones which are considered racist to that minority group... Does that make them racist?


Good question. I have to say no...

When driving I would have to say Ive muttered "Stupid female drivers" or "Stupid Asian drivers" just because that is a stereotype in Australia.. but I know that the probability of a female/Asian/ any other group being a bad driver is equal. (and being female myself I would like to consider myself a great driver.. but don't 80% of people think that they're better than average? :D)

Would I yell it out the window to their face? No.
I think it's more about venting frustration.

I think if you said it to someones face, you're being iffensive.. but not necessarily racist. Because racism comes from your thoughts and attitudes ight? not your words or actions...

I can understand why they would say that about women but gay men? They didn't even classify which kind of gay male. The ones playing gay or the ones actualy geneticly predisposed to being gay? And that could still carry over into the hetrosexual group to since they didn't define how they were testing. Makes a huge difference. Silly telegraph. I think I may complain about it since without more detailed explanation of the testing it's just hate mongering.

I'm going to have to say "yes" then it becomes a racist statement/racial slur although you might not be a "racist" in terms of your everyday life and who you are as an individual. Whenever a person uses race as part of an insult (that they could have just left out and insulted the behavior or whatever undesirable factor in play) you made a choice to bring race into it and should expect to bear the consequences of displaying racist behavior or being racist in that moment. It may not be who you are on a regular basis but in that instant you became one if you think race contributes to undesirability and that's even if you don't voice it. It's quite a gray area, but just for a moment people become one when they do it.

I wish we just lived in a world where people were just people and didn't get wrapped up in the whole thing, but the more people aren't mindful when relaying a point race/gender/orientation will get all the attention and not the point or statement that was truly intended.

What do you call a black bloke flying a plain?


A pilot you f?&k racist.

At the end of the day everyone is slightly racist. We all think things which we know we shouldn’t.

I'm glad everyone I know says I drive like a man then.

http://www.allmusicals.com/lyrics/avenueq/everyonesalittlebitracist.htm

My 2c....

Funny this comes up on the day I get two different letters in the mail. Both of them with pictures and a total of seven fines lol

My bad poje, your avatar is right under your avatar. I just remembered you were in a part of the US that is way too hot that wasn't florida, my first thought was texas, lol. I'm not sure about other countries but the US is amazing. From coast to coast East coast west coast mentalities are so different. At least that's what I hear.

This Jaded Flesh.. usually in these types of studies they'd just ask if people identified with being gay.. this rues out any kind of testing...

Like most surveys ask if you identify with being Indigenous Australian because people argue about that all the time...

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? I find it very interesting to hear about another country's racial relations and views on what constitutes as indigenous.

On every form I fill out here in America my race is "Other" because I'm multiracial so my experience is unique since I don't have a definitive race (I have 5 of the "base races" in my lineage so I just identify as an individual). I think it's funny how people are still stuck on such classifications and it's interesting to hear their motivations for it. Minority status and affirmative action have been driving the issues here, do you have things similar to that in Australia where there are benefits to being a minority or indigenous?

*is curious*

indigenous peoples are basically the decendants of the aboriginal and torres straight islanders (of which there were hundreds of unique nations spread over the country) who existed here prior to british colonisation. some of which may not appear "typically" indigenous because of mixed heritage, im not sure if there is a certain measure of being indigenous or not for those people.

i wouldnt say there are "benefits" to being indigenous, its widely known that indigenous australians are disadvantaged in terms of health, employment, housing..etc and are over represented in the prison systems, and because of this there are government and non government bodies who aim to assist and improve the lives of indigenous peoples through various schemes, some of which dont work and some do.



not that i have any special insight, but i would say the classification is relevant due to previously stated well documented deficiency's in health and general life outcomes, and the possibility of having tailored assistance to aid with that, and more importantly the refusal to lose culture and national identity which is to this day still being eroded by the western occupation. i know thats not going to change, but for indigenous australians who have suffered for the last two hundred years under 'white' australia, i could understand how that could still make you bitter and desire to make known your position in history both today and in the past and essentially fight for your "classification" to save it from obliteration by western globalization.

i think its worth noting that indigenous peoples are not just some "poor australians", but in the majority of cases were made an underclass from the times of the british invasion. you cant undo two hundred years of persecution, and i expect as with african americans in the US they dont want anyone to forget who made their 'race' socially downtrodden in the first place. no matter how multicultural we claim to be today, we cant ignore the reasons why some people are sick and poor and others are healthier and have money in the bank.

*gets off soap box* (and wonders why i got up on it in the first place)

Mr Majestic: It is largely similar in SA. The view is that since indigenees were historically disadvantaged, they should be given preferential treatment when attempting to get jobs and so on.

They call it Affirmative Action.

Don't let me get on my soap box about how there were two positions and two job ads for what was exactly the same job - one for ATSI people and the other for all groups (including ATSI).

mmm, the irony is that while trying to help them, we're really only trying to turn them even more into us (by that i mean from their original culture toward western capitalism)

This stuff annoys me because I hate having to constantly police my vocabulary and figure out what I'm allowed to say. I'm a tiny white chick, 5'2" and about as pale as they get. That said is saying someone else is black racist somehow, or am I just being descriptive? I honestly have no idea.

During the election people in my class were all up and bothered about Obama (yeah, I'm American), and I did hear some people say "He's black" to which I would reply "No, he's a mulatto. He's half black, half white." A few people told me 'mulatto' was a racist term and multiracial is the proper term now. What the heck? I did keep using it.

As for 'retard', if it's a medical term I see no reason why it shouldn't be used in that context. Medicine doesn't have to be politically correct, in my opinion.

This is a current (well, since 1994) initiative. I do think that it has calmed down a little in some places.

Still, it is slightly annoying when looking for bursaries and all of them have something to the effect of "Preference will be given to HDIs" (Historically Disadvantaged Individuals).

Anyway, getting off-topic. </hijack>

wanna go get some coffee?



i think acceptable as well when someone is acting like a retard....

Considering the DDA doesn't use that word and the correct terms are developmentally disabled or developmentally challenged (I use to work for them) that word is fair although I'd never use it near a disabled person.

I also didn't know mulatto was a slur, but I'm sure these days when someone asks what I am if I said "mixed" like I always have that may be considered wrong as well. I say multiracial just to be clear to others that I'm not biracial (like the typical mullato, hapa, and other 2 race combinations). I didn't know that in America saying black was racist, it isn't where I'm from so that seems a touch out of control especially when they call themselves that with pride.

Affirmative action has invented a huge problem with reverse racism and I think it's a well intended, but horrible practice that should just stop because it's unequal and adds to social issues already existing.

True in some cases, less so in others. When you look at most people my own age (early twenties) and younger, then in all probability (and at least in theory) they have received the same standard of education and the same opportunities for sport and other extramural stuff. It does not strike me as overly fair to penalise any particular group.

Looking at people of my parents' age on the other hand, there is a gap between those were sidelined because of race and those that were not.

Whether it is politically correct to consider either case a case of racism I do not know.

On the other hand, I will admit that my group of friends is fairly homogenous.

One such example is crayfish licences.. or abalone licences... If you are Indigenous, then you get them for free/ridiculously cheap... If not then they are a few hundred dollars.

Now, seeing as there was no 'test' people were passing themselves off an Indigenous.

So now I think the 'criteria' is something like...
bloodwise you are 1/16th Indigenous.
you IDENTIFY as being Indigenous
and you do things according to culture... or something...
*goes to find link*

Recreational Fishing by Aboriginal Persons

Under Section 6 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994, an Aboriginal person is not required to hold a recreational fishing licence to the extent that the person takes fish from any waters in accordance with continuing Aboriginal tradition if the fish are taken for the purposes of the person or his or her family and not for a commercial purpose.

There are three criteria which Indigenous organisations will usually require you to satisfy before they will provide you with a proof of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
heritage letter. These criteria are outlined in the ATSIC Act and are:
1. Being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent
2. Identifying as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
3. Being accepted as such by the community in which you live, or formally lived

I don't think it's fair when there are employment quotas like affirmative action enforces in the USA. Imagine if you're Caucasian/white and you are very qualified for a job and have the highest credentials of all the interviewers, but you are not selected for that job and someone under qualified or just average is selected because there are penalties for businesses not filling their minority quota. It's created a racial discrimination against Caucasians and the blow back has increased tension from what I've witnessed, many people close to me have had a bad taste in their mouths and newly found resentment from the effects of these practices on them.

I'm a minority and I think it's an unfair practice and have seen it create racial tension in people who didn't previously have any racial bias. I think the best man for the job should get it and not be blocked out because of a PC diversity quota of lesser qualified applicants. It also seems like it makes minorities more complacent because they know someone needs a "insert ethnicity here" on the roster from many I have spoken to in general.

Perhaps your affirmative action doesn't go to the levels of quotas for employment rosters and financial aid/scholarships like here?

Well isn't giving special perks to "minorities" racist in and of itself?

and what about aliens? when/if they come and expose themselves (chuckle) are we going to pretend we are not racist (speciest?) because they are smarter and could destroy us easily and we are jealous? What if the universe is BASED on rasism and it's all a game of which race can conquer everything?

Poje, I say yes it is and have taken a lot of heat for it. I just can't lie to myself or to others about it even though I could benefit if I wanted to. I think it's counterproductive to advancement of any culture to keep old wounds open for the sake of having something to heal while new wounds are created in the process.

It's just not right IMO and harmful, I was just curious if Affirmative Action has gone to the extremes internationally as it has here in at home.

No, they do. Or at least I think they do. I am just saying that I feel that in some cases it *may* be justified, in my own I do not.

do people think that equal rights for women are just another product of 'political correctness'?

perhaps the whole giving women the vote was just another product of 'political correctness'..

What do you mean? Like, by political correctness? I mean, the main reason they did it was enough women knew that it was wrong that they managed to convince others that it was wrong. And the fact that women had no right to vote/had less rights was wrong and the protestors made it politically correct by convincing the majority that they were right. But i think I might be still missing something in your question. haha sorry, a little tired.

I think 'political correctness' gets a bad rap...lots of good stuff has come from the kind of thinking that is behind most 'political correctness'. If you look at the 'leaders' in our society who make 'anti-political correctness' part of their platform you will find the vast majority are racist, sexist and just fascist in general. You have to wonder if people would be happy to walk about espousing opinions supporting 'anti-political correctness' if they realised they are aligning themselves with the likes of Pauline Hanson.

:wooo I wonder how long it will be before I get howled down by the generalisation monitors:

Haha i see what you mean. Tho, just to add a little conflict, political correctness can be overused and corruped by people. Like some things politically correct are completely justified in being that way and have some terrible meanings and very much so offend some people. (such as the use of the N word although its meaning is being dulled with time) But also, people can use political correctness in a confining and restricting way as well to the point that some people masquerading under the guise of "political correctness" Give actual political correctness a bad wrap and people that use it annoying ass holes. But what constitutes as politically correct and when does it cross that line into annoying and unneccessarily restricting? I mean, some people just need to suck it up and move on with life instead of getting offended by every little thing that comes out of some persons mouth. Such as the use of the words "black" and "White" to describe a person. I mean, its a descriptive word, getting accross the general point of what someones trying to say. Then political correctness also goes into action and what is and is not politically correct to do and the issues that accompany that, which me even trying to go into that now would end up in a pile of jumbled nonsense.

Though I do aggree, "anti-political correctness" is kind of stupid.

Yes it totally is and I think it's unfortunate that so many people don't see that.

^^^ given its racism that creates the situation in which politically correct people give these special perks its kinda difficult to label the solution as also racist.

By that thinking it would be racist to set up a taskforce to deal with the racist attacks on Indian students in Australia.

Or sexist to set up a women's shelter etc etc

Recently "sexual orientation" was added to some law about discrimination in the US of A and there were a lot of people that claimed that it was "special treatment" to insist that you couldn't bar someone from whatever for their taste in partners. I never quite figured that out.

I dont know about employment, but there are definitely lots of scholarships and services that they can access that other people can't.

I can definietly see the two sides for it.

On one hand, two Indigenous students got into Medicine when there were other students who performed better in exams/interview/aptitude test...

But Medicine has lots of different quotas. They have an Indigenous student quota (well, it's not really a quota but a if you want to do Medicine, we will try our hardest to get you in), they have a rural quota, an international student quota, a full fee paying quota, a mature age quota, etc etc.

So, some students are studying medicine because they are 'bonded' i.e. when they graduate they HAVE to spend 6 years working in rural areas. They get no scholarship for this (there are other rural scholarships but thats different).
These people will pass the requirements to get into Medicine (above 96 TER etc) but wouldnt have been offered a place in the top 200 or whatever. The uni rings the next people on the list and says "We will let you study Med but only if you go rural for 6 years"
(Now I have a whole heap of problems with this because they're asking 16/17 yr olds to make decisions that will impact their entire lives and dangling Medicine, this thing the student has aspired for in front of them..)
And they'll keep calling down the list until they find 20 or so studnts who say yes... So these students got in above those higher up the list because they said "yes, I will slave myself to your needs"
I see this kinda like the Indigenous quota... they wouldn't let in anyone who will have massive problems in medicine... If you're simply not smart enough, you're not smart enough...
I think the Indigenous quota for Medicine is more about growing more doctors who will want to work with Indigenous people than about PCness....
It's all about filing Australias needs for rural doctors and Indigenous doctors rather than "theyve historically been unpriveliged so lets help them out"

My partner however tutors Indigenous kids in high school and the governement pays for it completely.

Oh and another scheme which we researched in Med is called a SRA - Shared Responsibility Agreement... This comes from the fact that Australia has tried the heavy hand approach and it didn't work, we tried the self-determination approach and it didn't work so now we're trying a combined thing.
SRAs are basically agreements between an Indigenous community and the government with promises from both sides.

Now some are kinda extreme like "if the Indigenous people will send their kids to school every day and clean their ears etc, then they get a pool."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626072/ (Im talking about the Mulan community agreement)

Now most people said "WOAH - they wash their faces, take the rubbish out and they get a pool? (in this case it was fuel bowsers) I do that already!! The government should pay for MY pool"

Which is a very valid point. The Indigenous side to some of the first agreements was very 'slack' in that they were things that you'd expect everyone to do anyway...

But Australia has been trying to work on Indigenous health for AGES and most things haven't worked...

If spending $200,000 on fuel bosers/ a pool/ whatever the community wants will reduce ear infections/Sexualy transmitted disease/whatever then is it worth it?

See I think 'women's shelter' is discrimination... Why not 'victims of domestic abuse' shelter?

I dont know enough about the attacks on the Indian students to really comment... Are the attacks racist or just opportunist? Do Indian students walk home alone more often in dodgy areas? Maybe where the attacks are occuring is a mainly Indian student living area...
I think any task force would be about stopping all atacks. If a 'white' person was attacked in the same area, its not like the task force would ignore them and say "oh, it cant be related"...

What do people think of 'women only' and 'men only' clubs/tours etc...


I don't think there should be actual equality regarding sexes.. i.e. a business should be forced to hire as many females as males etc.
I think that there should be equal opportunity, i.e. if a female has the same skills, experience etc then there is nothing stopping her from being chosen for the job...

I think the current "only 1% of CEOs in Australia are women" kinda stance by 'feminists' isn't really about sexism... My mum's age is who is CEOS at the moment and my mum chose between teacher, nurse or secretary... So of course there would be less CEOS now...
But I think the possibility for female CEOs in the future isnt being stopped or hindered by sexism. You can get into uni, study business, work from the ground up in a company...
I'm a bit anti-feminist in that i dont think that you can be expected to be treated the same if you have kids... i.e. an employer has two employees, one being a women with kids, one being a women/man without kids... It is likely that the woman with kids will need to look after them more, not be able to stay late if the business needs it, have sick days to look after kids etc...
Having chosen career over kids, I think that women who chose kids over career cannot expect to be considered at the same level seeing as they have different priorities...

ANy now I will be bashed by all the females on the board...http://www.homeofpoi.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/default/duck.gif

Melbourne has men's shelters. And I'm with Nat in not understanding enough about the attacks on Indian students. There was an Indian student in my area who complained of racially motivated attacks - but, ah, well, you see, my city is pretty damn dodgy and violent and every weekend there are severe assaults (including sexual) so I'm disinclined to think the attack was racially motivated and was more "Geelong is a total hole and rather scummy and if you walk alone at night you're a bit of a git" motivated.

And while I'm agreeing with Nat, I completely get your point about the CEOs. And I don't think that it's anti feminism. Then again, I see feminism as having a choice, rather than "women can do everything better blah blah".

Hehe, I had a rant on facebook about a women's only tour the other week...

Theres feminists and those that take it too far who I just decided I might refer to as anti-phallist facists or similar.

I'd agree with your comment about Geelong but only within the CBD at night and beyond that its like anywhere else. The pubs and clubs too regularly over serve and there are too many that think they are too big for a 'small' town... I've been asked if I was flipping someone off when he'd greeted me and I'd returned the greeting with a slight wave.

This is Geelong and not Melbourne though, Melbourne has a significantly higher proportions of minority groups in general, I guess that appears more threatening.

More on topic comments when I have time.

Good Call

The further you get into the actual mechanics of how political correctness actually functions, the closer you'll see it resembles religious fundamentalism and as such, is subject to Poe's Law

Most of the political correctness we deal with in everyday life is a light, sanitized version and if you used terms like "reverse racism" around the hardcores, you'd quickly find them planting a stake into the ground and piling faggots around it to dispense with you and your incorrect ideology.

Political correctness can be distilled down to vital essence in one simple phrase....White people suck.

Hey man, I had my friend, Copy Paper, over when i opened this and he got offended that you said he was boring and plain.

Wow, that's pretty much how I explained it to my black family

ooh this is on topic

Interesting article. Didn't have time for the whole thing, But from what I read, it brings an interesting angle on the topic. Not sure just what to say on it yet. As far as I know, men's only clubs are falling from popluarity though. Perhaps a solution, or a stab at one, men's only or women's only clubs required to have a side for both (aka a men's only club must also be backed close by with a women's only) Or vice versa.

What would be the female equivalent of Freemasonry? WI? lol

the thread can end here
think discourse and specialized language

what? Wisconsin and freemasonry-what'd I miss?

Haha everything.

faithinfire: WI = Women's Institute. A bizarre bit of Englishness.

I thought WI had spread to the USA.

Opinion piece relating to the single sex clubs

The Nearest gym to me is "women only" which is very frustrating as the nearest gender free gym is much more expensive and doesn't have a pool and is missing other quality facilities. All this just so women can exercise without the worry of being judged by what they look like when they are trying to change what they look like. Because of course the reason I want to go to the gym is to look at tousled, sweaty women and tell them how unattractive they are. Not to get fit myself that would be ludicrous.

Surely they would be better having a fat person only gym so fat people wouldn't be discouraged by the statuesque. I'm sure women are more likely to judge other women on how they look than men are. I've met women - they can be so harsh

(Sorry, am I allowed to say fat in the PC thread?)

Mynci: I think for the purposes of keeping to the PC'ness of the thread, then fat should technically be "Overweight" but it's not as if saying "Overweight" makes it sound any better! Or large for that matter.
Though if it was taken less seriously then you could say, for example "That bobby is quite the man of substance" rather than saying "Bob's fat" (^_^)

Also. For all your political correct wording needs, you can consult...
The Politically Correct Dictionary (^_^)

Speaking of fat discrimination.. i will point you all the THIS...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkcUq1LBdaA
The Gruen transfer is an Aussie show all about advertising. and they have advertising companies come on and they give them challenges.

The challenge here was to promote 'fat pride'.

When I watched this on the net (the ABC decided not to screen it because of obvious reassons) I thought "That is a brilliant ad."

I think out of ALL the different forms of discrimination, fat discrimination is the most accepted. And whie people will get uptight abiout correct words for race... not many people will stop someone telling a fat joke.

What do you think?

Yeah I don't get the gym thing. Especially considering if you play a sport then men are going to be watching you. Not to mention women being just as harsh judges as well! Oh yeah, and what has already been said about people going to gyms to improve themselves and not judge others.

I'd never* join a women's only gym.


*unless it was for completely financial reasons given my lack of employment

I aggree. Fat people, (People of substance?) Haven't had historical trouble, revolutions, and things like that, Even though their weight might not be all their fault. Though I think it's accepted because being fat is generally considered a personal problem, not something that's caused genetically or that can be considered discriminate. And It's not really right either. But also fat people even tend to tell fat jokes. As a whole, people don't tell fat jokes to fat people and fat people tend not to care or tend not to do anything about it if they are being made fun of. Low self-esteem for fairly obvious reasons. Fat people are the most easily bullied of the world in general. Unfortunately. Would you aggree?

And to rougie: Yeah, women's only gym does seem kind of pointless and annoying. Just frusterating and causes more problems than solutions id say.

I'm fat and I've developed a pretty thick skin (heh) over the course of my life. Plus we stay warmer

Is it wrong if I call my overweight cat 'Fatty'? I don't think he can understand English tho?

J

And what about Durbs? can I call him Fatty too?

Pyrolific - you, you fu*ck yoooooo!!!