SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the working-exactly-as-intended dept.
From the ever politically neutral UC Berkeley (via phys.org) comes this fun little article.
The study highlights a paradoxical consequence of the political correctness (PC) norm. While PC behavior is generally thought to threaten the free expression of ideas, Professor Jennifer Chatman of the Haas School's Management of Organizations Group and her co-authors found that positioning such PC norms as the office standard provides a layer of safety in the workplace that fosters creativity.
"Creativity is essential to organizational innovation and growth. But our research departs from the prevailing theory of group creativity by showing that creativity in mixed-sex groups emerges, not by removing behavioral constraints, but by imposing them. Setting a norm that both clarifies expectations for appropriate behavior and makes salient the social sanctions that result from using sexist language unleashes creative expression by countering the uncertainty that arises in mixed-sex work groups," says Chatman.
Personally, I'd like to see the exact same study done with "political correctness" swapped out with simply "treating others with dignity and respect". This one smells entirely too strongly of an agenda to me.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 02 2014, @05:09PM
OK, so if everything is as you described then it sounds to me like one wacky person with a serious persecution complex has decided that you are personally responsible for all the injustices in their world. Just as you individually do not represent all of malekind, I don't think this one crazy person represents political correctness.
I mean seriously, if some nutjob said "To reverse global warming, I must sodomise your dog" would you go around complaining that all environmentalists are dogfuckers? It sounds like you've run into one nutty individual who needs to smoke a joint and get fucking laid. If this crazy person is in a position of authority over you, or has bullied your bosses into coming down on you, then that's a damn shame, but if it really came to a proper tribunal or trial and s/he's trying to lay all that bullshit at your feet then s/he hasn't a leg to stand on legally - not in any jursidiction in the world.
Part of the problem I mentioned in my grandparent post is that there is this misconception of political correctness as a big legal blunt instrument that forces workplaces to adopt all kind of crazy restrictions. When ignorant or lazy bosses start to believe this (perhaps because they've been convinced of it by someone with an axe to grind) then they will start imposing all kinds of silly and unnecessary CYA rules - truth imitates fiction. Other times they want to implement an unpopular rule for their own purposes, but see political correctness as a sneaky way of justifying it to the workforce and diverting the blame. In those cases though you should blame the idiots in charge, not the benign ethos that they have completely misunderstood.
We see something similar here in the UK, where hysterical, perpetually-terrified Daily Mail readers think the EU wants to regulate the curviness of bananas and other imaginary shit like that. CYA-types then jump at the chance to use that as a convenient excuse. I remember a case a few years back where the papers reported that a school had decreed that all pupils playing conkers (google it) should wear eye protection. They blamed EU Health and Safety rules. It's all bullshit, the EU mandated nothing if the kind. It was just one dweeby administrator's petulant little protest about having to carry out playground risk assessments.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday December 02 2014, @07:15PM
We see something similar here in the UK, where hysterical, perpetually-terrified Daily Mail readers think the EU wants to regulate the curviness of bananas and other imaginary shit like that.
And this is exactly why Scotland should secede from the UK, and then rejoin the EU as a new member nation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 02 2014, @08:37PM
I mean seriously, if some nutjob said "To reverse global warming, I must sodomise your dog" would you go around complaining that all environmentalists are dogfuckers?
Well, you're right. The first time it happened, I would write that person off as a nutjob.
My opinion might be swayed, though, if I heard this from person after person claiming to be an environmentalist, and I didn't hear any dissent from anybody likewise claiming to be an environmentalist, especially if there were pseudoscience involved. Then if I caught an environmentalist attempting it only to be called an AGW denier by other environmentalists for not letting them proceed, I don't believe I would have any recourse but to conclude that environmentalists really are dogfuckers.
Other things that would sway my opinion include if I were required to attend classes about how sodomizing dogs will prevent global warming and acknowledge that I'm responsible for climate change if I don't let my dog be sodomized, privileges given to those whose dogs were sodomized, and group punishments for those who refused to have their dogs sodomized.
And at least in this hypothetical situation, I actually have a choice! If I get sick of it and say fuck it, sodomize my dog already, I can get on with my life.
If the PC crowd would go after womyn-born-womyn who spout misogyny (or misandry) the same as they go after assigned males, it would help me to see PC differently.
Also, it's unhelpful when someone jumps straight to the misogyny conclusion when an assigned male presents evidence that a womyn-born-womyn is wrong about a factual matter.
The silence on issues that affect men such as infant genital mutilation is deafening. Would it be acceptable to tell a rape victim that her rape is merely a matter between her and her rapist, and if she doesn't like being a rape victim, she should discuss it with her rapist? The equivalent response (that having to live with mutilated genitals is just a matter between my ex-parents and me) is all the 1/500 men for whom circumcision goes wrong get.
I digress perhaps, but let's accept that the science is valid and that mutilating male genitals protects women from cervical cancer and is a valid AIDS vaccine. We should at least find it troubling that we're performing a surgical operation on an infant that's supposed to protect from sexually transmitted diseases without any kind of follow-up care and certainly without any discussion with the patient, even when he's old enough to talk about it. Why not wait until the kid's 10? How much sex are we expecting a toddler to have, anyway? Additionally, if we're so cavalier about violating the male body over cervical cancer and sexually transmitted HPV, why is there even a controversy about giving 12 year old girls an actual vaccine against HPV that leaves their bodies intact?
Things like gender equality would be great. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the PC crowd actually wants that. In fact, bringing up circumcision at all is probably politically incorrect, because it points out an area where women have a privilege men do not.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 03 2014, @10:39AM
OK, I'm not really sure where to start. Your terminology is confusing, and me giving you a metaphorical dog to bugger probably didn't help.
Anyway, I've never had to attend classes where I'm being blamed for everything because I'm a male. I'm not punished not being a woman, and I've never heard of anybody (except you) who has had to put up with anything even resembling the kind of shit you are describing, and I have a lot of friends and family in highly PC-conscious workplaces like social services, schools, childcare and the medical professions. I don't know where the hell you work but personally I'd be looking for an exit.
> In fact, bringing up circumcision at all is probably politically incorrect, because it points out an area where women have a privilege men do not.
I'm not sure how women are privileged by FGM, but I don't think bringing it up would be considered politically incorrect (unless, of course, you were bringing it up in totally inappropriate contexts, of course). I would expect it to turn into a conversation of the rights of the baby vs the rights/ duties of the parents, and I think anybody who opposes FGM would ultimately have to concede that circumcision falls into the same general category (although it is usually far less damaging) and is therefore also wrong - unless of course they have some agenda (probably religious) that they just can't deviate from. But that's religion, which is a whole other barrel of monkeys.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 03 2014, @03:38PM
FGM
Please go back and read. Women have the privilege of having intact genitals. Men are mutilated as infants to protect women from HPV, which causes cervical cancer.
Do you remember around fall 2012?
An HPV vaccine was developed, and there was this big uproar about the idea that girls should be vaccinated against HPV, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer, at age 12. Why? How dare you sexualize my daughter!
Also, the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed routine infant male genital mutilation because it had found evidence that circumcised men were less likely to transmit HPV to women. They didn't recommend that circumcision was something a young couple should discuss before getting it on. They didn't recommend that 12 year old boys should be circumcised to protect women from HPV. They recommended that newborn infants be circumcised to protect somebody else from a sexually transmitted disease.
If you can't see what's wrong here… well, of course you can't see what's wrong here. You jumped straight to the assumption that I was talking about FGM.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 03 2014, @05:16PM
> Please go back and read. Women have the privilege of having intact genitals. Men are mutilated as infants to protect women from HPV, which causes cervical cancer.
Point taken. As a counterpoint, I'd offer that ALL women who suffer FGM have their sex lives ruined. The majority of men who are circumcised have few or no negative side effects. Doesn't make it less wrong, especially for the unlucky minority of men who get severe consequences, but I wouldn't call the women "privileged." However I don't want to turn it into a pissing match (no pun intended), suffering is not a competitive sport.
About HPV - I didn't so much jump to a conclusion as miss your point. As I said before, I find your writing style a little confusing sometimes.
But yes, I agree, the vaccine is the sensible solution. My daughter will get it when she's old enough. I would say that the resistance to that was not so much about political correctness as the bizarre squeamishness of some people about sex in general. Seeing "sexually transmitted disease" and " twelve-year-olds" in the same sentence just pushed some big red panic-button in their brains and triggered the blind, hysterical, unfounded moral outrage shitstorm response.
I can't say I'm surprised that people of that particular backwards mindset decided that cutting baby boys was preferable to protecting young girls from STDs, and I strongly suspect that most of them had already decided that they support circumcision for other reasons (religion? tradition?), and saw STD protection as a convenient argument to support a position they had already decided on.[1] It's a fairly typical case of getting the whole evidence / opinion relationship the wrong way round.[2] That's what I meant by a backwards mindset. But again, nothing whatsoever to do with PC.
[1] Never mind that the evidence for circumcision as STD protection is shaky at best.
[2] Just as the vast majority of people who oppose windfarms don't give a shit about birds, they will nevertheless trot out the same tired old debunked bullshit about wind turbines killing birds by the million, simply because it is an argument that happens to support the view point they've already chosen.