P.C. or Not P.C.?

As we have spoken generally of opposition to P.C., we have received many inquiries from readers desirous that we qualify or parse this out a bit more.  Often, we have been asked specifically to go into more detail about our thoughts on the P.C. phenomenon as it pertains to race relations.

    Now, sometimes P.C. overreaches and ends up doing more harm than good; other times, reactions are unfairly labeled “P.C.” when they are simply cases of people not wanting you to be an enormous asshole.

    Consider the case of a little “party” recently thrown by some frat boys in Texas, as described in this article culled from the Associated Press.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *   

MLK Party Causes Uproar on Texas Campus
Jan 25, 5:47 AM (ET)
By JEFF CARLTON

DALLAS (AP) - Authorities at Tarleton State University said they plan to investigate a Martin Luther King Jr. Day party that mocked black stereotypes by featuring fried chicken, malt liquor and faux gang apparel.

"I feel like there is no excuse for this type of ignorance," said Donald Ray Elder, president of the Stephenville school's chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Photographs posted on social networking Web site Facebook.com showed partygoers wearing Afro wigs and fake gold and silver teeth. One photo showed students "mocking how African-Americans do step shows," Elder said. In another picture, a student is dressed as Aunt Jemima and carries a gun.

"That upsets me," Elder said. "That's someone who knows nothing about Dr. King, because Dr. King was totally about nonviolence."

Wanda Mercer, the school's vice president of student life, said an investigation was planned into the Jan. 15 party.

More than 400 students attended a university-sponsored forum Wednesday night that Elder described as "a shaky baby step" in bridging a divide between black and white students on the campus, which had about 400 black students out of 7,800 overall last semester.

Elder said he sensed a racial divide at the forum, with black students sitting on one side of the room and whites on the other.

"It was civil, but it also escalated into a shouting match," he said in a telephone interview afterward.

Some of the students shown in the photos apologized, Elder said.

University President Dennis P. McCabe said the photographs were reprehensible.

"I am personally insulted by these photographs and am disappointed that Tarleton students have demonstrated such insensitivity," he said.

Stephenville is about 60 miles southwest of Fort Worth.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          * 

     Now, we hope you’ll agree that someone doesn’t have to be a member of the infamous “P.C. Police” to find this troublesome—but the so-called apology of one of the planners included the inevitable crack about P.C. ("black or African American, whichever you deem politically correct"), as if P.C. itself were causing the controversy, rather than racism.  The closing of the "apology"—"I do apologize if you felt any disrespect because none was intended" (italics ours)—can be roughly translated as "we can do whatever the fuck we want, and if you get mad it's your own fault for choosing to get mad."  We’re sure that the people whose idea this charming soiree was would attempt to justify it as an act of protest against P.C., and defend their antics with the usual “I suppose you think we should all go to jail,” “Whatever happened to Free Speech?” and the like.  In other words, their explanation would be that they don’t have a problem with Black people, but are instead just anti-P.C.  So, since we have from time to time trumpeted ourselves as being anti-P.C., we figured it would be a good idea to distinguish ourselves from people who pull shit like this, just so there’s no confusion.

    No, we don’t think they should be in jail.  No, we don’t think it should be illegal to do this.  We are also not going to call them “insensitive,” because we don’t call people “insensitive” here—we just call people retards, and the people who threw and/or attended this party are retards of the highest order.  We think that people should tell them to their faces that they are retards 24 hours a day for the rest of their lives (if they ask you to stop, ask them “Whatever happened to Free Speech?”, a sentiment with which they are no doubt familiar).  We think that women should refuse to fuck them, and that employers should refuse to hire them (if they say this is unfair, simply respond that you are against quota systems for retards, and honor the rights of businesses to hire whomever they please, another sentiment with which they are almost certainly well acquainted).  We would say that we hope someone kicks all their asses, but if we said that, and then someone did, they would be able to sue us (it would of course be fun for us to respond by saying “But we thought you thought society had gotten too litigious!  Shouldn’t you be taking personal responsibility for the consequences of being retards, instead of suing us?”—but we’re sure that these guys’ dads are richer than our dads, so we’d rather just not end up in court with them to begin with).  So, we are hereby officially not saying that we hope someone kicks all their asses.

    This is not because they “offended” us, or “made us cry.”  If we saw a bunch of people rolling around on the ground, clapping arhythmically and singing “Rubber Ducky” while pissing their pants, we would not cry or be offended—we would just naturally assume that they were retarded.  So, one more time: if you are trying to demonstrate that you think a rule or attitude is unfair, it is retarded to take it out on the people that the rule or statute is designed to protect instead of on the people who made it—for example, if you think your town’s anti-graffiti laws are too harsh, you don’t attempt to change them by spray-painting graffiti on the houses of random people who didn’t do anything to you, and who aren’t the ones who made the law.  This clarification, of course, assumes that their “we are just anti-P.C.” explanation is actually the truth, rather than the truth being that they are in fact actually racist and are just using “anti-P.C.” as a cover, which we have to admit seems more likely. 

    For the millionth time—we are anti-P.C., and we don’t pull shit like this.  Why?  Because we are intelligent people who are just anti-P.C., and not bigots who are using “anti-P.C.” as a cover.  If these guys were really just anti-P.C., then it would probably have occurred to them that the school is now going to have no choice but to respond to this by becoming a million times more P.C.  We cannot stress this enough: if you are anti-P.C., because you feel like you are not allowed to say what you want to say, then just do what we do and calmly fucking explain what it is you want to say, in a neutral environment like the web, and be willing to listen to people who disagree, instead of breaking out the fucking burnt cork and watermelon, assholes.

    We have explained this elsewhere on the site, but once again we will mention that we can’t believe how misguided the Conservative “Whatever happened to Free Speech?” rhetoric is.  The right-wing were yelling it after the Michael Richards incident, for example—but what the fuck were they talking about?  Was Michael Richards arrested for what he said?  Is Michael Richards in jail?  No.  Is anyone saying that he should be?  No.  So, what the fuck do you mean by “Whatever happened to Free Speech?”, because Free Speech only means that you can’t go to jail for what you say.  It doesn’t mean people can’t be pissed at you.  And anyone who plans on yelling “Whatever happened to Free Speech?” about this horseshit at Tarleton State, we refer you to the same above explanation—as we will no doubt have to do again the next time someone pulls some shit and you all start yelling “Whatever happened to Free Speech?” after people naturally get mad about whatever horseshit that’s going to involve. 

    So much for them.  In general, however, this incident is a useful example with which to clarify our stance on P.C. as it concerns race issues, which is as follows:  To the best of our knowledge, there has been no significant “P.C. Overreach” where race is concerned that is hurting society in any way.  Remember, when we say “hurting society,” we mean “causing people to believe things that are not true.”  So, in order for P.C. efforts against racism to be “hurting society,” there would need to be at least some racist ideas that are true—and, as far as we have been able to discern with either research or logic, there are no racist ideas that are true.  This doesn’t mean you can’t criticize people’s cultures, because obviously there can be problems with anyone’s culture, but we are defining “racist” here as being concerned with genetics, and, to reiterate, we can find nothing to support the validity of any racist claims with a genetic basis.  Therefore, P.C. as concerns race is not an issue for us, at least not in any sense beyond a general prescription that all good-faith opinions about any sensitive issue, race included, should be entertained with an open mind, and that someone should never be assumed to be racist just because you suspect X, Y, or Z about what they might be trying to imply.  We trust that no-one of average capability or higher will have any trouble distinguishing cases covered under this caveat from instances of deliberate retardation with malice aforethought, as in the excerpted story.

    P.C. as concerns issues of gender, however, is, sadly, a different story. 

    Recently, a good friend of the site was talking with a younger cousin, a woman of about nineteen.  She had brought up a paper that she was working on for school, on a topic of her own choosing.  He asked what she had chosen to write about, and she said “the ways that society objectifies women,” or something along those lines.  Okay, it’s a common topic, and so far it sounds like a totally legitimate issue—no problems so far.  When he asked her to expand on what she meant by that, however, the problem became clear.  The young woman thought a moment, during which she became visibly angry, before finally exclaiming “I see all these women walking around in short skirts and high heels and they’re just WHORES!” 

    Whoa.  Okay, let’s back up here.

    Her initial point, as stated, sounded like a (legitimate) Feminist argument about women not being viewed as whole and complete people—as we said, no problems so far.  Her explanation of what she meant, on the other hand, was a super-repressed right-wing argument about “whores.”  And we’re not talking about just thinking it’s gross when someone gets fake boobs the size of basketballs here—we’re talking about a young woman who thought she was making a Feminist point being moved to white-hot rage by the existence of short skirts. 

    And, unlike our gracious hosts at the Texas frat house, this person was not trying to protest against P.C.—she was trying to be P.C.  This is what this perfectly sweet and intelligent young woman thought Feminism wanted her to do.  This is how she thought she was supposed to combat objectification—by screaming “whore” at women who wear short skirts and high heels.

    Now, we think we understand what went wrong here.  Since Feminism is supposed to help women, it seems logical to assume that it would be for things that make women feel comfortable and good, and against things that make women feel uncomfortable and bad.  And, if you happen to be a woman, you would probably phrase this to yourself as “Feminism is supposed to be for things that make me feel comfortable, and against things that make me feel uncomfortable.”  And here’s where the trouble starts.  If you are a teenager, and insecure about yourself, specifically with regard to your appearance—which virtually all teenagers are, both female and male—then, obviously, sexy people of your own gender are going to make you feel uncomfortable.      

    And this sucks, but it is an inevitable part of being alive.  What no-one seems to be able to say here, and what Feminism has been in a no-win situation about for quite a while, is the following: just because something makes teenage girls uncomfortable, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong—and it certainly doesn’t mean that it’s sound Feminist policy to lash out against it. 

    Boys go through the same thing, you know—we just never, ever talk about it.  But if we’re being honest, we would admit that we can remember being kids and watching Batman or whoever punch someone so hard that they go through a fucking wall and thinking: “Shit.  I am supposed to be able to do that when I grow up, or girls won’t like me?”  And, indeed, a lot of guys never get over this insecurity.  Those are the guys who make fun of sports.  It’s just that they don’t develop an anti-sports philosophy and call it Masculinism, because who would buy it?  Who could possibly believe that it’s pro-guy to not like sports?  Well, we guess if most guys were so insecure about their physical abilities that it made them hate sports and the guys who played them, then people would buy it—but this isn’t the case.  Maybe it’s because guys just aren’t as scrutinized as girls, and so never fully come to grasp all the ways in which they don’t measure up—but, for some reason, a 300-lb guy who never gets out of his recliner can watch a world-class athlete in flawless physical condition on TV and identify with him.  Of course, there’s something women can do about this: start making fun of guys who aren’t in flawless physical condition.  Start talking about how gross they are at top volume 24/7, and never sleep with any guy who isn’t hot.  After all, if you’re still going to fuck them, there’s no reason for them to change.

    And now, back to our friend’s cousin, because this helps to explain her confusion.  To her, the fact that people like fucking seems like a one-way street: it inconveniences her, because she has to compare herself to the “whores” in the hauts talons and jupes courtes, but it doesn’t inconvenience guys.  Of course, in reality, most of us actually spend our entire lives banging our heads against the wall because we know we’re never going to get to fuck the girls she’s pissed about, but she doesn’t know this.  She thinks we all get to, hence the whole “whores” thing.  

    But we don’t.  Not all men get to fuck them, and not all women get to be them, but this doesn’t mean that they’re doing something wrong.  If we were sexy chicks, we’d go around in cute outfits too—unless, of course, we had allowed all the people who don’t get to fuck or be us to convince us that we shouldn’t.  But we’re too smart for that—and, luckily, so are a sufficient number of sexy chicks.  You know, in ancient Athens, the hetairai—a class of educated, taxpaying courtesans—were the only women allowed to participate in the symposia.  Now, we’re not going to explicitly allege that women who like to fuck are always smarter than women who don’t like to fuck—but hey, we’ll toss the idea out there.  Some schools of Feminism have already been on this tip for 25 years, courtesy of Madonna, and even more got on board in the last decade, courtesy of Sex and the City—drawing an explicit connection from the sex drive to the artistic impulse, and from the artistic impulse to the intellect…  Just as men have always done because, hey, we had to convince women to sleep with us somehow.         

    And, in a nutshell, this is the difference between race P.C. and gender P.C.  All race P.C. does is forcefully assert that racist ideas are not valid—which is fine, because it is in fact the case that racist ideas are not valid.  Gender P.C., on the other hand, has had to negotiate the Scylla-and-Charybdis relationship between the fact that most women don’t consider themselves to be especially attractive and the fact that the ones who do still count as women—and this has led to the dissemination of attitudes that are not logically justifiable.

    To us, the rule of thumb (which is an expression that originated with carpenters who used to use the distance from thumb-tip to knuckle to approximate one inch, and NOT from a law about what you could or couldn’t use to beat your wife, since there was never any such law, and if you think there was then it would still be in old law books so go find it) is whether the so called “P.C.” is being used against false things or true things.  If someone is telling you that something is not true, and it really isn’t true, or that there’s a problem with something, and there really is a problem with it, then they are not being “P.C.;” they are just being accurate.

    Oh, and we’re sorry for titling this article via the “(blank) or not (blank)” device, because we know it’s really cheesy and it usually annoys us when people do it too.

Back to the Top

Comment on this Essay

Back to the Home Page