Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Interesting article.  Under the guises of "language purity" and "call a spade
a spade", this man is pushing his own agenda hard.  This seems to be the
new strategy of many conservatives - relegating any socially progressive group
to a "campus" status, where they can be dismissed along with the 60-s radicals
that eventually "saw the light" and went on to careers on Wall Street.

Unfortunately, he does a shoddy job of it.  So "educational equity" is "quotas"
eh?  (Which term is the newspeak, I'd like to know?)  He also has his facts
wrong.  "Men" is not "myn", for heavens' sake!  "Word comes" is how he sights
one of his sources.  By the end, I wonder if he actually *knows* the etymology
of "testimony".  His brother Peter, a man, is "distinguished".  However, he
freely ridicules a feminist professor on the shoddiest of premises.  

Not all of this language is "remote campusese" or "oddball feminese".  Just
because something is "PC" does not make it wrong, or make it acceptable to
dismiss it as a fad.  Feminism and racial equality, two issues that figure
prominently in his article, are hardly new concepts, nor are they on a par
with the term "vegetarian leather".

I, for one, am not buying this shoddy tar-'em-all-with-the-same-brush job.
What is "correct English" anyway?  Isn't that a euphemism, John?  Given your
shoddy treatment of facts and dubious sources, why should I accept it on
faith that the Mother Tongue is being "debased"?

If you equate my rights with the labeling of Porky Pig and Mr. Magoo, John,
I think it's high time you woke up and smelled the fresh-brewed mountain
grown.  Or should we just write you off as cogitatively challenged?

    Sharon

    
    You know how as you grow up you change from a baby to an infant;
    to a toddler; to a little girl; to a big girl; to a young lady;
    to a woman?  As you go up the career ladder, your titles change
    to reflect that upwards movement?
    
    I think we should be happy that the words are changing for
    members of our society who've had an uphill-battle.  It means
    that we're begining to think of them with more respect and
    dignity.  On the other hand, people who don't use PC language
    shouldn't be hung up to dry either.  They just haven't progressed
    yet. 
    
    Rachael
    
    

    I get somewhat of a kick of out guys making jokes about calling
    men "myn". Talk about NFI, talk about missing the point, talk about....
    SOP.
    
    --DE
    

    hi Dawn:
    
    never occured to me what the point might be until you raised yours.
    
    since there are men and     wo men
    then it follows that if there are womyn then there must be myn.
    
    my guess is that those folks are jerking your chain. (and not missing
    the point)

Yeah, they are "jerking [your] chain" but they are also missing the point.
The two are not exclusive.

It is sometimes amazing how much someone's humour can tell you about
their attitudes, prejudices and biases.

The point, of course, is that it does *not* follow that if there are womyn
there must be myn, because the point was to get away frm the dependency
of the word woman on the word man.  The joke relies on the pattern:
man -> woman, assumes that as a basis.  The reason they "don't get it" is
because the dont seem to understand that that patter is *not* a basis.

D!

    Im surprised that a modern and clever wo myn like you doesn't understand
    that any man who suggests that there is a connection between myn and
    womyn is probably clever enough to know there is no connection.
    

Put a sock in it, herb.

D! (noter)

    D! 
    
    i suggest you pick on somebody your own size.
    
    			herb
    

    
    ummmm.   Folks?  (That's "PC" for "guys" :-)
    
    Can we please stay on whatever the topic is.
    
    About the phrase "jerking your chain."  I always cringe at that.
    I have assumed the reference was to male anatomy -- have I totally
    missed the meaning of it?  I remember when I was around 19 or 20, I
    had a customer services job (not at DEC) and some guy told me
    I was "jerking his chain."  This was the first time I'd heard the
    phrase, and I almost hung up on him because I thought he'd said
    something dirty to me.
    
    Justine

    i would luv to know the etymology of that phrase perhaps yur right.
    But, i did not mean anything sexual by it at all
    a similar phrase would be "he's pulling your leg"
    or 			      "she's giving her a hard time"
    
    or 			      "they are are engaged in some good (or bad)
    			      natured teasing and making you the butt of
    			      the joke
    i can understand why you might think of anatomical simile but none
    intended in my case and I would be surprised if there had been in the
    anecdote you just offered.
    p.s.
    and i know when my wife uses it she is not refering to my 'dingus'
    
    					h

I believe that "jerking your chain" refers instead to keeping a dog on a 
leash or chain.  If you want to get the dog excited and barking and generally
upset, a few swift tugs on the leash will get the poor mutt all worked up
with a minimum of effort,

					Nigel

    Justine
    
    I think 'jerking your chain' refers to the early indoor 'water closets'
    that kept the water resevoir above the commode. When you had finished
    using the commode, you 'jerked the chain' and flushed the contents.
    I believe that the expression originally referred in a joking way
    to flushing something.
    
    Bonnie

    wadddayamean early, we had them in my house until at least 1949!!
    
    (to be honest, that WAS the image that kind of came to my mind but i
    couldn't think of any reason why it would be funny or relevant so i
    dismissed it.)

    
    Well, I feel much better now.  Here I thought this guy was talking to
    me about his  body, and he was really telling me that I was treating
    him like  a misbehaving dog....
    
    glad I asked.
    
    Justine

    ya gotta be jerkin my chain!
    
    The MOST common way i remember that being used or using it is ...
    
    are you making fun of me? or
    are you trying to pull the wool over my eyes? or
    that couldn't POSSIBLY be true! (could it?)

As I use the terms, and as I have heard/seen them used:

Jerking x's chain == Pulling x's leg == rattling x's cage == Teasing x

Jerking x's chain == Giving x a hard time == Jerking x around

It's context dependent, but I've never heard the "chain" expression used
in a potentially scatological way.

-d

    -d
    
    I only meant possible scatalogical if it is indeed derived from
    the water closet.
    
    certainly not today
    
    BJ

I used "scatological" in re: "obscene" or, in Justine's situation, "sex-
oriented."

-d

    	Well, getting back to the basenote, I personally found the article
    	quite amusing.

    	Isn't it funny how popular "PC-hood" has become as the Premiere
    	cultural boogeyperson? :)  What (precisely) ARE the dangers imposed
    	by PC-ness that threaten life in the universe as we know it?

    		Gee.  People might tend to use a bit more respect than
    		that which was formerly offered in terms describing people 
    		who aren't able-bodied white males.  (Shocking, eh?)  :-)  

    	What does the article say is at stake in this crisis?  

    		> "...The descent into accurate English is ever more 
    		> arduous.  In the disability-rights movement, one must 
    		> grope through a fierce blizzard of euphemisms: the 
    		> uniquely abled, the differently abled,..."

    	"Arduous??"  "Grope through a fierce blizzard" (of English words???)

    	Sounds like the author is suffering from a severe case of language-
    	impairment (and possibly language-phobia) if he has this much
    	trouble coping with the pairing of these few common English words.
    	Perhaps he deserves our empathy (and some language therapy.)  :-)

    	English is a living language (in the sense that it is still changing
    	and evolving as a result of being in everyday use by those who speak
    	it.)  In the U.S., English has taken a few turns that our British
    	benefactors (who gave us the language) haven't adopted.  So what?

    	Change is inherent in any living language.  Protecting a language
    	is a poor excuse for trying to justify using it to hurt people (by
    	reverting back to the insulting terms that preceded the so-called
    	euphemisms that bug this author so much.)

    		> "From the Pentagon to the feel-good self-esteemers, 
    		> everyone seems to be contributing mightily to the steady 
    		> debasement of the Mother Tongue..."

    	Yes, for God's sake, let's save "Mom."  :-)

    	Then (and this is hilarious!!) - he goes on to use a non-standard
    	English "euphemism" himself to describe "euphemisms" that he thinks
    	are coming from some of the objects of his wrath: "ODDBALL FEMINESE."  

    	Maybe I should write him a letter asking him which dictionary
    	substantiates his use of such a term (requesting that he cease
    	and desist the debasement of our "Mother tongue" this way.) :-)

    	Of course, the bottom line to the author's nonsense is good news
    	for us:  People can't stop bitching about "PC-hood" in magazines,
    	newspapers, books, notesfiles, streetcorners, and everywhere else
    	in this country because rights movements are firmly entrenched in
    	the Western psyche.

    	Articles like these put (and keep) rights movements in a prime
    	place on center stage (where rights issues can be discussed,
    	debated, and promoted.)

    	Ultimately, the fact that a major national magazine would give
    	space to an article whining about how tough life has become in
    	our culture (with the "fierce blizzard" of terms coming from the 
    	nasty ole "PC" subculture) is a sign that rights movements have
    	their attention, which is what some of these new terms were
    	designed to do in the first place, n'est-ce pas?

    While not *all* of my sympathies lie with Mr. Leo (I agree that
    he stretches things too far), but I agree with the point about
    the "debasement" of the language.
    
    It's not change or evolution that I object to, it's the obsession
    with creating vague circumlocutions to replace brevity and directness.
    
    --- jerry

    	Well, I suppose there's something to be said for being direct,
    	but when I think of the difference between describing someone
    	as "crippled" versus the term "physically challenged," I much
    	prefer the second one (and I think it's plenty direct enough.)

    No, I don't think it's direct at all.
    
    What exactly does "physically challenged" *mean*?  Well, to me it
    means that the person involved finds it challenging -- i.e. has some
    difficulty -- performing physical activities.
    
    OK, so how about the person who can't do more than five sit-ups at
    a time. Or who can't jog more than, say, 50 yards without becoming
    exhausted. Or who can't lift more than, say, 15 pounds. Aren't those
    people "physically challenged"?  But They (you know -- *Them*) would
    like to have you associate "physically challenged" with wheelchairs
    and crutches. So what does that make the person described above,
    "physically able"?
    
    How about "vision impaired"?  I can't read the characters on my
    terminal without my glasses. I call that being "vision impaired".
    But I'm not blind. Yet, They would have us eschew the word "blind"
    in favor of "vision impaired".
    
    Or the term "Native American".  Personally, I find the use of that
    term offensive because it's exclusionary. Seriously. I was born in
    American and raised in America. I didn't come from elsewhere. That
    makes me a native American. But I'm told that I can't describe myself
    as such.
    
    The trouble with coming up with new, "more positive" terms is that it's
    a never-ending process. The fact is that it *doesn't* change the way
    people think and treat others. "Crippled" was a dirty word, so
    "handicapped" was used as a "nice" term. But then "handicapped" was
    deemed to be negative, so "disabled" became the term of choice. But
    now that term isn't positive enough and "physically challenged" is
    *au courant*. How long do you think it'll be before *that* phrase
    falls out of favor and a new, even vaguer term is coined to take
    its place?
    
    We aren't creating a set of positive words. We're only creating more
    eventually derogatory terms.
    
    --- jerry

    	Jerry, the "they" who wanted new terms like "physically challenged"
    	and "vision impaired" are part of the community of people who are 
    	being described (disability rights groups) - not so?  

    	If they would prefer a set of more positive terms than the ones
    	that were more commonly used before, why is it such a burden on 
    	the rest of society to agree to it?  Is it really that much of
    	an inconvenience?

    	If you changed your name, would it be reasonable for me to refuse
    	to acknowledge it because I consider it a personal hassle to get
    	used to your new preference?  What if you changed it again 10 yrs
    	from now?  Would it seem acceptable for me to complain to you that
    	you're making my life a lot more difficult by forcing me to keep
    	adjusting to your new names?

    	People should be called whatever they want to be called, even if
    	their preferences change over the course of one or more decades.
    	It isn't that difficult a progression to follow.

    	When it comes down to it - there are potential ambiguities in
    	almost any newly-created term or word.
    
    	In the 1920's, what did "television" mean?  Did it mean that a
    	person was using their vision to see something through a telescope?
    	Or did it mean that someone was using their vision to see something
    	far away?  It was a meaningless term to most people back then.
    
    	Now we know what it means, so we don't have to complain about the
    	possible ambiguity.  But, a few decades from now (after big changes
    	in the technology) - perhaps we won't have "television" anymore.
    	We'll survive the adjustment to a new word for whatever it becomes.
    
    	(Try to imagine asking someone during the '60s, "What is a CD?"
    	Now there's an ambiguous acronym - it could mean a million different
    	things!  In the 80's and 90's, it still has two meanings - one
    	financial, and one electronic.)  We seem to be surviving this, too. :)

    I have to agree with Jerry on this one.  Pedantry aside, he's right. 
    
    In the future, some crippled persons will decide that "physically
    challenged" isn't the nom du jour that they like, and we'll be off
    again.  While there's nothing inherently wrong with evolving the
    language, terms like "physically challenged" do not evolve the
    langauge.  Using "you" for the second-person singular evolves the
    language, because it changes the established usage -- but not the
    inherent meaning -- of a word.  ("Thou" is absolutely correct unless
    you are on relatively intimate terms with the person spoken to, in
    which case it's "you" -- which fact affords me no end of amusement when
    I hear certain religious types unthinkingly calling their God "thou" as
    if they wanted to put him at the distance afforded by such formality.)
    
    Creating vague, warm-fuzzy terms like "physically challenged" is an
    insidious ploy that in fact destroys language rather than enhancing it
    because the terms do *not* communicate clearly.  These coined terms
    also actually *pervert* the language.  As is Jerry, I am a native
    American.  So were both of my parents and all four of my grandparents. 
    The fact is that even the Amerinds are not native Americans; their
    ancestors came here from Asia, even as mine came from Europe.
    
    One of my real trigger words -- separate topic, this -- is "gay." 
    "Joe" is a gay person, but he's not a homosexual.  His gaiety (not
    gayness or gayhood or whatever the PC term is) is reflected by a levity
    of mood and an outgoing nature.  That he cannot call himself gay or say
    that he had a gay time is not making him more socially aware, it's
    depriving him of the use of part of his native language.  And *that*,
    my friends, is *not* PC in my book.
    
    -d

    	RE: .27  -d

    	> In the future, some crippled persons will decide that 
    	> "physically challenged" isn't the nom du jour that they
    	> like, and we'll be off again.

    	Well - so what?  Is it really so much of an inconvenience to
    	call people what they prefer to be called?  What's the problem?

    > Creating vague, warm-fuzzy terms like "physically challenged" is an
    > insidious ploy that in fact destroys language rather than enhancing it
    > because the terms do *not* communicate clearly.  These coined terms
    > also actually *pervert* the language.

    	*Destroys* and *perverts* language?  Insidious ploy?  (All this is
    	accomplished when a group decides they prefer a more positive term
    	to describe themselves?)  Wow.  This is all news to me.

    	What about the new terms coined when new products are introduced 
    	(as the result of a new invention or an advance in technology)?  
    	
    	If new terms destroy our language, then perhaps we should close the
    	patent office as a first line of defense.

    	I never knew there were people so worried about new terms.

    	By the way, no one is stopping your friend from calling himself
    	gay - he is simply choosing not to associate his happy moods with
    	a group that is severely discriminated against for their sexual
    	orientation.  If the discrimination didn't exist, he wouldn't care 
    	about the ambiguity involved with his use of the term.  So who is 
    	*really* to blame here for the inconvenience he is suffering by not 
    	feeling comfortable with calling himself gay? (Not the gay community.)

    	Something I've been meaning to mention through all this is the
    	irony involved in the basenote (and elsewhere) when it comes to 
    	complaints about our language being "debased" by the use of new
    	terms that are deemed vague and inaccurate.  In the arguments
    	*against* this practice, a term fitting this description is USED: 
    
    
    		             "Politically Correct"
    
    	What exactly does *this* term mean?  It's used as an insulting,
    	negative term - so how can the ideas espoused by politically
    	correct individuals *be* "correct" when it's so much MORE
    	popular (and truly "correct") to claim that one is politically
    	INcorrect?  :-}
    
    	Don't mind me - I'm just a newly-realized Language Outlaw (now
    	wanted by the Politically Incorrect Language Police, I'm sure.) :)

    
    
    
    Suzanne,

    You really are missing the point, I think.  I don't object to the use
    of a new word.  I object to the perversion of language, and this
    continual coining of new terms that are indeeed politically correct
    (despite your objection to that equally absurd term) is really
    perversion.  In documents on human-rights abuses, the US govt  has
    disavowed the term "killing," substituting "unlawful deprivation of
    life."  This is an example of what I'm objecting to -- the wilful
    mealymouthedness of it all.

    I understand the need for dignity of the disabled.  I also understand
    my own need for dignity, and forever being labeled nonPC because I
    don't know this week's buzzword is not being allowed *my* dignity.

    To use Jerry Boyajian's example, what does "physically challenged"
    mean?  I happen to be "physically challenged" -- I have a sunken chest
    and cannot do many things I'd like to do.  Because of this condition,
    as a child I suffered more abuse, both physical and psychological, than
    I care to describe.  I still suffer from it, because it has caused
    psychological and emotional problems that I will always carry with me. 
    Okay, fine, you say, so what?  So what is that I'm not disabled.  I can
    walk, I can run, I have relatively free use of my arms -- although
    because of my imability to build upper-body muscle I am now suffering
    severe pain from several torn muscles damaged when I tried to move an
    object any normal man would have no trouble with.  "Physically
    challenged" is an imprecise term, unsuitable for the use to which it's
    being put.  Most circumlocutionary euphemisms are similarly
    inappropriate.

    What is wrong with using a word that means what it says?  "Disabled"
    does not mean helpless or hopeless, or at least that is the conclusion
    I might draw from the name of the organization calling itself the
    Disabled American Veterans.  "Black" does not mean something pejora-
    tive, but a significant number of people of color now prefer "African
    American" whereas they recently preferred "Afro-American."  They
    themselves chose and demanded to be called Black instead of Negro, then
    they chose the other terms one after the other.  What will they prefer
    next week?  By the same line of term-claiming, what am I to be called,
    "Euro-American" or "European American"?  They call me "white."  Would
    it make any difference whatever to them if I let it be known that I
    didn't care to be so labeled?  I think not.

    -d

    -d
    
    I understand your point about ambiguity, but you've lost me with
    the perversion claim.
    
    In regards to PC language, for myself, it's not a matter of conforming
    to any political correctness as much as an extension of courtesy to 
    another group of people as a means of showing respect and valuing their
    difference.  For that reason, regardless of whether or not I agree with
    the term, I would attempt to use whichever terms are are acceptable by
    the group/individual I would be addressing.  My biggest problem is that
    the terms do seem to change often, and it's embarrassing to use an
    out-dated term which may cause offense when the original intention was
    to value the other's difference.  I hate it when I make such gaffs.
    
    Christine

>                                              My biggest problem is that
>    the terms do seem to change often, and it's embarrassing to use an
>    out-dated term which may cause offense when the original intention was
>    to value the other's difference.  I hate it when I make such gaffs [sic].

On the other hand, I'd think that unless the "out-dated" term you use is
deliberately offensive, the problem lies more with the offendee than the 
offender in this case.

For example, I might claim offense that you typed "gaff" (normally used to hook
fish over the side of a boat) in place of "gaffe" (which I'm now committing by
pointing this out). Are you going to be mortified because you offended me?

Language is indeed a living, growing thing. But when things start growing too
fast, and all over the place, they're weeds. A well-tended language needs a
certain amount of maintenance (not to mention mulch). "Crippled" is a perfectly
good, inoffensive word when used to described someone who is, in fact, crippled.
There's no reason to assume that the description goes beyond the physical
impairment to moral decrepitude, poor speling, or body odor. "Physically 
impaired" is an acceptable substitute at least in my eyes, because it's accurate
and clarifies things ("crippled" could imply non-physical impairment, depending
on context). "Physically challenged" is just silly, because it describes all of
us. It clarifies NOTHING. Try rock climbing some day; you'll be physically 
challenged. Does that mean you're crippled? (That depends ... hang on...)

The only counter argument I've seen is "that's what they want to be called".
Are the physically impaired so unified that this can be asserted? Has there been
a poll? Or are there some high-visibility (not publicity-challenged) individuals
making a point of this?

We know that language will change, but it makes sense to challenge changes 
which serve more to obfuscate than to clarify. Eschew euphemismisticness.

    RE: .30  -d

    > I don't object to the use of a new word.  I object to the perversion 
    > of language, and this continual coining of new terms that are indeeed 
    > politically correct (despite your objection to that equally absurd term) 
    > is really perversion.  

    	If some people object to the perversion of language, why do they 
    	engage in it themselves with such steadfast reliance on today's 
    	most trendy buzzword insulting term:  "politically correct"?  

    	Notice, please, that there is no movement to be politically
    	correct.  There is only the movement to be politically INcorrect
    	(by trashing those labeled as PC in every way imaginable,
    	including describing the use of a few positive terms as being 
    	an attempt to destroy our language - an absurd notion in itself.)

    > I also understand my own need for dignity, and forever being labeled 
    > nonPC because I don't know this week's buzzword is not being allowed 
    > *my* dignity.

    	If you've been labeled non-PC by anyone, it was most likely meant
    	as a compliment (and probably because you *do* know the most
    	important buzzword of the 90's:  the use of politically correct
    	as an insult.)  I see people bragging all the time about being
    	non-PC, or politically incorrect.  It's the truly "correct" thing
    	to be.

    > I happen to be "physically challenged" -- 

    	No one has suggested that you (or anyone else) should be denied
    	the opportunity to use this word to describe yourself.  You can
    	use any term you like (*that* is the whole point.)

    > "Physically challenged" is an imprecise term, unsuitable for the use 
    > to which it's being put. 

    	It seems quite suitable to me, and I've spoken English all my life.

    > What is wrong with using a word that means what it says? 

    	"Physically challenged" means what it says to me (just as "disabled"
    	means what it says to you.)  There are some very insulting terms I
    	won't bother to include, but they mean what they say, too.  

    	We aren't confined to a single term - we have entire books devoted
    	to listing synonyms for words in our language.  Why should we decide
    	to limit the number of certain phrases being used to describe people?

    > They call me "white."  Would it make any difference whatever to them 
    > if I let it be known that I didn't care to be so labeled?  I think not.

    	Sure, it would!  If you asked me to refrain from ever calling you
    	white, you *bet* I'd honor your wish.  What makes you think your
    	request would be denied?

    Oh, Paul (BLUSH),
    
    Very good points indeed.  I especially liked the physically impaired
    vs the physically challanged.  And of course, if one isn't being 
    deliberately offensive, there should be no problem.  Unfortunately,
    it doesn't seem to work that way.  I do my best to avoid situations
    which require such defining terms, it just seems to me that sometimes 
    it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of thing.
    
    Christine

    RE: .32  Paul

    > "Crippled" is a perfectly good, inoffensive word when used to 
    > described someone who is, in fact, crippled.	

    	Unless it's been used to describe you, in particular, with
    	regard to the way your body works - you can't possibly know
    	whether the word is offensive or not to some of those who 
    	are labeled with this particular term.

    	Aside from that - what does "crippled" mean?  Confined to a 
    	wheelchair?  Is that with or without paralysis?  If "with 
    	paralysis," is that upper and lower body, or just lower?  Or 
    	does it mean that limbs are missing?  Or how about a spinal 
    	condition present at birth?  Or a problem with muscles?
    	The possibilities are endless.

    	It's a pretty imprecise term in itself, don't you think?

    > "Physically challenged" is just silly, because it describes all of
    > us. It clarifies NOTHING. 

    	Bingo.  We are *all* physically challenged in some way, some of us
    	a bit more than others.

    	This is what I like about it.  It takes away the artificial barrier
    	between "normal" and "not normal" in the same way that racial and
    	sexual barriers are being removed.

    	If you qualify as "normal," then you may not currently appreciate
    	what it is like for people to be labeled in ways that spell out
    	"not normal" (read: not as good as "normal" people.)

    	Something like this may seem like just a linguistic inconvenience
    	to you, but it could be one hell of an important distinction for
    	someone currently labeled this way.

    	I remember an interview with Dudley Moore once (by David Steinberg)
    	where they discussed the fact that he has a club foot.  Dudley said
    	he grew up feeling "not as good as normal people" all his life -
    	and that he still felt that way that day.  David was astounded. 
    	He asked him something along the lines of - "Doesn't it get through
    	to you that this doesn't matter to anyone?"  Dudley said that it
    	didn't change the feeling that he wasn't as good as normal people
    	- and he smiled when he said it (as if David could tell him this
    	fact all day, but it could never really change the way he felt.)
    
    	The cultural messages about this subject got through to him in
    	a way he can't erase.  (What an impact Dudley Moore's admission
    	made to some people in the world who share this feeling, though.)
    
    > Or are there some high-visibility (not publicity-challenged) 
    > individuals making a point of this?

    	Yes (I believe this is a term being used by some disability
    	rights groups.)

 >     	Aside from that - what does "crippled" mean?  Confined to a 
 >     	wheelchair?  Is that with or without paralysis?  If "with 
 >     	paralysis," is that upper and lower body, or just lower?  Or 
 >     	does it mean that limbs are missing?  Or how about a spinal 
 >     	condition present at birth?  Or a problem with muscles?
 >     	The possibilities are endless.

    "Crippled" is the wrong word to use if the degree of precision
    you're asking for is needed. It's not a word I would tend to use
    in normal conversation in the passive sense ("John Doe is
    crippled"), though it's useful in the active tense ("John Doe was
    crippled in a car accident"). Try "John Doe was left physically
    challenged by a car accident". If the context demands the nature
    of the impairment, or the specific consequences of the impairment,
    then those should be listed. "Physically challenged" does none of
    that, either. What it does (to my ear) is attempt to lay a heavy
    dose of sugar coating to the subject.

 >     > "Physically challenged" is just silly, because it describes all of
 >     > us. It clarifies NOTHING. 
 > 
 >     	Bingo.  We are *all* physically challenged in some way, some of us
 >     	a bit more than others.
 > 
 >     	This is what I like about it.  It takes away the artificial barrier
 >     	between "normal" and "not normal" in the same way that racial and
 >     	sexual barriers are being removed.

    What I fail to see is the advantage of switching to the use of a
    term which says absolutely nothing, and makes nothing (aside from
    social intent on the part of the speaker) clearer. If it applies
    equally to everybody, you could equally well say "oxygen breather"
    and convey the same meaning.

    I don't think this term removes any barriers. When people hear the
    term, assuming they figure out what it's supposed to mean, they'll
    do the same translation, and the "normal/not normal" or "us/them"
    dichotomy will still be there. You can change the signs on "Dutch
    Elm" street to "Challenged Tree" street, but it'll still be the
    same street when you're done.

    Question: do you prefer "physically challenged" over "physically
    impaired", and if so, why? As I said, "physically impaired" is as
    or more descriptive than "crippled" (though it's a bit of a
    mouthful for us mandibularly challenged), but doesn't seem to
    carry either the claimed pejoritive sense of "crippled" or the
    "everything is all right if we only kind of look at it sideways"
    feeling that terms like "physically challenged" carry [to me].

    By the way, I agree that it's a lot easier to take this position
    from the "outside", which is one reason I'm willing to go along
    with terms like "physically impaired" (I know ... real big of me).
    I was crippled for a few weeks last year after my bicycle mishap
    (fractured pelvis). The term "crippled" wouldn't have bothered me
    while I was in the wheelchair, but then I knew it was temporary.

    And I think there's a big difference between saying "John Doe was
    crippled by XYZ" and saying "John Doe is a cripple", since the
    latter is a direct label. In fact, I would suggest that "John Doe
    is crippled" is probably less of a problem than ".. is a cripple",
    since it suggests circumstances beyond his control.

    However, this is really going down a lexical rathole that probably
    belongs in a conference I don't follow, like JOYOFLEX.

    re:.33
    
    	� If some people object to the perversion of language,
    	why do they engage in it themselves with such steadfast
    	reliance on today's most trendy buzzword insulting term:
    	"politically correct"? �
    
    Because some people are hypocrites. *I* "object to the perversion of
    language", but I rarely use the term "politically correct". When I
    *do* use it, it's when I'm attempting to be ironic or sarcastic.
    The inherent nature of irony and sarcasm calls for using terms that
    you would otherwise find abhorent.
    
    re:.35
    
    The problem is that many of us don't divide people into "normal" and
    "abnormal". To me, a person in a wheelchair is exactly that -- a person
    in a wheelchair. I don't consider that person to be any "less" of a
    person than someone who has full use of his or her limbs.
    
    And I think you've nailed down the crux of our disagreement. You seem
    to think that it's a positive thing to be as inclusionary as possible.
    I don't.
    
    You say it's fine if -d wants to consider himself "physically
    challenged". I agree. But will the social and legal systems agree?
    Will he be entitled to get special plates that enable him to use
    "handicap" [*sic*] parking spaces. If I decide to call myself
    "visually impaired" because I don't have 20/20 vision, will the IRS
    allow me to answer "Yes" to Line whatever on my 1040 that asks if
    I'm "blind" [*sic*], and therefore take a deduction?
    
    Certain descriptive adjectives have valid uses that have nothing to
    do with making value judgments of the people concerned. If I'm
    describing Person A to Person B, and I say "Person A is black", is
    that a value judgment? No, it's simply a fact. If I say, "Person A
    is tall", is that a value judgment? No, it's simply a fact. If I say
    "Person A is fat", is that a value judgment? No, it's simply a fact.
    But some people feel that "fat" *is* a value judgment. So what do we
    use instead? "Large"? OK, so I say, "Person A is large."  Now, what
    mental picture does Person B create? That Person A is obese? That
    Person A is tall? That Person A is busty? That Person A is stocky?
    "Large" thus becomes too imprecise a term because it can mean too
    many different things. 
    
    As for creating new terms, I have no objections to it in principle.
    If crippled/handicapped/disabled/whatever people say that they want
    to be referred to as, say, "pilkmist", then I'd be perfectly happy
    to refer to them as pilkmist.
    
    What I *do* object to, as I've said before, is when you replace a
    specifically defined word with an obfuscatory phrase and claim that
    it's an improvement in the language. The object of language is to
    communicate. I feel that most of these circumlocutions obscure
    communication rather than enhance it. And *that's* why I (and others)
    feel that they "pervert" the language.
    
    --- jerry

    RE: .36  Paul

    > "Crippled" is the wrong word to use if the degree of precision
    > you're asking for is needed. It's not a word I would tend to use
    > in normal conversation in the passive sense ("John Doe is
    > crippled"), though it's useful in the active tense ("John Doe was
    > crippled in a car accident"). 

    Ok, we agree that the word doesn't make a good label to use to describe
    the *person* himself.  I'd go a step further and say that another word 
    (such as "disability") would be my preference in your second sentence:

    		"John Doe was permanently injured in a car accident,
    		   and now has disabilities."

    > What I fail to see is the advantage of switching to the use of a
    > term which says absolutely nothing, and makes nothing (aside from
    > social intent on the part of the speaker) clearer. 

    	Do you really think it's meaningless to those who hear it (even
    	the first time they see an event advertised with this term, which
    	is where I first saw it?)

    > I don't think this term removes any barriers. When people hear the
    > term, assuming they figure out what it's supposed to mean, they'll
    > do the same translation, and the "normal/not normal" or "us/them"
    > dichotomy will still be there. 

    	It may not remove the barriers, but it opens the door for a bit
    	of thought about it.  When I first heard the term, it really took
    	me by surprise - (after a little thought, I decided I liked it!)

    	Paul, it may say "sugar coated" to you, but what it says to me
    	is that the people claiming this term don't see their disabilities 
    	as defeats (or as pure limitations) - but rather as challenges.

    	It's a description of an attitude (on the part of some people
    	who use this term to describe themselves.)

    	In everyday conversation, I doubt that many people use the
    	term "physically challenged" exclusively.  It seems (to me)
    	as more of a formal term for a group of people who include
    	a lot of folks I admire quite a bit.

    	"Physically impaired" is probably ok in some situations
    	(it doesn't sound as harsh to me as "crippled") - but I still
    	prefer the term that describes the positive approach (of "what
    	I *can* do" rather than "the things I can't do.")

    	Also, please note that I'm not insisting everyone (or anyone)
    	adopt the terms I prefer.  I'm speaking in defense mode (in
    	response to what I consider to be unnecessary ridicule and
    	attacks against people for creating and supporting terms
    	like "physically challenged.")

    RE: .37  Jerry

    > The problem is that many of us don't divide people into "normal" and
    > "abnormal". To me, a person in a wheelchair is exactly that -- a person
    > in a wheelchair. I don't consider that person to be any "less" of a
    > person than someone who has full use of his or her limbs.
    	
    As mentioned earlier, this is essentially what David Steinberg told
    Dudley Moore:  People do not see him as "less" of a person because of
    his foot.  What Dudley said back is that it didn't matter - he could
    not stop seeing himself as "not as good as normal" (in spite of all
    his musical and acting accomplishments, plus his wealth and fame.)

    "Physically challenged" is not a description of your attitude, anyway.
    It's a description of the attitude of someone who claims the term for
    him/herself.

    > And I think you've nailed down the crux of our disagreement. You seem
    > to think that it's a positive thing to be as inclusionary as possible.
    > I don't.

    Well, I want to "take down artificial barriers" (and I think they do
    exist unnecessarily) - but that's not the main reason why I like the
    term "physically challenged."  I like it because it's an accurate
    description of the attitudes of those who claim the term for themselves.
    Therefore, I support their right to have invented the word, and their
    right to use it in a formal sense to describe themselves and their
    rights movement.

    > You say it's fine if -d wants to consider himself "physically
    > challenged". I agree. But will the social and legal systems agree?

    Maybe.  Or maybe not.  Anyone who claims to be eligible for things
    such as special license plates would need to provide medical evidence
    as support, no matter how they identify with formal labels.

    It's beside the point, though, when it comes to whether or not others
    would honor his choice of being called "physically challenged."  I'd
    honor it, I assure you.

    > Certain descriptive adjectives have valid uses that have nothing to
    > do with making value judgments of the people concerned. 

    Maybe so, but how many of the terms you described are ones you'd feel
    comfortable using about a person to his/her face?  If you were talking
    to a co-worker who had severe facial scars (from an accident, let's
    say) - would you say to him, "Yes, I told him he could find you in
    the cafeteria - I said to look for a man with very noticeable scars
    all over his face."  (It would be factual, wouldn't it?  Hardly 
    sensitive or tactful, though.)

    > What I *do* object to, as I've said before, is when you replace a
    > specifically defined word with an obfuscatory phrase and claim that
    > it's an improvement in the language. 

    It's an addition (or change) to the language.  I haven't seen any
    attempts to have words like "crippled" removed from the Dictionary,
    so I don't agree that the intent is to have it replaced.  But I
    certainly do reserve the right to hold the opinion that some of the
    new terms are an improvement in some ways (maybe not in a pure
    linguistic sense, but in ways that matter to me.)

    We don't have the need for word conservation - if we keep inventing
    new words, we don't have to throw away others.  The Dictionaries
    will just keep getting bigger.  :-)

    > I feel that most of these circumlocutions obscure communication 
    > rather than enhance it. And *that's* why I (and others) feel that 
    > they "pervert" the language.
    
    Once people know what they mean, communication is restored (and it's
    not a lengthy process.)  People who speak English every day are 
    usually pretty quick at figuring out what new terms mean.

    > The object of language is to communicate.

    Yes, I agree.  I'm quite happy that the term "physically challenged"
    has communicated a certain attitude that many people may not have
    thought about before (but they're certainly thinking about it more
    these days now, which is great!)

    Re: .35
    
    I hadn't heard before about Dudley Moore's remarks in re: his club
    foot.  As it turns out, I feel *precisely* the same way about my sunken
    chest.  It is a visible disfigurement, and no matter how many times, or
    by whom, I am told, "It doesn't matter," the fact is that it really
    *does* matter.  I'm not "normal," I know it deep inside me, and you
    can't tell me I *am* "normal."  And, in fact, I *am* less of a person
    because of it.  I am physically inferior to "normal" people, I am
    asethetically displeasing in a society that places a profound emphasis
    on physical perfection, and I am psychologically scarred.  The fact
    that I'm not confined to a wheelchair notwithstanding, I live it from
    the inside, Suzanne, and I *still* think I'd rather hear myself
    referred to as "impaired" than "challenged."
    
    Eschew obfuscation, and espouse information.  "Physically challenged"
    is a semantically null phrase.
    
    -d

    RE: .40  -d

    > The fact that I'm not confined to a wheelchair notwithstanding, I live 
    > it from the inside, Suzanne, and I *still* think I'd rather hear myself
    > referred to as "impaired" than "challenged."	

    It's up to you to decide which term you prefer to claim (no question
    about it.)  

    At the same time, I'm aware that there are others who wish to claim
    the word "challenged" - I'm hoping that you wouldn't want to deny
    anyone else a preferred choice, either.

    > Eschew obfuscation, and espouse information.  "Physically challenged"
    > is a semantically null phrase.
    
    Information about an individual's disability or physical impairment
    isn't anyone else's business (unless the person makes the choice of
    revealing such information to others.)  If the person prefers a more
    general term (like "physically challenged,") I still don't see it as
    a problem.
    
    As you mentioned, the personal feelings about physical impairments
    can be as rough as Dudley Moore described.  Hearing it yet again
    convinces me more than ever that respecting individuals' (or rights
    groups') choices on descriptive terms is important to me.

I'll say it now, so you can safely deny ever having known me:  I am 
Politically Correct.  At least, that's what the neo-conservatives on campus 
are telling me.  In their eyes, I have engaged upon a mission to destroy 
academia and replace it with a model of intolerance based ironically enough 
upon liberal ideals.

In my four years at college I engaged in such radical activities as anti-CIA 
rallies,  divestment activism and the women's studies program.  I am an 
unabashed feminist.  I marched to Take Back the Night.  I gathered signatures 
to support the Gay and Lesbian Alumni Association.  I helped co-found a 
support group for survivors of rape and sexual assault. I marched against the 
war. I volunteered for the AIDS quilt. I recycled.

Now I find that all I have done has merely been a "fad" created by the liberal 
elite who are now in firm control of academia.  Pardon me, but I either have 
to laugh or scream at the notion. Liberal elite?  In charge of academia?  
Certainly no place that I've looked.  At Dartmouth, a bastion of PC control 
according to the conservatives, I have seen African American professors driven 
away by intolerant students.  I have seen the utter failure of the 
administration to actively seek a more diverse and qualified faculty.  When 
presented with clear evidence as to the identities of several students who had 
sent violently hateful electronic messages to gay students (in violation of 
the computing code of ethics at Dartmouth) the administration simply "rewrote" 
the policy.  On a campus where 100 rapes are *reported* each year, there is 
still no date rape education program for incoming students.

But the right wing says I am in control of the school, so it must be my fault 
somehow.  They also tell me that I am an activist because it is "trendy" and 
"fashionable."  Apparently, it is fashionable to have frat boys spit on you 
during Take Back the Night.  It must be terribly fashionable to have people 
stand up and move to the other end of the train because you are wearing a 
Names Project t-shirt.  It is fashionable to be called (in a cute gender role 
reversal) a castrating bitch.  It is fashionable to have racists throw slush 
balls at you while watching the campus police take your shanty town and throw 
it into the back of a dump truck. It is fashionable to be called a fag.

They also tell me that I only support these causes because I am afraid of the 
ALL POWERFUL "SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS."  We are now all sooo afraid of being 
called a sexist or a racist or a homophobe that we support causes to avoid the 
"deadly" labels.  I have been told that I only took women's studies courses to 
meet women, that I supported divestment because I feel guilty at being white, 
and that I supported gay rights to avoid being called a homophobe (and gee, I 
thought it was because I was bisexual)

Thank you!  Thank you, neo-conservative movement!  I was so blind to my folly. 
Now I know that I must run right out and forget about my masters in writing 
and feminist studies.  I'll enroll in business school immediately, so that I 
can claim my rightful place as a white male upper middle class oppressor on 
our society.  I will crawl back into the closet if it will make you happy as 
well -- I will close my eyes, as you wish, to the history of intolerance and 
exclusion in our society.  I will forget about broadening the curriculum and 
will drop any notion of trying to link sexist, exclusionary language with the 
subconscious processes of repression.  I will make racist jokes and not think 
about the consequences for those around me.

To those who would tell me that me and my ilk are running academia (Newsweek, 
NY Magazine, Pat Buchanan, George Bush), I have one thing to say: crap.  You 
are full of it to the eyebrows.  We may be loud, we may be visible, but we are 
not in control.  The "PC" label has been applied with vigor to any who argue 
for diversity and equality for all groups.  It has been linked to a few 
extreme examples which may be distressing but which do not represent an entire 
philosophy.  In fact, there is no coherent "PC movement" on campus'  But the 
few most extreme cases are being brushed over any attempt to reform the 
curriculum or to broaden education into a social counsciousness.

If language reforms seem odd to you, just remember the matters of perspective. 
IMHO there is no objective reality, and many, many things that came down the 
pike in history were challenged.  But also remember that the challenge this 
time is to incorporate into our counscious understanding the histories and 
viewpoints of voices that have been ignored over the centuries.  They haven't 
been silent: they have been rich and extraordinary in depth...but they have 
been ignored.  THAT is what we are trying to correct, and no amount of 
twisting and guilt-by-association tactics is going to change the necessity.

P.C. can have two meanings it seem..."Politically Correct" or "Politically 
Calculating"  By creating a new boogyman, it looks like the conservatives have 
calsulated all the way to the opinion polls again.

several cents worth by an out-of-fashion radical,

Daniel

    I wonder if the people in Cripple Creek, Colorado know about this
    issue?  I wonder if they care?

Daniel:

RAH RAH!

Go get 'em!!!!

D!

One little comment in the last barrage leapt out at me, a parenthetical note
from Paul Beck.

>     What I fail to see is the advantage of switching to the use of a
>     term which says absolutely nothing, and makes nothing (aside from
>     social intent on the part of the speaker) clearer.

Maybe that little bit of emphasis, the social intent of the speaker, is
an aspect of the message that the speaker cares about.  You bunch trying
to eschew obfuscation might care to acknowledge that if the speaker wants
to emphasize that part of the message, who are YOU to say that it hinders
communication?  I find that encouraging speakers to care about multiple
messages carried in their words leads to more sensitive communication.
On the surface it looks like a style issue, but underneath, hearing that
a speaker is aware enough of potential listeners' sensitivities shows me
that the speaker is paying more attention to communication issues than
all these pedantic stylists with all of their eschewing.

DougO

    Well,gee. I was going to say something here, but after reading DougO's
    .45 , there's not much I can really add. Well said. (as usual)
    
    Just 2 things from me:
    
    1. I couldn't agree more that creating a situation in which people have
    to *think* about what they're saying and the effect it might have is
    a good thing. So now we have to consider whether some term, some remark
    might offend a person-of-color-physically-challenged-Jewish-woman-etc.
    Ain't it a shame...
    
    2. I haven't heard a woman called a "broad" in a long time now. This
    was very common usage not long ago. Changing the term had absolutely
    nothing to do with eschewing obfuscation. It had, quite simply, to do
    with the fact that *women* decided we didn't like being called that,
    and we made it abundantly clear. We were ( and still are) mocked for 
    making such things abundantly clear, but at least I no longer have to
    hear grown men refer to  young women as "DB"'s in a perfectly normal
    tone of voice as though it were the most natural thing in the world.
    
    ("Dumb Broad")
    
    --DE
    

    Since my name was cited in .45, one last bit of pedantric
    eschewing (gesundheit).

    Actually, Doug fairly accurately assessed my parenthetical note -
    I've long felt that the use of these nouveau euphemisms has been
    less to describe and more to position the speaker - to say (for
    example) "I, the speaker, know that despite your impairment, that
    there's much you can do if you set your mind to it" or whatever.
    And there's nothing wrong with the message. I just believe there
    are better ways to convey this message than in the kind of "sound
    bites" you get with the euphemistic phrases.

    I would also not wish to leave the impression that in my
    entrenched pedantry I go around insulting people - you can be
    sensitive to both the feelings of individuals and to the English
    language at the same time.

    re:.47
    
    What he said.
    
    re:.46
    
    I don't feel that your analogy to the virtually elimination of the
    word "broad" is quite valid. It (along with "chick", "frail",
    "skirt", and any number of other obscene terms) was "replaced" by
    a word that already existed: "woman".
    
    Would you prefer, say, to be referred to as "chromosomally challenged"?
    (half :-))
    
    [This is going to be my last note on this subject. Not because I don't
    want to play anymore, but because I feel that I've made my position
    clear, and from here, all I can do is reiterate what I've said before.
    This seems to be just one of those "religious" topics that people
    won't be able to agree on.]
    
    --- jerry

    Re: .47 and .48
    
    What they said.  I, too, can't elucidate further and will therfore
    withdraw from this discussion.
    
    -d

        re .48,
        
>>    Would you prefer, say, to be referred to as "chromosomally challenged"?
>>    (half :-))
        
        I see the 1/2 :-) but ... why "challenged"?
        
        Dan

    There's a really excellent essay by Nancy Mairs, in her
    book, "Plaintext" on why she prefers being called a cripple
    other than "physically challenged" or "handicapped". It's
    an interesting perspective from someone who has gone from
    wellness to being "physically challenged".
    
    I don't remember what the title of the essay itself is:
    knowing Ms. Mair's style, it's probably "On Being A Cripple".
    

I love the Englich language, the sound of poetry, singing, oration....
I cannot accept a great deal of what the "PC" movement has inflicted on the 
language I use and love because it changes/limits the power of the clearly 
defined, concisely spoken thought.  I am not homophobic at all, yet I resent 
that the word "gay" now seems to be the exclusive property of the homosexual
male...it no longer means "happy and carefree, full of joy".  I think the
language is poorer for that.  I also don't see what is wrong with the word
homosexual, any more than I feel there is anything wrong with the word
heterosexual...they are terms which describe aspects of sexuality.  Neither
is more or less important than the other...and, perhaps more importantly,
both words are used to describe BUT ONE ASPECT OF A HUMAN BEING.  A man or
woman who is homosexual is still, FIRST AND FOREMOST, a very complex human
being.  I am NOT a heterosexual ONLY, or even FIRST...I am a human being,
one of this great herd, FIRST and FOREMOST.  I am a female of the species, a
woman, SECOND, and finally, I am a heterosexual, and an Irish/English-American
(what an incredibly awkward handle THAT is), and a middle-aged, peacenik hippy,
and a dog-and-cat-lover, and....ad naseum.  Perhaps, if we all focused more 
on the common characteristics we all share, our humanity and our ability to
dream, and spent a little less time finding labels for one another (and
ourselves), we might get on a little easier in the world.  Personally, I am
so un-PC, I actually believe the term "handicapped" does not have a negative
meaning.  Handicapped simply means that there are extra issues that must be
dealt with...it does not, in any way, imply that someone cannot deal with
these issues and get on down the road to greatness...in fact, most of those
who are faced with a handicap learn to get around the obstacles and on down
that road smoothly....with rare grace and wit.

A label placed on a thing or person defines, AND LIMITS, the thing or 
person defined to the aspects of the label.  I cannot help but feel that it is
always to the detriment of that which is labeled....whomever applies the name.

    re:.50
    
    	� why "challenged"? �
    
    At having to overcome their lack of a Y chromosome, of course.
    
    (The half-:-) was to indicate that the question was seriously intended,
    while acknowledging that the example was facetious.)
    
    --- jerry

    I think we're going overboard with euphemisms. My main (perhaps only)
    objection to them is that changing labels does not change attitudes.The
    new label just gets the connotations of the older label and has to be
    discarded a few years down the road. Take 'fat' for example. It has
    become a bad word in this country. So now we have to use the word
    large. Soon it'll be 'differently sized'. And you can bet that the
    phrase 'differently sized' will be used only for fat or extremely thin
    people. The notion that a certain size is ideal and all 'normal' people
    should be that size won't change. 
    
    I don't want to be rude. I do try to use the correct label whenever I
    know it. And if it makes a group feel more powerful if called Y instead
    of X, then I'll call them Y. But other than that, very little changes
    because of changing the label.
    
    manisha

I thought a number of the "_____ challenged" or "differently _____"
phrases were playful jokes. But then again, maybe I really missed the point.

Kathy

Re: .54

Larege --> volumetrically challenged

    re.55 Maybe that's part of the article's point - the excessive
    use of euphemisms makes a joke of them all. (And a grim joke
    it is.)

    RE: .52  

    > I cannot accept a great deal of what the "PC" movement has inflicted 
    > on the language I use and love because it changes/limits the power of 
    > the clearly defined, concisely spoken thought. 	

    Actually, the existence of a "PC movement" is a myth, pure and simple.
    "PC" is an insulting label (used by people who claim to "eschew"
    labels :-)) as a means of propagating this myth.

    > Perhaps, if we all focused more on the common characteristics we all 
    > share, our humanity and our ability to dream, and spent a little less 
    > time finding labels for one another (and ourselves), we might get on a 
    > little easier in the world.  Personally, I am so un-PC, I actually 
    > believe the term "handicapped" does not have a negative meaning.  

    "Un-PC" is a label, too.

    > A label placed on a thing or person defines, AND LIMITS, the thing or 
    > person defined to the aspects of the label.  I cannot help but feel 
    > that it is always to the detriment of that which is labeled....whomever 
    > applies the name.

    When people who "eschew" labels call themselves "un-PC" repeatedly,
    I can't help wondering what that's supposed to mean.  :-)

    While "PC" has certainly been used a fair amount as a pejorative
    term, I've seen it used about as often (and recall seeing it
    initially) in a much more neutral context, simply as a synonym for
    "that which is generally accepted among [X]", where "X" was (as I
    recall) people with feminist sympathies. In other words, what's
    "in". I do agree that the term increasingly is being used as a
    negative attribute.

    In any event, as one who has used the term "eschew" in these pages
    recently, I wouldn't want the connection between "eschewers" and
    "PC abusers" to be made. I could swear I've seen the term used in
    a non-negative context by "glass eschewing feminists" ... but
    don't ask me for pointers.

    in re .52
    
    You might be interested to know that gay has meant homosexual male
    for a lot longer than most people think. After the reference in
    the dictionary to the second meaning of the word as meaning
    a homosexual, it says 'from the old French'.
    
    BJ

    John Fowles pointed out in one or another of his books, that in
    Victorian England, "gay" meant prostitute.
    
    

    IMHO...the worst thing about the "anti-PC" backlash is how many people
    are using "Oh, I'm not into that PC stuff" to justify not caring.
    
    In the past year I have heard that phrase employed as justification
    for:
    
    not recycling
    
    not wearing a red ribbon during assault awareness week to express
    solidarity with survivors
    
    not signing a petition to support gay rights
    
    If that what it means to be UN-pc...PC ME ANY DAY!!!!
    
    -daniel

    
    The point of language is to communicate, to make yourself understood.
    If you want to be understood, you have to use words in the way your
    audience understands them or use a few extra words to explain how you
    mean them.  For example, you can say "right" to mean "left" if you
    want to, but you'll have to explain yourself everytime, and you
    risk confusing some folks.  If you want to use the word "gay" to mean
    light, carefree, etc., use it, but if you get a funny look, you might
    have to explain what you mean.  I guess I'm feeling a little defensive
    -- I mean, it's not as if we homosexuals stole the word "gay" from
    its "normal" usage -- as some mean plot.  If we had, I would gladly
    offer to give it back in trade for say... health benefit coverage for
    my partner of 4+ years with whom I own a house (ok, well, maybe we
    own 1 or 2 windowsills in the house by now :-).  
    
    There are no PC-thought-speech police making folks use words that
    don't feel comfortable or natural to them.  Say what you want how you
    want to say it.  If you offend me, I'll tell you and I'll explain why.
    I'll assume ignorance - not malice.  I won't hold it against you if
    you don't know or choose not to use the most current "PC" terms for
    various disenfranchised groups.  But if you use words that offend me,
    and it feels to me like you're doing it on purpose (without regard
    for my feelings), then I won't play with you anymore.  Your loss.
    
    I also think that it's good when linguists call us lefty-types on
    things when it seems like we're headed off course, worrying about
    less important things -- I'll take funding for battered women's
    shelters from a man who says "lady" anyday.  But the level of
    hostility in the piece reproduced in the basenote and in some of the
    notes I've read in this file from time to time -- makes me
    uncomfortable and makes me think that there's more going on than just
    a love of language.  (I'm not accusing anyone on this string or the
    level of hostility I felt in the article)  But when folks get
    red-faced upset over words like "woman" or "person of color" or
    "physically challenged," I can't help but wonder what it is that's
    making them so mad.  Heck, my grandfather wears his hair exactly
    the way it is in his 1930s wedding picture -- and it suits him.
    Fortunately for my brother, my mother was able to convince my
    grandfather that my brother really didn't need to have the same
    haircut that he (my grandfather) has.  And the beat goes on.
    
    Justine -- too bad my grandpa wouldn't be as pleased to see *me* with
               his haircut.  Yeah, and maybe I can convince him to grow a
               tail :-)

    So the "right-y's" don't like "physically challenged" and the
    "left-y's" don't like "collateral damage".
    
    The beat goes on...
    
    

...all this discussion taken into account, I don't give a darn whether
I am PC or not.  I do and say what I think is right -- meaning best for
the environemt, best for the society I live in, best for my own sense of
self-respect and honesty -- and if the generic you doesn't like it, then
the generic you can continue not liking it.  I have to live with me 24
hours a day, every day.

-d

The primary emotion I felt from the article wasn't overt hostility...and
it does confuse me that anyone would....what I did get was an attempt at
humor to illuminate how far "overboard" some people can get when trying
to always stay "politcally correct".  I read the article in a magazine
prior to it's re-print here, and I recall thinking that it was a bit
silly while trying to make a point...and nothing more.  However, I also
believe that even movements like feminism, while dealing with deadly
serious issues, must find some balancing sense of humor somewhere...at
least the guy was talking about the new phrases in use rather than 
ignoring them entirely.  Perhaps, I was just being too tolerant of
someone from whom I detected no serious threat.  I'll re-read it.

I am one of the "terminally confused" wandering around in the wilderness
these days because the "acceptable" terms for "disinfranchised groups" 
change often, without warning, and without a published source which we can
reference for the correct term.  I was raised to treat all people with
respect, and I believe that all people on this planet deserve respect..
so I have tried mightily to use the correct terms when I am in a
position to reference such groups, however, after years of getting it
punched into my brain the NOBODY EVERY SAYS "colored" when discussing
people of another race, now I find that I am SUPPOSED to say, "people
of color".  I gotta tell ya, I just cannot make myself say that phrase
out loud.  The programming is so strong against it that my system
cringes from this NEW ACCEPTABLE PHRASE.  I am working well with
"African-American", and I sincerely hope this remains acceptable for
awhile.  It is not from lack of respect that I may fail to use the
current acceptable term, but from confusion.  I am willing to bet
there are many others.

for the record:  I have supported/marched for women's rights, the
ERA, and civil rights for the last 25 years so I'm not ignoring what
is going on, nor am I refusing to support the issues that matter to
me.

"If inclusive instead of cruel language is PC, then PC must mean
plain courtesy."

	Robin Morgan, _Ms._ magazine, Vol II No. 1


[sorry if someone has already entered this -- haven't been able to read
through the string -- this just seemed timely]

    re: .66
    
    That sounds cool to me -- the idea, really, is to be aware of problems
    and to *try*  Nobody says you have to have total success!
    
    \D/

    
    Also, I think there is quite a lot of lattitude within the area of
    acceptability (i.e, nonoffensiveness).  For example, you can refer to
    me as gay, lesbian, or homosexual, and I won't be offended -- though
    I prefer the term lesbian.  I will, however, be offended if you
    (in this case the "you" is a straight person I am not close to) call
    me a dyke or a queer, and (depending on the context, setting, and
    my connection to you) I might tell you so.  Similarly, if you say
    lady or girl instead of woman (outside of Womannotes where folks
    are here to learn from each other, right?), I probably won't correct
    you unless it feels important and right to me to do so.  My partner's
    father is over 70, and he always said lady or girl (as far as I can
    remember), and I never corrected him (or even dreamed of it), but the
    last time we visited, he said "girl" and then corrected himself and
    said "woman!"  Looks like he heard my partner and me talking, not about
    him, but just using the language we use, and he *educated himself* --
    because (I flatter myself to think) he cares about us, and it felt
    right to him to make that change.  That feels like real social change
    to me -- a tiny step taken freely and for "personal" reasons -- we
    are all persons, after all.
    
    Justine
    

    In last night's Nashua Telegraph, there was a political cartoon by
    Gorrell which I believe was originally published in the Richmond News
    Leader.
    
    It shows 4 people (and the following is my interpretation of
    the drawing):  a short fat freckled white mail (could be a boy, maybe a
    short man); an American Indian woman; a WASP-type, business suited man;
    a black man, wearing African tribal garb and thick glasses.  They are
    pledging allegiance to a flag composed of stars, which spell out PC, and 
    stripes.  The caption reads (disclaimer: I'm not shouting, I'm quoting)  
    "I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE POLITICALLY CORRECT STATES OF AMERICA, AND 
    TO THE DIVISIVENESS FOR WHICH IT STANDS, PETTY ETHNIC GROUPS, MUTUALLY-
    EXCLUSIVE, WITH ANIMOSITY AND CONTEMPT FOR ALL..."
    
    When I claim (and possibly insist on) a label, do I divide myself from 
    others or is my intent is to identify myself?  While this can be read
    as a rhetorical question, it is not.  It is, however, one I must answer
    for myself.
    
    Some labels I have chosen:
    
    	member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
    	wife, ex-wife
    	mother
    	Digital employee
    	college student
    	reader - maybe this label should be in the next list ;)	  
    
    Some labels not chosen, but accepted:
    
    	woman
    	daughter
    	white
    	middle-aged
    	fat
        emotional
    	intelligent
    	friendly
    	>rathole alert< INFJ
    
    The most interesting lists would probably consist of labels neither
    chosen nor accepted, and accurate labels not accepted...
    
    One thing I'm pretty sure of:  I don't want to be *any*thing *all* the
    time.  Another thing that's operative much of the time:  I don't want
    to lessen others with labels.
    
    aq 

Re: .70

I think people use labels for both inclusionary *and* exclusionary
purposes... and sometimes the distinction between the two gets blurry...

[pet theory coming up... be nice to it... it doesn't bite 8-) ]

Humans have powerful needs for both inclusion *and* exclusion.  On the
one hand, we're social and emotional creatures who *need* other humans
around that we can relate to, that we can derive emotional and/or
physical support from, that we can *trust* to see to our interests (or,
at least, that we can trust NOT to do anything detrimental to us).

At the same time, we all recognize that not everyone can be trusted;
that some people WILL hurt us.

So then the problem becomes one of figuring out how a particular person
is likely to relate to us.  Since we come in contact with FAR more people
than we could every POSSIBLY get to know personally, we start looking
for ways of categorizing them.

We all search for inclusionary labels as a way of establishing common
ground between us and other people (Just a few minutes ago, out by the
coffeepot, some guy I never met before noticed my "VAX 9000" coffee mug;
he also worked on the 9000 project, and we struck up a nice little
conversation).

During bad times, though, we tend to search for safe space, and that's
when we see the exclusionary side of labeling.  When you feel beseiged
on all sides, when you start to feel that "no place is safe", then the
ONLY people you trust are those who are "in" certain groups that you're
also a part of.  By extension, those who are "not-in" (i.e. who are
NOT members of the groups you trust) are "out"; they're NOT to be trusted.
Eventually walls of distrust are built by various groups trying to keep
the others out... and social harmony suffers.

Of course, "bad times" need not be societal; they can be individual as
well (e.g. the rape survivor who cannot bring hirself to trust members
of the same gender as hir attacker...).  However, when this attitude is
widespread in society, you have the divisiveness that we see today.

Just my 20 millibucks...

--jim

    I don't think that naming one's difference is meant to divide. I think
    the idea is to name the difference as a *part of diverse humanity*...
    variations on a theme. To say "Yes, we are a variation, but we are
    still part of the theme." Unfortunately, many (maybe most?) of us tend
    to go along in our familiar rut, assuming that everyone is the same as
    we are, with the same attitudes, problems, and expectations in life.
    
    Well, it just ain't so. And naming our difference says "Look, we buy
    toothpaste, we watch soap operas, we get caught in traffic, we love
    significant people in our lives....AND we also have to cope with these
    things *differently than you do*; and a solution for you in these areas
    is NOT a solution for *us*. A way of living in these areas, for *you*
    is NOT a viable way of living for *me*. Please consider that when you
    consider my part in humanity."
    
    That's all. Variations on a theme. Sometimes the theme gets so loud, we
    can't hear the variations, and that's NOT what the composer intended.
    
    --DE
    

    Re my entry .70:
    Perhaps this should go in the "Was I embarrassed when..." but among my
    labels should be intermittent spell-fade.  I meant, of course, that one
    of the caricatures was a short etc. male though I suspect the
    parenthetical phrase cleared that up.
    
    Re .71 and .72 interesting thoughts, and "variations on a theme" is a
    great catch phrase.  When I attended [then named] Understanding the
    Dynamics of Difference, we participated in an X-O exercise.  Unlike what
    may first come to mind, this consisted of separation into two groups.
    
    The group containing folks designated temporarily as Xs were asked to
    discuss being minorities, and invited and encouraged to share an
    occasion in which each felt her/himself to be the minority.  (I hasten
    to insert that we were arbitrarily assigned to the X or O groups.)
    
    The Os were asked to think about and share a time when they felt they
    were in the majority.  It absolutely amazed me when the entire group (X
    and O) were re-united to hear almost every one of the people from the O
    group state that they felt they had to go back to high school to
    remember feeling like part of the majority.
    
    Anecdotal Experience Alert:  No matter where I was during adolescence,
    or with whom, I do not recall ever feeling as though I belonged.  Most
    of my "belonging" experiences have occurred during my adulthood,
    although I have some very strong ones from early childhood.
    
    Interestingly (at least to me) enough, even when [adolescent] I was
    with a group of my friends I felt isolated.  I mention this because it
    seems there could be few times/places in my life when/where it was
    vital to be "PC" to be accepted.  I wonder now if that feeling of
    isolation came in part from fearing to deviate from the rigid standards
    of the group.
    
    Might PC language have the effect of dividing even within the group?
    
    aq
    
    
    

re: all

interesting string here....I would like to ask a question that I hope will not
inflame anyone, but it is a core question about what is happening on the
college campuses these days...and I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT...

approx. 30 years ago, I began to become a "liberal" in that I realized that
many things that should be were, in fact, NOT.  I became active in supporting
congressional, senatorial, and even presidential candidates, I marched for
civil rights (I've even been firehosed - hurts like the blazes), and have
continued to offer financial support for civil rights causes as well as my
VOTE...all to eliminate segregation.  It is still my opinion that segregation
into exclusive groups IS NOT to the benefit of this society of many cultures
in which we live, nor to the members of any segregated group.  Suddenly, I
see news reports that students on campus want their own SEPARATE dorms, student
union, fraternities, and even social events like dances...and graduation
ceremonies.  An old campaigner like myself cannot help but ask,

"Why did we fight so hard and so long to get rid of segregation if it is
really desirable????"

And more important, how much segregation should this society tolerate from/for
any group?  If African-Americans choose to separate themselves from the larger
whole, what's to stop men from establishing men-only clubs again, etc?  the
argument has been offered that it is different this time because the 
African-Americans are CHOOSING to be segregated, as opposed to being forced
into segregation....I cannot buy that argument.  After all, men have
historically CHOSEN to have men-only clubs, businesses, etc. and that is
not acceptable, nor beneficial, to society at large.  It really is a
question of how/where we can draw lines separating ourselves without damaging
our ability to work/live as a "diverse, but united" society.  I don't have
good answers to this, but I'm curious what others see/feel about it.

    RE: .74
    
    I think part if it is *choice*. Back in the 50's, certain groups had
    no choices (or few). Take clubs. The prestigious clubs, groups,
    what-have-you, were majority-ruled. Minorities were not asked to join,
    were prevented from joining, were harrassed if they somehow managed to
    get the rules to *let* them join.
    
    Progress has allowed expansion in those areas, and there are no longer
    such strictly divisive rules, except in certain places, or
    insitiutions. 
    
    Another large part of it (I think) is that it's become abundantly clear
    that minorities in this country have made, all in all, very little
    headway. Many of the Divide And Conquer strategies seem to be working,
    and the message to the middle class is: throw in your lot with the Big
    Boys, and you can join them - provided you are willing to jettison the
    minorities, the poor, the clamoring "special interest groups". (As if 
    Straight White Men Making $300,000 And More weren't a "special interest
    group".)
    
    Perhaps now it's a matter of "we *choose* to create our space and
    populate it, because it's clear we will never get anywhere trying to
    integrate what "you" see as Your Space". 
    
    I'm sure others have a better view and are more articulate than I... 
    
    --DE
    
    (surely no-one is going to say that I stated that all straight white
    men make 300K a year, right?)
    
    (Don't call me "Shirley")                                                                    

>    
>    Perhaps now it's a matter of "we *choose* to create our space and
>    populate it, because it's clear we will never get anywhere trying to
>    integrate what "you" see as Your Space". 
    
BUMMER.  I don't believe we can survive as a nation (and perhaps we should
not - but that is another topic entirely) if we cannot see the "public space" 
as OUR space....this country is, historically, the place where the rest of 
the world deposits the discontented, ambitious, tired, hungry, frightened, 
bright, stupid, compassionate, greedy and self-serving, devout, and 
confused members of their own societies, and to which a large segment of 
our population was forced from their own homes into servitude.  This is a 
population mixture that is unique in the world.  The reason this nation 
has managed to stand as well as it has is that these peoples from many 
diverse cultures have managed to try and find common ground...or forced us 
to start making common ground on which we can stand....this is not without 
a price, and certainly the results are not well balanced yet, but that 
common ground has been the objective - and that has led to an amazingly 
diverse culture with yet a common written script and a common language of 
commerce.  Historically, these have been our strongest tools of survival.  
If we splinter too far apart, there may be no clear path back to that arena 
where the common ground may be cleared.

    RE: .76

    > ...but that common ground has been the objective - and that has led 
    > to an amazingly diverse culture with yet a common written script and 
    > a common language of commerce.  

    Part of the beauty of living in an "amazingly diverse culture" is the
    celebration and exploration of some of these diverse aspects, especially
    for those among us who have been shunned in a society that claimed to
    welcome members from *all* other countries/cultures (but didn't.)

    > Historically, these have been our strongest tools of survival.  
    > If we splinter too far apart, there may be no clear path back to 
    > that arena where the common ground may be cleared.	

    We were splintered from Day One (when a country founded on the wonderful
    ideal of "all men" being created equal fell short of the mark by not
    including women and a number of minorities in their designation of "all
    men.")  It's easy to forget that we've never been a country with a full
    common ground for everyone.  We started with a common ground for the 
    "all men" that qualified as first class human beings, while the rest of
    the population was excluded (except for a rare few here and there.)

    Now, we're closer to the REAL ideal (of all people being created equal)
    than we've ever been before - and part of the journey to this ideal
    has been the celebration and exploration of diverse peoples and cultures
    that I mentioned earlier.

    Back when I was a kid, I remember seeing concerted efforts (during 
    the Civil Rights movement) to overcome some of the everyday racial
    prejudice that was evident then.  I remember hearing people say,
    "Well, I'm not prejudiced - I treat blacks the same as whites, and
    I think they're every bit as good as being white."  It took years
    for me to realize that the acceptance in this statement was based
    on the certainty that "white is good" (and the implication that
    blacks are good if they are like whites, so being "non-prejudiced"
    meant "treating blacks like whites.")

    The celebration of diversity is a way of suggesting this: Rather
    than finding acceptance by believing everyone to be as good as
    white males, let's spend time exploring the rich cultural gifts
    presented to us by those who didn't fit the original description
    of "all men" 200 years ago.

    If we can accept the diverse gifts of all cultures, races, creeds,
    sexes, etc. - only then will we have a *true* common ground.