A PSA to The PC Crowd: Ignorance is Not Malevolence!

This observation came up for a while now in noting the various absurdities of the pro-political correctness crowd that in many cases, they seem to judge everything in a “one size fits all” sort of way. This is probably no surprise to many of my fellow conservatives, but I do want to expand on this particular aspect of it. Imagine a few scenarios if you will which I will proceed to describe:

A few students are gathered in the cafeteria for dinner at some college somewhere, and meet up with a few friends and acquaintances. Some of these friends also brought over their friend groups unknown to your group. To break the ice, one white student asks a student of color “Uh, so, where are you from?” The student of color answers “Oh, I’m from Upstate NY…”. The white student then prods further, “But, where are you from originally? Where are you really from?”

A guy goes out to a party on a Friday night with his buddies. They see a group of what looks to be girls wanting to look for a date to dance with and hang out with. One guy is nervous, and really doesn’t know what to say to start the conversation and absentmindedly blurts out “Hey, you’d look nice if you smile” to one girl staring off more absentmindedly. She gets angry and retorts “It’s not my job to smile for you!”

In a discussion about race, a participant says “I don’t see color, I treat everyone equally…” when asked how they would view a solution to stopping racism and racial bias.

A co-worker recently has come out that they are transitioning to be transgender. They tell everyone what pronoun to use and the new name they want to be called, but many at the office find it hard to remember either, and out of habit, refer to and accidentally address the person by their old name/pronouns. 

A white person called up on stage during a concert (This is based off a real event) to sing a rap song written and sung by a black performer included the “N”-word as it was in the lyrics of the song.

At the neighborhood picnic, a neighbor reveals he has Native American ancestry and someone asks “So, how Indian are you?”. 

All of the above examples are considered offensive and demeaning within the politically correct edicts. Reasons given for each scenario are asking where someone is from “others” that person and makes them feel like you don’t think they’re a legitimate American and like an exotic other. Asking a girl to smile is now considered sexist and a form of harassment, a sexist entitlement to make a woman conform to your needs vs. her own autonomy. The idea of being “colorblind”, the Left says, does not help not being racist, and in fact, now is racist as they believe it marginalizes the influence race plays in inequality. Not using the correct names and pronouns for a transgendered person de-legitimizes their choice to be transgender and live as their preferred gender. Non-black people are not allowed to use racial slurs, but black people are exempt as they are said to be “reclaiming” the slurs once used to oppress them. And in the last but certainly not the last example of what constitutes a PC faux pas, asking “How Indian are you?” is said to be ignorant and offensive as it implies they’re not a “real” Native American.

On the surface, these seem to be at least semi-believable explanations. They have been said over and over to the latest generation, including myself many times throughout school, media and society. However, looking deeper into each reveals the issues may not be so black and white in of themselves, but also the key factor: The intentions of the people who made such an “Un-PC” mistake.

Saying “Where are you from?” because someone looks a little different is not always, and in fact is most likely not a pointed slight to make someone feel like an outsider. The question in any other context is simply used as an ice breaker to start a conversation and get to know a person more. It’s really context dependent and also in your tone of voice. Saying it in a suspicious and accusatory way does indeed hint to a less friendly intention, however a neutral question said in curiosity is most likely meant that way. In the scenario, however, it is pushed further when the answer wasn’t what the person was going for. Even then, I argue, it doesn’t have to be a display of bigotry. Is it always prejudice if the person genuinely had curiosity as to what part of the world someone’s heritage came from, especially if they do look different than most others around? Yes, in that case the person being asked is sort of “the other”, but the point in asking what part of the world they are from ethnically is to make them less of an outsider, and to become more familiar with them. Racism and prejudice can stem from ignorance, but the key to combating ignorance is asking questions to gain knowledge! Most who ask such questions, while can appear insensitive, are merely just curious, not prejudicial and suspicious. Curiosity is NOT bigotry!

Asking a girl to smile I will say, is probably awkward in most cases depending how you phrase it and  if you’re talking to a stranger. However, labeling it as depriving women of their bodily autonomy and being male entitlement is going way off the deep end! Think of it: A young guy who is shy and awkward around girls might blurt out something that’s a bit awkward and not quite the ideal pick up line, but is that an expression of oppressing women? I’d argue the last thing any nervous guy approaching a girl to ask her out feels is “entitled”! Asking a girl to smile is nowhere near REAL harassment of women…

Saying “I don’t see color” while not the catch all solution to end all forms of racism and bias, had its heart in the right place. While not solving racism, it fosters the attitude to help combat it as it is said in the spirit of treating every person as equal in human worth and dignity, regardless of skin color. The idea skin color isn’t even a factor in how we should treat others. The world would indeed be a much kinder place if we didn’t obsess over each other’s phenotypes…

I have other reasons to sympathize with those who don’t want to legitimize just “choosing” to be another gender and calling it reality, but in the common scenario that the pronoun and name conflict comes up, the issue of common habit, not a pointed rejection is a valid explanation. See, if you knew “Bob” your coworker as Bob and referred to him as a “he/him” for the 20 years you worked at the company, it may be a harder transition to consistently remember to call him “Susie” and “she/her” overnight! Even if you’re perfectly okay with his/her choice, just the sheer habit of knowing him by one name and identity takes a lot of getting used to, and slip ups happen… If the pronouns are different such as the made up gender neutral ones, it’s like learning a new language!

If you get invited to sing a song at a concert, that contains a swear word, and you say said taboo word, is it your fault as if you chose to say it spontaneously? If it’s not your own word, you’re just quoting someone else’s choice to use it, and if it’s in the song the artist invites you to sing, then why omit it? The person in that scenario that said the racial slur was NOT saying it to disparage anyone, nor was her own choice of words, but the lyrics to a popular rap sing she was INVITED to sing! Racism never even entered the picture other than she was white and singing along to a song written by a black artist. In this case, context means everything…

And in my last example, it’s related to the first one: Curiosity. No one is prodding to do detective work into if someone is a “real” Indian, or anyone else (Unless you’re running for political office capitalizing on that status 😉 )! People can be genuinely and innocently curious about things, and it means no more than that. Asking how Indian someone is is simply about curiosity, and many wouldn’t even think it would be offensive to ask any more than asking how much German or Italian ancestry someone had. Does anyone of mixed ethnic European ancestry feel invalidated and feel less German or less French or English for instance if someone asks how much ancestry they have of those respective countries?

And tying all these various examples of some “microaggressions” as the Left calls them together, the common theme is the “perpetrators” are either merely curious, or ignorant that it is coming off as offensive or insensitive. No one in all scenarios presented had deliberate intent to oppress, marginalize, invalidate and belittle anyone! Yes, pointed and snide comments can happen, and are meant to be offensive, and I advocate for everyone to stand their ground if insulted so. However, before making that comeback to shut them up, think first on the intention of that off color remark or seemingly insensitive comment or question. Did they mean to hurt or belittle you, or were they simply curious or ignorant of how it came off to your ears? Most, if told they offended would feel mortified and apologize right away! Let me emphasize this again: Curiosity is not bigotry. Ignorance is not prejudice. The vast majority of microaggressions are merely mistakes and misunderstandings, not targeted insults. The elder who uses that outdated word is just saying what was acceptable in their generation without malice. The kids dressed up as Indians aren’t thinking “Hey, isn’t it fun to marginalize Native Americans?” The nervous guy just blurted something awkward out and is embarrassed, not entitled! Ignorantly assuming something off a common stereotype betrays lack of knowledge and familiarity, not lack of acceptance and kindness.

Yes, I also realize damage can be done even with good intentions. However, intentions do matter. Breaking the prized vase does damage regardless if you pushed it on purpose or by being knowingly reckless, or simply bumped into it and it fell. However, one is judged to be an accident, and one a deliberate act or one you are culpable for neglecting to be careful of such an event. How is that done? By the intention of the person who did it! Why isn’t it the same for all these PC grievances too? A person may feel “othered” by a comment or question regardless of original intent, but in terms of judging the one who said it, one should consider did they mean any harm and did they know it would offend? Unfortunately, the politically correct crowd only sees everything as a one size fits all issue of perpetual offense and demonizing those who unwittingly commit the dreaded microaggression… Well, all I have to say to them is just wait until it’s YOU on the other end of the accusation… How will YOU want to be judged? 😉

Image result for microaggressions cartoon

26 thoughts on “A PSA to The PC Crowd: Ignorance is Not Malevolence!

  1. I remember back in my feminist day, I was wearing a DBZ shirt while checking out, and a man asked me about the ending of the new series (Dragon Ball Super) that had just ended. I told him my thoughts, and he didn’t say much else.

    Back then I wondered if he was trying to “Fake Geek Girl” me, and got angry and thought it was a microagression when in reality he was probably just curious and too busy to talk to further. If we had been in a casual environment he might have wanted to talk to me more about it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “…how Indian are you?”

    I had to laugh when I reached that point! We used to have a Metis neighbour. (This was shortly after we discovered my husband was Metis, too.) He grew up in the “north end” of a city, which had become mostly First Nations people off the reserves. It was a rough neighbourhood – at 9 years old, he saw a many die of stab wounds in front of their house. He and the other kids would argue over who was “more Indian.” Those with more Indian blood in them considered themselves superior to those with less. Which brings up another point: while everyone else is tripping over their tongues, using terms like First Nations, aboriginal (not acceptable, anymore, apparently), indigenous, etc. – anything but “Indian”, every single First Nations person I’ve known called themselves Indians and had no problems with it – unless they were an activist!

    It seems the Metis is not a thing for you guys in the US. Here in Canada, they are recognized as one of the 5 founding nations. Basically, it’s anyone of mixed Indian/European blood, though there is a big difference between being Metis by only blood, and being a cultural Metis as well.

    “…where are you from?”

    That one can be a clumsy question. If asked, “where are you from”, “upstate NY” is the valid answer. If it’s background a person is asking about, maybe “where is your family from?” or even “what background are you?” might be better. Though there is a valid point in there being a problem with people assuming a person of colour couldn’t possibly be from “upstate NY”, these days in particular, with so many “refugees” coming in from a long list of non-European countries, it’s easy to make the mistake of assuming someone who doesn’t look like the majority of an area is actually from another country.

    When I was in high school, my friends and I had conversations about where we were from, historically. Some, like my husband, had been in Canada for long than Canada has been a country, and/or had quite a mix of ethnic backgrounds. One friend called herself a Heinz 57, because she had so many ethnicities in her. They all just happened to be European. More rarely, there were people like me; first generation born in Canada, and only one ethnicity in my background. So it was pretty normal so ask “where are you from” as part of a conversation about ethnic backgrounds. It can certainly be a question that is misunderstood, but racist? Possibly, but unlikely.

    “Hey, you’d look nice if you smile”

    Okay, I’m going to kinda disagree with this one on you. Partly because, at best, it’s rude and kinda creepy. Mostly because I don’t think the scenario you describe is when it usually happens. I’m basing this on observation and conversations I’ve had with my daughters. Basically, the guy saying this to a girl isn’t the shy, uncomfortable type. Guys who say this tend to be the arrogant, overconfident, creepy sort. And if the woman doesn’t smile in response, they tend to get angry, offended, and creepier. As in, women finding themselves being followed as the guy continues to demand a smile, and if she doesn’t, starts calling her a b***h and so on. Worse is when the woman in question is in a trapped situation.

    Just a little hint to any guys reading this. Do NOT hit on cashiers. They have no choice but to be polite while on the job, so their not blowing you off is because of that, not because they are flattered by your hitting on them on the job. One of my daughters worked as a cashier in a hardware store. She got hit on frequently, and it was creepy, every time. A friend and co-worker, who looked much younger than her age, was hit on so often and so aggressively (even more creepy when you consider these are middle aged men hitting on a girl that looks barely old enough to have a job), she started wearing an engagement ring. It didn’t help.

    I should add, though, that it’s not always guys that say this. It is not unusual for women to say to other women, “you would look so pretty if you smile!” Usually, this is associated with fat shaming; basically, it’s a catty way for women to passive-aggressively say to other women; you’re fat, therefore you are ugly, and I will call attention to this by telling you to make yourself “pretty” by smiling. Or something similar.

    Of course, if someone isn’t smiling, there is often a reason for it. I have a friend who has struggled with depression and anxiety for many years; being around people causes all sorts of issues. She’s had people tell she needs to smile, often – and they’re not hitting on her. Hard enough when it’s a complete stranger. Harder still when it’s from a medical professional who really should know better than to tell a depressive to smile on command!

    Ultimately, though, it’s just rude, and really kinda deserving of “I don’t owe you a smile.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hey.. I have a question for you since you are a First Nations human being. Here in the States we’ve had a fairly poor record of settling and re-settling Native Americans to reservations and all our collective white European guilt aside for our ancestor’s transgressions, I was wondering your thoughts on whether it would have been better for “indians” to have been assimilated into the population rather than suffering even to this day in various stages of economic and social disparity, and any number of health issues, on the reservations. Ok.. so most have casinos now to bring in some bucks… but there are still significant problems with life on reservations. I have to think that Canadian reservations have similar issues? Just curious.

      Like

      • I’m not First Nations, myself (First Nations is also one of the recognized 5 founding nations of Canada, even though it’s an umbrella term that includes all the indigenous peoples, except for the Inuit, who are another of the 5 founding nations – oddly, when I searched to confirm if it was the Inuit or the Dene, I was not able to find references to this anymore; stuff I used to be able to find years ago just don’t show up in searches anymore). However, I’ll answer as best I can.

        Frankly, I think Native Americans are currently doing much better in the US than First Nations in Canada (this was not true in the past; the French and the British did not try and wipe them out, the way the fledgling US government did at the time, and had formed some pretty good relationships for a while. Then that went really bad, really fast). Our reserve system is really awful. We also have the Indian Act, which I consider incredibly paternalistic and infantalizing of Canada’s native peoples. The entire system in also incredibly wasteful and corrupt. For example, billions of dollars go to the various Nations, as required by the Act, but by the time it flows through layers of government and Band bureaucracy, very little gets to where it is needed. Worse, once the money is in the hands of the Bands, there is NO accountability. Our previous federal government had introduced accountability, requiring Bands to provide records of where and how the money was spent (many turned out to have almost no records at all), something grassroots Natives were very much in favour of – but a lot of band leaders and councils were against it, claiming it was racist and infringed on their sovereignty or whatever they could come up with. Then our current PM got into office – they courted the native vote, with all sorts of promises, and many voted for the first time because of it. Voting numbers among natives is much lower than in general. There is a LOT of voter regret, now, as those promises were quickly thrown out the window. Anyhow; one of the first things done once T2 was elected, was to get rid of the accountability requirement. That was one promise they did keep. 😦

        On the reserves, there is no private property ownership. Everything belongs to the band. Unfortunately, on too many reserves, that results in council members and their families all having nice houses, and new vehicle every year, jobs, money and perks, while those who aren’t in the favour of council members could see themselves denied all sorts of things and living in rotted out homes with no electricity or running water. All of this is made worse from the consequences of things like the residential school system and child snatching (native children taken and adopted out to white families), plus the reserve lands granted, tended to be on lands where conditions are not good for growing food, and where there are few resources, etc. Unemployment is very high, drug and alcohol abuse, violent crime and suicide rates are horrifically high. Many reserves do not have safe water to drink, houses are filled with black mold, etc. They have little in the way of health care, and often have to be flown to the nearest city for care, or for child birth.

        A few reserves have good leadership, and are doing well. One that comes to mind has a casino, yes, but also a golf course and vineyard. Their Chief runs things like a businessman, and has an entrepreneurial spirit that is fostered and shared. Other reserves are eager to work with oil companies to have pipelines through their lands, which would bring in jobs and business, but paid, activist, sometimes fake, native groups (these groups mostly trace back to US based “environmental” groups – there are a lot of US, Chinese and Russian based/funded groups working to kill our oil industry, and they have no problem using our native peoples to do it), are fighting against pipelines, oil extraction, logging, mining or pretty much anything else that might bring jobs and hope to these communities.

        Personally, I think the Indian Act should be scrapped, and the people living on the reserves should be able to own their own property and homes, and not have to rely on the whims of their band leaders. Bring back that accountability requirement and phase the whole thing out over a period of years. People can be free to maintain their culture and communities on their own terms, not government terms. I don’t see that happening, though. There’s too much money flowing into the wrong people’s pockets. There’s a reason some treaties have not been met, even after 100 years. It’s like the anti-poverty industry. If we were to solve poverty, they’d be out of a job. Likewise with the unmet treaties. Fix those, and a whole industry formed around it would collapse.

        Liked by 1 person

      • At the risk of sounding “anti-indian” (in the domestic U.S.), it’s been the inevitable migration of humans over the millennium that populations will overtake and mix with other populations.. either through wars of conquest, or simple migration patterns resulting from food availability and climate, etc. Just look at early Europe and Asia.. the complete shifting of populations inbred into other human variants.. only themselves to be overtaken in the course of human history. So when Europeans came into the Americas, especially North America, that caused yet another migration. But because all this was relatively recent in human history, 200-300 years or so, those who “won” the migration shift by conquering and displacing the indigenous humans violently and ruthlessly, and “herded” them onto reservations to try and relieve some level guilt for the act. From what you are describing up in Canada, the relocation of Indians to reservations after having a “last minute” attack of some kind of morality to allow them a place to practice their traditional ways, seems to have simply just made their plight all the worse. Here they are all sovereign nation status.. except the federal government is the parent that “protects” them… apparently as your government does. All this reservation stuff has simply created a regional petri dish of total misery… social, economic, and cultural. From my vantage point, the native Americans should have simply been assimilated into the “new” European/American culture for a chance at individual survival… rather than a collective survival. One could ask the question… what makes the original North American Indian any different from other humans since the beginning of time falling victim to changing population shifts? Would not the individual Native American have a greater advantage of quality of life within the existing economic and political structure without being limited to a reservation? Just curious.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, this whole idea that people who have been conquered are somehow the “rightful” owners of the land is a strange thing. Especially for a people that did not have a concept of land ownership in the first place, and were constantly killing each other over territories for many centuries. There is a whole lot of historical revision, happening, two; the conquered were all in tune with nature, living sustainable lives, and non-aggressive. Which is utterly false, but it’s being taught to a new generation who believe it. Unfortunately, the horrific actions of the government at the time lead to a couple of lost generations.

        Throughout human history, civilizations moved forward through contact with other nations, adapting and adopting from each other. Trade routes played a huge part in this. Now, suddenly, under the guise of battling cultural appropriation, we are told that all sorts of things “belong” only to certain cultural groups, and no other group (but especially whites of European backgrounds) is allowed to enjoy them anymore, because… racism! Even to the point where SJWs are saying white people can’t eat ethnic food or go to ethnic restaurants (because, apparently “ethnic” means “not-white”), because that’s cultural appropriation. I remember reading an online Q&A, where a person talked about how her father is white, her mother is Japanese, and asked if it was okay for her to learn to speak Japanese? She was told no; it was already racist for her father to have “taken” a Japanese woman from her culture. The person learning Japanese would just expound on his racist act. !?!?! I couldn’t believe what I was reading was real!

        While I do believe First Nations peoples would be better off, freed from the Indian Act and the reserve system, so much damage has been done to the communities, it would not be easy. While certainly not true in all cases, some reserves are so filled with damaged people, they would not be able to function anywhere, never mind on the reserves themselves. It’s a very complex and difficult situation, and a real mess, in general. Fixing it would require leaders on all sides to be motivated to made things better, and I just don’t see that happening. Government bureaucrats aren’t going to risk getting rid of the reason they have jobs, and too many First Nations leaders are happily milking the system to their own advantage, and even fighting those who *want* to work with people and companies that would make things better for their own reserves. Having people with jobs and businesses is a threat to the victim industry. 😦

        Liked by 1 person

      • Very good.. I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. For about 4 years I was in the funeral industry at a very rural funeral home adjacent to a reservation in the American Southwest. Hence we handled many of the reservation’s deceased members. Honestly, this concept that Native Americans want to preserve their old ways and cultures didn’t seem all that apparent to me. If anything, much of contemporary Native Americans celebrated traditions seem to be adaptations and bastardizations, with echos of white influence. I am very sure that differs by tribe and reservation and their own individual attention to stricter celebrations.. but the tribe we were affiliated with, and being familiar with other reservations in the state, didn’t have a lot of what might be old traditions. No question they had their own reasons, an honest pride in what they believed… but it was obvious their traditions were not passed down from thousands of years without European influence. Thanks again.

        Liked by 1 person

      • In my view, that melding is how cultures grow! Over many years, Quebec has done all sorts of things to “protect” their francophone culture. This involved things like making it illegal to have signs in English (even though English and French are both official languages, so everything from labels to government documents have to have both). And, of course, they kept threatening to separate.

        It was observing this, together with my life long love of history, from a more anthropological point of view, that I came to the conclusion that culture is like a living thing. A healthy culture adapts and absorbs as needed, shedding what is no longer good and borrowing from other cultures and making it its own. A culture that is not allowed to do that will stagnate and die. And, frankly, some cultures deserve to die.

        That is where my comment about the role trade made comes from. Food history was another big part of my areas of research, and it amazed me to look at all sorts of recipes that are considered traditional to a particular culture, yet many, if not most, of the ingredients were imported from other areas, along with styles of cooking, and even cooking tools. To me, it’s illogical and ridiculous for any culture to claim ownership of anything, though I will acknowledge that there *is* cultural appropriation that is a problem. Just not in the way the SJWs view it.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Great article! I do feel the PC Brigade use an “Outrage Magnifying Glass” consistently sifting through social media, including historical information, in search for things to be outraged about. This is a strategy to create a climate of fear and assert control over us.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. They have certainly gone too far, no doubt about it. One cannot even breathe the “wrong way” anymore without offending someone. I have been in that situation all too often in school, family, work, church, etc..if you stand out in the crowd these days, one is the “freak show!” Used to be cool in the ’60’s and 70’s and 80’s! Dysfunctional is the new normal, and it’s a “privilege” to be white no matter how poor, or sickly one is.
    I wonder and ponder where the term “hate crime” was when I was 12 just starting junior high school, and I got spit on and stuck with pins by African-American seniors? Where were the race-baiters when I worked on a class project with a Chinese class-mate at her house and her mother admonished her that I was nice; but I wasn’t Chinese. Uh, well, maybe because it was the Bronx NY? And as a matter of fact it might’ve made some sense if they were born here and the mother was like; what, no Chinese friends? Which STILL would’ve been racist in my book, however, this family immigrated here from China!
    Or the Italian mother who cried because her son was dating a girl who wasn’t Italian?
    But I guess that’s all good but.
    Us conservatives started a revolution, a “progression” of our own, and the left don’t like it.
    Well, too bad, so sad! They don’t have to like it!

    Liked by 2 people

  5. You are 100% right. What most of society considers polite discourse might violate the constantly changing and ever expanding taboos of the PC crowd, but that doesn’t make such discourse malevolent .
    The issue is that the PC crowd applies a subjective standard. That is, a comment is offensive to a Social Justice Warrior if they decide it is offensive regardless of intent or how common it is.
    I fear that any such PSA to the PC Crowd will fall on deaf ears because the leftist “microagression” business is nothing but a scam. The left continuously invents reasons to claim victim status in order to demonize anyone who doesn’t kowtow to them; to give themselves a sense of collective power and to demand stuff such as free tuition. Because of that, no amount of effort to placate the SJWs will suffice. As long as lefties find a receptive audience to their nonsense they will continue to invent microagressions. We would consider an individual who constantly invents grievances and accusations to be toxic and manipulative. I suggest that the same applies to collective behavior as well.
    Although the left claims that their interest is polite, inoffensive and non-threatening discourse, their actions belie that claim whenever they brand anyone who dares to disagree with them as Nazis, racists and child killers (what they call NRA.) The crybullies demand that everyone walk on eggshells around them while they are free to be as offensive as they want. The only response such hypocrisy warrants is a good horselaugh.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Well, I certainly do agree with you here! While I fully understand the point you were making in those varied examples of political incorrectness, one has to admit that each of those scenarios were pretty much made a bit from social ignorance.
    Example.. on a normal day I’d NEVER hit on a girl with that phrase, “You’d look nice with a smile.”.. jeez.. implies there’s a condition where the girl doesn’t look nice. Kinda dumb to me… but there is a lot of dumbness in the world.. and I can judge dumbness because I’ve been there myself more than once in my life.
    But here’s to the greater point of male/female politically correct dialog. We truly need to accept a few things as being part of the human condition. We want to be attractive to the opposite sex because we exist with the instincts to procreate. Women, by nature, are vain insomuch as it fits in with the instinct to attract a mate. For example, females dress for personal self to feel feminine or dress to look good for men or dress to look good for CERTAIN men or all of the above. Men, by nature, seek out a partner from whatever has been programmed by nature within them. Now for both men and women these instincts are constantly at play whether anyone is actually “cruising” for a mate or not. I enjoy seeing a pretty face as much as the next guy.. but maybe our internal definition of what the pretty face might look like will be varied.

    But here’s the “today” exploitation of political correctness gone wild… In the workplace if you say to a co-worker.. or even a boss… “Good morning, Mary, you are looking particularly lovely today.” If “Mary” is married and middle aged she will likely accept the compliment without interpreting fear or threat; after all, she’s married and a mother. She will likely go home feeling the dress/make-up combination she wore that day should be remembered for the future use.
    If “Mary” is young and single, let’s say in her early 20’s, and has been an object of physical attraction “hits” in various social encounters in real life, will take into consideration how the guy looks. If the guy is 20 to 30 to 40 years older than Mary then she is likely thinking “Yeah, right, in your dreams old perv.” , as she looks up the phone extension to HR. (The older a guy gets the greater up on some “perv scale” he also goes.. because we all know older men enjoying younger women is a perversion). But if the guy were in her age range.. she definitely will take notice and respond according to the level of her attraction to him. Double-standard for sure.
    My point with all this… when it comes to judging what is sexist and politically correct interaction, or not, with a male, is up to the woman.. and pretty much how she feels that day, her self-esteem in general, and the physical appearance of the “sexist violator”.
    On a trip to the grocery store and I end up standing behind a young woman that strikes me… yes, even at my age… I would love to be able to share with her my perception of her uncommon beauty. I’m not asking her to duck behind the artichokes with me for a grope & feel session.. I am simply expressing my admiration of her looks. But.. we don’t do that in a civilized world… do we.

    Liked by 1 person

      • No.. that’s not the issue actually… it’s not an issue of “women being raised” to do anything. (Although I am wondering if your remark was made as sarcasm to my reply?)
        My entire point was that socially we seem to constantly want to control our natural attractions to each other.. sorting it all out to be either “wanted” or “unwanted”… and woman decides on any number of nature vs. nurture criteria. If it’s unwanted then it’s obviously politically incorrect.. “and subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination”.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. A very interesting article. I feel that we are expected to walk around on eggshells these days, it seems like everyone has their own acceptance movement and we are expected to follow the rules of every one of these groups; It’s impossible if we make everything PC, we restrict conversation, then everyone stops communicating. This is how wars start.

    I think we all need to go back to 2003 and listen to the lyrics of “Everyone’s a Little Bit Racist” from “Avenue Q”

    Ethnic jokes might
    Be uncouth,
    But you laugh because
    They’re based on truth.
    Don’t take them as
    Personal attacks.
    Everyone enjoys them —
    So relax!
    If we all could
    Just admit
    That we are racist
    A little bit,
    Even though we all
    Know that it’s wrong,
    Maybe it would help
    Us get along!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s