Have we become a nation of slugs, so offended by a simple old-time Christmas song that we want to ban it from the radio? Where does this leave us in real life?
So, with the current controversy about "Baby Its Cold Outside" raging on the radio and social media I got to thinking and thinking and thinking....are we as a country just becoming too PC?
"Baby Its Cold Outside" was originally written in 1944 by Frank Loesser's as a jazz standard. Is it a song about date rape or just a catchy tune? Should it be "banned" from the airwaves? I vote NO! This is just a catchy tune, nothing more, written in a more innocent time in our history. Here is a video that depicts the song first as a man trying to convince a woman to stay a little while longer which has garnered criticism and a second version where its the man that wants to leave and the female is trying to convince him to stay. Do you feel differently about each version? Or again, is it just a catchy tune?
Being PC isn't a new idea. In another life in the 1970's early 1980's, I was a USN broadcaster serving in Japan. We had what was called, "host country sensitivities." For instance, when giving the weather, we were not allowed to say, "there's a nip in the air." Some other issues: we weren't allowed to discuss the nuclear bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And we couldn't call the Emperor by his first name as this was considered disrespectful. I can see how we need to be sensitive when we serve in the military overseas and need to blend in. However, here in the US nowadays we seem to be resorting to not wishing to offend anyone.
And it seems as though others agree with me. "The most recent national survey from Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind finds that 68 percent agree with the statement: "A big problem this country has is being politically correct."
So, how does this relate to nursing and medicine? "After 25 years, the MCAT is being revised, becoming longer (by three hours) and covering a broader range of topics than simply chemistry, physics and biology. One quarter of the new test covers "psychology, sociology and the biological foundations of behavior." More specifically, students will be tested on "social inequality, class consciousness, racial and ethnic identity, institutionalized racism and discrimination, and power, privilege and prestige." Most of us would agree that widening the scope of physician education is important. There are many more social issues nowadays, more poverty, more people that feel disenfranchised. In this venue, it's important to be inclusive. Can we be inclusive without crossing over into not offending anyone?
And, most of us have had to sit through in-services about cultural awareness, even generational awareness. Has this resulted in stilted communication? Must all our communication be so "aware?" Do you think before you speak? Do you consider generational differences when communication with co-workers, patients?
Where do patients fit in? Should patients expect all of their needs to be met? Where do we draw the line between being PC and enabling? When discharging patients from the hospital nowadays, follow up appointments are made, prescriptions electronically sent to pharmacies, perhaps home health arranged and other case management needs that are met. Then, the patient states, "I need a ride to my appointments." When did this become the responsibility of the healthcare system? While we are all striving to reduce readmission rates, when does the responsibility of transportation become the patients' responsibility? Or is it PC to say, "Oh I can get you a cab voucher"? Are we making healthcare too accessible?
As a nation, shouldn't we "man up" and be responsible for our own lives? That means taking care of ourselves, communicating our needs in a clear manner, being honest in our dealings with others and overall being a worthwhile citizen?
Knock yourself out. I'm convinced that you're plenty smart enough to figure out that if you talk about or address a person in a different manner than they want to be addressed, you know that you've made the deliberate decision to disrespect their wishes and depending on the person, quite possibly also hurt them. My conclusion is that being allowed to do that matters more to you, than the possible pain you inflict. Right or wrong? If wrong, feel free to explain why you think so.
Personally I don't get it. If something's no skin off my nose and the person isn't being a **** towards me, my default setting is to simply respect the person and their wishes. Different strokes I guess.
Sweetcheeks, your terms of endearment are really tugging at my heartstrings, but I suspect Farawyn ain't your dear...
It's kind of funny. This thread is over a hundred posts long, and no one has managed to provide a meaningful list of things that they want to be able to say, but feel is frowned upon or even condemned by a sizeable portion of the population.
What have we got so far?
* Being able to say Merry Christmas.
* Being able to call Easter eggs; Easter eggs.
(I've searched the internet for credible incidences of people being assaulted or jailed for using the phrase Merry Christmas or saying Easter eggs, but rather unsurprisingly, I drew a blank).
* If I interpreted it correctly, being able to call a person who's transgender the pronoun you prefer, instead of the one they prefer?
Isn't this a rather pathetic list?
Have I missed anything major?
There are so many posters in this thread who seem to share the common belief that you guys are way, way too PC, and that's the best the collective you can come up with? Come on!
Careful, y'all are starting to sound like special snowflakes
Are you telling me that you have a genuine fear that it will become illegal and punishable by a jail sentence, to simply call a person the wrong he or she? Without even bothering to research where you've picked up that strange idea, I can safely predict that it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law. So stop fretting.
I swear it's as if some of you guys are actively looking for things to get upset about. In my opinion there's a bit of a victim mentality lurking in there somewhere...
I have to wonder why is it so hard for you to "keep up with the goalposts"? It ain't rocket science. I find that kindness and respect, and a sincere apology if if I've shoved my foot in my mouth (and that's certainly been known to happen), usually does the trick.
TraumaRUs, I was planning on asking you about this in my first post in this thread, but I forgot. As I've already said, I appreciate your posts and I find that you are always respectful and kind (a lot more so than I often am). I must admit, to me it came a bit out of left field, that this PC stuff bothers you.
The thing I was going to ask about, is why would anyone want to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki while in Japan? I mean, the bombs "you" dropped on them are horrific.
With a nuclear bomb, if you're "lucky" you are instantly "vaporized". If you're less lucky, you suffer an agonizing, protracted death, with thermal burns, radiation burns, vomiting, severe bloody diarrheas, extensive internal bleeding, bone marrow and central nervous system death. Or if the amount of radiation you were exposed to was lower, you might just get milder nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, painful mucous membranes and develop leukemia two years or so down the road. Who could blame the Japanese for not wanting to be reminded of this, especially by citizens from the country that bombed them?
It goes back to the times. I was in the USN in the 70's and 80's - many survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were still very much alive and working, getting ready to retire, etc.. There were times; usually around the anniversaries of significant WWII events that the places would be mentioned in conjunction with the bombings. Dignitaries from both Japan and other countries would come to focus their attention on the lost lives and sheer magnitude of the destruction that occurred. The Japanese culture was (at that time) still very ingrained in tradition and respect so it was out of a sense of respect that we didn't mention it on air.
To us Americans (I was in my teens and early 20's) that event seemed like such a long time ago. However, to many Japanese at the time, it was still a fresh and painful memory.
I am not PC all the time. I endorse that being kind and respectful and apologizing when warranted goes a long ways to common understanding.
The issue that I tried to bring up is that we can't change history - we can't change what happened in WWII, we can't change this Christmas song from years ago either. So, the only thing we can change is going forward, and being kind and respectful (and yes apologizing when I put my foot in my mouth) is, at least for me, the best route.
Knock yourself out. I'm convinced that you're plenty smart enough to figure out that if you talk about or address a person in a different manner than they want to be addressed, you know that you've made the deliberate decision to disrespect their wishes and depending on the person, quite possibly also hurt them. My conclusion is that being allowed to do that matters more to you, than the possible pain you inflict. Right or wrong? If wrong, feel free to explain why you think so.
Personally I don't get it. If something's no skin off my nose and the person isn't being a **** towards me, my default setting is to simply respect the person and their wishes. Different strokes I guess.
Sweetcheeks, your terms of endearment are really tugging at my heartstrings, but I suspect Farawyn ain't your dear...
It's kind of funny. This thread is over a hundred posts long, and no one has managed to provide a meaningful list of things that they want to be able to say, but feel is frowned upon or even condemned by a sizeable portion of the population.
What have we got so far?
* Being able to say Merry Christmas.
* Being able to call Easter eggs; Easter eggs.
(I've searched the internet for credible incidences of people being assaulted or jailed for using the phrase Merry Christmas or saying Easter eggs, but rather unsurprisingly, I drew a blank).
* If I interpreted it correctly, being able to call a person who's transgender the pronoun you prefer, instead of the one they prefer?
Isn't this a rather pathetic list?
Have I missed anything major?
There are so many posters in this thread who seem to share the common belief that you guys are way, way too PC, and that's the best the collective you can come up with? Come on!
Careful, y'all are starting to sound like special snowflakes
Are you telling me that you have a genuine fear that it will become illegal and punishable by a jail sentence, to simply call a person the wrong he or she? Without even bothering to research where you've picked up that strange idea, I can safely predict that it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming law. So stop fretting.
I swear it's as if some of you guys are actively looking for things to get upset about. In my opinion there's a bit of a victim mentality lurking in there somewhere...
I have to wonder why is it so hard for you to "keep up with the goalposts"? It ain't rocket science. I find that kindness and respect, and a sincere apology if if I've shoved my foot in my mouth (and that's certainly been known to happen), usually does the trick.
TraumaRUs, I was planning on asking you about this in my first post in this thread, but I forgot. As I've already said, I appreciate your posts and I find that you are always respectful and kind (a lot more so than I often am). I must admit, to me it came a bit out of left field, that this PC stuff bothers you.
The thing I was going to ask about, is why would anyone want to bring up Hiroshima and Nagasaki while in Japan? I mean, the bombs "you" dropped on them are horrific.
With a nuclear bomb, if you're "lucky" you are instantly "vaporized". If you're less lucky, you suffer an agonizing, protracted death, with thermal burns, radiation burns, vomiting, severe bloody diarrheas, extensive internal bleeding, bone marrow and central nervous system death. Or if the amount of radiation you were exposed to was lower, you might just get milder nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, painful mucous membranes and develop leukemia two years or so down the road. Who could blame the Japanese for not wanting to be reminded of this, especially by citizens from the country that bombed them?
Again, I just don't see it here. Not "in your face, blatant racism", every day. I'm not saying
it doesn't exist. But I believe it exists everywhere to an extent.
I have had this happen. We do have a black nurse who used to work here, who one
patient recently did say, they did not like her, presumably just because she was
black.
It does not happen often. I don't actively look for it to happen though.
Thanks for the updated lyrics. And you are right, most people don't know the words.
I've lived in this state for 20 years, part of those years in Louisville, and the joke was nobody seems to know all the words, even though it is sung every year at Derby.
Your experience is not mine and mine is not yours. So what?
My facility employs a number of nurses of African decent. I know of three different nurses, on my unit, of African decent, and I mean, born in Africa, who have been told they are not welcome in certain patients rooms.
The latest was last week.
Two weeks ago, I had a patient complain to me about an African-American nurse. I felt the complaint was race-based, and asked a few more questions. Yes, the n-word came tumbling out of the patient's mouth.
I am glad that your patient population, isn't as ignorant as mine.
These are good nurses, being maligned, for other reason than race.
You are right. I don't like the politics of this state.
A governor who refers to teachers as "thugs," isn't one I want representing me.
If being PC means I don't have to hear the n-word to describe a co-worker, bring on the PC!
Because I am White, the ignorant think I share their attitude. I obviously don't.
And because patient satisfaction is God, you can only push back against such attitudes so much.
I think we need start having these conversations with underrepresented minorities in mind, instead of consistently coming off as a bunch of folks from the majority with a misunderstanding of the point of "political correctness". This conversation is getting ridiculous no matter where it takes place. No, you can't go around calling folks the R-word anymore out of RESPECT for those with intellectuall differences. No, you can't go around putting your hands in black people's hair anymore "because you're curious" out of RESPECT for personal space. No, you shouldn't go around joking about sexual misconduct anymore because our culture towards victims and consent needs to change. Yes, you have to respect people and no, it is not a problem. For the most part, political correctness has done more good than it has harm, and though some folks go a little overboard at times it doesn't mean the art of cultural sensitivity (because that's what this all really is) is an issue. Period. Stop.
Specializes in ED, Cardiac-step down, tele, med surg.
It should not be banned. Book banning and the banning of cultural videos is fascism. I did look at the instances differently because statistically, men have been more sexually persistent and in some cases aggressive and forceful. Men and women are different, their experiences have been different. Yes, sexism, misogyny, racism has existed and does exist probably to lesser overt ways in the present. Does that mean we should censor ourselves, ban books and video? No, it does not. The book Lolita is a perfect example. The book Huckleberry Fin and The Diary of Ann Frank depict racism and the latter a very touching story about the Nazi Holocaust. It's good to have these cultural references for exploration. Should we go back to book burning? That's what the PC culture seems to push.
In this day and age, consent from both parties engaged in intimate acts is required to be respectful and enjoyable. If a man says no, a woman needs to respect the no and so must a man. If I heard the song without the video, it would not be provocative. I do not believe in censorship. That is not an aspect of democracy. PC is not the same as being democratic. Real equality and justice involves respect and learning from the past and trying to understand each other as human beings. That cannot occur if we censor each other.
Regarding touching of har. I've had black people touch my hair and was never offended by it. If I felt uncomfortable I would have said something. I'm a pretty easy going person though. My closest friend in high school was black, in fact, I grew up in a mostly black neighborhood and I have 2 sisters who have black fathers. We have the same mom. I love being around a diverse group of people. I don't feel the urge to touch a strangers hair, but if it were my friend I might ask to touch their hair if I were curious about it. Consentual touching is not offensive.
Maybe people are curious about each other. If we were kids again without any of the BS prejudices, would asking "I'm curious about you, tell me about your culture, can I touch your hair" be so offensive? We are all human beings with finite lives at the end of the day. Let's live together and get over the past and celebrate our future. We have so many things on our plate as a race of human beings, let us appreciate our differences and allow space to learn and grow. This requires honesty and open conversations and a little humor too.
I'm certain I'll offend but here goes. Society is like a person with a borderline personality in that things are black or white and shades of gray do not exist. The pendulum swings too far in one direction and forces exert their effort to bring things in the other direction, which happens, but then things swing too far in the other direction. Then wash, rinse, repeat. I'd contend amongst a few other reasons this is why the US has the POTUS we have...as a counterbalance to extreme shift to the culture of everyone is a victim, they should embrace victim hood, they should rejoice in this, and everyone should be offended. It never ceases to amaze me to see how far virtue signaling SJW's will go. You can never be in full compliance with the pc culture because the goal post is constantly moved. And no this song isn't an isolated incident, it's happening across this planet and sadly it's not even one of the most extreme examples IMO (thinking specifically of the idea of incarcerating an individual for calling a transitioning male to female, a he or some other scientifically correct pronoun as 1 example). I value the US Constitution/Bill of Rights; single most important document to date. It is the foundation of this great nation. Amongst many rights/freedoms it grants us,freedom of speech is included and our courts have determined there is no such thing as hate speech and only restricts that freedom in limited capacity (e.g., yelling fire in a crowded building). Now should we conduct ourselves as civilized human beings by not calling our fellow man (oops I think I committed a micro aggression) any number of derogatory names; of course. But our current course in this country is certainly worthy of concern, not just because of where things are headed present day but because the farther the pendulum swings in its current direction; the more momentum it has to swing the other direction. Terrifying. I'm all about diversity of thought and the uniqueness of every human being in general but this is one instance I wish we were all kinda moderate, common sense oriented.
Yes, yes, and yes.
You have a very cogent arguement here.. I hope others will take the time to really read what you are saying. This is an ideology issue...
Specializes in Hospice, corrections, psychiatry, rehab, LTC.
I don't even know that you call it PC. It's insanity.
People that are up in arms over a flipping Christmas song don't understand the culture from back then. I'm not talking about a rape culture either. I'm talking about one where women didn't stay at a mans house without a reputation being ruined. No matter how much she would have loved to.
That takes my mind to the 1957 song by the Every Brothers, Wake Up Little Suzie, about the boyfriend and girlfriend who fall asleep in the car at the drive-in movie. In it is the line, "Our reputation is shot." The lyrics also discuss what they are going to tell the girl's parents and their friends. It was a different age.
Trying to rewrite history because it doesn't fit current social mores makes no sense. It should be accepted as a product of the culture in which it occurred. It's like schools banning Mark Twain's writing because it includes racially insensitive language. If nothing else, it serves as a historical lesson in how things should not be expressed now.
Another example: Years ago, I lived in Oklahoma City, home of the 45th Infantry Division Museum. The 45th Infantry Division was heavily involved in some of the most intense fighting in Europe During World War II. Members of the 45th captured Hitler's apartment at the end of the war. In addition to the historical artifacts from the Division is a large display of Nazi regalia, including Hitler's personal telephone and a sheet of his personalized stationery. A guide in the museum told me that a guest said that the museum was "too Nazified". To show the symbolism and artifacts in a historical context is educational. It is not glorifying what the Nazis stood for.
NurseCard, ADN
2,850 Posts
Again, I just don't see it here. Not "in your face, blatant racism", every day. I'm not saying
it doesn't exist. But I believe it exists everywhere to an extent.
I have had this happen. We do have a black nurse who used to work here, who one
patient recently did say, they did not like her, presumably just because she was
black.
It does not happen often. I don't actively look for it to happen though.