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?
In and of itself there is nothing wrong with spirit of kindness and consideration of the PC culture. For a movement attempting to foster inclusiveness and understanding is a noble goal and a worthwhile endeavor.
However, this should only be a personal undertaking to begin change in a micro-social environment. The issue for me becomes when we expand it to the macro-social environment, specifically State and Federal government. To enact laws to enforce people to change speech, begrudging companies to change their policy to limit speech/ exposure of people whom are deemed Offensive, or cast titles on anyone who has differing opinion as an -ism are all symptoms that is causing the multilayered push back in American society.
I think that a lot of this boils down to personal responsibility. Everyone who walks this planet will at some time get their feeling's hurt by another human, and will at some times hurt the feelings of another human. Of course we should all try to be kind and considerate but in the end we are human so this will indeed happen. So personally, what is the response to the hurt, some people are able to shrug it off, others get highly offended. I think the problem we have in society now is that people have not learned to just shrug it off, let it go..(assuming it is not bullying etc). I think most people do not go around trying to hurt another's feelings, it is usually just a difference of opinion. And, news flash here, people dont have to agree! Another problem is that some people are so sensitive that they cannot even listen to someone they know they disagree with (this happens at colleges where speakers are shouted down and never allowed to even speak). So where is the personal responsibility, in colleges it should be the professors and staff who should not allow this to happen. You don't like it, you are free to leave, same with the radio, you don't like the song, turn the station. This shouldn't be that hard. But that is not what some want, they want to control everyone else so others cant hear it either. They want to fire people who have made the grave sin of saying something they don't like, or sue them, or break the windows. Or as in the state of Calif make a law that it is illegal to use the wrong pronoun in LTC, (glad that is the worst thing Calif has to worry about right now!). This is why some say too PC, because these differences have always happened through out time, meanings change, societal mores change etc. but now in society it is the hyper responses that are the problem, IMO.
In my experience, people who complain that society is "too PC" want to say whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, to whoever they want, with no repercussions, but God forbid you say anything they don't like.
Specializes in Med/Surge, Psych, LTC, Home Health.
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 am sorry you are having the experiences that you are. And that those nurses where
you work are being discriminated against. Sucks.
And, I don't like Bevin either. All of that stuff that he said about the teachers
turned me completely against him. Will be glad when he is out.
As a millennial, yes, I think we are way too PC these days. Perhaps it's a result of how I was raised, but I much prefer people to be blunt so you know where you stand. You need to be considerate, but there is such a thing as taking that consideration too far.
Let's follow the Golden Rule: "Treat others as you wish to be treated." Be open and accepting, ask calmly if you have a question and don't touch someone without permission unless you need to tap their shoulder to get their attention or something. Is it really that hard?
I have friends who are all ages and from all walks of life whose company I enjoy and who (hopefully) enjoy my company -- otherwise I'm assuming we wouldn't be friends! That strategy works pretty well for me.
Yes the golden rule! I live by this rule -it's easy and uncomplicated. K.I.S.S.
Even is someone was charged under this law, it would be a misdemeanor and unlikely to result in jail time.
And there is no "they" banning that song. As far as I can tell, 3 radio stations, one in Cleveland, one in San Francisco and one in Canada pulled the song from their playlists. Decisions made by private businesses not to use a product.
Radio stations make choices all the time about the music and programs they broadcast. Country western doesn't play rap. Is that an example of being too PC? Or are they trying to play what they think listeners want to hear, or sponsors want to be associated with.
Even is someone was charged under this law, it would be a misdemeanor and unlikely to result in jail time.
And there is no "they" banning that song. As far as I can tell, 3 radio stations, one in Cleveland, one in San Francisco and one in Canada pulled the song from their playlists. Decisions made by private businesses not to use a product.
Radio stations make choices all the time about the music and programs they broadcast. Country western doesn't play rap. Is that an example of being too PC? Or are they trying to play what they think listeners want to hear, or sponsors want to be associated with.
Well, look at what institutions these people belong to and you will get the idea why they are obnoxious about self victimization when they are the oppressors.
In my experience, people who complain that society is "too PC" want to say whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, to whoever they want, with no repercussions, but God forbid you say anything they don't like.
I think that you're absolutely correct.
If the complaints were legitimate, the people who make them shouldn't find it so darn difficult to come up with examples of things they'd like to be able to say, but feel that they are prohibited to say.
I've asked for examples on multiple occasions in this thread, but no one appears to be able to verbalize them. That makes me suspect that what they wish they were able to say, in all likelihood isn't able to withstand the scrutiny of daylight.
You guys are free to prove me wrong by providing examples of what you would like to be able to say, but that will have serious negative consequences on your employment status, personal safety or liberty if you do. If you're unable to do that, my previous conclusion will remain. Bottom line, I'm not giving anyone who's not willing to specify what they wish they'd be able to say but are prevented from saying, the benefit of doubt.
The entire term PC in my opinion has a deliberate negative connotation. It's an attempt to minimize the validity of opinions that are different than your own. If you call someone's opinion PC, it implies that the person doesn't have the opinion due to personal beliefs and values, but rather that they are trying to adhere to some kind of external rules and norms. The implication is that if someone is PC their convictions aren't internal in origin, but externally dictated.
Yes the golden rule! I live by this rule -it's easy and uncomplicated. K.I.S.S.
Who're you calling stupid
I agree with you regarding the golden rule and if everyone could just follow it, things would be so much better.
~~~~~~~~~
One of the few concrete examples I've seen in this thread of what a person would like to say, was a poster who thought it important to him to be able to talk about (and to I guess) a transgender person, using the "correct biological" pronoun.
How is it to live by the golden rule to deliberately disrespect another person's wishes? Why does someone feel they should have the right to be able to say to a person, that they reject the other person's entire identity and that the other person's feelings are less important than their own? How is that not simply cruelty masquerading as freedom of speech?
Why not respect the other person even if you yourself don't understand how it is to feel like they do and be like they are? Why is it so important to be able to shove your own convictions down the other person's throat? What kind of satisfaction does that offer? Think and believe what you will in private, but treat other people with respect.
There is nothing wrong with this song. The woman is all in, shes just trying to make it look innocent. Good grief, people will never stop amazing me.
As you're "good griefing", how many people in this thread have actually supported banning this song? It's a non-issue. It's has got to be a teeny-tiny insignificant percentage of the population who would actually go as far as a ban. You have rap music with some blatantly misogynistic lyrics so I don't see a countrywide ban being imposed on this song. In my opinion you and others are inflating this way out of proportion.
In my opinion there's a whole lot wrong with that annoying song, but as far as I'm concerned you are free to listen to that ode to repressed sexuality to your heart's content.
Well, look at what institutions these people belong to and you will get the idea why they are obnoxious about self victimization when they are the oppressors.
Of course it's religious extremism at the root of this. I know several religious persons who are tolerant of others and who genuinely embrace the golden rule and they are just as appalled as I am, by people who think they have the right to impose their world view on others.
Not so the extremists. They are watching in dismay when their once dominating worldview is now challenged and no longer allowed to reign supreme. They feel the control and dominance they once had, slipping through their fingers. They miss the 1950s and they don't feel at home in this new world.
They feel threatened, so now they try to fabricate one ludicrous threat after another and use misinformation as a strategy to sway people's minds to their own authoritarian and liberty-hating way of thinking. I say liberty-hating because the only liberty they want, is their own. And it's always at the expense of other people's rights, autonomy and happiness.
A couple of years ago they were trying to disguise their bigotted views by faking concern that women would be raped in public restrooms just because transgendered people would be allowed to use the women's restroom. Now they're trying to make it sound like LTC staff will serve hard prison time for a simple slip of the tongue.
I don't even have to read the proposed law to know that it isn't about sending someone to jail for mistakenly addressing someone as she when they wish to be addressed as he, or vice versa. It's about protecting residents from discrimination based on for example sexual orientation, gender identity or hiv status.
In order to be sentenced to actual jail time, I'm pretty sure that the discriminatory action by an employee would have to be systematic and involve more components than merely using the wrong pronoun, and there would likely have be an aspect of actual harm to the resident as a consequence of the discrimination present as well.
That said, I think that insisting on being able to call a patient or resident something else than what they wish to be called, is selfishness of the first order. Any intelligent person ought to question their own motivation for making that particular "freedom" a priority.
Every person I have heard ***** and moan about the world being too PC has things that they themselves take offense to that other people are baffled as to why. They think that their offence to something is the acception to the rule because if it offends THEM, then it MUST be objectively offensive.
Yeah, most discussions of "PC" succumb quickly to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
It's helpful to actually define political correctness. Political correctness in the 90s had to do mostly with allowing marginalized groups to have a say and was concerned with diversifying conversations and education in particular. It eventually came to mean being considerate of the cultural differences between oneself and others. Since then it has become an epithet for anyone who is more sensitive than I am on a subject, like it's twin term, "snowflake". No one applies it to themselves. It has also basically become a tool of manipulation, as this controversy showed. No one cared about this tacky song until the ominous banshee wail of "political correctness" threatened to steal it away from us! DUN DUNDUN.
To arms people! Save the saccharine drivel!
What's interesting about the song controversy is that it could have just been dropped quietly. Times change. People used to keep slavery memorabilia that makes their grandchildren cringe. It's schlock and schlock doesn't age well. No one would have missed it much.
But that's not what happened. Instead it was played for outrage and attention, and of course the ominous spectre of "PC" was dragged out like a modern krampus to terrify everyone. Christmas is always ripe for exactly such schemes, which is why we need to be wary of them. The real "sensitivity" was on the part of those manipulated to be sooo upset they were going to lose a cheesy song no one cared about the year before (I note cynically that the popularity of the song also soared--suddenly it was being played everywhere as an act of "resistance").
It's not like something as culturally significant as Handel's Messiah was being threatened, just this song written in a time when wife beating was played for humour and women were portrayed as idiots who needed a man to tell them what to do. It isn't even a Christmas song. So what exactly are we losing again and why does it matter? Oh because we don't want evil "PC" to win. Right.
It seemed to me this was simply another divisive social media manipulation devised in time for Christmas and had nothing to do with being considerate of others but was designed to do the opposite. In fact social media tends to exploit the more tribal and antagonistic aspects of human nature in exactly this manner. Then the anti-pc brigade, having chosen their "side", complain that everyone is too sensitive. The irony is more tangy than miracle whip.
Maybe the acceptance of differing points of view starts with you and me, and not those other people. And maybe it's not going to kill us if one cheesy song doesn't get constant rotation. Maybe there are more important things to worry about.
This is not a current controversy but one I've heard for years about this song.
Part of the lyrics is "the answer is no" but he man persists. So women, I ask you aren't you teaching your sons to back off when a women says no. Doesn't no mean no? Is respect for a women's wishes too PC?
No I don't think we are too PC. I think we should respect each other and if someone says they are offended, we need to respect that they have their reasons and not back into a "we're too PC in this country" myth and expand our mind and horizons.
If a person with a member says "I'm transgendered, please call me "she" How hard is it to call her a she? If a person says "I'm non binary and the pronouns I prefer is "they". How hard is that?
If someone says "you just said "you people" and I'm offended and it's considered racist". How hard is it to learn why and apologize?
I asked someone to stop saying member sucker (not the word he used) as an insult as I'm gay and lots of people do enjoy that sexual act and it shouldn't be an insult. How hard is it to respect what I don't want to hear around me? Don't fire back "well everyone is offended by something these days, we're too PC".
One thing that I get tired of this time of year is "we're so PC you can't even say Merry Christmas anymore". Really, I've been told "Merry Christmas" more times over many years than I can count. Personally, since I personally am not a Christian I'll say "Merry Christmas, if you celebrate", but I do allow people to say Merry Christmas to me. I'm not a total jerk.
Before shooting back "we're too PC and everyone is offended by something these days", why not stop, listen and learn. Perhaps you won't change, perhaps you will.
DaveICURN
63 Posts
In and of itself there is nothing wrong with spirit of kindness and consideration of the PC culture. For a movement attempting to foster inclusiveness and understanding is a noble goal and a worthwhile endeavor.
However, this should only be a personal undertaking to begin change in a micro-social environment. The issue for me becomes when we expand it to the macro-social environment, specifically State and Federal government. To enact laws to enforce people to change speech, begrudging companies to change their policy to limit speech/ exposure of people whom are deemed Offensive, or cast titles on anyone who has differing opinion as an -ism are all symptoms that is causing the multilayered push back in American society.