Politically (In)Correct

The gingerbread-men's-rights-movement had begun. Ever since they had been falsely labeled as "gingerbread people," these oppressed, zesty holiday confections have been striving to reclaim not only their gender identities, but also their dignity. Their protests, redolent with the smell of Christmas and butter cream, were filled with repeated, strident outcries: "Give us back our gender!" Or, at least, "Stop being so politically correct!"

The cookie-men (can I call them that?) have a point. We, as a culture and people, have become far too politically correct, so much so that this frantic effort to avoid, even remotely, offending anyone and everyone has consumed, digested and regurgitated cultural discourse - transforming it into a deformed, cheapened imitation of what it should be. Much like a gingerbread-man with his legs bit off, cultural discourse and debate in America, and, indeed, the globe, has nowhere to go, no means to evolve or transform itself without the lurking, omnipresent force of "political correctness" stifling it.

Take, for example, the litany of instances in recent years in which political correctness has reached new heights of frivolous absurdity. In 2007, Australian recruitment firm Westaff banned its oft-hired troupe of Santa impersonators from saying "ho-ho-ho", insisting that the phrase, which has been an integral part of Ol' Saint Nick's routine for much longer than "ho" has been used as a derogatory term for women, is demeaning and may scare small children. Westaff insisted that its Santa impersonators say "ha-ha-ha," instead. Unfortunately, nobody is laughing.

The political-correctness-craze has not limited itself to just the holiday season, however, as no facet of culture and society has been left unaffected.

From newscasters to movie trailers, political correctness is becoming a form of censorship. Why can't Vince Vaughn call a hybrid car "gay" in a movie trailer? Calling something "gay" has transformed beyond simply denoting sexual orientation in the American vernacular. Vaughn even recognizes this distinction in the film, clarifying his statement that hybrid cars are "gay" by distinguishing the various meanings of the word to, in this case, mean "stupid" rather than homosexual.

Yet, gay advocacy groups, such as GLAAD, are still incensed by the trailer, claiming that it is derogatory and mean.  Whether or not the word "gay" is being used in a derogatory manner in this case should be up to the viewer to decide. (Personally, I thought the scene was funny and touched on some relatable aspects of American culture.)

If Ron Howard had cut the scene from the film, which he ultimately didn't, he would not only be relenting to the zeal of politically-correct-followers but the film would be prevented from possibly stirring a meaningful cultural discussion.

I am often ambivalent about the use of the word "gay" in the modern American dialect, but simply ignoring its use would be neglecting to recognize an aspect of contemporary American culture that should be discussed and considered. If we, as a society, can't portray cultural trends in a film without offending someone, what can we portray?

Similarly, why can't Juan Williams say that he becomes "nervous" and "worried" upon seeing people in "Muslim garb" board his plane? Obviously, his view is fueled by generalizations about Muslims and their connections to terrorist organizations. But, somewhat less obviously, these generalizations are not unfounded - many of the people that have been responsible for terrorist attacks on America and in Europe have been Islamic fundamentalists. Why isn't Williams able to share his views without repercussions?
 

Simple: His views do not mesh with the politically-correct media. (Sick of reading the words politically correct? Because I certainly am.) Simply because Williams' views do not fit this mold, or, dare I say it, run the risk of offending someone, does not mean that he should be silenced or fired. Rather, the consequences of his comments only serve to perpetuate fear in America: the (now-ingrained fear) of offending someone.
 
This fear can only lead to one thing in political and cultural discourse - hesitation.

Diffidence is the last thing one needs in a democratic society. People should be free to express their views, regardless of whether they risk offending someone.

Now, let me clarify. This is not to say that people should have free reign to bully or demean others, as, especially as seen recently, the power of hateful words is often terrifying.
 

Rather, my criticism of political correctness pertains to its role in limiting intelligent, civil public discussion.

 
Clearly, if conforming to the parameters of political correctness is the first thing that one considers before making a comment in today's society, there is something fundamentally wrong with the ways in which we communicate with one another.
 

I think we could all benefit from honesty - the ability to speak candidly and openly with one another without the looming shadow of political correctness hanging over every word.

And, if I won't offend anyone by saying so, I think all of America could use a little thicker skin.