More examples of Political Correctness gone mad
- 16 July 2008 21:334041I was listening to Radio 2 at work today (whilst working of course) and Jeremy Vine was discussing a case about a man who was called a pervert because he was taking photographs of his own children whilst they played on an inflatable slide. This is yet another example of Political Correctness gone mad. I am the first to want my children to be protected (normal maternal instinct) but I also want to have permanent evidence of all the wonderful things they have done through their childhood. I couldn't take video of their nativity play because it would have had other children in it and I would have to have permission of the parents, so apart from one photograph of my own children in their costumes (hmm a bit dodgy some might say) I have only my own memories of the expressions on their faces and the little faux pas that make childrens' plays so memorable.
One of the callers to the radio said that it was ridiculous to call this man a pervert because his children were dressed, is that the only reason this whole thing is ridiculous? My grandfather took cine film of me when I was 2 naked as the day I was born using the water from my paddling pool to water the plants in my grandparents back yard. Watching it in later life made me smile (a little embarressdly but with great affection for a beloved grandfather who I no longer have) now adays he'd have been arrested. Trust me I'm not scarred because unlike those poor kids who really are abused (and thank god they are a small minority) I wasn't being. Isn't it time we concentrate on helping children who really need it instead of trying to find more problems than there are?It's not the man in my life, its the life in my man!! - 16 July 2008 22:334044it is a modern thing stephanie.
there is a shortage of teachers and youth workers from the male side, because of the fear of being branded a pervert.
i was always conscious of this in the short time that i volunteered at our local youth club.
it was recently announced that it is fallacy that photos cannot be taken at school or scout sports days.
on a lighter note, my little friend that i sometimes look after, knows the time of the bus stopping outside my door.
she knows there will be people milling around, goes out and shouts through the letterbox, help, i am trapped.
the strange thing is, nobody ever takes any notice. - 16 July 2008 23:194047It can also be very sad. I recall John Goodwin, Stewart Dimmock and I going to present a cheque to a class at Harbour School. The whole class happily posed for photographs before one of the staff remembered to check consent forms. All the pictures had to be restaged excluding just one girl who was heart broken to be taken out. While we all did our best to console her I could not help thinking that she must have felt that she was being punished for something without knowing what.Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour - 17 July 2008 00:434054Consent is all well and good, I would certainly expect to have control over any images of myself published as much as any of my children! However it is rediculous that there is a futile attempt to control honest family pictures (my parents were always amused showing pictures to past girlfriends) in an age when digital format is so prevalent.
- 17 July 2008 07:174063We still don't have it right - that balance between protection of rights and liberties balanced with responsibilities and the right to risk-take.
- 17 July 2008 07:214066I thought there was no permission or right, to "risk-take" any more.
We're cosseted far too much.
Roger - 17 July 2008 09:114068I find the present climate very sad, everyone wants to protect childen i have 2 of my own, but when you get the BBC news showing kids playing, but no longer showing the faces, its a bit of a farce, and sad.
local papers also are reluctant to photo youth without parent permission even if its a good news story.
its all a shame, and sows how society is changing, AND not for the better.
So i'm all for protecting children, but w have gone to far.
sadly i cant see it changing. - 17 July 2008 10:144074The only thing I would take issue with Steph over is that Political Correctness IS mad, its not just a matter of it going mad...
That applies to all its forms, whether:
being overly protective as in this case (other examples: goggles for conquers or getting rid of competitive sports from school sports days to protect the feelings of losers)
butchering the English language (examples: 'chair' instead of chairman or 'coffee without milk' instead of black coffee)
trying to restrict debate, or through intimidation, making people conform to a 'norm' (examples: accusations of rascism towards anyone who expresses concerns about immigration, or the police acting against a shopkeeper who has golliwogs in his window)
must not be seen as 'judgemental' (example: accepting as normal a girl with 3 children from 3 fathers, totally dependant on benefits) - 17 July 2008 15:564083Conkers surely Barry.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble! - 17 July 2008 16:014084errrrr,,, yes....quite right John.
- 17 July 2008 16:284086Of course I am right,back in history my family the Godwins lost to the Conkers,you know that Norman lot
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble! - 18 July 2008 21:264130Barry I tend to agree with you that political correctness is mad but it did start out as a reasonable theory. After all whilst most people remember gollywogs, for example, with a certain fondness they were originally intended as a slight against a race of people who weren't british and that sort of thing has to be stopped and continue to be so. What is sad is that political correctness is making life seem stilted. When you are talking to someone you have to constantly think about what comments might offend, when you are acting you have to worry about who will read that action the wrong way. Is this a good thing, that we now have to think about our impact on others or have we gone too far and are now becoming over sensitive?It's not the man in my life, its the life in my man!!
- 18 July 2008 22:234144quite right stephanie, we should not have to think about what we say.
all my poof friends agree with me on that. - 18 July 2008 23:184148Actually Steph I dont think there was any kind of 'reasonable theory' about it. Gollies are/were traditional toys and I do not recognise the description of them as a 'slight' against a race. Indeed as a child I saw them only as cartoon characters and did not actually associate them with black people any more than I really thought bugs bunny was alive and could really speak!!!
People are far too sensitive and need to toughen up. - 18 July 2008 23:294149Need I say more.
TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED THE
1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's!!
First, we survived being born to mothers who took aspirin, ate blue cheese
dressing, tuna from a can and didn't get tested for diabetes.
Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs
covered with bright colored lead-base paints.
We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, locks on doors or cabinets
and when we rode our bikes, we had baseball caps not helmets on our heads.
As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster
seats, seat belts or air bags.
Riding in the back of a pick up truck on a warm day was always a special
treat.
We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle.
We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and no one
actually died from this.
We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter and bacon. We drank Kool-aid
made with real white sugar. And, we weren't overweight. WHY?
Because we were always outside, playing...that's why!
We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were
back when the streetlights came on.
No one was able to reach us all day. And, we were O.K.
We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride
down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into
the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.
We did not have Play stations, Nintendo's and X-boxes. There were no video
games, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no
surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones , no personal computers, no
Internet and no chat rooms.
WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!
We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no
lawsuits from these accidents.
We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us
forever.
We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks
and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not
put out very many eyes.
We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or
rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them.
Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't
had to learn to deal with disappointment.
Imagine that!!
The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law!
These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers problem
solvers and inventors problem solvers and inventors ever.
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to
deal with it all.
If YOU are one of them, CONGRATULATIONS!
- 18 July 2008 23:314150As Chris has just taken great pains to point out to me (he can't post himself cos I'm not letting him have the computer as he's been out drinking with you all night Baz) Gollies was not a good example of why political correctness as a theory was started. However, my point is valid and there are words that are no longer in popular use today (that I'm not going to mention for fear of causing offence) that were very derogative to non whites and should never be used. Having said all that I do agree that a certain toughening is needed. What's wrong with just saying to someone, I'm sorry I find what you have just said offensive for X reason and I would like an explanation/apology. This would stop alot of misunderstanding which I can personally attest to, yes it's true I have at times caused offense without meaning to.It's not the man in my life, its the life in my man!!
- 18 July 2008 23:364151Harry you are so right. You have described Chris childhood and mine. We lived in a freer time and we thank you for pointing it out to us (by we I mean me and Chris). The question is how do we get back to that sort of life for our kids.It's not the man in my life, its the life in my man!!
- 19 July 2008 00:104153No there is nothing wrong or rascist about Gollies, there is however undoubtably rascist about the way in which Enid Blyton (who popularized them) used them. Unfortunately this is where the application of rascist connotations stem. Blyton isn't really that metaphorical about what she is getting on at. Her book are fairly openly about class and race,(of course this was fairly honest and at a time when these sorts of ideas didn't have such a reaction), but still making very clear points about 'the it was' There is no doubt about what she is getting at, with those nasty Gollywogs hiding in the woods, generally coming into the prodminently middle-class Toytown to nick stuff!
Unfortunately the notion of political correctness is generally just a way of the right discrediting liberal attitudes and the evolution of society in general. Yes there are many stupid comments made by rather silly people attempting to be liberal in their views, but these are then used to present anyone with liberal views to be reactionary loons. The Daily Mail would have you believe that you can't say anything!(what a wonderful paper it has been throughout history from supporting the British Fascists to congratulating Adolf Hitler on his 'good' work)
Get this: you can say black coffee...because that's what tone it is (technically not a colour) and you can write on a blackboard and children can sing Baa Baa Black Sheep (all without getting arrested), "surely this isn't the wooly politically correctness we'd expect!" I here the readers of the Daily Mail and The Sun cry! Yes it is, because none of these things are rascist or offensive and would never upset anyone with a brain!
...unlike fascism Viscount Rothermere.
...and unlike, Enid, portraying Noddy as a good Middle England crusader for keeping those nasty golliwogs in the woods, just imagine if they moved into to Toytown, it would surely make the house prices plumit, "oh no" shouts Big-Ears my taxes have gone up in to pay for PC plod's Diversity Training.
p.s I do think it a shame that so many Enid Blyton books had to be altered (most noticably with replacing Golliwogs with goblins) but in different times, things have different meanings. Society is not static, once upon a time slavery was seen to be acceptable, can't believe those liberals got in and ruined that for the ruling class too! - 19 July 2008 00:214154Just read the 'TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED' and I'm sorry to tell you all but the year is 2008.
Ironic how the same papers that perpetuate the ideas of 'political correctness gone mad' are the same that tell people not to go outside as you will get attacked by....a kid with a gun.
Ignorance really is bliss. - 19 July 2008 08:104163Yep it's 2008 and things have moved on, some for the better but a dam lot for the worse.
Political correctness has gone mad. I left Scouting this year after 30 + years and I have seen so much change, which is why now Adults do not volunteer any more.
Yes some changes had to be made for the good and the protection of the children but the red tape is now making it more and more difficult.
So yes it's 2008 but some of the old ways did us no harm.