Hacker News Reader

Comment by klodolph | Hacker News Reader

> As a proof in the United States where politically correctness and protection of minority is a topic always over-discussed, the condition of women is worse than in North Europe, where such an obsession does not exist.

I don't really know how hard you can say "correlation ≠ causation" without getting an aneurysm, but I'm scared to find out.

I mean, it's just so damn obvious. Let's suppose that sexism is more of a problem in the US than in country X. Wouldn't you want to talk about it more?

Don't you think it suspicious that, say, people complain more about corrupt local police in countries that have corrupt local police?

Don't you find it bizarre that people complain about the heat in places where the temperature exceeds 35°C?

Isn't it fascinating that the people who complain the most about headaches are the most likely to suffer from migraines? Obviously they should stop complaining, it would make the headaches go away!

View on HN

And worth mention is religion. The United States has a jaw-droppingly powerful contingent of politically active Baptists and Catholics who have outspoken opinions on why sexism is moral. Northern European Christians tend to be Lutheran, which gives many fewer shits about political issues; I'd have to check stats to see the strength of Catholicism there, but I believe it's weaker than Lutheranism. Not to mention that atheism has a far stronger showing in Europe in general.

Finding third variables are your friend! (I am not saying that religion is the root of sexism in America; I am just agreeing with the correlation ≠ causation point and offering an alternative theory.)

ETA: It's also worth pointing out that Catholicism itself is not a good root cause to point at; I've noticed that their political actions are driven by a desire to remain relevant and possibly to maintain support from political actors, rather than some sincerely doctrinal motive. Thus, American Catholicism could be very different from Northern European Catholicism.

I think he is saying that PC doesn't help, not that things will be fixed if PC is removed.

Except that it does help.

I consider american PC towards women (or blacks etc) as a symptom. What makes you think it helps, other than overstating the problem (which in itself does not solve it)?

Stating the problem is a step towards solving the problem. You can't solve something properly if you don't know it exists.

How is that, by itself, not helping?

Because there are better avenues (despite initial reactions, gender quotas in some EU countries managed to change deeply rooted corporate attitudes). And sometimes PC is misleading. I imagine if your workplace says "Our company welcomes women", it implies that it shouldn't be taken for granted, which would be illegal.

Unfortunately, the term "quota" has been uber-toxic in US politics for the past twenty+ years. So ... what is known as PC[1] (which I wish could just be called "common decency"[2], or "non-douche-ism") ... becomes an indispensable (if thin) lever.

[1] Interesting, to me, because I think of it as starting in the late 1980s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness [2] Credit to Vonnegut

Political Correctness is great if you are a minority. It means you have similar rights to the powerful group. As a gay man, I know I can mention the gender of my spouse (male!) in a workplace environment without being worried about being fired (say). Straight people have always (more or less) been able to mention their spouse in the workplace without fear of repercussion. Now I can too! Political Correctness means I don't have to watch every word I say in the office! It's done wonders for my freedom of speech.

But PC is only the first step! The more accepting a society is, the less PC is needed, because people embrace each other without a need for self-censorship and no one is offended.

Yes that's the end game

Can I just ask you, how is that PC? Wouldn't PC be exactly the opposite, not mentioning the gender and only refering to him as "my spouse" or "they"? Personally, I'd say that your workplace has an accepting culture where you don't need to be politically correct...

The workplace has to be PC, which means that other employees (and managers etc.) know that jokes about "the gay one" are unacceptable. It means that the company will have to be PC, so if they invite employee's partners to a work outing, they'd have to invite my husband. If they get a company perk (like health insurance, discount gym membership), they have to make sure that company isn't going to say "well Family Membership is only between 1 man and 1 woman".

Aha. Nice, thanks for the explanation. Just one more question: Why would jokes about gays be unacceptable? It's perfectly ok to joke about straight people...

I cannot think of any jokes about straight people that are at all comparable to jokes about gay people. Do people joke about straight people's health or sexual activities on the basis of their sexual orientation? Do people say or joke that heterosexual relationships not being real realtionships (i.e. Mitt "I didn't know you people had families" Romney)? Do people joke/say that heterosexual people shouldn't be allowed near children? No, these jokes don't exist. If you can find some, please provide links.

There are several definitions of sexual based discrimination, one is essentially "making references to someone's sexuality and implying everyone in that group is the same (in some attribute)". Lots of people like this definition because it's nice and simple and it means homosexuals can be discriminatory or joke about straight people.

There's another definition, which is talk that's designed to maintain & reinforce the institutionalised power structure among sexualities (specifically to maintain advantages that heterosexuals have). Right now, if modern USA/Western life was a video game, "straight" would be an easier difficulty level than "gay". There are statistically less problems for the "straight" group. Sexual discrimination talk is talk that re-enforced that imbalance. This definition is harder for some people to accept because it means that you need to look at yourself and think about what power imbalances you might be benefiting from, and it means you can't just do s/gay/straight/g and make it just as racist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com