PC or Not PC? That is the Question

[John Gear <catalyst -at- PACIFIER -dot- COM>]

Someone wrote to agree that people who objected to the analogy of a
confident presenter and a sexy woman are full of it.  Lots of people have
written to say (in various ways) "screw PC."

But, if I understand this matter at all, it's not the language (or
politically correct speech) that the person found objectionable.  The women
I know who object to these sorts of analogies object to the reality that in
the US, a woman is evaluated first and foremost on this quality--sexiness
... appeal as a potential sex partner--by an overwhelming majority of men.
I can say (without any particular pride in it) that we're raised that way.

And with that comes the invisibility of women who fail to or choose not to
play that game.  Butt ugly men are no problem in front of a camera
("distinguished," "avuncular," "weathered") but let a woman show evidence of
having had a life and she virtually disappears from view.  Example:  Michael
Douglas continues to make movies my wife calls "White Guy Wet Dreams" in
which he, an aging, overweight white guy is literally pursued by
extraordinarily attractive young women (Glenn Close, Sharon Stone, Demi
Moore).  Example:  I've never heard of a "Trophy Husband" but I've read
about "Trophy Wives" in business and general publications and even seen
examples among my acquaintences.

"The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Wolf is an excellent book that talks about how
our culture tries to tell women that their first task is to be sexy.  It
really changes the way you read the newspaper and your response to ads you
see everywhere (buses, TV, posters ...)

I don't think it's honest to say that the analogy that was used is gender
neutral.  Try it sometime--say "Yup, it's really self-confidence that makes
a man sexy" in a crowd.  Yeah, right.  As Dave Barry says, guys who are
showing three inches of crack in back and a beer gut in front walk around
thinking they're borderline Don Johnson.  They've got confidence to spare.
Sexy?  I don't think so and most women seem to agree.

So that is what I think I heard in the person's complaint about the
analogy--not a complaint about the language used, but about the putdown the
language delivered (which was that, as a matter of course, a woman's
appearance--her "sexiness" is a fair topic for discussion and that women who
don't look like Barbie can still qualify for the exalted and important
status of "sexy" *if* they play their cards right and have a good self-image
in that department.)

So getting back to this list, three points:

1.  As was noted on another list, "The value of a posting is usually
inversely proportional to the number of times the charge of "PC" is hurled
about."

2.  If you think it's a fine thing to talk about people's appearance and
make conjectures about it then say so.  Simply shouting "PC" is a real weak
argument to make.

3.  Rather than a concession to any sort of "PC-ism" I would think that
technical communicators might make it a point of pride not to use language
that listeners/readers may find needlessly offensive.

Becoming sensitized to what some people may find offensive can be a *very*
interesting process--why, it sometimes even requires thinking of those
unlike yourself as *people* of worth and deserving of the same respect and
consideration that you want for yourself--which can be real tough depending
on how much unlearning of previous conditioning you have to do.
John Gear (catalyst -at- pacifier -dot- com)

The Bill of Rights--The Original Contract with America
Accept no substitutes.  Beware of imitations.  Insist on the genuine articles.