Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Stupid PC Words


Vince Pinto

Recommended Posts

The word is Chairman, not Chair Man, so it can be used equally by both male and female executives. It describes a position, not a sex.

Nobody seems to mind a single word for male and female Senators, Congressman, Presidents, Secretarys, Judges, Lawyers, Doctors, Nurses etc., so why single out a few words just because they contain "man".

What next? Change Human to Huperson or Humanity to Hupersonity or Manual to Personual? Sheesh!

And I'm pleased to see Hollywood often using the word Actor to describe male and female artistes.

There. I vented. Thank you. I'll go take my medication now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Vinny,  ;)

"Congresswoman" is already in full swing here.  "Secretary" has been replaced by "Executive Assistant."  (Groan...)

What's most annoying to me is the word "Hispanic" when used to refer to a Mexican national.  Even the Mexicans don't get it.  I was sitting down with some friends in downtown Guadalajara one night and broached the subject with them.

"What do I refer to you guys as, Mexicans or Hispanics?"

"Huh?"

"I mean, if I was in the U.S., and I called you a Mexican, I'd be called a bigot."

"I am a Mexican and I am proud to be a Mexican.  Why would I try to hide my identity?"

If only the "enlightened" Gringos would ever figure it out.  Sigh.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the problem with Mexican comes into play when you are refering to someone who isn't from Mexico.  I do agree, however, that we are being pushed in an idiotic direction.

I really hate the idea that a word is bad.  A word is just a collection of letters that represent a concept.  That concept can be variable dependant upon usage.  This makes it ridiculous to label a word as good, bad, or indifferent.  A word by itself is nothing.

-ld

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[heaviest-rant-mode-imaginable on]

Oh god, don't get me going on PC!! (e.g., the "ladies" vs. "women" war I just had with some, uh, women in a local group.) Jeez. It's focusing on all the wrong aspects of things, really. I don't particularly mind "Congresswoman" but let's not make a galactic case of every word that comes close to that kind of thing. I also don't mind "Madame President" or "Madame Chairman" (notice I used "-man" ) as it applies a sensible honorific to a generic form of address... but doesn't go over the edge into niggling and embarrassing absurdity! Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhh!!!

[/heaviest-rant-mode-imaginable off][for the moment]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I guess the problem with Mexican comes into play when you are refering to someone who isn't from Mexico.  I do agree, however, that we are being pushed in an idiotic direction.

That is EXACTLY the problem, but I think it was started with non-Mexican hispanics (prob. in Califuzkinfornia) when calling any non-Mexican hispanic "Mexican" offended them, because at the time there was a bad social impression on the Mexican immigrants.

"Excuse me, but I'M NOT A MEXICAN!!!!"

"Excuse me, but how the f$%k can I tell????"

I guess "we" had to do something about that, so "we" had to come up with a new PC term....HISPANIC. (Like what the hell does that really mean, anyway?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take Hispanic over Latino. Cripes, darn few "Latinos" speak Latin and their European ancestors were from Spain, not Italy. Then again, I don't think a whole lot of "Hispanics" trace back to Hispaniola or the Antilles islands.

I have to question why someone would try to come up with a label for "Genetic descendants of North/Central/South American natives and Spanish settlers."

As to the gender thing, it irks me that the English language has not come up with gender-inclusive pronouns and I always have to write "his or her," "he and she," and "he or she." Against all that is right and just, the language seems to be going in the direction of using plural "their," "them," and "they," which is unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do "we" as a society feel compelled to label everything/everyone?  This sucks.

I have no problem at all with someone wanting to embrace their heritage.  That is cool.  Just don't expect me to figure out that heritage by an external examination in under 0.2 seconds and address you appropriately.

Same goes for sexual orientation.

ARGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And "developmental" isn't derogatory?  I would much rather be called a trainee!

Where I work they just make up these weird titles, usually several words long and then make an acronym out of it.  So it is alphabet soup city most of the time and I can't keep them straight.  Then they get all grumpy at me because I called them a XYZ instead of an ABC.  My response is usually "well, bite me".  

Cheers!

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Developmental?  LOL!  That sounds like someone who should be wearing a drool bib and riding the short bus, not learning a trade or profession.  The correct term would be Apprentice.

Speaking of PC speech, what city in America has the most manholes.......................San Francisco of course!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loading the language is just another attempt by those who would be kings (ok, queen)  to brow beat we individuals into servitude.  

jhgtyre- "light in the loafers"  I love that one man!  

I worked with an engineer one time, and I guess he set his saddle a little sideways.   The boys on the crew finally decided the best way to describe him was "festive".   He met a couple of the guys for a beer after work one night......... and orderd a White Zinfindel.....  HOLY TO-LEDO!!!  Now, I realize that this may not mean much where you come from.  But in the Rocky Mountain oil patch,  it's the same as sayin' "hands off girls, the big lug's with me".    "Light in the loafers", yeah, that described him pretty good.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I once received a lecture on P.C. language from a homosexual woman who took issue with the term "candy-a$$" and explained its nature and that of pansy and others. Yikes. Basically, I was wrong for derogatorily describing a male as effeminate and there was no correct way to describe him as such without offending all homosexuals on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...