Political Correctness - has it really gone mad?

How many times have you heard it? 'It's political correctness gone mad! Many times, I would imagine. What I would like to ask is whether those people denouncing political correctness know what it really means? In addition, how aware are the critics of political correctness of the good that it has undoubtedly done?

Political correctness - PC - took off in the late 1960s in America and its aim was to put a stop to the marginalisation of various excluded groups - excluded from the mainstream of 'successful' society. These 'excluded' groups included disabled people, people from ethnic minorities, gay people, old people and women. Political correctness has significantly improved the lives of these groups of people by shunning certain language to describe these groups, which has derogatory and pejorative connotations, and encouraging the use of words which convey  positive connotations.

Who can argue that Senior Citizen does not sound dramatically superior to old age pensioner? Senior suggests wisdom, experience and capability. Citizen conveys pride, a certain standing and being part of something. Old age pensioner places the emphasis on being old and dependent on the state, someone who is not useful or active.

Shocking though it is, people who were born with Down's syndrome were often referred to as mongols. People with disabilities were often called spastics or cripples.  The term spastic is sometimes used by children as a term of abuse; often shortening the word to 'spaz' for extra insult power. Clearly the word spastic had to go and so the Spastic Society changed their name to Scope, suggestive of possibility and broader horizons. Now we are encouraged to say people with disabilities rather than disabled people. People with disabilities emphasises the 'people' first, not the disability.

There are so many words for women which political correctness has tried to make us more aware of, which have connotations, all conveying either sexual promiscuity, a certain kind of brainless decorativeness, simple stupidity or plain nastiness. Slag, bitch, whore, eye candy, piece of skirt, bint, prozzy, dollybird, cow, nag, being just a few of the almost endless list.

It is unthinkable nowadays to use the 'n' word to describe a black person. Interestingly, black people have reclaimed the 'n' word as their own, just as gay people have reclaimed the word 'queer'.  Surely all these changes to language are for the good.

Political correctness is not censorship. It is a way of being kinder, more thoughtful, less exclusive, therefore more inclusive. Who can object to that?      

Money is no object - according to David Cameron

So, money is no object to a government in such debt that austerity is set to continue for years. What happened then? Where did that money come from? Was David Cameron rummaging around in his back pockets and there he found a few million? 'Hey, Sam, look what I've just found! We'll be able to buy those ponies, yachts and Mulberry bags you had set your heart on. Oh, hang on; there's all this damned flooding going on just outside London, in Datchet and the majority of those people vote for me.Their homes on average cost over half a million, so we had better keep them sweet. And anyway, even though George Gideon keeps saying we're all in this together, we know damn well we're not, so let's get the ponies, yachts and Mulberry bags anyway.'

'Phew!OK Dave - you had me worried there; I thought I might have to wait more than five minutes to get something I want. After all, my needs must exceed everyone else's, and no doubt you'll want me to play the adoring wife come September at conference season again, won't you? And don't forget, that's the last conference speech you'll make to show them what a good guy you are, before the election in 2015.'

'Yes Sam, OK, I know. Do you want me to phone Harrods now for a private shopping session, so at least you can get the bags? It'll be better than having to wait until tomorrow.'

'Ooh yes, thank you Davey darling. Won't be long!'  

The floods will go, the money will be spent, the houses will be dry again, but there will still be no money for the poor. They will languish, as ever, on hardly any money, even those working sixty hours a week, because as yet, the living wage has not been introduced. A spare room? Move out! I wonder how many spare rooms the queen has and her extended family.

The poor are vilified for their weak educational performance, their wholly irresponsible production of children, their unhealthy eating habits, their swearing, their smoking, their drug taking, their drinking their lack of hygiene and their general fecklessness. What hope for them?    

Are We Responsible for the Happiness of Others?

If your best friend is unhappy because of a broken relationship, a problem at work or a bereavement, how far should you feel duty bound to help your friend feel better? Or do you think that you have no responsibility at all?

 What if it's your wife/husband/partner? What about if one of your siblings, or one of your parents is miserable, would you drop everything to help? Worst of all, what if one of your children is unhappy, deeply unhappy? If your child is young, then there are a variety of ways in which you can help. They are with you most of the time if they are very young  and even teenagers are with you for a fair proportion of their time.

When 'children' grow up and something awful happens, that is the time when a parent's ability to help is much more limited, unless it's just a question of money. That said, you might not have any money to spare and anyway, the lack of money in your offspring might be symptomatic of something else, a bigger problem, a gambling habit,drug, shoe or alcohol problem.

Not having money to spare is different from not having any money. Should you go as far as to sell your car, your house, put your expensive jewellery on eBay or take on an additional job? Or should you do none of these things, believing that whoever it is in difficulty, should sort themselves out and that by depending on others, it is merely delaying the moment when the individual addresses the problem head-on and sets in motion what needs to be done to make better the difficulty, no matter what it is.

If a friend is utterly heartbroken, inconsolable about the break up of a relationship, how far does it behove you as a friend to be available for late night phone calls, visits, even spending Christmas with your friend, along with your relatives - after all it's just one more plate setting.

Many will say they couldn't possibly do that, but what if your distraught friend has no one else to go to, and has asked you to let them be with you for Christmas, maybe stay until a couple of days after Boxing Day because they regard you as a true friend. Oh and yes of course there's New Year so might it be a good idea to stick around until New Year and in return for your hospitality, they promise to help with domestic chores.

Is it then the case that you like them but just not that much or are you making excuses of the kind that your children now in their twenties, who have been abroad for some time and have actually come home to spend time with you, not, with someone who, in their view, is nothing more than a morose-looking, random stranger.

So, assuming you want to, how should you go about being a friend in general and helping a friend in need, in particular? Is it the case that we only want to be around our friends when they are amusing, interesting and not wallowing in the slough of despond?

And what about family? Is helping someone, whether that is financially or by giving your time, counter-productive? Should people not stand on  their own two feet? They may be your children, but haven't you done enough? Isn't it your time now, not their time again? When, if ever, does the parental role end? When should it end? Perhaps it should never end. We can only hope that they will have their own children to experience what it's like.

As for friends - well I don't have the answer - though I wish I did.