Prev
Next

The PC species is full of faeces

Kevin Donnelly

by Kevin Donnelly

09 Sep 05:57am

Must Reads

Thomson didn’t answer the question everyone is asking - this is a caption

Thomson didn’t answer the question everyone is asking

295

Disco, the music that stubbornly refuses to die - this is a caption

Disco, the music that stubbornly refuses to die

36

Live blog: Craig Thomson’s statement to parliament - this is a caption

Live blog: Craig Thomson’s statement to parliament

179

Filed under: Body Image, Men And Women, Political Correctness

143 comments

There you have it!  After 40 years of feminists like Germaine Greer and the sisterhood telling men that it’s wrong to objectify womyn and that equality means treating them like blokes, a recent survey of Australian men proves that little, if anything, has changed.

In the language of political correctness, this is a steaming pile of pre-digested organic equine waste

A recent survey of men’s attitudes, carried out by Derek Jones from D&M Research, concludes that men, primarily, look for sex appeal in a relationship and that what they most look for in a women are good breasts and a nice backside.

According to Derek Jones, while political correctness is forcing men to act like new-age, sensitive guys, look below the surface and most men still prefer Megan Gale and Jennifer Hawkins.

PC isn’t just restricted to feminism – it’s been around for years and we all have our favourite examples. Short people are now described as ‘vertically challenged’, drug addicts as ‘victims of substance abuse’ and manholes have become ‘personnel access openings’.

For years, I’ve refused to countenance expressions I learned growing up during the 60s. Expressions like ‘in bed with a wog’, ‘there’s a nip in the air’ and ‘take your feet off the poof’ now never pass my lips.

With our children we made sure that the stories we read to them were gender neutral, did not offend minority groups or reinforce the capitalist ethic. Out went Little Black Sambo (racist), out went Thomas the Tank Engine (reinforces elitism and class division), out went The Faraway Tree (not enough assertive roles for womyn) and out went Cinderella and the Seven Dwarfs (a happy ending is defined as marrying the Prince).

When teaching I made sure that I also kept up with the latest PC jargon. I never described myself as a teacher, instead becoming a ‘guide by the side’ or ‘facilitator’ and instead of telling students what to do, championed classrooms based on ‘collaborative, negotiated, goal setting’.

In conversations with friends and acquaintances I made sure that I was never judgmental or questioned the prevailing PC orthodoxy. If people wanted to live in sin, have children out of wedlock or engage in ‘alternative lifestyles’, so be it.

There comes a time, though, when the PC thought police go too far.  As George Orwell understood, language is power and the words we use have a profound impact on how we relate to the world and how we deal with others.

PC, while starting out as an attempt to rectify some of the more unfair examples of language use, is now employed to shut down debate.

Attacking those who argue that marriage can only be between a man and a women as ‘homophobic’ is not only unfair, it’s also an attempt to shut down any dialogue and refuse to accept that those you disagree with have the right to argue their case.

The example of how universities have changed, especially in subjects like literature and history, provides another example of how destructive PC has become and how, instead of broadening and enriching intellectual discourse, dialogue is narrowed and made one-sided.

English departments and a study of classical literature associated with the Western tradition have disappeared as Cultural Studies enforces a postmodern, PC approach represented by ‘theory’.

Even when classic texts like those written by Shakespeare or Joseph Conrad are studied the focus is on deconstructing such texts in terms of victimhood and how such texts reinforce a patriarchal hegemony imposed by Western civilisation.

In history departments, it is no longer acceptable to teach a grand narrative associated with the Western tradition and a Judeo-Christian view of the past.  Christianity is reduced to simply being one world-view amongst many, as undergraduates are given a smorgasbord of topics to study without any overall, unifying narrative.

It should not surprise that the ALP federal government’s national curriculum covering kindergarten to year 12 will impose a PC view on all schools, both government and non-government.

Every subject has to be taught through a PC prism involving Asian, indigenous and environmental perspectives.  In English, the traditional view of literature is undermined as students are asked to study an exploded definition of texts including SMS messages, graffiti, movie posters and other students’ writing.

In history, Christianity is rarely mentioned and there is little recognition of the central role played by the Catholic Church in Australia’s development as a nation or its contribution to Western civilisation and the evolution of our political and legal institutions.

The irony is that PC advocates argue that they are fair-minded when is comes to debate, unfortunately, the opposite is the case. What began during the late 60s as a radical alternative to mainstream values and beliefs has morphed into the new orthodoxy where cultural-left thought police refuse to entertain any alternatives.

Most commented

349"Gifting", "journey" and other words we hate
295Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
24612 bigger issues than gay change and climate marriage
245A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
241They must pay for one's bitter disappointments
224Punch on: Open thread 17/05/2012
224The most laughable, err, spoof since Einfeld
215Punch on: Open thread 18/05/2012

143 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Anna C says:

      11:31am | 09/09/11

      I totally agree with Kevin’s article. This is why I’m sick to the back teeth with political correctness. While I can understand the well-intentioned reasons behind it, I think as a society we have just taken it to the extreme. Now days if you are white and/or male and/or middle class and/or Christian then you have no right to an opinion.  Society now seems to favour minorities at the expense of the majority. It reminds me of that saying: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:29pm | 09/09/11

      @ Anna C
      Bring back the good old days of the Spanish Inquisition ?  The issue is always the same - ‘democracy and control’ !  Who do you believe should be in control? - George Pell via Tony Abbott ?

    • acotrel says:

      08:31pm | 09/09/11

      ’ After 40 years of feminists like Germaine Greer and the sisterhood telling men that it’s wrong to objectify womyn and that equality means treating them like blokes, a recent survey of Australian menproves that little, if anything, has changed.’

      Mr B.A.Santamaria had it right - keep ‘em barefoot and pregnant.

    • stephen says:

      08:36pm | 09/09/11

      You are confusing PC with with its antithesis : you want to be a white/male/middle class extremist but dare not use the associated language, e.g. any language.
      In your version, you are the silent majority.

      PC servants use the language of fear : they avoid verbs, and go the long way round to say what the fearful want to hear.
      Thus, they make friends readily, and to read 2 PCs’ in combat against a dissident voice, (I’m not really thinking of Erick, here) calls to mind snake-oil as a mend for a blast-furnace.
      If you’ve got the fire, let’s hear it. 
      It’s only words, and, up to a point, Eric Blair was wrong.

    • acotrel says:

      08:36pm | 09/09/11

      @KD
      Looked at your photo again.  Are you sure you are not related to Khomeiny ?  You seem to want to empower the same sorts of people !

    • B says:

      08:53am | 10/09/11

      @Acotrel

      You never add any substance to an argument.  Why do you post?

    • HeatherG says:

      10:59am | 10/09/11

      Acrotel, I’m not at all religious, but as a medieval historian I am getting mighty sick of people bring out the Spanish Inquistion every time they don’t like something someone says, as a “typical” example of the Church. It was not “typical” at all, and was driven by secular forces.

      Not that it matters, really. No matter where you look, mankind can be shown to be an arse to everyone at some time—and that includes over-PCing everything.

      Tell you what, every time someone brings that one out, I’ll pull out Stalin. Like them apples? No? Fallacious arguments are boring. Find something new.

    • Adam says:

      01:12pm | 10/09/11

      @ acotrel

      You are the case and point of the article if there ever was one.

    • Annie says:

      11:32am | 09/09/11

      Finally someone telling it like it is. Thank you for a great article

      Reply

    • KH says:

      01:38pm | 09/09/11

      You mean ‘telling it like he sees it’.

    • Dan says:

      02:17pm | 09/09/11

      No KH - Annie means exactly what she wrote! Sheesh, this is why they are writing articles about the thought police - do you see how you just told her what she thought…. oh forget it, you’re right and everyone else is wrong.

    • Warren says:

      03:13pm | 09/09/11

      No Dan. Expressing an opinion is not the same as “telling it like it is”. I could just as easily apply the “you’re right and everyone else is wrong” argument to you.

    • acotrel says:

      10:34am | 10/09/11

      @Dan
      The thought police have friends who wear cassocks ! The only reason we have political correctness is the abuse of minority groups by bigots !

    • Nick says:

      11:37am | 09/09/11

      Perhaps the worst case of political correctness gone mad that I have heard about, is at a local day care centre where my girlfriend works. The timely jingle of “ba ba black sheep” had to be corrected to “ba ba coloured sheep” as apparently the word “black” has become taboo when describing a physical characteristic. Maybe next they’ll ban “ring a ring a rosie” in case it offends those who have had the bubonic plague.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      12:26pm | 09/09/11

      There I agree with the sentiment. Having a problem with black sheep, or male trains with female carriages, or Noddy sleeping with Big Ears just shows an eagerness to be outraged.

      I feel the same way when people complain about commercials. There was one with some (I think) Jamaican guys advertising sunscreen and laughing because they only needed it on the soles of their feet. I thought the ad was hilarious but apparently acknowledging an actual difference that exists between black people and white is racist.

      Being offended seems to be a career choice.

    • Slothy says:

      01:44pm | 09/09/11

      I find that hard to believe Nick, considering the term ‘coloured’ has a much longer and more offensive history than ‘black’. If they have indeed brought that change, I wouldn’t call it ‘PC gone too far’ but ‘epically missing the point’.

    • Alicia says:

      04:52pm | 09/09/11

      I’ve hears that Rainbow Sheep is an alternative. Say that and kids will start thinking there are rainbow sheep roaming about!

    • TChong says:

      11:38am | 09/09/11

      This PC is troubling.
      The gals dont want to be judged on looks, but despite their pleas, the message doesnt get thru.
      Similarly, men are now rated as eye candy value for the girls
      Hunky good looking, rugged men are increasingly objectified by women.
      And as someone who fits into this category, ( hunky, good looking, rugged) ,
      ( Humungus Mad Max 2, yep, I was his body double and stuntman) I can actually sympathise with the sistas.
      Wont you ordinary , plain folk please leave us good lookers alone. ?
      A bit of attention from the gals is OK, but all the time?
      A bloke needs a rest. 
                                  wink

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      12:28pm | 09/09/11

      Virginia Hey was hot!

    • Wag the Dog says:

      11:40am | 09/09/11

      Oh Kevin, you don’t mind if I call you Kevin, do you? May I share my feelings with you? Se see, my patience with humorless post-modern lefty commentators is at a low ebb, so in many ways I share your frustration. Will that be okay with you?

      Reply

    • Shut the trap says:

      11:54am | 09/09/11

      Oh, Wag - you dont mind if I call you a tired predictable throwback, do you?

      My patience with self righteous snide self-congratulatory kneejerk retrograde right wing backwater redneck dipwads… never really existed. So in many ways - go fuck yourself.

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      12:03pm | 09/09/11

      @Wag, they are not lefties, they are centrally challenged.  And they are not frustrated, they are gravitating back to inner peace.

    • Erick says:

      12:21pm | 09/09/11

      LOL @ Shut - a perfect example of PC intolerance!

    • Paul Horn says:

      12:52pm | 09/09/11

      Ooohh nasty nasty Shut the trap! Why do I get censored for ranting my disgust at leftist dipwads such as yourself and you get a free ride?

      Because this hypocritical site only airs the nasty grievances of leftist kneejerkers and thereby shuts down any effective debate!

      I’ll stick to Miranda Devine from now on.

    • Wag the Dog says:

      01:02pm | 09/09/11

      Oh Shut the Trap, thank you for sharing with me! I hope you don’t mind my saying so, you illustrate my point beautifully. Do you mind if I expound further on my point? PC language impositions are in my opinion a form of bullying propaganda, one that is very hard to combat. In many ways they are worse than lying. You see, if the powers that be tell everyone to write “gay” or “person hole” or “chair person” or “actor”, the implication is that there is something wrong or objectionable about “homosexual”, “manhole”, “chairman’ and “actress” and that people who use these terms are, at the very least, ignorant. This insinuation then makes its way through language generally. If you tell people that they must say “he or she,” this implies that the generic “he” is insulting to women, which changes our perception of writers who use it. They might even find themselves being called names like “throwback”. What PC-speak means to me is that every time I am writing, and I do so for a living, and I start wrestling with what to do when I need a pronoun, no matter what the subject, I am trying in the very act of writing to defer to leftist militant feminism. In this way PC-speak, like all arbitrary uses of power, keeps people off-balance and teaches us the habit of humble deference, and in a cringing attitude of constant apology. In pointing this out, I sincerely hope that what I’ve written doesn’t cause you to unleash a further regrettable torrent of Leftist vitriol, indeed I’m quite surprised you didn’t include, in your witty rebuttal, the popular epithets “misogynist”, “xenophobe” and “racist”. By the way. have you considered anger management? I understand there are some very good programs available through Centrelink.

    • Shut the trap says:

      01:10pm | 09/09/11

      Paul
      A) John Howard is to the left of most of the screaming far-right banshees who post here. Pointing out their screaming far-right banshee-ism does not a leftist make..

      and
      B) Cos the mods probably thought it was funny. Overstatement = funny. If you see a guy get hit by a car… its not funny. But if he gets hit by a car, gets up, the car backs over him again, he rolls away, and gets run over by a train - now THERE’S some funny shit.

    • Cat in the Hat says:

      01:32pm | 09/09/11

      Haha Shut the Trap - go f**k yourself doesn’t sound very PC - with just those three words your managed to give Wag the Dog the high-ground -

      Wag the Dog - you’ll have to excuse Shut the Trap’s behaviour - he’s obviously had a frustrating week with the Newspoll and all - its very hard on him being irrelevant -

    • gobsmack says:

      02:07pm | 09/09/11

      I could be wrong, but I took Shut the trap’s post to be an observation that no-one likes to read things that are personally insulting to them.  The original intention of “PC” was to make people aware that certain terms that they thought were innocuous were actually insulting or demeaning to other groups.
      Wag the dog, read some old legislation, eg references to Ministers, Commissioners etc were always “he”.  I have no problems whatsoever with using “he or she”.  If that gets monotonous, you can always bend grammar and use the plural form (eg “a person must not put their feet on the chair”).
      The use of terms such as “racist”, “homophobe” to stifle healthy debate is not part of PC, it’s bad argument.

    • Cat in the Hat says:

      02:54pm | 09/09/11

      Is it only me - does anyone understand @ Shut’s last post ??? What’s the car thing about ???

    • Vicki PS says:

      04:08pm | 09/09/11

      @Gobsmack:  Thank god!  FINALLY someone who understands the difference between non-discriminatory language and “political correctness.  Most people with intellectual disability feel hurt and degraded by being called retards.  People who call them retards are usually people who are either genuinely uninformed, or people who simply hold negative and derogatory attitudes.  It’s not “political correctness” to expect people generally not to call someone a retard, it’s common bloody courtesy!  Why is that concept so hard to understand?

    • gonzo says:

      04:23pm | 09/09/11

      shut the trap

      you just made my fuck1n day mate

    • Lloyd says:

      09:38pm | 09/09/11

      nice one Wag. He sounds like a bit of a try hard to me.

    • Tombowler says:

      11:49am | 09/09/11

      A fantastic article. As a student I was well versed in European history, specifically that of WW1, WW2 and that which followed thereafter. I was astounded in year 12 to be told that such knowledge was essentially worthless and what was more ‘relevant’ was the paternalistic noble savage myths of the indigenous.

      Indigenous history is important insofar as it has shaped Australia and no further. European history, for example, the enlightenment is far more important than that which has relevance speaking only to geographic circumstance.

      In order to study true literature, as opposed to deconstructing poorly written rap lyrics, I had to take a specialist english class. In graduating class of 200, only twenty of us studied Shakespeare, poetry and that which might have been expected of a year 8 class 50 years ago.

      PC education does no favours to those who suffer it’s less-than-firm hand and explains the insistence of people talking and typing like they have suffered head injuries at birth.

      Reply

    • RyaN says:

      11:52am | 09/09/11

      Political Correctness is the enemy of every western nation its people, its philosophy is to turn your own into a weak, soft and completely defeated, subservient lower class. The left and their politically correct ideals have one wish and that is to destroy western civilisation at any cost.

      Reply

    • lisadp says:

      03:36pm | 09/09/11

      PC raises consciousness. So in the case of Greer which the author mentioned, there was a massive consciousness raising from the 60s onwards which has made a massive difference to the quality of life of young women like me today (who fortunately never really had to get up on a podium or burn our bras).

      And therein lies its value: to empower the disempowered, not at the expense of the majority, but at the expense of excess power to the already empowered.

    • B says:

      09:39am | 10/09/11

      @lisadp

      Thats a load of crap.  Its about generating and consolidating power for yourselves.  That is what it always has been about.  Femenists always think they are in the right.  But they rarley are.

    • Ben says:

      11:53am | 09/09/11

      Have a whinge you victims. ‘I’m white and middle class and OH SO HARD DONE BY.’ Irony is the way people who complain about politically correct nazis always think and talk in the kind of absolutes that don’t tolerate any middle ground, much less to say acceptance of other points of view.

      The fact is that the term “political correctness” was originally used by the “new left” in the late 1960?s and into the 1970?s to refer to adhering to an agreed political party line or platform.

      In the 1990?s it was adopted and re-constructed by right-wing political propagandists in the United States as a term of abuse to denigrate political/social ideas and movements that sought to reform or correct imbalances in power structures in society. It was intended to convince the mass of people that the extension of human rights and more equalisation of the share of power (and wealth) in society were only for the benefit of minorities.

      It was intended that a large section of society would be led to believe that they were “victims” of “political correctness” so diverting discontent away from the wealthy elites to much less powerful targets – women, indigenous and ethnic minorities, homosexuals, asylum seekers etc. What is denigrated as “political correctness” could be termed as common decency.

      Words have power, which is why right-wing power elites through their various mouthpieces in the media continue to denigrate common decency and the use of language to address inequalities as “political correctness”.

      Reply

    • Scott says:

      12:42pm | 09/09/11

      Thanks for the history lesson but it really has no relevance to this article.

    • KH says:

      01:41pm | 09/09/11

      Well Scott, yes it does.  Because here is another article decrying ‘political correctness’ as some kind of tool to put down the good religious white menfolk of the world and ‘change history’.  The title of the article implying that it is all ‘crap’.  Typical - it is usually white men who denounce PC - they have had it all their own way for so long, you can almost taste the resentment at having to give up some of that power to other people.

    • Cat in the Hat says:

      02:10pm | 09/09/11

      Ben - who you calling a less powerful target - I’m a women not a victim - not very PC of you - I’m very insulted -

      “Common decency” - that’s disappeared because of PC - feminine psychologists are now saying its sexist to open a door for a woman, carry their shopping, and don’t you dare say you “cherish” a woman even if you’re her significant other because that’s sexist too. PC gone completely mad.

      And as a women I don’t like to be addressed in the male or neuter genders. Since when did words that denote the feminine become regarded as an inequality - e.g. actor and actress. I see them both as equal just gender defined. PC is telling women they are less by taking away their feminine identity in the English language.

      I really don’t need PC’s “common decency” - I can do without it - VIVA LA DIFFERENCE !!!!

    • B says:

      10:29am | 10/09/11

      @KH

      Really?  This doesnt have anything to do with the “minorities” wanting more power than everyone else?  Because, KH, you will find that in the real world, your fantasies are just that, fantasies

    • HeatherG says:

      11:09am | 10/09/11

      I’m with Cat in the Hat—PC has been interpreted by some to mean that society is LESS polite rather than more. I miss common decency. Less seen nowadays.

      And, how very condescending, how very chauvanistic, how very patronising, of you, as a man, to claim that I am, or my grandmother was, etc etc, a “victim” of the white male. My grandmother, for one, would have disagreed.

      See what I did there? The road to stupidity is paved in good PC intentions, because people can take offence at anything if they choose to.*

      (* I didn’t, really. Just making a point).

      I also note it’s okay, in your PC world, to label anything negative as “right wing”. Nasty bias, that (as it would also be if you’d done the opposite).

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      11:55am | 09/09/11

      No time at all for PC.  I laughed when I heard Biggles was banned (I bought my son all the Biggles books from second hand shops).  Come on, the setting was WW2 and he was an RAF pilot.  Why would he not like the evil hun?  Oh, and banning Noddy for being gay?  I also have no time for the hypocrisy that abounds.  It seems only women can be treated with respect, like china dolls.  You can’t comment on her figure or (re Karl Stefanovich) on her “great arse”.  But female commentators can be as suggestive or leering as they like over males.  Too many precious little princesses out there have worked too hard to emasculate men.  Leave men alone!  Men are what they are, and that is a good thing.

      Reply

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      12:38pm | 09/09/11

      You said it ! 

      I recently had a young woman thank me for holding a door open for her, nearly fell over in shock, usually get a scowl or a filthy look (dirty old man), they do not understand it’s respect and neighborly.

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      12:56pm | 09/09/11

      @Max, I am reminded of a wonderful quote.  This woman said “You don’t need to hold the door open because I am a lady” and he replied, “Indeed.  I am holding the door open because I am a gentleman.”  Hey, open doors for me all you like.  You will always get a smile from me.  Also, if women don’t want to be stared at, don’t wear skirts that cut off at the bum.  If I do that I expect to get looks, that was the whole point of wearing the thing!

    • SpiritWolf84 says:

      01:05pm | 09/09/11

      Babe in the Woods - Spot on! smile My man compliments me on my “great arse” all the time, it’s his form of flattery.

      Max - I’m one of those women who doesn’t mind having a door opened or a chair pulled out. smile

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      01:22pm | 09/09/11

      @Spirit Wolf, I hear you.  What makes it even better for me is that now I am in my early 40’s, I really don’t have that great an arse.  And so, when I get a compliment the man is being not only appreciative, and male, but an absolute gentleman in telling a lovely white lie.  I am Happy now!  Off for a few drinks (It is Friday, after all).

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      01:45pm | 09/09/11

      My rule # 1 with the fairer sex:

      treat them like a lady until they prove otherwise, then play it by ear.
      8-)

    • Babe in the Woods says:

      02:05pm | 09/09/11

      @Max, that is not a bad rule.  Treat me like a lady and then later on well, that is when the fun starts!  Off now.  Have a lovely weekend Punchers, Max and Wolf.  Look forward to reading you all next week.

    • Cat in the Hat says:

      02:19pm | 09/09/11

      Biggles was banned !!!! That’s just going too far now -

      Max of Rocky - I hate, hate, hate this new idea with the opening the door thing - the PC group are obviously ill-bred and have no manners - at least you have sweetie -

    • Aussie Battler says:

      03:29pm | 09/09/11

      Thanks Babe in the Woods and SpiritWolf84.  I’d almost given up on women who will accept common courtesy. 
      Have given up on holding doors open etc for people I do not know after having several “run ins” with people over this issue. Last one, I had held door open for the better half and when I saw another woman was behind us, stayed in position and held the door.  The woman stopped and I thought she was going to spit at me.  Advised me that “SHE” can open doors herself thank you very much! I tried to advise about courteousy, however this resulted in more “spirited” debate grin.  My other half then stepped into the fight and in the end I had my wife yelling at the woman and also telling me to step away and the other woman yelling at my wife and I.  In the end, I just let the door go and left the woman to her own devices.

    • Fiona says:

      09:43pm | 09/09/11

      I also bought 2nd hand editions of the faraway tree etc for my kids. See they still had dame slap in slapland NOT dame snap. How the hell was dame snap meant to frighten the characters? By snapping her fingers at them? Ridiculous.

    • thesoundguy says:

      11:22am | 10/09/11

      Aussie Battler, a pity you didn’t have a key for that door. You and your wife could have locked it behind you and perhaps the angry lady might have appreciated yet another life problem to justify her self reliance.

    • Ben says:

      12:00pm | 09/09/11

      ‘The term “political correctness” was originally used by the “new left” in the late 1960?s and into the 1970?s to refer to adhering to an agreed political party line or platform.

      In the 1990?s it was adopted and re-constructed by right-wing political propagandists in the United States as a term of abuse to denigrate political/social ideas and movements that sought to reform or correct imbalances in power structures in society. It was intended to convince the mass of people that the extension of human rights and more equalisation of the share of power (and wealth) in society were only for the benefit of minorities.

      It was intended that a large section of society would be led to believe that they were “victims” of “political correctness” so diverting discontent away from the wealthy elites to much less powerful targets – women, indigenous and ethnic minorities, homosexuals, asylum seekers etc. What is denigrated as “political correctness” could be termed as common decency.

      Words have power, which is why right-wing power elites through their various mouthpieces in the media continue to denigrate common decency and the use of language to address inequalities as “political correctness”.’

      Reply

    • Not Brainwashed like most Uni Students says:

      12:40pm | 09/09/11

      You quote your uni lecturer word for word there or did you change a couple?

    • Brainwashed by Uni (apparently) says:

      06:30pm | 09/09/11

      Yes… Lets all hate on people with intelligence… Clearly society would do much better if everyone was stupid… Then again… that might actually work for the Right wing, considering i can’t understand how anyone could take in the garbage spewed by AbbotNCo. without being partway braindead. And before i’m told i’m filthy Labor scum.. I’m non-partisan and my dislike for Gilliard is only slight less than Speedoboy.

    • B says:

      12:05pm | 10/09/11

      “Words have power, which is why right-wing power elites through their various mouthpieces in the media continue to denigrate common decency and the use of language to address inequalities as “political correctness”.’ “

      This couldnt be the same way the latte sipping, loony left elites use their words is it?

    • Publish a point of view you don't agree with, i da says:

      12:03pm | 09/09/11

      ‘The term “political correctness” was originally used by the “new left” in the late 1960?s and into the 1970?s to refer to adhering to an agreed political party line or platform.

      In the 1990?s it was adopted and re-constructed by right-wing political propagandists in the United States as a term of abuse to denigrate political/social ideas and movements that sought to reform or correct imbalances in power structures in society. It was intended to convince the mass of people that the extension of human rights and more equalisation of the share of power (and wealth) in society were only for the benefit of minorities.

      It was intended that a large section of society would be led to believe that they were “victims” of “political correctness” so diverting discontent away from the wealthy elites to much less powerful targets – women, indigenous and ethnic minorities, homosexuals, asylum seekers etc. What is denigrated as “political correctness” could be termed as common decency.

      Words have power, which is why right-wing power elites through their various mouthpieces in the media continue to denigrate common decency and the use of language to address inequalities as “political correctness”.’

      Reply

    • curious george says:

      12:31pm | 09/09/11

      You only have 10 minutes of patience?

    • Max, of Rocky says:

      01:09pm | 09/09/11

      Just love “conspiracy theory”  gives an explanation to everything.

    • John says:

      02:26pm | 09/09/11

      Socialism was all about taking from the people and giving it to the party. I tend so see political correctness different, as i only see a socialist elite in the west, there is no right-wing elite. These homosexual, lesbian, feminism policy’s, anti-christian and anti-white policy’s have been funded by the financial and media establishment, who have corrupted all the politicians to follow this agenda. All these subversive communist Marxist idea’s were the work of the Frankfurt school subverts, who needed to find ways to divide and weaken western society, so that later on the west could taken over by Lenin’s and Trotsky s descendants. If you look at western society and seen their dirty work, feminism, homosexuality, bisexuality, anti-Christianity, atheism, leftist and liberalism.. is rampant. Look at decadent art, decadent culture coming out socialist communist Hollywood, look at all the brainwashing, Look the at amount immigration and multiculturalism in the last 60 years because of Marxist subversion. These marxists want to utterly destroy the old white, christian west, and they want to destroy European nations also. Replace it with a NEW Soviet European Union ruled by radical Marxists. This is why they like empowering minority’s, women as they are easy to manipulate and herd, they divide and conqueror.

      Any form of nationalist expression is brutally repressed in the west today. The establishment power in the west doesn’t want nationalism, as it’s threat their socialist world empire. This why the socialist establishment have promoted multicultural and mass immigration from the third world, in order to weaken nationalist idea’s and speed the up the destruction of the western civilization so that it may turn into a communist one.

      The European males are seen as a threat their ambition, so you can clearly see why they are trying to destroy the european males power, the family, the wife, the religion and the nation. They want to weaken and then destroy him. International Finance is part of this agenda also, as they control the finance, the socialist establishment are basically supported by the people they wish to destroy. So western people taking out loans from the international bankers are fueling their own demise. The NEW WORD ORDER IS Bolshevism 2.0. Just look back at history, the check and brutal oppression of the Russians, Eastern Europeans at the hands of these godless, soulless folk and see what the future is for Europeans and the West. An empire so evil, that Satan himself will be allowed to born in such a dark empire.

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      03:37pm | 09/09/11

      Excellent the John troll is back.

      Hey John, socialism works and is good for society. A world government would ensure peace and harmony

    • hot tub political machine says:

      04:17pm | 09/09/11

      the white Christian west huh? Isn’t Christianity that religion which started in the middle east?

    • Gomez12 says:

      04:18pm | 09/09/11

      @Geoff

      “Hey John, socialism works and is good for society”.

      While John may indeed be a raving lunatic/troll or both. Let’s not get carried away here. Socialism has not and does not work in any society since the dawn of time. Feel free to point out any I’ve missed along the way, but socialism in the actual experience of humanity usually equates to death. (Sure it works in theory, but so does time-travel and we haven’t got that up and running anywhere yet either).

      You may in fact be referring to the fact that the most successful societies have incorporated some socialist tenets or policies (universal healthcare springs to mind.) but they have a tendancy to work more due to the economic factors (Healthy active work-units are more productive than sick ones, and cost the economy less) than any socialist notion that it’s just the right thing to do.

    • Chris L says:

      06:27pm | 09/09/11

      “Just love “conspiracy theory”  gives an explanation to everything” - How utterly hilarious that John’s contribution should directly follow! grin

    • St. Michael says:

      12:06pm | 09/09/11

      ” recent survey of men’s attitudes, carried out by Derek Jones from D&M Research, concludes that men, primarily, look for sex appeal in a relationship and that what they most look for in a women are good breasts and a nice backside.  According to Derek Jones, while political correctness is forcing men to act like new-age, sensitive guys, look below the surface and most men still prefer Megan Gale and Jennifer Hawkins.”

      This is really stretching the truth, because you left out the most significant bit: the survey sample.  The article only says Jones surveyed 3,000 men aged “18 and over”.  That could mean anything from 2,999 18 year olds and 1 20 year old, or a single 18 year old and 2,999 40 year olds.  But I strongly suspect from the article that it’s closer to the former.  In which case, would anybody be surprised that a bunch of teenage boys in their first decade of using their penises, shock horror, find women of a similar age and with nice bodies as the most likely prospect for a relationship?

      It certainly would explain the 50% divorce rate for under 25s that’s well-documented.  But this doesn’t explain the 25% divorce rate in the *over* 25s.  That would be because after 25 the brain’s fully formed, and you tend to look for rapport with another human being first, recognising that looks fail over time.  Young men don’t understand that.  They’re young.  Just as young women don’t understand young men.  They’re young.

      Please stop demonising the vast majority of men on the planet who do look for a rapport with their women, and who are a bit more bloody forgiving of a woman’s looks than you seem to suggest.

      Reply

    • mel says:

      12:06pm | 09/09/11

      Religion was never mentioned in history when I was at school either. Thank goodness. I graduated year 12 in 1989…..glad my kids won’t hear fairy stories either…..

      Reply

    • gobsmack says:

      01:54pm | 09/09/11

      I was taught history at a Catholic school in the 1970s and christianity was never mentioned.

    • stevem says:

      04:37pm | 09/09/11

      Really? No religion at all? How then was the whole history of Europe through the middle ages taught? Galileo, the Renaissance, the Crusades?
      The majority of European history was shaped by the power of the church. Teaching about how religion has shaped the world is not the same as preaching religion.

    • Condor says:

      12:07pm | 09/09/11

      The feminists were trying to marginalise and belittle male sexuality and establish a new market paradigm for sexuality and male-female relations that wasn’t based on reality.

      It was doomed to fail. Men like having sex with hot women and not really having to cuddle or talk. That’s the sort of thing theta males do to try to get into women’s pants.

      These women should be ignored because they are as divorced from reality as your typical religious fundie.

      Reply

    • GOLD says:

      12:07pm | 09/09/11

      ok, if you want to know why women get upset about being obectified re-read your article.

      Men like t&a - really? who knew?

      the comment bears absolutely no relation to the rest of your article. you just make yourself sound like yet another grumpy old man whining about how women dont want to please you anymore. YAWN!

      now please excuse me, i am off to find an interesting article

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      12:34pm | 09/09/11

      I don’t understand what is “objectifying” about admiring a pretty woman’s body anyway. If it were an object as opposed to a living woman most of us wouldn’t find it anywhere near as exiting… unless it was a monster truck or something like that.

    • Cat in the Hat says:

      02:29pm | 09/09/11

      Chris L - I don’t either - if men don’t care if I objectify their bodies by admiring them as well then I call that equality.

      And do the pretty women really object - or is the one’s that never get looked at anyway that are objecting.

    • Markus says:

      02:33pm | 09/09/11

      A monster truck shaped like boobs and arse? You may be on to something…

    • Chris L says:

      03:19pm | 09/09/11

      I think The Punch needs to incorporate a spell checker into the comments section. I meant to say “exciting” not “exiting” :-(

    • is the word says:

      09:11pm | 09/09/11

      objectifying as a term doesn’t just mean “looking at” like you are infering - eg. a woman is objectified by a man when his responce to her not responding to his “romantic” overtures is to become an agressive asshole - as if by virtue of the fact that he is interested she owes him her time and attention and merely saying “no” sees her a target of attack and verbal abuse. You’ll see this played out over and over again in clubs and pubs all over the country, with men screaming “you aren’t that hot anyway” “you must be a lesbo” “you must be frigid” ect. ect. ect. all because they didn’t get their ego or anything else stroked. No woman should be abused by virtue of saying “no” yet countless young men will react in a viollent manner to a woman simply asserting her lack of interest. When woman can say no, and not feel afraid of the repurcusions, and not feel compelled to pretend like they would just LOVE to spend time with said idiot male but, alas, can not for some made up reason which has a chance at placating his ego enough that they wont be abused THEN we’ll have made some inroads on objectification.

    • B says:

      12:18pm | 10/09/11

      @is the word says:

      Alot of women bring it on themselves.  If you say to a guy, “No, F***ing way am I going to dance with you!”  Or “Your ugly, why are you talking to me?” your pretty much asking for any verbal abuse you get.  Courtesy and respect go both ways.  If you dont show respect to him when you reject him, then dont expect it back.  Expect vitrol and insults as you have witnessed.

      I find it hard to believe that you just would say “no”.  That is not the reaction of women.  It is usually “Eww, why would I touch you?”

      Women dont deserve respect, they must earn it.

    • Chris L says:

      12:17pm | 09/09/11

      “Attacking those who argue that marriage can only be between a man and a women as ‘homophobic’ is not only unfair, it’s also an attempt to shut down any dialogue and refuse to accept that those you disagree with have the right to argue their case.” -

      So, what is the case against gay marriage? If it just consists of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman you’ll need to identify where that definition came from, ‘cause it’s not in the bible. Marriage existed before the monotheistic religions and it used to include incest. While I understand why the institution changed to disallow close family members to marry, I still don’t understand why it cannot change further to include gay people.

      Also, I hate to break it to you but Christianity *is* just one out of a myriad of different religions. This particular theism did have a strong effect on our history, but when it gets included in the curriculum people like yourself then start insisting that the bad parts be edited out. Perhaps it’s easier just to treat it the same as the others.

      Reply

    • Panda says:

      03:43pm | 09/09/11

      Christmas was around long before the Christians took it as well. Does it matter? Marriage was started as a way to control who women have children with because you don’t want your wealth to be inherited by a child that’s not yours. What’s the point of a gay couple that can’t have kids and distribute their wealth when they die getting married?

    • Chris L says:

      11:00am | 11/09/11

      @Panda - what would be the point of people marrying when they don’t intend to have children, or when they cannot conceive. I suspect it’s because marriage has come to mean more than originally intended. It has changed over time, and there’s no reason it couldn’t change just a little further.

    • Erick says:

      12:18pm | 09/09/11

      PC never really was based on good intentions. At its heart, it was always a hate movement against men, white people, heterosexuals, Christians, and anyone else hated by the far left.

      Reply

    • TCav says:

      12:22pm | 09/09/11

      Are you asking the PC brigade to shut up using free speech as the basis of your argument?

      Reply

    • Glen says:

      12:36pm | 09/09/11

      Agree completely.  My reaction is that I ensure my kids understand that PC is fundamentally flawed and dangerous.  I make sure that they are aware of the parts that have been left out at school and the parts that have been overemphasised due to this PC disease.  I have a library of texts that the PC mob would burn and yes the kids have known the classic Little Black Sambo story since they were born just as I did.  And my response to the PC buggers is up yours!

      Reply

    • Pete says:

      12:42pm | 09/09/11

      Kevin I’m with you brother! PC Language was invented for people who are unable to think for themselves and are unable to put anything in it’s proper context. It also seems the PC types believe they need to think for others because apparently we are not able to think for our selves. On the what men prefer thing I think thats arse backwards, if you look on the surface and thats what men prefer nice body etc, if you look deeper down you see it’s about attitude and smarts most men know whats important.

      Reply

    • James In Footscray says:

      12:45pm | 09/09/11

      So Kevin hasn’t found an example of political correctness gone mad ... but he’s found a survey that says people aren’t politically correct, to prove that political correctness has gone mad ... huh?

      Reply

    • DorisDay says:

      12:51pm | 09/09/11

      Bad news Kevin - things have changed. Feminism gave women the space to get smarter about men, and allowed us some choice. Because I’m no longer economically dependant on a man, I can -and do - exercise my choice NOT to date/marry men who don’t look beyond the surface. Not all men reduce women down to T&A, and we have feminism to thank for it.

      I think it’s fantastic that you are crying foul over political correctness shutting down debate, when you are using this space to shut down political correctness.  Political correctness is not about shutting down debate - by including other narratives the debate actually becomes more robust. I’m a leftie and I reject the notion that we are all about bringing down any society, let alone the one that allows me to make choices - I’m all for elevating society, and see a public space (kinda like this one) where many voices can be heard, as a cornerstone of that society.

      Reply

    • Glen B says:

      01:27pm | 09/09/11

      Hmmm, in touch with failed socialist ideology, not in touch with reality.

    • Paul Horn says:

      01:37pm | 09/09/11

      “Not all men reduce women down to T&A, and we have feminism to thank for it.” Really really Doris? Where do you get your facts from?

      In Nazi Germany women who wore make up or dressed in what was considered racy attire were spat at or at worst beaten! Women were expected to dress plainly and virtuously. Look at another extremely masculine society - Islam. Women are not permitted to dress in a lascivious manner.

      In Western society women dress provocatively in order to feel powerful.! It is a form of attack and power play over men by inciting lust for an object they cannot have! Women in the West are completely obsessed over their body image and are actually more oppressed by feminist “slut walkers” than the maddest fundamentalist imam!!   

      We live in a strange world!

      Over to you!

    • andye says:

      02:36pm | 09/09/11

      @Paul Horn -  I’m confused as to what your argument here is… the slut walkers were saying that women should be able to dress however they want. You seem to be implying the opposite?

      Most average “feminists” i know don’t have any issue with dressing in sexy clothes. Perhaps you imagine all of them to be some kind of horrible foul-faced harridan? Maybe you should get out more.

    • Markus says:

      02:43pm | 09/09/11

      Likewise, men should be free to choose to continue to place priority on physical attractiveness when dating/marrying.

      However this is not the case. Many women in similar positions as yourself, some of which are extremely influential, are now decrying the lack of male attention coming their way, and claiming it is the result of deep seeded misogyny in our society, when it really is just the result of their conscious choice to disregard attributes that most men find attractive in the opposite sex.

    • Cat in the Hat says:

      02:49pm | 09/09/11

      DorisDay - “Not all men reduce women down to T&A, and we have feminism to thank for it” - are you saying that before feminism there was no love, no solid relationships, no respect, no nice men. And that only “economically independant” women can attain more meaningful relationships and all other women are left with the rubbish. I’m sure that pairing up with mutual love and respect on both sides has been around alot longer than feminism has.

      Paul Horn - I agree with your slant on Western women but dressing provocatively was about long before feminism - men have been beguiled by the provocatively dressed feminine form for hundreds of years -

    • sickemrex says:

      03:11pm | 09/09/11

      @Paul Horn. So are you saying men actually ARE base creatures of lust and women should cover themselves? I didn’t realise you were in the femonazi “trust no man ” camp.  You kind of sound like you are criticism Nazi Germany and Islam for being harsh and then also criticising Western women for dressing provocatively. You might nerd to clarify your position in order to make sense.

    • DorisDay says:

      04:16pm | 09/09/11

      Cat in the Hat - what I’m saying is that feminism gave women choices they had not previously had. Of course there was love & respect before feminism, and by no stretch does economic independance mean more meaningful relationships. Feminism has changed both men and women, for the better in my book.

    • B says:

      12:23pm | 10/09/11

      @DorisDay says

      As has been said before.  You can live in your feminist socialist utopia fantasy.  The rest of us will get on with the real world.

    • Matt says:

      12:59pm | 09/09/11

      ‘Attacking those who argue that marriage can only be between a man and a women as ‘homophobic’ is not only unfair, it’s also an attempt to shut down any dialogue and refuse to accept that those you disagree with have the right to argue their case.’

      Your last 3 articles have used homoseuxal ‘examples’ in a negative way Kevin.  You can’t complain about being called homophobic if you actually are - especially if you use this site as a platform for you irrational hate.  However, I agree, you don’t necessarily have to be homophobic to not agree with same sex marriage - a bigot however you have earned the right to be labelled.

      Reply

    • DorisDay says:

      02:40pm | 09/09/11

      Paul

      Nazi Germany was 80 years ago, and we’ve had a feminist revolution since then - can we talk about the here and now?  I “get” my facts from living my life - the men who date me, who were raised my feminists,  size me up on the size of my brain, not the size on anything else. I’m not saying the physical doesn’t come into play - it does - it’s just not the be all and end all. Dressing provocatively is not an attack on men, and I’m not sure where you get this from? Which woman/women told you that a low cut top was an attack on men?

      Back to you!

    • Matt says:

      03:09pm | 09/09/11

      Don’t waste your breath DorisDay.. This is the same Paul Horn that argues he should be able to marry his sister or his pet pig in debates about same sex marriage… It’s no surprise he also thinks the way women dress is an attack on men..

    • OMG says:

      12:59pm | 09/09/11

      Girls are told, “be all you can be”.  Boys are told, “shut up, you’re upsetting the girls’.

      Reply

    • Geoff - Brisbane says:

      01:47pm | 09/09/11

      Sounds like my year 5 teacher. What a sexist feminist he was.

    • Anne says:

      02:30pm | 09/09/11

      I think you’ll find the boys are told to shut up and let the girls have equal airspace.

    • B says:

      12:25pm | 10/09/11

      @Anne says

      What, is equal 85% of the time is it???

    • Martin617 says:

      01:19pm | 09/09/11

      “Cinderella and the seven dwarfs”——??

      Reply

    • Dan still says what he feels says:

      01:25pm | 09/09/11

      As a white male, I would like to say that Political Correctness is a load of crap.
      The only thing PC does is hide the truth.

      Reply

    • Jamesh says:

      01:30pm | 09/09/11

      I hate all this “wing” rubbish.  “Leftie”, “Right Winger” etc.  It’s crap.  There hasn’t been that extreme a difference between the sides of the political debate since 1939.  And they are more alike than different.  All I know is that the annoying hippy trying to shove a copy of the Green Left into my face seems much the same as the annoying God Botherer trying to shove a copy of the Rev. Fred’s latest rant on why the world will end if we allow gay marriage into my face.  Extreme views yield extreme behaviour regardless of stripe.  Anyone who says they do really crazy things in the name of God, Animal Rights, PC or the interests of the country is usually just suffering selfish delusions of grandeur.  If God is watching, he’s probably laughing His immortal arse off.  Or is that She?  Or It?

      Reply

    • andye says:

      01:35pm | 09/09/11

      I don’t like racism or homophobia. If you say something like that in front of me I will bloody well call you on it. Deal with it.

      Labeling it PC is just a way of sidestepping the argument. If I am being “PC” then I am adhering to a predetermined groupthink. In fact, do you ever really hear anyone use the term, except as an attack? Who exactly is the “PC brigade” apart from the occasional moron schoolteacher or somebody who comes up with some ridiculous example that the right loves to publicise so much?

      PC is an attack term used by the right to gather together a whole bunch of views and condemn them. It is convenient because (as the author has done) you can cite some crazy examples, then conflate that with, say, the gay marriage debate. It is a tool to shut down opposing arguments and attack a broader range of speech.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      02:59pm | 09/09/11

      As Jamesh says above, the left and right are more alike than they are different, and this is especially true when talking about using attack terms to shut down opposing arguments.

      Your defense of “well they are all racist homophobic bigoted rednecks, so I don’t see a problem telling it like it is” is the same pathetic rationalisation that you have just ridiculed those with opposing views for using.

    • andye says:

      04:04pm | 09/09/11

      @Markus - That my argument, was it? I understand the point you are trying to make, but I didn’t actually say what you “paraphrased”.

      Did I generalise and say a whole group were like that? No. Did I call anyone a redneck? No. I said I would call anyone out who said that in front of me.

      It seems you are letting your own stereotypes drive your interpretation of my words. That’s the danger of things like PC. You are associating me with whomever you have seen that has actually said the kind of things you are claiming I was saying. Now that I am one of that group, I can be associated with whatever ridiculous views you want to attribute, even if i didn’t actually say that.

    • Dan says:

      02:15pm | 09/09/11

      Fair dinkum Kevin, it took you your whole life to figure this out and now you think you have something important to say?

      Most of us worked this out in our 20s!

      Reply

    • Slothy says:

      02:33pm | 09/09/11

      “In history departments, it is no longer acceptable to teach a grand narrative associated with the Western tradition and a Judeo-Christian view of the past.  Christianity is reduced to simply being one world-view amongst many, as undergraduates are given a smorgasbord of topics to study without any overall, unifying narrative.”

      ...but it is only one world view among many? I’m confused as to why you’re upset that your personal creation myth is no longer taught to the exclusion of the myriad of other creation myths whose contributions to human though and literary tradition are no less worthy of consideration just because you aren’t familiar with them.

      Reply

    • Wilma J Craig says:

      02:42pm | 09/09/11

      I know some very, very decent men who also look for a nice set of ‘pecs’ and a nice, tight, bubble-butt!
      Tho’ now, allegedly beyond it, my darling grand-son Jason & his almost as beautiful partner still take me out allegedly for coffee where we sit at street-side cafes innocently watching the passing parade!
      I get so many nudges from both sides my poor old arms are black’n'blue by the time I get home!
      “Nana, cop the butt on that!”, “Wills, cop the front view of this one!
      A nice afternoon’s entertainment & it’s all free!!!!

      Reply

    • Outraged says:

      02:55pm | 11/09/11

      Amen Wilma!

      I am a gay man…and the gay community is more superficial and materialistic than poor, straight guys who constantly get attacked by the PC crowd!

      I remember doing Womens Studies at Uni, and the rabid Feminists saying: “All porn objectifies women!!”...but I would say, “What about the porn featuring two men and NO women? Which woman is being objectified in that scenario?”...they would sit their dumbfounded…

    • Anne says:

      02:48pm | 09/09/11

      The examples you use, “short people are now described as ‘vertically challenged’, drug addicts as ‘victims of substance abuse’ and manholes have become ‘personnel access openings’” are the most ridiculous I’ve heard. I consider myself very “PC” (as I am careful not to unfairly discriminate), and know lots of other “PC” people, but I don’t know anyone who uses these terms. And you’ve failed to show damages. How is it hurting anyone? “Christianity is reduced to simply being one world-view amongst many ... Every subject has to be taught through a PC prism involving Asian, indigenous and environmental perspectives.” Surely this, contrary to your assertion, actually broadens education, which will hopefully lead to a more tolerant and harmonious society, full of people who care about the world, not just their own family or culture. People who will stand up for the rights of those with less power. I’d much rather my world was full of those people than people who insist on clearly expressing their bigotry and then complain when others call them bigots.

      Reply

    • Chris L says:

      05:16pm | 09/09/11

      Anne, if history doesn’t teach children that Christianity is the only religion and that all others are forgettable, disposable frauds then it isn’t being fair and balanced! (sarcasm, for the comprehensionally challenged)

    • Jason Todd says:

      11:44pm | 09/09/11

      Well Chris, of course! It’s the word of god, therefore it’s true! How could the word of god not be true?

    • Lauren says:

      03:03pm | 09/09/11

      PC is hardly a new thing… Look at the Grim brother’s fairy tales, all those stories were watered down to fit in with their society.

      Google the original Red Riding Hood. It’s an ... interesting read, to say the least.

      Reply

    • Dean says:

      03:19pm | 09/09/11

      Kevin O’Donnelly, it is you who is full of faeces.. Your purile rants on here always have a hidden agenda.  If it’s not inciting hate against homosexuals, it’s complaining that christianity isn’t the be all and end all ‘these days’..  In this article you’ve actually managed both, you whine that in history christianity is rarely mentioned? 

      What the?  Should we mention the crusades?  Should we mention that in history chrisitianity is a drop in the ocean?  Should we mention that not everyone believes in your hate-filled version of chrisitanity and that it shouldn’t be mentioned ever again?  Your version of christianity is tained by your perverse translation of the bible and really has no place in the modern world.  I know plenty of christians whose version of christianity has evolved and is centered more on the new testament rather than the old..

      Speaking of old… please let this be your last article for The Punch..

      Reply

    • Harry says:

      03:24pm | 09/09/11

      It takes half a second to say ‘manholes’, 1.5 to say ‘personnel access openings’.
      Not very productive.

      Reply

    • GB says:

      04:33pm | 09/09/11

      PC is not productive.

    • Vicki PS says:

      03:54pm | 09/09/11

      What a feeble heap of overworked, past-their-use-by-date cliches.  And what a prime example of mistaking parody for its subject.  One of the most dishonest tricks of lazy journalism is to lump so-called political correctness together with inclusive language as an expression of nondiscriminatory attitudes and take the piss of both, usually by setting up straw men examples.  Silly phrases like “vertically challenged” have never had currency in real life: they were invented by burned out journos and equally burnt-out reactionaries of every ilk as a hook on which to hang their self-righteous defence of bigotry.

      “Political correctness” refers to the practice of parroting inclusive language in order to escape censure, without this reflecting the speaker’s true beliefs and attitudes.  Inclusive language is the conscious practice of avoiding labelling and discriminatory language because they objectify people and reinforce negative stereotypes.  Curiously, the only people who fail to distinguish between the two are the PC themselves and frank bigots, who both persist in the bizarrely Freudian act of attaching the label of PC to those who practice the latter. It’s a pernicious kind of intellectual dishonesty, of which the author of this silly article should be professionally ashamed. 

      If Donnelly wants to attack the debating methods of some supporter of gay marriage, he should do so on the basis of specific instances, not limp and dishonest generalisations.  If his intent is rather to defend the traditional definitions of marriage in religion and law, then let him do so with reasoned argument instead of mud pies.  I suspect, however, that reasoned defence of strictly heterosexual marriage laws is rather more difficult to marshal, as it seems inevitably to lead either to a quagmire of contradiction and circularity, or to exposure of prejudice and irrational beliefs.

      Reply

    • Al says:

      04:52pm | 09/09/11

      The main problem with PC I think is this:
      Due to PC everyone is VERY carefull about what they say in case someone takes them to court etc. for saying something they find offensive. This does NOT change how the people think.
      I would much prefer that people speak their minds and that way I can determine and choose if I want to associate with someone who holds those views. Of course their needs to be certain exceptions such as everyone has the right not to be abused in the workplace.
      So go ahead and spout your homophbic, racist, sexist crap and I will choose not to associate with you as it is MY choice.
      Be honest, who actualy thinks in PC wording rather than having a thought and then expressing it in a different wording that is acceptable?
      I have many non-PC thoughts but I can get away with it as apparently calling people stupid, idiotic or moronic are not considered offensive :-D

      Reply

    • jade (the other one) says:

      04:56pm | 09/09/11

      Oh Kevin, I fail to see your problem with the fact that the Judeo-Christian tradition is taught as one of a number of world views. I really don’t understand why university level students wouldn’t be able to cope with learning a plethora of different views, when by your own admittance, they should be capable of understanding classical literature from a far younger age.

      I personally am an advocate of a more classical education, however, I don’t agree with your self-righteous assumption that the Judeo-Christian tradition should be treated as more than a text through which to view the development of a portion of European society. Furthermore, I don’t have a problem with deconstructing the classical texts to explore the societal views held at the time, and how they influenced particular authors.

      I also don’t believe that studying some modern texts that have had a significant influence on the societies from which they came are necessarily negative. Even if you don’t happen to like the genre, to dismiss its relevance is the same as those who dismally fail to see the point of studying the great texts of our civilisation.

      Reply

    • PC sucks... for some reason says:

      06:21pm | 09/09/11

      Wow… Just when you thought journalistic integrity couldn’t get any worse this pile of “faeces” shows up… Political Correctness doesn’t even mean anything anymore, the Left say the Right do it, the Right say the Left do it… no one really knows what it is, but we know we hate it.

      Back to the subject of the article though… As a straight white male student of gender studies, i have not been once ever told that sexual objectification of women is inherently wrong, what they argue against is that it becomes a tool to suppress women through advertising and make them less likely to succeed in business… When it comes to personal sex/relationships objectify away… No one cares… Whilst it shouldn’t be the sole determinant, everyone understands attractiveness is important to BOTH sexes.

      Reply

    • Tim Minchin says:

      10:45am | 11/09/11

      People who have no control over their emotions for a few days every month should not be in control of anything let alone a business.

    • Brian Taylor says:

      06:29pm | 09/09/11

      I couldn’t care less about PC.
      I’ve always called a spade a spade no matter what and if someone doesn’t like what I’ve got to say….TOO DAMN BAD.
      these PC twits are usually leftist nuts anyway so they don’t count.
      I look forward to being attacked for my views
      Bring it on fools

      Reply

    • LC says:

      08:14pm | 09/09/11

      Lots of people seem to have forgotten how free speech, or freedom in general, works. Yes, free speech does mean racists and bigots get a chance to push their barrow, but it also means that you can argue against them with evidence and the better you do it, the more likely rational and level-headed people will see them for what they really are and not take up such lines of thought.

      Political correctness is nothing more than thought control.

      Reply

    • Lloyd says:

      09:34pm | 09/09/11

      This article and 70 per cent of the people that post on the Punch are retarded. Hows that for un-PC?

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:15pm | 09/09/11

      “In history departments, it is no longer acceptable to teach a grand narrative associated with the Western tradition and a Judeo-Christian view of the past.  Christianity is reduced to simply being one world-view amongst many, as undergraduates are given a smorgasbord of topics to study without any overall, unifying narrative.”
      And here’s the crux of the matter. One God botherer from the Christian Lobby complaining because their religion isn’t pre-eminent anymore. The rest is just filler.

      Reply

    • John says:

      01:38am | 10/09/11

      They have did that with the Communist EU. The Christians lobbied unsuccessful that have Christianity in a special place with in the EU, but the communists EU members threw Christianity with all the other religions. This is what the western establishment is all about! They the party have a supremacist complex, their way of life, their party and their party members overdrive all religions, tribes and nations.They want to own everything and rule everyone like they are cattle. This socialist way of life, is atheist and it’s trying very hard to bring down Christianity and the old European order.

    • Adam says:

      01:15pm | 10/09/11

      @ John

      Couldn’t agree with you more. Since when did a secular state mean atheist state? I don’t understand how so many can’t see the blinding obvious. This does not bring freedom. It narrows down every view to an extreme left agenda that caters for one view and one view only. That is atheism and the removal of anything religious, regardless of the consequences.

    • John says:

      02:51pm | 10/09/11

      Secularism and Atheism is Anti-Christian Marxism. This entire drive to promote atheism and remove Christianity from politics has been lead and funded by the Marxist establishment who rule over western society. They have brainwashed and manipulated the minds of the youth to turn against the religion of their ancestors. These Marxists are very clever, cunning, deceptive, always pushing policy’s and trying to make it look like it’s coming from another angle so that the people don’t figure out the agenda. This infestation, this red plague is high in the US, UK, France, Germany and the EU parliament. Nothing seems what it seems. They want to marxtize the entire western people and create a slave people.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      12:54pm | 10/09/11

      Not being able to call deniers deniers, or inconsequential, is the new PC. The newly sensitive souls . . .

      Reply

    • scumbag says:

      02:09pm | 10/09/11

      Hmm, D&M Research, would that also be an ancronym for Deep and Meaningful? Nah! Couldn’t be.”....“concludes that men, primarily, look for sex appeal in a relationship and that what they most look for in a women are good breasts and a nice backside.”  Is that code for big tits and a good arse?
      Kevin, you should get out more mate. Incidentally, I can speak with some authority about being ‘vertically challenged’, or in code, ESE, or possibly on occasion, ENE, or even NNE. Remember?

      Reply

    • Herman says:

      11:30am | 11/09/11

      Women are fake - they put on make up to hide the complexion of their skin - the put on push up bras and wax their hair and basically do anything they can not to present au naturel. Why should we believe anything from a duplicitous creature?

      Reply

    • marley says:

      12:49pm | 11/09/11

      Men are fake - they shave their beards to disguise how hirsute they really are - they wear toupees or get hair transplants, use contact lenses, they put on ultra tight undies and jeans and roll on pungent man-scent and basically do anything they can not to present au naturel.  Why should we believe anything from a duplicitous creature?

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

lucyjk 22 May 12 09:23AM

Complimentary packing, free childcare & convenience aplenty. Thats what i want from the supermarket. How about you? http://t.co/FV4tgjji

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 22 May 12 08:24AM

#Thomson will never get brothel tapes, CCTV-in-brothels experts tell the ABC. http://t.co/7YFORBBJ

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 21 May 12 10:18PM

@ToryShepherd there's always time for Din Tai Fung.

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 21 May 12 10:17PM

@drpiotrowski will be there just in time for Din Tai Fung

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

by Ged Kearney

71

Deep down we’re all unionists, even the haters

Bill Kelty made a memorable speech last week. Addressing the ACTU Congress Dinner in Sydney, the legendary…

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

by David Penberthy

86

Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia…

Speaking of yourself in the third person is usually a sign that you’re suffering from delusions…

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

by Tory Shepherd

56

South Australia. It’s the middle bottom bit.

If South Australia had just arrived in the world, red and wrinkled and mewling, what would we call it?…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

241 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed