Political Correctness Gone Mad.

'Bonny' is a nice girl- mid/late twenties, middle/high position in her job, doesn't like confrontation, hard working.

'Betty' is relatively new in her job- a little bit older, works under Bonny, can be 'difficult'.

I heard this story yesterday about how Betty has taken Bonny to court, claiming 'harassment'.  This is because Bonny asked Betty to come in to help with an activity she had previously said she would help with, and also was unfortunate enough to mention to another colleague to 'watch out' as she felt Betty could be 'dangerous'.  This was after feeling that Betty was subtly manipulating certain versions of things in order to create trouble.  It should also be known that Betty has only joined this company for a short time, and it has been revealed that she left her last job after suing for harassment. Successfully.

So there's not a lot of actual evidence in this case really.  The only problem is that it is fraught with political and social nuances. Firstly, it happening in France, a country struggling with racial issues.  Bonny is 'fully French', and from a long line of 'pure French' (these are not  my words, I would never say 'pure'!)  Betty is the wife of a Muslim religious leader, has just moved to France and is pregnant.  Although her history shows she has a accused people of harassment before, because she is from a minority, a woman and pregnant, everything is weighted in her favour.

Now, obviously I have only heard a version of this story, and I don't know the details.  Maybe Bonny is a real bitch and Betty has been genuinely unfortunate enough to fall into positions where she is subject to harassment all the time.  But what I did think was how reflective of our crazy reluctance to engage reason when faced with certain social factors.  There is no doubt that in legal cases like this, you are in a stronger position if you are in a minority, pregnant, a woman, etc...  What about if you are still in the wrong though?  The version of the story that I heard was favoured towards Bonny  (I hasten to add again, I don't know the reality).  Lets, for the sake of this argument, believe that Bonny is being wronged here, by someone who recognises her social advantages, and from experience from performing this whole escapade in the past, knows the correct twists and turns in the system. Even if this was the case, the social factors still mean that it is distinctly more difficult to protect Bonny, without appearing racist, sexist, ageist or ummm...pregnanist (joking, although I am sure you can see the advantage that has as well).

This conversation yesterday led on to my genuine frustration with this way of thought.  It is prevalent in many aspects of our society.  Huge generalisations made on social, economic, age factors?  Its crazy.  I do recognise that certain pockets of society need protection, but this sort of blind positive discrimination is still discrimination.  As a woman, and as a feminist, I realise that there are still many gaps in how men and women are treated.  However, to eliminate that, I do not expect to be treated better than my male counter-parts.  I expected to be treated the same.  I expect to be treated appropriately for my personality, my skill sets and ability.  I don't want a job promotion because it will make the company I work for look better.  That is as insulting to my feminist principles as being overlooked because I have a uterus would be.

I got into a bit of a rant about this yesterday.  We laughed about the crazy blindness to some truths we have been programmed by society to experience.  For example- children are a highly vulnerable and protected part of our society.  Also, as a woman, there still exists a certain expectation that you should be incredibly maternal and love all kids.  Ummm...  I like kids just as much as the next person, but I can reognise that they are little adults.  I would never make a sweeping statement that 'I love all adults'.  Of course not- loads of adults are total assholes.  You just try to be pleasant and get along as best you can.  Many, many kids are also assholes- whether its from how they are being raised, the morals being instilled by their surroundings, whatever.  Nature versus nurture is irrelevant- plenty of kids are mean, selfish, bullies, liars- just like adults.  However, have you ever heard someone say- "Yeah, kids are great.  Apart from those dickhead children."  Of course not, because we aren't supposed to.*

This model of irrational blindness to personality and individuals in favour if social sweeps can be applied to loads of pockets of society- women, disabled, etc.  I do not think that the difficulties faced by these segments of society are to be sneezed at.  However, were I to be disabled, I would prefer for the blindness of assessment to applied to my disability, not to my personality or character.  There is a famous scene in "Curb Your Enthusiasm  where Larry David nearly runs over a disabled guy who is in a motorised wheelchair.  

This scene goes on where Larry, in exasperation, mentions this to a woman who works in the same office as the disabled guy.  He is looking for back up- the guy wasn't looking where he was going, was on a mobile phone... however the woman merely replies "Yeah, but he's in a wheelchair."

I don't know what it is like to be disabled.  Any small experiences I have had with limited mobility, (and I have experienced small examples of limited sight) have made me realise how difficult it would be.  Personally though, I would like to think that yes, I could rely on kindness for accessibility  but I could also rely on rationale- I would prefer if someone like Larry David yelled at me for being in the wrong.

Political correctness has escalated to levels of bullshit in my opinion.  There are segments of the community who require extra protection and kindness, of course.  However, they also deserve to be treated as individuals, on the merits of their personal pros and cons.  I think it is ridiculous to look at a person and see only a wheelchair, only a skin colour, only a gender, only a sexuality.  Positive discrimination is still discrimination, and I can't believe the extent to which it infiltrates our society.

[Of course, this whole post is merely my personal opinion, and if I have said anything that offends, please know it was not my intention.  I see that I occupy very few of these social shades- a westerner, white, educated, etc.  However, I am a woman, and I have got kind of ginger hair, so I know about social struggle. I like to think I am empathetic however, and like I said- I think an expectation of kindness is different from an expectation of willful blindness.]

*Apparently Milan Kundera dealt with this issue of children in detail in many of his books, including The Unbearable Lightness of Being. The following in an excerpt from an interview he did with the New York Times.

NYT-Children occupy a strange place in your books. In ''The Unbearable Lightness of Being,'' children torture a crow, and Tereza suddenly says to Tomas, ''I am grateful to you for not having wanted children.'' On the other hand, one finds in your books a tenderness toward animals. In the last one, a pig becomes a likable character. Isn't this view of animals a bit kitschy?

MK- I don't think so. Kitsch is a desire to please at all costs. To speak well of animals and look skeptically at children can't please the public very much. It might even irritate it slightly. Not that I have anything against children. But the kitsch of childhood annoys me.

Here in France, before the elections, all the political parties had their posters. Everywhere the same slogans about a better future, and everywhere photos of children who smile, run about and play. Alas, our human future is not childhood but old age. The true humanism of society is revealed through its attitude toward old age. But old age, the only future that each of us faces, will never be shown on any propaganda posters.