Read Online The Inspector-General of Misconception by Frank Moorhouse - Free Book Online Page A

discourse
    There is an expression which has been around for some time now called Political Correctness which bedevils our conversation and public discussion.
    But it is not PC which is a problem now. The problem is that we no longer know what subject is PC.
    It has a very fuzzy meaning.
    Essentially, the term applies to the attempt to use political piety (disguised as humanism or parading itself as an upholder of prevailing notions of ‘decency’) to place certain ideas beyond question or joke. Further, to make the questioning of those ideas an offence against the decency of the discourse.
    The natural opponents of Political Correctness are satire, comic heresy, bad taste jokes and ultimately, the questioning mind and the lateral-thinking mind.
    Political Correctness has been a source of inhibition and prudishness in conversation, and the butt of innumerable jokes but it lives on.
    Political Correctness closes down discussion – when we dare to buck it we hear ourselves having dutifully tosay in an uncomfortable voice, ‘I suppose that is politically incorrect.’
    And of course what is PC in one circle of thinking is non-PC in another.
    For example, in some subgroups it is not currently acceptable to criticise American foreign policy. In others it is not acceptable to support it.
    The few examples we wish to visit in this investigation belong to what might be called the humanist-liberal subgroup. Or the progressive subgroup.
    In truth, we also want to talk about Compulsive Anti-Political Correctness but before we do we would like to visit some of the categories of thought which have had the blanket of Political Correctness draped over them as being no-go areas for open discussion.
    These include the notion of sexism, the notion of racism, and the notion of multiculturalism (all of which we support but where we feel the meaning of the terms have drifted wider and wider until they are disruptive of discourse).
    Reckless use of the term ‘sexism’
    The original and precise meaning of sexism and one to which we subscribe is words, conduct, laws and customs which contribute to the belief that women are intrinsically inferior to men or contribute to the invisibility of women in society – vocabulary such as policemen/firemen instead of police officers/fire fighters and so on.
    The fact of the matter is that all generalisations about gender (male or female) are sexist .
    But the word ‘sexist’ is flung around and increasingly involves a misapplication and reckless allegations.
    Sexist is often confused with public expressions of sexual desire, sexual depiction, sexual flamboyance, sexual display, erotica, and especially jokes of sexual nature.
    It results in the mumbled confusion of someone saying, ‘Oh, we suppose that’s sexist?’ – an expression of utter confusion.
    There are such things as sexist statements and practices and we do not support these. But the word is not at all clear-cut. We have to be very careful when we allege ‘sexism’ even, or especially, when we allege it silently or publicly against ourselves.
    We call it false-feminism, a political position which is really a new prudery masquerading as genuine feminism.
    Camille Paglia uses the example of dance clubs in the US where women dance naked or semi-naked, usually around poles and in front of mirrors on stage, while men watch. She says these are really contemporary versions of ancient temples where men came to worship fertility and the female form. And at these ‘temples’ they pay homage and offer up gifts (by placing dollar bills in the garter belts of the women). She says it is not a sexist act to go to these places.
    You may or may not buy this interpretation but we offer it as an example of how the allegation of sexism is not always clear-cut.
    And some jokes are funny because they offend contemporary political propriety – they are funny, in part, because they are inconsequential