The oxymoron of "politically correct"

I finally figured out what bothers me about the phrase “politically correct.”

            We all know that conservatives criticize what they see as political correctness, as do some liberals who think others within their own camp “go too far”. Those on the far left tend to believe that no criticism of political correctness is valid, because it really means treating marginalized people with respect and it’s not possible to overdo that. The understanding is that anybody who rails against political correctness is really railing against the expectation to treat oppressed groups with basic decency.
            Often, that is the real complaint. Many times, people who take issue with political correctness really are objecting to the fact that their racism, misogyny, or other types of bigotry will be socially frowned upon. But as frequent as that is, it’s not always the issue. Sometimes when a person chastises another as “politically correct”, they mean that the person gets so focused on specific words that they lose sight of the message as a whole. Sometimes it means the person uses an academic vocabulary that may be inaccessible, and that they scorn others who aren’t familiar with their terminology. It can mean assuming that a person who says something misinformed has malicious intentions, and immediately responding with hostility. (I know that intentions ultimately matter less than results, but I don’t believe them to be completely irrelevant. Somebody without hateful intentions is more open to productive discussion. That being said, a person who is directly affected by their ignorance isn’t obliged to educate them or react with patience.)
            So I disagree with the idea that in every single circumstance, criticizing “political correctness” is criticizing the idea of treating marginalized people with respect. But I have a problem with the phrase “politically correct” to begin with.
            Calling something “politically correct” implies that it’s politically beneficial. It implies that it’s the dominant view held by the government; by political systems. It assumes that it’s in line with the status quo. Therefore, describing oneself as “politically incorrect” makes some people feel edgy and rebellious. It makes them think they’re fiercely independent. In reality, “politically correct” is a buzzword—or buzz phrase—just as much as any phrase I might use, and I have been frequently described as politically correct. The difference is that I and others with similar mindsets know that we’re expressing ideas that are shared by others. I’m not a special snowflake for being liberal.

            If a leftist mentality was the political foundation of our culture, then racism and sexism and homophobia and anti-trans bigotry and classism would be far less rampant. They wouldn’t be supported by numerous public policies. They wouldn’t be systemic. Unfortunately, though, those systems of oppression are the status quo—both personally and politically.
            Efforts to dismantle those things disrupt our current system. That’s why they’re as far as possible from being politically correct.

Notes from across the divide

These are all quotes from the diaries my aunt Mary kept as a young person. For those new to my friends list, I have posted about her a lot. She’s my mom’s youngest sister, who died in a car accident in 2007 after a 17-year drug addiction. I found years’ worth of her poetry and journals after she passed away.

Anyway, these things were written in journals throughout the early to mid 1980s, when Mary was in her teens and early twenties. This is how she explained herself to whoever she imagined reading her words in the future:

“Dearest, kindest world with endless opportunities,
Be nice to me and give me a little freedom, and just a few things to enjoy.”
-Summer 1980 (she was fourteen years old)

“I wake up in the morning and shake dreams out of my hair.” -July 1980

“I would gladly give away my creativity to all my friends.” -1980

“Life can be good and life can be treacherous. That’s why they say it has its ups and downs. Then again, death is more than often caused by ups and downs, so to live is to die.” -July 1980

“I love loving. It’s the ultimate in a deciding factor. It’s the difference between reality and the supernatural.”

“Touch the stars, they’re breezing by.”

“When people smile, I smile too. When they cry I cry. When I don’t see them I wonder what they are feeling and if they think of me.”

“Next time you want to understand me, look between the empty pages behind the lines.” -1981

“Words stuck in my throat are released beneath my pen.” -1981

“We are the young ones crying out.” -1984

“Take me as I am: alone and dreaming, a poet without a plan.” -April 1984

“What is written shall remain.”

“Maybe I’m not star material, but I know how to feel and be real.”

“You speak of the coming days. I speak of today and laugh a lot. Your crazy smile keeps me going.”

“This is Captain Mary aboard the cosmic ship Bethany [her hometown]. I am quite alive and enjoying this evening. I am at the head of my bed, in full control, and the music is real cool.”
-February 14, 1985

“I am the living Dead: ahead of my time and behind.”

“I’m filling in words that shouldn’t be said between bound covers.” -1989

“If I die soon, I want everyone to know my life was good. If I live longer, then everyone will know they helped make it that way.” -January 1989

And this last one was written in 2004:
“I dedicate my words to everyone I’ve ever known, dead or alive, or will ever know, dead or alive.”

*****

Rest in peace and poetry, Mary. You’re a supernova that will never stop bursting into life.

Consistency is overrated

During election season, there are often sound bites passed around which depict a candidate saying something offensive when they were significantly younger, sometimes in their twenties or even their teens. The takeaway message is always, “Is this the kind of person you want in office?”

I understand the validity of this if the candidate still expresses the same attitudes today, and so it’s meant to show that they haven’t grown. But that doesn’t seem to be the case. Almost always, it’s meant to imply that an opinion someone holds in their youth is a defining part of their permanent nature. That assumption is not only unfounded, but unfair. How many of us cringe when we recall insensitive, bigoted, or just plain ignorant things we said when we were younger? Everyone deserves a chance to be seen as a more evolved version of our former selves, as long as we actively demonstrate it and denounce the harmful things we used to espouse. In that case, changing your mind isn’t hypocrisy. It’s maturation.

If the candidate is known for flip-flopping, that’s another story. Tailoring your core values to your audience, rather than just adjusting the presentation, is dishonesty. That deserves to be called out. All the same, I think it’s rarely relevant to try to prove a point by showing a clip of someone being foolish in college.

This relates to the way that consistency is falsely assumed because it's so overvalued. You hear a lot of quotes like, “Don’t make fun of other peoples’ appearance when you’re not attractive yourself” or “Don’t use the Bible to be homophobic unless you follow all of its rules.” Why is being hateful toward the LGBT+ community somehow more acceptable if you’re religiously consistent? Why is it more excusable to harass people about their looks if you are traditionally attractive?

It’s better not to hold horrible beliefs at all, whether or not they’re consistent with other behavior or with beliefs one has held in the past. Unfortunately, the allegiance to sameness—even sameness to your self—can cause many to stubbornly cling to bad ideas.

Parallel

What kind of person can you imagine being in a parallel world? Is there an alternate life you can see yourself inhabiting—or becoming?

For me, I often imagine a universe in which I’m not on the autistic spectrum. It’s challenging to talk about this without being a downer. I also don’t want to make others on the spectrum feel like it’s a flaw or an extraneous trait to be pruned away. I think, though, that it’s important to be honest about my disability. And, honestly, there are many days I wish it wasn’t rooted into my DNA. I imagine a parallel world to move freely throughout. A place where I can drive, take off on road trips, and leave home by myself to make it further than just down the street.

I’ve had this condition since birth. As a child, it was less noticeable to me because most children have limited freedom. I also lacked the self-awareness to see it was much more pronounced back then.

Living on the spectrum can be like living as a message in a bottle. Transparent, inescapable, and easily cracked, but I can last so much longer than expected. I bob around on others’ tides to travel. My message is carefully kept, and it says something new every day.

I can fantasize about having alternate lives as an independent professional or a wanderer who travels just as far physically as she does mentally. I can live vicariously through other selves. Sometimes it feels pointless, but other times it helps. It makes a difference upon the realization that some of the things I daydream about can be done in this world, too. A bottle floated across the ocean to let me know I don’t need it. To say that sometimes the distance can be walked, too.

I don’t want to frame this topic only around myself. Who do you believe you could be in another reality, whether good or bad? Is there another version of you that could have existed if you’d changed a life decision or been born under different circumstances? And, when you find the more desired options within other universes, is there a way to carry any of them into yours?

You don’t have to tell me; just think about it. And, if you do want to share an answer but not on a comment thread, you can message me privately. Whoever you are.

Let’s talk about this.

The cardinal law of cliche

This is a 38-panel comic I’ve worked on nonstop for the past two months, and finally finished a few days ago. Basically, I wanted to satirize the pop culture tropes of “Cool Girl” and “Manic Pixie Dream Girl”—while making it clear that I don’t think the stereotypes are true (there’s a joke in the strip about neither of them existing in the real world). I’ve also always liked the idea of two female characters battling it out for a reason completely unrelated to a man. In this scenario, they’re vying for their place in the plot. What I’ve noticed from movies and TV is that “Cool Girl” and “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” never seem to occupy the same story, because both of them are always presented as the character the male protagonist is supposed to end up with. As you can probably guess, it doesn’t pan out that way here.

Most of you are likely aware of what “Cool Girl” and “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” mean, but I have been asked about those tropes by a few people who are unfamiliar with them. So, for everyone’s reference: http://tinyurl.com/gneg3wt and http://tinyurl.com/7ddlqgu . MPDG is known for being quirky, artistic, spontaneous, and playful in a childlike way. She tends to wear vintage-y clothes and have an indie vibe (think every character Zooey Deschanel ever plays). She bakes cupcakes and knits. She takes off on random road trips and force-feeds everyone sunshine. Cool Girl, on the other hand, is more of a tough girl who’s thought of as “one of the guys” (as silly as it is that such a quality means you’re thought of as a man). She’s constantly bragging that she’s “not like other girls.” Sort of like the Girl Next Door trope, except more high-adrenaline. A few friends who have seen the comic have asked if MPDG is supposed to be me, and the answer is no. Aside from the red hair, I don’t even think I look like her.

Also, several people have asked me who John Green and Nicholas Sparks are. They’re both real-life popular novelists. Nicholas Sparks writes saccharine stories that are basically extended Hallmark cards. John Green’s plots tend to be formulaic in a similar way, except his characters deliver the stories with witty, whimsical dialogue and while wearing scarves. (And this isn’t to mock him; I like John Green.)

I very well may continue this project. This could just be the first installment. The second might involve the characters struggling to form their own identities outside of the tropes they’re written into.

http://tapastic.com/episode/251539

Toying with gender roles

Amused by the idea that dolls are "girl toys," and that action figures and puppets are somehow completely distinct from dolls and therefore acceptable for boys to play with.

It's not even as if they're distinguished by whether the doll is supposed to be masculine or feminine. There are action figures of women and dolls that are supposed to be boys. It also has nothing to do with the imaginary scenarios they're cast into. When I was little, my Barbies fought in a lot of time-travel wars and the Megazord hosted tea parties. (There was also a whole ongoing love triangle between a Barbie, the green Power Ranger, and Ariel, but that was another story.)

It's just weird how we create all these arbitrary barriers. Any toy that's modeled to look like a person is, for all practical purposes, a doll--and that's fine.

You don't have to listen.

One narrative that sounds pretty silly upon examination is, "You can't just delete anyone from your friends list who disagrees with you! Real life doesn't work like that." I understand the message; that it's impossible to avoid interacting with others who have a clashing worldview. That's true, but is rarely a person's actual goal.

We all know people we disagree with fundamentally on a variety of topics, and with whom we share virtually no values. Working, going to school with, and living among them is a necessary facet of belonging to human society. Learning how to talk to people we don't agree with is an important skill. But that doesn't mean we're obligated to listen to hateful, willfully ignorant, and destructive ideas in a setting where that's actually optional. I don't believe that every opinion that opposes mine is harmful, nor am I certain that I'm correct about everything. But I have blocked, deleted, and sometimes just unfollowed people for repeatedly posting malicious things. Opinions like "females are thots", "[X minority racial group] are disgusting," "Gay people deserve to be murdered," "Jews are greedy" and "Poor people are lazy moochers" are not nuanced, original ideas I've never previously been exposed to. They're so common that they're longstanding stereotypes. Saying you hate a group or that they should die/be severely punished for their existence is not an argument. Calling a group a name is not an argument; it's just a slur. Granted, that may also apply to calling certain ideologies bigoted—that saying they're bigoted isn't making an argument; just calling a name—and maybe I'm less likely to notice that because of my own biases. But when I say something is bigoted, I'm probably venting instead of trying to persuade others to agree, because it doesn't seem possible to persuade someone who's just shouting slurs. The slur-shouters honestly think they have a valid theory you need to hear, though, and that you're doing yourself a disservice by closing that channel. They also seem to think their ideas are unique and rebellious. Those who disagree are well aware that a more progressive stance is not unusual, and that it doesn't have to be unique to have value.