The psychology of political correctness

You gave three examples of what you call PC - weak female muscles, homosexuality as an aberation, violence in Islamic texts.There's objective truth in all those statements, on average women have less muscular strength than men, homosexuality is less prevalent than heterosexuality and there is violence in some Islamic texts.It's not the facts that people react to when such things are said - it's the value judgements underpinning them that gets criticised. Women aren't weak, homosexuality isn't wrongful and Muslim people aren't more violent that Christian people.I agree that people often have difficulty separating the ojective fact related content from the value laden assumptions that can lie within them, but that's why we need to be careful with words that we know can be misinterpreted.

Yes Faith, that's exactly what I said. I think you'll find that I'm not doing that, I'm explaining why you're getting the reactions you get.

quote:

---

Relative to men, women ARE weak. That's not a value judgment.

---

Yeh, that's actually what I said. Ditto Just stick to it's a fact that there are violent passaged in the Koran - otherwise we'll get tangled up.Re-read my original post. Why do you think woman said that female muscles aren't weaker than men's? I think you have to accept the fact that she couldn't be arguing that women are as strong as men, so why do you think she said it?

I've got half a brain so I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the woman talking about muscles reacted in a PC way.

quote:

---

There was an earlier topic here entitled, "The lack of diversity [in] Sociology Research" that covered some of the same ground you refer to here. I take those articles very seriously.
  —NoNukes

---

Yes, and it didn't get a single response. I wondered at the time whether that what evidence in itself......EvC Forum: The lack of diversity is Sociology Research