The Political Right vs. The Politically Correct

This week, our class had a discernible focus on political correctness and its impacts. I noticed that it was hard to completely agree with one side, as each weakness had clearly visible flaws. This matches how I feel about the situation too. I don't believe there are black and white sides to, this issue, as there are different levels of political correctness that one can believe is the most beneficial to society. As people begin to see hurtful slurs and derogatory comments as "just words," then the mental health of the nation is brushed aside for efficiency. On the other hand, as policing of words becomes more and more common, the Orwellian thoroughness of the so-called "language police" masks the root problem by handing out a new, nicer, and less accurate moniker. What most people don't understand is that most issues all depend on context. Unless the problem is clear cut and easy to prove, then there is no always right answer. I have been accused of being too black and white myself, but it's a mistaken determination of how extensive my belief is. For example, if I say that I strongly believe that politically correctness can deter solutions and progress, it does not mean that I believe that political correctness strongly deters solutions and progress. This example also shows the power of words, and how interchanging only one word can result in an entirely different implication. Political correctness is being currently challenged by the government, but while I might be expected to agree with this, the reasoning behind this political incorrectness harshens the message so far as to be irritating, or disgusting to the ear. With such widespread usage of lowbrow rhetoric, another issue that needs to be worried about is the normalizing of this current climate.

A Climate of Ignorance

It seems like everyone is an expert these days. With just the slightest amount of research, an ordinary person can know just as much as someone who studies that subject for a living. At least, this seems to be mentality of many conspiracy theorists. With the growth of the dangerous science denial movement, climate change is at the forefront of topics that everyone seems to know about. At least, it appears that way. In reality, the only reason that people feel that they know everything is because of how shallowly they know the subject area. This is known as the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it states that  low ability individuals don't realize that they're low ability, or paraphrased, "if you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent." This seems to come into play in every conversation related to a trending scientific controversy, be it vaccines or climate change. Even the head of the EPA seems to fall victim to this phenomenon, as he has recently stated that he does not believe that CO2 is a primary contributor to global climate change. Belief doesn't play into science though. What matters is facts. The facts are that global warming is real, and that the rapid increase in global temperatures is caused by man. This counter-culture seems to be more popular than traditional trust in some places, and the rise in distrust and paranoia leads to a more unsafe society. With every new climate change denier, or radically aligned "expert" on vaccines, we march ever closer to a self manufactured dystopia.

Blind to Fashion

Earlier this week in class we had an interesting debate on the article we read, "There Is No Unmarked Woman." There were good points raised on both sides pertaining to the many relevant points of the article, but the part that interested me the most was the argument about fashion. Of course, I agreed with most of what Tannen wrote, but in the fashion area, my opinion was that women are marking themselves rather than some mystical overarching mark that transcends genders. My reasoning was that because men are less likely to notice what women wear than women are, then it is the women that determine what the societal standards and et cetera are for clothes. This acute perception of fashion is what drives women to buy clothes made by male fashion designers, like Armani and Louis Vuitton. The fact that the fashion designers are male is almost irrelevant. If not for the tastes of women, then people wouldn't buy their brand and they would go out of business. The reasonable next step would only be to relax the standards for clothing that women have. People complain about being noticed when their lack of makeup is noticed, but this would never happen if they never wore makeup. On the flip side though, I would even argue that men are even more limited by women, but not only by their gender. Men's clothing choices are often very influenced by the idea of masculinity, and to dress more feminine is seen as a statement or a bold declaration of individuality. Masculinity itself is determined by societal perceptions as a whole, not only men's ideals, so I believe that men have even less of a choice in changing clothing conventions than women.This isn't to say that I disagree with Tatten's piece though. I found that it had brilliantly argued out examples for the case of unwanted attention, such as the fact that a women writing the article makes it a feminine piece. I only took issue with the example of women's fashion, as I feel that her acute observations of other women were a detriment, as she became unable to consider the viewpoint of a gender blind to the intricacies of women's fashion.