Refutation Essay
Undoubtedly, political correctness in language has recently been becoming a more and more controversial issue. It has become an area of great interest for a considerable number of scholars who look into the subject in order to find the answers to the questions. Thus how PC is defined? Generally speaking, it is a term used to describe language, ideas, policies, or behavior seen as seeking to minimize offense to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. Conversely, the term "politically incorrect" is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy. The idea of PC in language has both supporters and opponents, and therefore the arguments for and against are unquestionably worth discussing and considering.
According to Rosalie Maggio, the authors of the textbooks very often use male pronouns reflecting this way the fact that the particular occupation is exclusively reserved for men, not women. The example of such a sentence may be a president may cast his veto which suggests that all the presidents have so far been men. Thus the possibility of woman being a president is automatically excluded. Looking at the issue from the other perspective, using masculine pronouns rhetorically can underscore ongoing male dominance in predominantly male fields and thus imply the need for change.
Some PC enthusiasts would like to find non-male-based synonyms for such popular expressions as Midas touch, Achilles heel and Montesuma’s revenge. Others would like to get rid of words such as fellow, king, lord or master which all are regarded by them to be male-oriented and hierarchical dominator society terms. Some of the female supporters of PC go even as far as to change the words from, f.i. testimony into ovarimony. However, PC opponents point out that this way of building a world free of racism and hate collides with the ideals of cultural diversity and it’s purchased and the cost of freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
In
According to Rosalie Maggio, the authors of the textbooks very often use male pronouns reflecting this way the fact that the particular occupation is exclusively reserved for men, not women. The example of such a sentence may be a president may cast his veto which suggests that all the presidents have so far been men. Thus the possibility of woman being a president is automatically excluded. Looking at the issue from the other perspective, using masculine pronouns rhetorically can underscore ongoing male dominance in predominantly male fields and thus imply the need for change.
Some PC enthusiasts would like to find non-male-based synonyms for such popular expressions as Midas touch, Achilles heel and Montesuma’s revenge. Others would like to get rid of words such as fellow, king, lord or master which all are regarded by them to be male-oriented and hierarchical dominator society terms. Some of the female supporters of PC go even as far as to change the words from, f.i. testimony into ovarimony. However, PC opponents point out that this way of building a world free of racism and hate collides with the ideals of cultural diversity and it’s purchased and the cost of freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
In