Need someone to talk me down, or at least clear up some confusion

[hillfarm]

I am having an issue with a youth organization my family is involved with. They have an excellent program, but lately have become very corporation-centered rather than child-centered. Seems like many of their actions are focused on covering their liability exposure rather than focusing on what is best for the children involved.

 

Today I got called on the carpet for using some non-PC language regarding some of the programming I teach. Nothing derogatory, inflammatory, or that I couldn't say in the middle of a church or kindergarten, but just not in keeping with the PC image the governing corporation seems to care so much about these days. I will have to comply or leave the program.

 

I am very torn. On one hand, I am furious about this and feel like refusing to use this flowery PCspeak instead of plain, direct, clear English. It is like having to say that someone went on to their Great Reward rather than being able to say they died. Or having to say that someone had an unfortunate and final disagreement with someone else rather than saying that they killed them. (My real dilemma is not religious in nature, I am merely giving these examples to show the type of issue at hand.) It is stupid, contrived, and unclear to the children I am trying to teach. And I hate it.

 

OTOH, am I making a mountain out of a molehill? Should I just suck it up and use the terminology required by the higher ups and consider myself lucky to be able to teach the subject matter at all? For now, they are not coming down on my chosen subject matter, just the language I am using to describe things.

 

I keep swinging from the extreme of telling them to stick it (which would mean I would have to resign as a teacher) and pointing out that this mealy mouthing and failure to call a thing by it's real, unadulterated (although less palatable to some) name is one of the things that is ruining this country, to the other extreme of just sucking it up and doing what I am told I have to do. The best choice would probably to do what I am told, but to make sure the leadership above me knows that I do so under protest.

 

What do you all think? How far is too far when it comes to political correctness? How do we decide just how far to bend? I don't know whether compromise on my part would equal backing down from my principles or would equal setting my preferences aside and being a good team player. Help!!!

[Jenny in Florida]

I don't know what term is the problem, but generally the kind of sensitivity that some folks deride as "PC" arises because there is a genuine difference of opinion about whether a certain kind of language is "derogatory."

 

It sounds to me as though the direction and tone of this program are changing, and if you are no longer comfortable there, it may be time for you to move on.

[regentrude]

I am not quite clear about your status.

If this is your paid job with which you support your family, you might want to suck it up, unless you have other employment lined up. Just being practical; it does not sound as if you are asked to do something that severely violates your conscience.

If you are, however, volunteering your time and expertise, I'd be inclined to push the confrontation and insist that I can call a spade a spade or they can find somebody else. Or, even better, continue to do what you are doing.

It would help if you could tell us what words exactly they are requiring to say/not say.

[bettyandbob]

I am confused as to how using pc language would interfere with content of teaching, unless the topic was why something wasn't pc. 

 

Be aware that some things you think are plain English are viewed as hurtful by others, maybe others in your group who are shy and don't want to speak up and say "that hurts me because...please stop saying it."  There is a word that is very hurtful to my son which is somewhat common language. Thankfully, many people refrain from using it, But others will get real up tight about why it isn't hurtful and oh, they didn't mean it to be hurtful anyway. There are people on this board who have said as much to me. 

 

So, without knowing more about the context I really can't see how using pc language will take away from a lesson you are present to a group of kids. 

[itsheresomewhere]

I would really have to know the language to really say. If you are using correct terminology, then I would use the correct terms. 

 

But remember this is coming from someone who got "lectured" for using the word butt.  I should have used the word tushy.  Sometimes you can't win.

[Alexigail]

My answer would completely depend on what the language is that they want you to change.

[Guest submarines]

My answer would completely depend on what the language is that they want you to change.

 

:iagree: As well as the age of the children involved.

[Anne in CA]

I am of two minds on PC. Before the sixties derogatory terms were peachy to most people. It would be a real step backward to ignore the fact that Political Correctness is rooted in a very fair idea of treating others respectfully. Of course, PC now is often silly and sometimes, in worst case scenarios, worse than original terms. But I won't elaborate on which PC terms I think are more derogatory than original terms, lol. I don't want to get banned.

 

I think only you know what to do. If you do decide to leave you need to write a clear, well thought out letter of resignation to say why so that they have the option of learning something from your leaving. If you decide to stay I would still write a letter/ email, to make your position clearer to people in charge. Honesty in this sort of situation is important, because if they are going to let you go for nothing, you should get them to put their position in writing and make them look at it. 

[zoobie]

I would really have to know the language to really say. If you are using correct terminology, then I would use the correct terms.

 

But remember this is coming from someone who got "lectured" for using the word butt. I should have used the word tushy. Sometimes you can't win.

I would have to quit a job that required me to use the word "tushy."

[itsheresomewhere]

I would have to quit a job that required me to use the word "tushy."

 

I no longer volunteer my time with them and I was very clear why.  My close friends referred to it as tushygate :lol: .  

[bolt.]

Since these are young children, I expect they will grow up thinking that the "PC" term is perfectly clear and normal language. There's no reason to avoid teaching them courtesy, sensitivity and good manners at a young age. If they can say "marshmallow" they can say anything (* except, possibly, rexacoricafalipatorious... )

[JFSinIL]

If you shared what the word or phrases were that the powers that be deemed insufficiently P.C. , then maybe we could chime in in a more informed manner.

[bettyandbob]

If the word is butt, that's where claiming to be pc is over the top. Or at least there's a line for me. I use "butt" all the time in my swim class to explain what muscle you use when flutter kicking. I suppose I could be told to use "glutious maximus", but then I'd have to say "butt" to explain to a 7 year old what I was saying. The less syllables I say the more swimming we do. 

 

No one will tell me to say "tushy". 

[abba12]

I agree PC terms are out of control. I have been called 'visually challenged' more than once. I'm sorry, but a 'challenge' indicates something which is harder for me, but fully overcome-able. Sure, I can work around my lack of vision and 'overcome' it that way, but no amount of trying is going to make my vision better. I can overcome it through adjustments and skills, but it will never be a non-issue. A child with learning challenges can still learn, and even excel in learning, it's just harder, i.e. more challenging, for them. They can beat the challenges and reach a point, like my sister, where the extra challenge is a non-issue. They can generally learn everything others can, with extra work/perseverance/tools, and reach a full potential in learning. I will never reach a point where I don't need extra or different things/skills to overcome my vision. I will never gain the full potential of sight, or even make it better. So I actually find the term offensive and inaccurate, and refuse to use it. I've also been known to let certain closer friends know exactly what I think of their new politically correct terminology. I am visually impaired. Legally blind if you prefer. I am not 'challenged' because it is impossible for me to overcome the challenge, all I can do is work around it and cater to it. Some consider this in itself overcoming. I do not.

 

Having said that, we really need to know what specific terms they are taking issue with. Some are there for a reason. 

[ChristineP]

I think more information is needed if you really want advice about this.  It is too difficult to determine alone.

[KungFuPanda]

You'll have to tell us the language or we'll imagine all sorts of racist or bigoted things.

[Guest submarines]

You'll have to tell us the language or we'll imagine all sorts of racist or bigoted things.

 

:lol: yes.

[Mandylubug]

It was cupcakes. She was supposed to say individually portioned cakes....

[Guest submarines]

It was cupcakes. She was supposed to say individually portioned cakes....

 

As not to offend the cups.

[Um_2_4]

WARNINGS Folks! Warnings! Some of us are eating dinner on the west coast and don't like food on our keyboards! :lol:

 

 

It was cupcakes. She was supposed to say individually portioned cakes....

 

[Ravin]

I'm with others that said givng an opinion would be easier if we knew what the specific language was.

[KungFuPanda]

WARNINGS Folks! Warnings! Some of us are eating dinner on the west coast and don't like food on our keyboards! :lol:

Great. I officially served dinner later than someone on the west coast. #slackermom

[Word Nerd]

The OP is too vague. How would any of us know if you're making a mountain out of a molehill? We don't know anything about the size of the hill except that it's tall enough you to need to be talked down from it. ;)

[Forget-Me-Not]

If you can say it in a church or a kindergarten, why can't you say it here?

[hillfarm]

I committed the unpardonable sin of referring to a bow and arrow as a weapon. The youngest child involved was 10yo.

[Chelli]

I committed the unpardonable sin of referring to a bow and arrow as a weapon. The youngest child involved was 10yo.

 

What was the acceptable terminology?

 

Useful Hunting or Killing Implement

[*Lulu*]

That doesn't seem like PC......

 

That seems like some serious BS!

 

Or, to quote my 7 yo...

 

"What the what?!?!"

[coffeegal]

I committed the unpardonable sin of referring to a bow and arrow as a weapon. The youngest child involved was 10yo.

 

:svengo:        

[Miss Peregrine]

I committed the unpardonable sin of referring to a bow and arrow as a weapon. The youngest child involved was 10yo.

Seriously? Wow. I would be supremely annoyed.

[shinyhappypeople]

But, but, but...... a bow and arrow IS a weapon.  What were you supposed to call it?

[coffeegal]

 

What do you all think? How far is too far when it comes to political correctness? How do we decide just how far to bend? I don't know whether compromise on my part would equal backing down from my principles or would equal setting my preferences aside and being a good team player. Help!!!

 

Personally, I think it's going too far to deny that a bow and arrow is also a weapon. :ph34r:

[Mandylubug]

Wow. Speechless.

[Joanne]

OK. I have to say that I typically ***hate*** "the US is too PC and it's all silly" posts. I assume they are made by people who are white, middle class, and not impacted by actual hate speech. The people who talk about "reverse racism". @@

So, from THAT perspective, not being able to call a bow and arrow a weapon is ridiculous and silly.

 

It's sure a weapon in my next husband's hands (Daryl ;)).

[zoobie]

I committed the unpardonable sin of referring to a bow and arrow as a weapon. The youngest child involved was 10yo.

It *is* a weapon. What difference would age make? What should you have called it? Weapon isn't a bad word. The person who freaked out on you is mental. I don't know that I would resign over it unless you regularly have to deal with this loon and the "calling to the carpet" was done in an unprofessional/rude manner.

 

ETA: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/76056/bow-and-arrow

 

bow and arrow, a weapon consisting of a stave made of wood or other elastic material, bent and held in tension by a string. The arrow, a thin wooden shaft with a feathered tail, is fitted to the string by a notch in the end of the shaft and is drawn back until sufficient tension is produced in the bow so that when released it will propel the arrow. Arrowheads have been made of shaped flint, stone, metal, and other hard materials.

[El...]

What should you call it?  "Equipment"?  "Hunting implements"?  I don't know what I'd call the unit of both items except "bow and arrow" or "weapon". 

 

Also, the kids can be exposed to the thing but not its name and purpose?  What's up with that?  Weird.

 

The NRA wants its instructors to use the term "gun" instead of "weapon", I think for liability reasons.  "Weapon" sounded too hostile to them.  (I took a class once to be an instructor.)

[bolt.]

NOTE: this post is not as accurate or confident as it sounds. Please see my self-correction later in the thread. Not all organizations in all countries are under the rules I mention below. This post, and my following posts are left intact so everyone can see "what I really said" (sorry).

 

---

 

If this is a officially sanctioned youth organization of any kind, it is against more than one set of international laws/treaties for youth to recieve any kind of weapons training.

 

I'm sorry to say that this is a VERY beig deal.

 

It is a big deal at the level of the United Nations.

 

I believe country can be suspended from membership for nationally sanctioning an organization that appears to provide weapons training to minors.

 

The laws against child soldiers apply to everyone, no matter how senseless they seem in a civilized nation.

 

If you are teaching archery for sportsmanship, a bow and arrow is not a weapon. It's only a weapon if you are providing training for combat. I'm sorry -- I get that it hits us in a blind spot, because child soldiers are such s foreign concept to us, and it's so clearly not what you are doing... But, yeah, that's not an insurance concern. It's a very sensitive issue if international import.

 

If your org wants to be disbanded and suppressed by your gov't they can continue to allow the casual use of the word weapon -- because that's what would "rightly" happen if it was "real" weapons training for minors (child soldiers). I expect they have been warned at that level (but I expect very few people know why it matters).

[Ravin]

The definition of weapon implies it's use against people. So yeah, don't call it a weapon. A bow and arrow can be used as a weapon, but isn't one necessarily. Much like a baseball bat.

[KungFuPanda]

The fact that someone isn't using a bow and arrow, or a rifle, or a bo staff to inflict or threaten bodily harm doesn't mean that the instrument is no longer considered a weapon. It seems there is a greater risk of injury if you neglect to follow safety precautions for weaponry. I fail to see how shuffling the terminology has ever prevented the training of a single child soldier.

[Word Nerd]

I agree that it's worthy of an eyeroll, and I understand being upset over getting called on the carpet over a technicality. I'm not sure I get what's so annoying about bow and arrow, though. That's the weapon's actual name, after all--not simply a PC term or flowery language. How is using that term not using plain English? Or did they make up a new term?

[Cinder]

I committed the unpardonable sin of referring to a bow and arrow as a weapon. The youngest child involved was 10yo.

 

:confused1:  They're just downright ridiculous.

[elegantlion]

I committed the unpardonable sin of referring to a bow and arrow as a weapon. The youngest child involved was 10yo.

 

A target shooter? A Robin Hooder? An Oliver Queen? I get the idea of "weapons training" being a big deal, but what the heck is it? 

 

 

 

It's sure a weapon in my next husband's hands (Daryl ;)).

 

Then we shall hopefully meet, as I stalk help Rick and give him a shoulder to cry upon. 

[KungFuPanda]

The definition of weapon implies it's use against people. So yeah, don't call it a weapon. A bow and arrow can be used as a weapon, but isn't one necessarily. Much like a baseball bat.

I'd argue that an object becomes a weapon in its design phase. A baseball bat or kitchen knife was not designed to be a weapon, a bow and arrow was. Using it exclusively for target practice doesn't make it not a weapon.

[KungFuPanda]

I committed the unpardonable sin of referring to a bow and arrow as a weapon. The youngest child involved was 10yo.

Wait, we need details. If the bow is some PVC pipe and yarn construction and the arrows are giant q-tips, then it's no more a weapon than a dodge ball. However, if it's a real bow and arrow that is well-designed enough it actually aim at, hit, and pierce man, beast, or straw target then you definitely have a weapon on your hands.

[Lara in Colo]

I think NOT calling it a weapon is irresponsible.  It can really hurt someone/thing.  It was designed to kill (animals mostly) and it does it well.  That's like saying prescription drugs aren't drugs.  They are and can be just as addicting and dangerous as non prescription.

[Jean in Newcastle]

To go back to your original question now that we know the situation, I'd say that it would be something that I would leave over.  I don't see this as just a PC question or a semantics situation but one that makes a real difference in how the kids learn to treat their gear safely - by recognizing that it is a weapon even if used recreationally.

[Hannah]

So what were you supposed to say?  This is a bow and arrow that can seriously injure someone if used irresponsibly?? 

But please don't call it a weapon.

[Cammie]

Just guessing here...but I would think that perhaps some lawyer or insurance person has informed the group that "weapons" training is not allowed under their insurance policy.  However, training in the use of a bow and arrow has been determined by those same people as not a liability issue.

 

I did some quick research and saw that the boy scouts do offer "weapons training" as do many kids' martial arts studios around the country so while I originally agreed with bolt.'s statement it certainly seems that regardless of international law there is plenty of "weapons training" going on in the US.

 

Just a case of semantics...not really a case of "PC language" run amok IMHO.

[Seasider]

As far as what you call it - tool, implement, whatever-not-weapon - I believe it is the intent of use which truly defines the object. Dithering over what to call it is, to me, a futile exercise. I think it's important to consider no offensive language when referring to people, but if we are going to have to start policing ourselves for special words to refer to everyday objects, that's (again, TO ME) a massive waste of energy.

 

I'm not certain it's the PC language itself that would concern me, though. I'd be asking if the banning of the word "weapon" were a precursor to the eventual elimination of youth shooting sports of all types. (And my mind wanders to the second amendment and how this line of thought bumps up against that...)

[Seasider]

Hillfarm, to more pointedly answer your question, I wouldn't know whether or not this were something to leave over until I received a full explanation of the reason why the word "weapon" can't be used. The two possibilities mentioned thus far in this thread, if either is the reason, would have different outcomes for me were I in your shoes.

[nevergiveup]

You could have some fun with it:

 

"And here we have a bow and arrow, which some (not you, of course) would consider a weapon but we like to call it a tool which shoots sharp projectiles."  Or insert the term they want you to call it.