/
    You’re viewing the Guardian’s new website. We’d love to hear what you think.
    Skip to main content
    Advertisement

    'PC culture' isn't about your freedom of speech. It's about our freedom to be offended

    Jessica Valenti
    Jessica Valenti
    If the worst thing ‘PCness’ does is make people occasionally feel uncomfortable when they do and say terrible things, we can all live with that
    angry man
    God forbid no one care that your feelings were hurt by a woman calling you a sexist after you called her a bitch. Photograph: Bill Varie/Corbis
    When a writer like New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait feels it necessary to whine in print about his and other (mostly well-remunerated) writers’ inability to write offensive tripe without consequence, I think: Boo-fucking-hoo. Get a real problem.
    A man in the UK tried to kill three women because he was a virgin and thought of them “as a more weaker part of the human breed”. Another man who gave a thumbs up to the camera as he sexually assaulted Canadian teen Rehteah Parson – who later killed herself – was given probation. And here in the US, Republicans tried to pass a 20-week abortion ban that would only allow for rape and incest victims to access abortion services if they had first reported the crimes to police. And that’s just this month, and just about women, off the top of my head.
    It is in that environment that Chait wants us to take seriously and without any offense his weighty, serious mind-baubles on everything from race relations to his frustration that rape laws are supposedly too strict and now his hand-wringing over imaginary affronts to white liberal men’s ability to speak freely (by which he means “without women or people of color getting mad at him”). Feminism might be dominating many conversations, but sexism is still horrific and, while there is a good conversation to be had over how ideological one-upmanship and “call out culture” impacts rigorous debate, that is not the conversation Chait is starting.
    Chait conflates real incursions on speech – a University of Michigan student who was harassed and intimidated after he published what was seen as an offensive newspaper column, for example – and simple forms of activism like signing a petition to keep a speaker off campus. Most of the acts that Chait says are “perverting liberalism” are acts of free speech themselves: discussions of racial microaggressions, hashtag campaigns, and even complaints from women of color about racism on a Facebook group. It seems the only kind of speech Chait thinks should be “free” is the kind he agrees with.
    He also paints proponents of this “PCness” as hysterical over-reactors while simultaneously misrepresenting and hyping up his own examples of free speech supposedly under attack. (It would be ironic if it wasn’t so intellectually dishonest.) Chait, for example, cites #RIPpatriarchy as a hashtag created by kneejerk feminists in response to Hanna Rosin’s book to “lampoon her thesis.” In fact, the hashtag was directly responsive to an excerpt of her book on Slate entitled, “The Patriarchy is Dead: Feminists, accept it” – she rhetorically killed it off, so the lampooners mourned its death.
    Advertisement
    Rosin – an author, writer at The Atlantic, and a host of one of Slate’s popular GabFest podcasts who has appeared The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and given a TED Talk – told Chait for his article, “The price is too high; you feel like there might be banishment waiting for you.” If only everyone using hashtags to make fun of her had access to such banishment!
    Chait’s real problem, it seems, is that he doesn’t understand why his privilege – or anyone else’s – should impact how people perceive what he says. “Under p.c. culture, the same idea can be expressed identically by two people but received differently depending on the race and sex of the individuals doing the expressing,” he writes.
    Well, yes! Context matters, and it’s no secret that a man using a word like “cunt”, for example, often has a completely different resonance than when a woman uses it. His willful ignorance about why he (a white, hetero, cisgender man) might not be able to use all the words or claim authority on every single topic is also why his, er, mansplanation of “mansplaining” – “all-purpose term of abuse that can be used to discredit any argument by any man” – falls flatter than his argument that it would be more equitable for women to live in squalor than demand that their husbands do a fair share of the housework.
    If the worst thing that Chait’s version of “PCness” has wrought is that folks occasionally feel uncomfortable when they do and say terrible things, I can live with that and he should, too.
    We are finally approaching a critical mass of interest in ending racism, misogyny and transphobia and the ways they are ingrained into our institutions. Instead of rolling our eyes at the intensity of the feelings people have over these issues, we should be grateful that they care so much, because racism, misogyny and transphobia can and do kill people. If the price we all pay for progress for the less privileged is that someone who is more privileged gets their feelings hurt sometimes – or that they might have to think twice before opening their mouths or putting their fingers to keyboards – that’s a small damn price to pay. That’s not stopping free speech; it’s making our speech better.

    comments (473)

    Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
    This discussion is closed for comments.
    We’re doing some maintenance right now. You can still read comments, but please come back later to add your own.
    Commenting has been disabled for this account (why?)
    1 2 3 4 6 next
    Loading comments… Trouble loading?
    • 75 76
      I liked the NY Mag piece, especially:
      It also makes money. Every media company knows that stories about race and gender bias draw huge audiences, making identity politics a reliable profit center in a media industry beset by insecurity.
      Sounds familiar. No wonder JV felt compelled to make a rebuttal.
      PS: the new layout of CiF is horrible.
      Reply |
    • 58 59
      When a writer like New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait feels it necessary to whine in print about his and other (mostly well-remunerated) writers’ inability to write offensive tripe without consequence, I think: Boo-fucking-hoo. Get a real problem.
      Ah, so whataboutery / fallacy of relative privation, in other words. God knows how you'd react if someone did it to your opinions.
      Chait conflates real incursions on speech – a University of Michigan student who was harassed and intimidated after he published what was seen as an offensive newspaper column, for example – and simple forms of activism like signing a petition to keep a speaker off campus.
      What's the difference? The means may be different, sure - the intent is the same. The issue is that accusations of hate speech, be it misogyny, racism etc, regularly *are* used as justification to no-platform people offline and remove speech posted online.
      Given how shaky some of those accusations are, it's unsurprising people conclude you're being censorious.
      The other side of this is (particularly online) when you delete the offending speech you also conveniently delete the evidence relating to the accusation of hate speech you made against the person in the first place.
      his, er, mansplanation of “mansplaining” – “all-purpose term of abuse that can be used to discredit any argument by any man”
      Unless you're claiming that there are no incorrect uses of the term "mansplaining", then this may well be him speaking from experience.
      You know, the entire rationale "mansplaining" is based on - subjective experience and buggerall else.
      If the worst thing that Chait’s version “PCness” has wrought is that folks occasionally feel uncomfortable when they do and say terrible things, I can live with that and he should, too.
      Except that isn't the worst thing he thinks is happening - and this is patently obvious to anyone who's read his article.
      And again, who's deciding what's so "terrible" they should be no-platformed? Who's going to be the one who decides that for everyone, Jessica? You? Heaven forbid.
      Reply |
      • 36 37
        “Under p.c. culture, the same idea can be expressed identically by two people but received differently depending on the race and sex of the individuals doing the expressing,” he writes.
        Well, yes! Context matters,
        Love this. There is never an enlightenment around when you need one.
        Next week on why men are lighter than ducks because they are made of wood. So we should burn them.
        Reply |
    • 8 9
      I agree with Jessica's basic point that enforcing political correctness as a means of preventing heinous acts of violence is the lessor of several evils. but comparing the Republicans abortion legislation homicidal maniacs?? come on that is going too far
      Reply |
    • 21 22
      The problem with Chait's piece is that it was a mess, and so is this one. Attempting to stop a speaker on campus who has views with which you disagree cannot be dismissed as "simple activism." It is about whether or not someone should be afforded a platform and the right to exchange views the students do not want to hear--which the students in question understand perfectly well.
      Chait conflated a number of trends under the umbrella of "PC" and then proceeded to smash his wrongly constructed edifice, and you are performing the action in reverse by dismissing all complaints about these trends as the tired complaints of a white man. The fact that the issues are real does not render all responses to them valid.
      Far more thoughtful and interesting pieces have been written about the desire to protect oneself from anything potentially offensive or triggering. Using Chait's lazy journalism as an excuse to dismiss the argument is its own form of laziness.
      Reply |
      • 2 3
        His position that identity tantrums are somehow of the left rather than an internecine squabble amongst privileged bourgeois fractions was a little odd.
        The idea that a movement born in academia, propagated through the bourgeois media and ultimately policed through the perceived self-interest of PLCs is somehow associated with the left is absurd.
        Reply |
    • 20 21
      <It seems the only kind of speech Chait thinks should be “free” is the kind he agrees with..> Tu quoque. Is that not also the central argument here that ends with 'That's not stopping free speech, that's making free speech better'.
      Reply |
    • 27 28
      Universities should be bastions of free speech. No platform policies should be reserved for true racists that advocate violence and hatred. Last week, there was a campaign to get Germaine Greer, Germaine Greer, dis-invited from the Cambridge Union (debating) Society. They weren't successful on this occasion, but they have been in many other similar instances. The idiots are winning and we should fight them all the way.
      Reply |
      • 2 3
        Free speech is free speech. If college students are worthy of admission, they also should be free to dismiss the advocacy of someone who incites violence.
        To understand Nazism or Stalin-ism, one must be free to watch their videos and read their speeches. If you do not even know what they actually said but go by only what textbooks and the media convey, you cannot comprehend what happened. If you do not comprehend what really occurred, you will not recognize the next "ism" that uses the same tactics and emotional triggers.
        Reply |
      • 1 2
        I differ. These "idiots" aren't winning. Rather they have shielded themselves from having to make an argument for their views and as such haven't developed those skills.
        When they enter a world beyond their PC bubble they will not be equipped to handle ideological differences. In a nut she'll they will be dismissed as oddities.
        Not much future in that.
        Reply |
    • 26 27
      That’s not stopping free speech; it’s making our speech better.
      If you are stopping someone from saying what they want to say for fear of causing offence then you are stopping free speech. It may well be that this is a lesser of 2 evils (although I'm not so sure), but please, at least have the intellectual honesty not to pretend that what you are asking for does not impinge on freedom of speech - by definition, that's exactly what you're doing.
      Reply |
    • 65 66
      "Mansplaining" is a disgustingly sexist word. Anyone using it should be ashamed.
      Reply |
    • 37 38
      "When a writer like New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait feels it necessary to whine in print about his and other (mostly well-remunerated) writers’ inability to write offensive tripe without consequence, I think: Boo-fucking-hoo. Get a real problem."
      We just had this freedom of speech thing here because some nasty chaps in Paris share your views. In the UK we tend to take free speech fairly seriously because we also had to deal with this Hitler chap for six years. I'm appalled that you can write that, but I will defend you're right to make a fool of yourself. Just cut to the chase next time:
      "When people talk about their fundamental rights and what makes them people. I just think, boo-hoo, like, I can't get paid for being controversial about that".
      Reply |
      • 5 6
        We just had this freedom of speech thing here because some nasty chaps in Paris share your views. In the UK we tend to take free speech fairly seriously because we also had to deal with this Hitler chap for six years. I'm appalled that you can write that, but I will defend you're right to make a fool of yourself.
        Think you might be overreacting just a tad there, mate.
        Reply |
      • 18 19
        I don't really think it is, the principle is crucial. Speech is either free or not, but to hear it dismissed so casually sends a shudder down my spine.
        Once the principle is contravened its force is lost. Next time someone might claim: 'for national security reasons, one cannot say X'. And when the uproar begins the excuse will be 'But we already limit speech in such and such a way, so this new piece of censorship is fine' and so on and so on. Similarly, the idea of deciding who can and cannot say something based on their 'privilege' is not just absurd, but flies in the face of what is best about our society. We are equal before the law and our peers - there are many reminders around this week as to what happens when we lose sight of that.
        Reply |
      • 11 12
        "Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from criticism".
        Reply |
    • 54 55
      "His willful ignorance about why he (a white, hetero, cisgender man) might not be able to use all the words"
      I'm also white, hetero, cisgendered man, i was unaware i should have restricted access to all the words, could some one send me a vocabulary list i can work from please?
      Reply |
      • 42 43
        I'm also white, hetero, cisgendered man, i was unaware i should have restricted access to all the words, could some one send me a vocabulary list i can work from please?
        Of course not, that's not how it works. As a white, hetero, cisgendered man anything at all you say that doesn't meet with the fleeting approval of the assembled twitterati and tumblrati (including those who have columns in newspapers) is bound to be banned. And just because you've said something once and not been hounded for it, don't assume that you can say the same thing without criticism.
        I think we've already established from ATL that even quoting someone's own words back to them is only allowable if you have the appropriate position in the SJW food chain.
        Reply |
      • 9 10
        Here's a hint: I'm gay - if I call myself a 'faggot' ironically (not that I ever would) then most people would understand that I'm not really launching a homophobic attack on myself - if you called it to me then I think it's fair enough that I might get a bit upset by it.
        I'm 35 and have managed to go my entire life without calling anyone the N word, despite having heard it said many times in rap music.
        It's not a perfect situation, but surely you can understand that context matters?
        Reply |
      • 2 3
        It's racist, sexist etc. inequality. Words don't attack, they insult but they cannot cause physical harm unless used for incitement which is a criminal offence in itself.
        Reply |
    • This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
    • 65 66
      Boo-fucking hoo. Get a real problem.
      Like people assuming you'll help out wrapping Christmas gifts.
      Reply |
    • 39 40
      If the price we all pay for progress for the less privileged is that someone who is more privileged gets their feelings hurt sometimes – or that they might have to think twice before opening their mouths or putting their fingers to keyboards – that’s a small damn price to pay. That’s not stopping free speech; it’s making our speech better.
      This discloses the core premise underlying p.c. culture: our society can be easily divided between "more privileged" and "less privileged" people. This division turns on race, gender, and sexuality--economic class is, as always, blissfully absent. White, heterosexual men are "privileged," and therefore their ideas are de facto invalid, and should be rapidly dismissed as a mere reflection of the speaker's inevitable privilege. People who are not white, heterosexual men have varying degrees of non-privilege (even if they, say, have a nearly daily audience of their views in an international newspaper). Such people can rely on the de facto validity of their ideas, so long as they remain confined to their particular basis for "non-privilege" (i.e. a white woman like Valenti is generally safe talking about gender issues, but talks about racism at risk that her ideas will be dismissed as a product of her "white privilege").
      Chait’s real problem, it seems, is that he doesn’t understand why his privilege – or anyone else’s – should impact how people perceive what he says. “Under p.c. culture, the same idea can be expressed identically by two people but received differently depending on the race and sex of the individuals doing the expressing,” he writes.
      Well, yes!
      Call me a cranky rationalist, but ideas do not gain or lose validity depending on who articulates them. If an argument is right, it is right whoever says it.
      Reply |
      • 7 8
        Sorry, but let me warn you now, you will have no position in Valenti world with that belief.
        Reply |
      • 6 7
        I find it interesting that no acknowledgement is given to groups of white men who were until relativly recently second class citizens. Take a wealthy land owner from the 1800's if they were female they were a lot more privaleged than some working class man from the East End. Almost any middle class woman was in a far more privaleged possition than the poor, then there are groups of the white population who were treated as not much better than animals. It was not too long ago that people thought it was accptable to put signs in their windows; 'No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish'.
        Reply |
    • 44 45
      Priviledge, mansplaining, microagressions? Did I click the wrong link and end up on Tumblr?
      Reply |
    • 16 17
      Oh god the official handover day to the new layout guardian has happened. There's no going back to something that doesn't burn my eyeballs out.
      Reply |
    • This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
    • 23 24
      His willful ignorance about why he (a white, hetero, cisgender man) might not be able to use all the words or claim authority on every single topic is also why his, er, mansplanation of “mansplaining” – “all-purpose term of abuse that can be used to discredit any argument by any man” – falls flatter than his argument than it would be more equitable for women to live in squalor than demand that their husbands do a fair share of the housework.
      This idea - that there are large areas of social knowledge that are in principle inaccessible to men, perhaps even men who have been enlightened by the gender feminism movement - is interesting.
      Can Jessica come up with any examples of things that are in principle beyond the reach of female epistemology? Or do women understand and have the final, authoritative say on everything? Just wondering...
      Reply |
      • 19 20
        Well, I think her gender is all she has to make her righteous, seeing as how otherwise she's just another member of the white privileged class.
        Reply |
      • 3 4
        This idea - that there are large areas of social knowledge that are in principle inaccessible to men, perhaps even men who have been enlightened by the gender feminism movement - is interesting.
        Can Jessica come up with any examples of things that are in principle beyond the reach of female epistemology? Or do women understand and have the final, authoritative say on everything? Just wondering...
        I think it's a sign of how supportive the large body of men are of feminism. Feminists like Valenti have been allowed a large degree of latitude and the benefit of the doubt when they make assertions that are either unproven, unprovable or in fact just complete horseshit.
        I think it's part of the reason feminists see so little 'progress', the lack of quality control on so many feminist pundits mean they end up floating ideas so unworkable, so divorced from reality, that they should actually be embarrassed to have voiced them. It's kind of like when your kid tells you they're a dinosaur and you just chuckle and agree with them.
        Reply |
      • 1 2
        .sugar,spice,snakes,snails, puppy dogs' tails....
        Reply |
    • 31 32
      "His willful ignorance about why he (a white, hetero, cisgender man) might not be able to use all the words "
      What;s this?
      Because I am white, hetero, cisgender and male (non of which are choices on my part) there are certain words I am not allowed to use?
      Reply |
    • 33 34
      I think: Boo-fucking-hoo. Get a real problem

      Like who should warps the Christmas presents?
      Reply |
    • 48 49
      Boo-fucking-hoo. Get a real problem.
      You really do dumb this place down. You can't even compose an introductory paragraph without using foul language.
      Reply |
    • This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
    • This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
    • 19 20
      Chait and Valenti are two sides of the same coin.
      They'd be bloody lost without each other.
      Reply |
    • 0 1
      I agree wholeheartedly. I think.
      Reply |
    • 27 28
      It seems the only kind of speech Chait thinks should be “free” is the kind he agrees with.
      And yet that is precisely the argument JV puts forward as a rebuttal. Hypocrisy.
      Reply |
    1 2 3 4 6 next
    1. Popular in comment is free
    2. Popular across the guardian
    Advertisement
    SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
    SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
    desktop
    0%
    10%
    20%
    30%
    40%
    50%
    60%
    70%
    80%
    90%
    100%