OPINION: "PC gone mad" avoids the real issue

SERIOUS ISSUE: Critics of ex-CERA boss Roger Sutton were dismissed as being "PC" and "too sensitive" when discussing his alleged inappropriate behaviour towards female staff.

Political correctness is a term I often see bandied about -- particularly on social media and "below the line" comments on news articles. Usually whenever issues of racism, sexism and other inequalities are raised.

Merriam-Webster defines political correctness as "conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated".

However, the term was first associated with the Stalinist regime. 'Politically correct' was used disparagingly to describe those whose loyalty to the Communist Party overrode compassion and judgement.

In the 1990s, it was adopted by US conservatives to criticise left-wing policies of affirmative action. These days, it seems to have evolved into a slur against those involved in protecting disenfranchised groups from abuse, prejudice, exclusion or misappropriation.

There are many who try to encourage respect, equality and social justice by promoting celebration of marginalised cultures (such as protecting te reo in New Zealand), gender-inclusive language, diverse workplaces and fair portrayals of minority groups in media. But there are just as many times the phrase 'PC gone mad' rears its ugly head.

For example, the cartoon in the Christchurch Press, depicting Maori parents helping themselves to Breakfast in Schools so they could 'save money for the pokies'. Or alcohol advertisements depicting transgender women as deceitful to men. Or comedy which trivialises rape and abuse.

Cruel, lazy attempts at laughs at groups already over represented in poor health, suicide and violence statistics. But to oppose is labelled humourless, uptight and oversensitive.

Critics have argued those who use the term do so to divert discussion away from societal discrimination.

One example was reaction to CERA chief Roger Sutton, who resigned following allegations of inappropriate behaviour toward female staff. Sutton's critics were dismissed as "precious" and "over-reactive". It was just a bit of friendly banter between colleagues; nothing to see here!

What needed to happen was a serious discussion about sexual harassment and power imbalances in the workplace. But this discussion was derailed and silenced by the mass cries of "too sensitive", "easily offended" and "PC gone mad".

I understand some feel their freedom of expression and enjoyment of certain media are being policed. But is it really such a chore to think critically about the media we consume, and the stereotypes it perpetuates?

Does a businessman's right to 'friendly banter' trump his staff's right to feel safe at work? Is it really so wrong to value charity, tolerance and respect over the 'freedom' to laugh at someone's expense?

I'm the sort of person who speaks out against cultural microaggressions - dole-bludging stereotypes, cultures reduced to Halloween costumes, billboards mocking LGBT people, rape jokes. Because all they do is ensure inequality is accepted and normalised, and the gulf between 'us' and 'them' widens further.

And if that makes me politically correct, so be it.