Political correctness is a fairy tale

I once read a book of politically correct fairy tales.

Actually I just now found a site that sells the volume on line. The author is James Finn Garner and the title of the book is Politically Correct Bedtime Stories. I know I have the right one because I remember the cover, however I don't remember all of the stories. If I am borrowing from Mr. Garner, I hereby give him credit.

I do think he updated Little Red Riding Hood, being careful not to call the wolf “bad” or any other derogatory names even though it intended to eat a little girl who was clearly on a humanitarian mission. I believe he decided further that he couldn't even call the animal “wolf” as that word has meanings other than that of a big gray carnivorous animal that lives in the forest.

I think he upgraded The Three Little Pigs also, being careful not to cast aspersions on their size or their eating habits.

The Three Bears was probably one of the stories Mr. Garner retold, but Goldilocks already had herself firmly planted in her politically correct feminist role, not being afraid to fight against the establishment for what she thought she deserved.

Mr. Garner's goal in retelling the stories seems to have been to point out that we, whoever we is (and I hope I don't qualify), have gone a bit overboard in our quest to be sensitive above all else—even forsaking clarity in the process. Perhaps that is why the legislation coming out of Washington lately is incomprehensible and over-inflated, as is most of the rhetoric also.

To illustrate my point, consider this example: The Chronologically Advanced Female Person Who Lived in an Unlikely Dwelling for the Extremely Monetarily Challenged. One has to think much harder to decipher the intended meanings, and really The Old Lady Who Lived in a Shoe is a lot fewer words. I don't even want to think about politically cleaning up the part about she had so many children she didn't know what to do, or what she gave them for supper, not to mention the spankings.

The Duckling That Was Judged on Its Physical Appearance Instead of its Personal Merits is another case in point. Perhaps you can amuse yourself with your own corrected versions of well-known tales. Maybe try fixing Rapunzel.

I would like to point out that no matter what an object is called, it still retains its latent characteristics. Whether you call a dwarf a “dwarf” or a “little person,” he remains the same in height, weight and person. Changing his name does not change him and therefore the label he is given sooner or later acquires the same meaning as the original object and is again no kinder or fairer that the original label. It is usually longer, fuzzier and harder to remember though.

Whether you label someone “lazy” or “motivationally challenged,” it means the same thing, so why not stick with something that is shorter to type?

I wish to point out also, that no matter how many ways you don't keep score at a soccer game, you will have to change the game if there are to be no losers. Maybe everyone could show up at the field (which could be much smaller) with their own ball and then just kick it all the way home. There would be no winners and no losers. There would be no goalies and no forwards. Everyone would feel good, and just think of the fun everyone would have.

There is one bedtime story that I don't remember our author rewriting. Perhaps the reason is that The Grasshopper and the Ants already is flush with liberal correctness and doesn't need much unimprovement.