Political Correctness and Halloween Costumes

[James Joseph Emerald]

Right, the woman in this case is not being objectified. Nurses are. The sexual object (in this case the nurse aspect of the costume) exists solely to enhance the sexiness of the woman. This is not the explicit objectification of women or of the woman wearing the costume. It is explicit objectification of nurses.

This is a silly argument for several reasons.

For one, I know several nurses and of all the things they complain about (having to dispose of maggot-ridden bloody sheets, taking abuse from doctors and patients, etc) having their profession demeaned by Halloween costumes is pretty low on most of their lists; it comes nowhere near the crushing anxiety of trying to live in a society that secretly thinks of you as akin to a monster.

Second of all, sexualising something does not objectify it. Neither does enhancing its sexiness. You're not stripping a nurse of her agency by implying she is sexy. As for abstracting out the 'concept' of being a nurse and treating that as some sort of sexual object... you're really really stretching. That is some major logical acrobatics.

Thirdly, I feel you should look up 'explicit' and 'implicit' in the dictionary, because labelling an outfit "sexy nurse" does not make any sort of explicit declaration about nurses in general. Taking an evil murderer costume and labelling it "mental patient", however is an explicit (literal) labelling of mental patients.

Fourthly, what does this even have to do with anything? You just seem like you're trying to be a smartass and catch me out on some minor linguistic inaccuracy. What exactly is your point?

 

[ForumSafari]

Well, that remains to be seen. We can't really assume one way or the other.

It's pretty safe to assume in this case that no one who is familiar with British culture and mores touched that packaging before it reached people that couldn't do anything about it. Without being too insensitive this is obviously a Google translate job, probably a neatening of an initial translation by someone who speaks English as a second language and never in a country where it's sued as a primary language. Realistically no one familiar with our culture would take this kind of risk because let me assure you this isn't a cheap mistake, in fact the reason individual managers won't have recalled these from sale is that the money their store would lose both on not selling these lines and the backhaul and year-long storage or the transnational return would be enough to get them in some serious hot water. They would potentially lose their job. In England. In a recession.

This is incidentally why so many apparently stupid things happen like obviously inappropriate things being sold and OAPs being carded for alcohol; it's all very well for someone to demand that people use their own initiative but it's a different matter when it's you making the choice and your job, the thing that feeds you and your children, is on the line.

What annoys me -- and is the real reason I made this thread -- is that there are people who think apologising and pulling the costume is an unreasonable expectation. People who no doubt pay lip service to concepts like equality and cultural acceptance, but infuriatingly draw the line at showing decency to the very people who are probably the most vulnerable and unfairly treated of all.

This is a very valid point and realistically the idea of an apology is entirely what you'd expect them to do.

 

[FriendlyFyre]

OP, what I really see here is a desire not to be dismissed just because you found something offensive and potentially dehumanizing about this costume, and I think this is perfectly within both your right and others' empathy.

I don't find anything wrong with it, because in my mind it's ludicrous to believe the mentally ill are homicidal, but I do admit that specifically naming it a "mental patient" shows a lack of respect (or understanding) for actual patients.

Since this is such a small part though, it's also easy for me to see why others wouldn't see it as damaging, and this makes it hard to come to an understanding with each other because each of us is focusing on a separate part of the issue. Some would suggest that renaming it would solve all the problems logically, but I can see how the real issue isn't necessarily the costume, but the attitude that went into the costume.

And fixing an attitude is not an easy task, because how do we ever really know if we've fixed it? When costumes like this don't exist? Or when everyone agrees unanimously that it's not appropriate to sell this from a major outlet?

Even more so is the question of what happens if people are afraid to stretch boundaries because they may be branded insensitive or if we can't even have discussions of the matter because we are too worried about making people angry. For this reason I implore anyone who dismisses this to consider how this further divides us as a society merely because we are unable to take someone elses perspective on a matter they are concerned with.

And to the person who used the comparison to the "sexy nurse" costume, think about whether nurses themselves have sexual connotations, or if that's something that was added to them thanks to Halloween and their depictions in pop culture. It's not derogatory, but I think it may normalizes their sexualization to the point where we can't think of one image without the other, and that can be harmful to actual nurses.

 

[Something Amyss]

Voluntarily pulling a costume out of concern for people is not political correctness.

Or maybe it is.

Political Correctness has become a bogeyman that's trotted around when people want to rail against the concept of not being a dick.

Honestly, I'm not losing any sleep over the loss of this costume, though given costumes in general it's probably a touch hypocritical. It's voluntary by companies who should have every right to determine what they stock, however, and nobody complaining about political correctness is really any better or worse (inherently) than the people who criticised in the first place.

I am suddenly curious, however. Do people really see a "mental patient" and think "deranged killer?"

I grew up near a mental health facility, so maybe I just drank a different Kool-Aid, but I didn't think this was a thing. I swear to Mercury I didn't think this was really a thing. There's a stigma on mental health, but in my experience it pulls quite differently from this.

But that's off-topic a bit. To sum up: Retailers can stock what they want. People both for and against can criticise. Claims of political correctness are stupid and almost always not political correctness.

 

[ForumSafari]

I am suddenly curious, however. Do people really see a "mental patient" and think "deranged killer?"

I grew up near a mental health facility, so maybe I just drank a different Kool-Aid, but I didn't think this was a thing. I swear to Mercury I didn't think this was really a thing. There's a stigma on mental health, but in my experience it pulls quite differently from this.

Honestly I think not, I certainly don't nor did I as a child. People with mental health issues can be scary on occasion because some of them can be difficult to predict and that's pretty naturally scary but I don't think anyone really believes the stereotype.

 

[Brian Tams]

Damn. Guess I'm going to have to go with plan B: Stripper Hitler.

 

[DrOswald]

Right, the woman in this case is not being objectified. Nurses are. The sexual object (in this case the nurse aspect of the costume) exists solely to enhance the sexiness of the woman. This is not the explicit objectification of women or of the woman wearing the costume. It is explicit objectification of nurses.

This is a silly argument for several reasons.

For one, I know several nurses and of all the things they complain about (having to dispose of maggot-ridden bloody sheets, taking abuse from doctors and patients, etc) having their profession demeaned by Halloween costumes is pretty low on most of their lists; it comes nowhere near the crushing anxiety of trying to live in a society that secretly thinks of you as akin to a monster.

Second of all, sexualising something does not objectify it. Neither does enhancing its sexiness. You're not stripping a nurse of her agency by implying she is sexy. As for abstracting out the 'concept' of being a nurse and treating that as some sort of sexual object... you're really really stretching. That is some major logical acrobatics.

But you were the one who intially labeled a sexy nurse outfit as implicit objectification. Either sexualizing something can or cannot objectify. If it can implicitly objectify then it is just a matter of degree until it is explicit.

Thirdly, I feel you should look up 'explicit' and 'implicit' in the dictionary, because labelling an outfit "sexy nurse" does not make any sort of explicit declaration about nurses in general. Taking an evil murderer costume and labelling it "mental patient", however is an explicit (literal) labelling of mental patients.

Fourthly, what does this even have to do with anything? You just seem like you're trying to be a smartass and catch me out on some minor linguistic inaccuracy. What exactly is your point?

Whoa dude, calm down. I was just pointing out a small flaw in your argument. I was explaining how someone might find a sexy nurse costume offensive, a point which you dismissed based entirely on your opinion and personal definition of objectification. (and it is personal as there is no consensus on exactly what objectification is.)

The point made is that the giving and taking of offense is subjective, and I think it is a fair one. Just because your nurse friends don't find the slutty nurse trope offensive does not mean it objectively isn't. And just because you find the mental patient costume offensive does not mean it objectively is.

To be clear, I do not find sexy nurse costumes offensive. I also think the mental patient costume was in bad taste and it is a good thing it was removed. But there is no easy or clear answer to the issues you raised. And I don't think it is fair to say there is.

 

[Britisheagle]

I totally agree with you and I can't imagine that there would be many who would disagree. What I find really perplexing is how a modern, corporate, entity like ASDA, and Tesco and Aldi as well I guess, could make such a a crude mis-step in terms of product selection.

Then again, what if they'd titled the costume something like "psycho killer"? That would potentially have been a bit more nuanced.

The Tesco one was called that, it was the Asda one that caused the stir. But media in the UK likes to point fingers at Tesco because it is a big sterotrypically "evil" company.

 

[00slash00]

I thought this was going to be about how all costumes for women seem to be required to be overly sexual. That's something I wouldn't mind seeing go away. Or at the very least have an age limit for that shit. 12 year olds wearing naughty cop costumes is really fuckin creepy.

As for the actual topic...I don't know, I don't really consider it offensive because to be honest, I didn't even know this was a stereotype about mental patients. I mean if this is seriously offending a bunch of people then I'd say yes, it's a good idea to change it in some way (just changing the words would probably be enough because when I saw the picture, mental patient isn't what came to mind.

 

[Snotnarok]

You could call that thing anything and still sell it.
Zombie patient, crazy zombie patient, patient zero.
This whole censorship thing is just out of control and stupid, no matter what you say it will offend someone somehow.

 

[KeyMaster45]

Not to mention that merely having a 'costume' representing a certain group of people will dehumanise them:

It wasn't so long ago that this was an acceptable bit of fun, too.

Good lord I think the picture in that ad is far more terrifying than the mental patient outfit. Look at that inky monster from the realm of the elder gods, it's going to come and eat your toenails while you sleep. This really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, I just find the picture terrifying.

 

[Kanova]

It wasn't so long ago that this was an acceptable bit of fun, too.

That is kind of funny though. Its just a huge exaggeration that it is just funny.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Eh, just rename it and maybe remove the straightjacket if you want to be really careful. Problem solved.

Don't understand why people are going all "PC gone mad" on this. To be frank I think it's a great idea. Especially in the western culture when the mentally-ill gunman of the week is always a "terrorist that must be stopped with more security measures" and not a "mentally-ill person who was the victim of a shitty medical system".

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I see absolutely no problem with this.

It was a costume, based off of a common horror theme. Whoop-de-do.

I agree. It's a generic horror costume, nothing to get bent out of shape about.

Seriously guys this shit is getting out of hand . Maybe we should just cancel holloween this year , people are over sensitive about everything.

Yup, people will get up in arms about anything. There's far too much coddling and sensitivity these days.

This kind of reminds me of Is It Racist?-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1wKKK1SIJk. Watching the peoples reactions to the phrases makes me fear for the future.

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

I honestly can't even begin to pretend to care. If stuff like this really bothers you so much you need some prospective on what's important. Maybe it was poorly worded for a retailer but honestly it isn't a big deal, not worth pulling it really, just a case of political correctness that is important for shops with reputation to uphold. I wouldn't attack someone for dressing up as a mental patient. I would simply ask if they had nothing more original.

 

[grey_space]

Great... Another bunch of busybodies getting worked up over something that nobody in their right mind would care about.

Was...that a deliberate pun?

I myself think that the costume was rather unfortunately/stupidly named. But the chain retracted the line as soon as they could and apologised.

So fair enough I feel.

No real malice intended and we should all move on.

 

[jesse220]

I think that it should renamed at the least just out out of respect/decency, but having said that is this actually causing harm? Do you really think people will forever associate the mentally ill with with psychopathic killers just because of a name of a halloween costume they saw at the shops?

I'm not saying it's not wrong, which it is. I'm not saying there's no reason to be offended, which there is. What I am saying is that it's not so much a problem so much as it is a reflection that our vernacular hasn't quite quite caught up with our views. No sane person still views 'mentally ill' and 'bloodthirsty killer' as synonymous terms anymore.

 

[soren7550]

*Snipy*

Looks like that's not the only costume that's getting people's panties in a twist this year:
http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/walmart-yanks-scandalous-kids-costume-after-uproar-174050085.html