Political Correctness and Halloween Costumes

[soren7550]

Eh, I think it depends. I mean, from what I can tell, the costume in question is actually a zombie, so it just needed a name change.

Quite frankly, I more have a problem with the fact that once girls are about twelve or so, all they can look forward to getting from a costume shop are 'sexy' variants of costumes.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As for you argument, it's your opinion. You admitted that you have a bias due to your own experiences. So why do you get to draw a line, and and say whats offensive to any particular group?

Why shouldn't he? Why does caring and having experience on the issue disqualify a person?

 

[Bertylicious]

Eh, I think it depends. I mean, from what I can tell, the costume in question is actually a zombie, so it just needed a name change.

Quite frankly, I more have a problem with the fact that once girls are about twelve or so, all they can look forward to getting from a costume shop are 'sexy' variants of costumes.

The costume itself is really neither here nor there; it's more the very fact it was sold as "mental patient". It could have been a "sexy mental patient" costume that was just a straight jacket with the arse cut out and it'd still have been in poor taste.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Is the issue the NAMING of the costume (i.e. "mental patient") or the SUBJECT of mental patients? Because if it's the subject, we should immediately ban Michael Myers and Jason X costumes, since they're disparaging to the offspring of broken families and such. And Freddy Kruger costumes are disrespectful of burn victims. Not all of them haunt your dreams, you know?

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

It is all fair game, unless the intent of the costume is actually malicious.

That seems like a pretty good place to draw the line to me.

That is a terrible place to draw the line.

First of all, it's completely illogical. You're saying that as long as there was no initial intention to cause harm, it's then fine to dig your heels in and defend this? That's like saying if you trip and fall and stab someone, it's then perfectly acceptable to twist the knife and push it in deeper.

Second, you can hardly dispute the fact that it's objectively offensive. Just about every mental health charity and person affected by mental illness is up-in-arms about this. It's even made national news. Dismissing every singe person's outcry as 'over-sensitivity' is just SO ignorant I'm not even sure how someone could breathe with their head so far up their arse. This isn't like one person stirring shit to make a name for themselves, it's the whole community.

Thirdly, how cold do you have to be to draw the line at intent, and not harm caused? Not only is intent subjective and virtually impossible to prove (it can be inferred from actions, but never proven 100%), but it's completely irrelevant. The fact that ASDA didn't intend to cause harm and offence doesn't change the fact that they did, and it certainly doesn't make their actions defensible. Which is what I'm really railing against here: people claiming the costume shouldn't be pulled because it's "just a bit of fun." No doubt the same people who would have defended Minstrel theatre.

 

[WildFire15]

The costume certainly is stupidly named, but the average person in the street doesn't think of murderous psychopaths and people with mental illnesses are the same.

However, Stephen Fry put it best when he said 'I'm offended by that' is not much more then whining and jumping at the idea that the person who named it, badly as it may be, aimed to offend everyone is just as bad. Some mentally ill people feel they don't get any respect, this is not the way to get it. I have huge respect for Stephen Fry for what he's done, bi-polar or not, and why should I give respect to the person sitting there whining and complaining when they could go and do something about it instead?

 

[Genocidicles]

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

 

[Robert Marrs]

Pretty upsetting that this is the world we live in. Said this a million times and I will say it again. These groups that are complaining and crying are being hypocritical and selfish. Nobody cares until it affects them and then they campaign under the banner of moral high ground when in reality its just so they don't have to have their feelings hurt. They are not doing it because it offends the mentally ill or degrades the mentally ill. They are doing it because what they perceive as offense is offending them. Its bullying under the guise of being politically correct.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Right, when I think of mental patient I totally think of blood stain bandage covered maniac with grey hair and have no lips aswell!

Honestly I think the costume is fine but it shouldn't had been called mental patient in the first place since it doesn''t look like the part (and no don't asked what a real mental patient is suppose to look one since I don't sterotype people with mental problems).

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

"Alright, I'll accept that I shouldn't call black people niggers any more, or call gays faggots, because I'll get in trouble. But now I can't even dress up as a nutter? Who am I supposed to ridicule and dehumanise for fun now?! All I've got left is fat people and old people!"

As a fat man in my 40s, I find this out of context quote very offensive and I DEMAND an apology immediately.

Bah-dum, tss

On Topic: Knowing how retail tends to work and that these costumes are picked from catalogs in gross numbers, I think it's likely an out dated costume that got overlooked. Once the offense was pointed out they swiftly took action which is all we can ask.

As for people whining about "political correctness", well Movie Bob did a great Big Picture episode on these kinds of people and I agree pretty much 100% with his sentiments on the matter. They act like they're sticking up for some inalienable right to dehumanize others, which is ridiculous (of course). I choose to ignore these people.

 

[ForumSafari]

It wouldn't be half as bad if it was called "homicidal maniac" or whatever.

It's most likely that this is what they were originally called. More than likely they were sold to the shop as 'psycho costume' or 'maniac costume' and a translator picked it up without full context and went 'oh shit, that'll never pass muster, I'll substitute a more acceptable alternative'. I have some second hand experience with translation and frequently the translators are sent the documents in an editable format like a Word document, i.e. not on the item they'll actually be appearing on which is why some of the word substitution on stuff looks a bit shonky, especially to English where we have so many words that mean slightly different things. Bear in mind these costumes were probably originally made in China so at some point someone in China almost certainly labelled the product and added the SKU for the item to the stock system.

If you want to know how they got on to shelves...head down to ASDA and look at the quantity of Halloween shit that's added fast for seasonal sale and also work out how little the low level workers want to do anything more than keep their heads down and keep their job.

This may well be offensive but unfortunately this is the kind of mistake that happens with just in time manufacturing. Make no mistake, no one thought this was OK because of privilege or any other reason because no one thought about it at all, computers don't care about people's feelings and practically every stage of the process is automated.

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

I can't be bothered to think too much about this because I'm too confused about the fact that they named that costume "Mental Patient" instead of a zillion other, better alternatives. Nothing about the costume says "mental patient" to me. It looks more like a cross between Predator, a mad scientist, a zombie from Half-Life and a crazed butcher. I mean, since when have mental patients, even in cliched horror films, carried cleavers?

A shame that such a controversy sprung from a single, ill-advised (or more likely lazy) naming choice, and it's too late to rename it now.

 

[ckam]

Not really related to anyone who's a mental patient, but I think the original name is rather rude to those who would classify themselves as much. These are just my undeveloped thoughts on the matter.

 

[Muspelheim]

As much as I get suspicious when I hear about Political Correctness gone MAAAD(TM), I do agree that this particular case might be a bit hysterical... The most cases of really tasteless Haloween costumes are home made, after all.

Rather than remove them all together, perhaps just renaming them would have been sufficient. I can really understand why someone who does require psychiatric help might feel a bit upset that some costume supplier equate people in pscychiatric care to butcheraxe-wielding murderers, but all that really calls for is changing the costume title.

 

[DrOswald]

Having a sexy nurse outfit called "Sexy nurse" -- skirting the line, maybe (nurses implicitly objectified)

I am pretty sure that is actually explicit objectification. Mechanically speaking, the woman wearing the costume enhances her physical desirability by dressing up as the object of a sexual fantasy. That is pretty much the definition of sexual objectification.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

This may well be offensive but unfortunately this is the kind of mistake that happens with just in time manufacturing. Make no mistake, no one thought this was OK because of privilege or any other reason because no one thought about it at all, computers don't care about people's feelings and practically every stage of the process is automated.

Well, that remains to be seen. We can't really assume one way or the other. In any case, it's really besides the point.
The fact that it happened is almost a good thing, because it's now a case study for how being careless about the topic of mental illness can cause a shitstorm.

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.

 

[Nokturos]

That's a pretty cool costume, too bad it's unavailable now. I guess I'll just have to go as Hitler again this year.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

Having a sexy nurse outfit called "Sexy nurse" -- skirting the line, maybe (nurses implicitly objectified)

I am pretty sure that is actually explicit objectification. Mechanically speaking, the woman wearing the costume enhances her physical desirability by dressing up as the object of a sexual fantasy. That is pretty much the definition of sexual objectification.

Sexiness does not equal objectification. This is an important point to understand, because a lot of people conflate the two.
An object is defined by not having agency. They exist to fulfil one or more purposes, and cannot make meaningful choices for themselves.
Wearing a sexy outfit does not make you an object.

 

[Blizzard]

At the end of the day its a halloween costume
no one think this is what real mental patients ressemble
its just a reference to any cliche horror movie
I am sorry that your brother is in such a condition
but what exactly is offending you the fact that the costume is called mental patient ?

 

[DrOswald]

Having a sexy nurse outfit called "Sexy nurse" -- skirting the line, maybe (nurses implicitly objectified)

I am pretty sure that is actually explicit objectification. Mechanically speaking, the woman wearing the costume enhances her physical desirability by dressing up as the object of a sexual fantasy. That is pretty much the definition of sexual objectification.

Sexiness does not equal objectification. This is an important point to understand, because a lot of people conflate the two.
An object is defined by not having agency. They exist to fulfil one or more purposes, and cannot make meaningful choices for themselves.
Wearing a sexy outfit does not make you an object.

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.