Free Stanley

Yesterday morning local CBC radio aired my "Free Stanley" song (sung into the phone). Last night "As It Happens" aired it nationally and host Barbara (or was it Mary Lou?) responded "orgasmically" (as Shroom says, that is, with a lot more excitement and enthusiasm than I'm used to from women).

When I premiered it at St. Thomas' Anglican dinner I felt a little odd, because of what I called the "almost profanity". This isn't an apology and, if you've heard the song, you get the joke and you don't need an explanation. I just didn't want the kids to catch onto the sing-songy chorus and go around annoying and slightly-shocking their parents singing it (and me getting the blame!) I was probably giving myself too much credit!!

Pondering:

I've changed quite a bit in my attitude towards what people call swearing (and what I prefer to call "taboo language") in the last several years. I used to be quite proud of myself that I didn't "swear". Even now I want to tell you that I don't frequently use taboo words, not so much because I think that makes me good, but because I don't want you to think I'm bad. I still care what people think. This is a problem.

Now it *was* years ago in my university studies that I learned that most of the "bad words" (of the bathroom/bedroom variety, not the religious kind) acquired their unacceptable status because of class snobbery (the fact that these were the words which the common Anglo Saxons had routinely used for these functions and parts, while their conquerors, the French-speaking Norman nobility, used longer words of Latin or Greek origin and considered these polite).

Conquest of another people group with resulting racist attitudes about language doesn't strike me as an adequate basis for moral judgements.

But the guilt of association does make some people uncomfortable and even here I will observe the illogical conventions of blanking out letters to avoid unnecessarily making readers such as my mother uncomfortable.

Sometimes we do become aware of associations or origins and adjust our language. I remember when Shroom made us aware that he was uncomfortable with "that sucks" because of its original reference to fellatio (note: Latin word!) C'mon, don't pretend you didn't know that! Anyway, he had a good point.

But some word origins are so buried in history that it is useless to say "do you know what the really means?" when it now means what "everybody" understands it to mean (for better or for worse). I guess this also applies to the Anglo-Saxon origin concept given above BUT still knowing that helps me not to treat the current conventions of language as absolute and a moral issue in themselves. (The moral issues is how we treat people, which is reflected somewhat, but imperfectly, in how we speak.)

Another step in my change in attitude was experiencing disapproval of the word B-S- by B-S-ers (those with little regard for accuracies of detail). Objecting to the word, but not the practice. When I was young and (more) judgemental of people's "dirty" language, I must have fallen into this pitfall. God, help me avoid it in the future.

Once someone chided me for a (written) instance of "vernacular" language (not realizing "vernacular" simply means the language that people speak rather than "official" languages like Latin). This was Anglo-Saxon "bathroom" language to describe how I felt at the time. Later I heard this person say "damn" in vain. Well, to my mind referring lightly to damn(ation) is worse than "potty mouth" (although this is not recognized by the secular movie-ratings people). I'd rather land in a pile of crap (to use an acceptable vulgarity) than in damnation.

Well, I could say that I was feeling extremely emotionally provoked at the time. So was s/he at his/her time -- and if we had engaged in an arguement over which means of expressing those emotions is worse, especially if we were to ignore the emotions behind the words, it would have been the overflow of petty minds.

(Yes, I've given my opinion here, but I acknowledge that there are other factors of perception etc. that make the issue more nuanced -- if it even matters at all.)


Both of these conversations were relatively private, btw, which might be a different matter than performing a song or routine full of gratuitous "swears" in front of impressionable minds -- that is, pretty much anyone. But on the other hand reminding people [like me] who don't give a flying f--- about democracy by saying it in so many words might indeed solidly underline the point.

But what is "gratuitous"?

Usually your "swears" but not mine.

In "Demolition Man" citizens are automatically fined every time they use such objectionable language. A buzzer goes off, an announcement is made and a ticket spews forth from a slot in the wall. However, no buzz is heard when the various characters insult one another using "clean" language.

I realize that you parents face these issues in a different way than I do day to day (although I did face them at Camp Dorion and other camps -- in my earlier years with far too much reactionary legalism).

I was greatly influenced by Monty Parks (who was no potty mouth) in a staff meeting in which we were "freaking out" about the great amount of "swearing" among the campers. I sat through sessions like this every few years. Monty wisely reminded us that if all the campers learned that week was that they shouldn't say certain words, then we had missed the point of the week.

I guess that with very young children it may be necessary initially to teach them that "stupid" is a "bad word" even though it isn't always (is it?). I imagine it is probably easier to explain to them why that word is (usually) bad (that is, used to hurt people) than to explain why "sh--" is bad, "crap" is kinda bad and "poo" is cute. In many cases it might be most accurate to tell them that "sh--" is just a word that I don't want to hear you say, but which I might occasionally say myself. Now that would be hard to explain, but, as I say, in many cases, it might be the truth. Shouldn't we tell our children the truth?

But I would prefer myself to explain sooner rather than later to children that it is the *use* of words that can be bad. Fine "God talk" mixed with half-truths, "facts" undiscussed with the "accused" and altered details, in other words B--- S---, can be really used to hurt people and is a "bad" we need to eliminate from our lives.

(And it's stupid, too.)