Awesome piece. Very interesting read. And it reminded me of a onebee post from two years ago where I made some similar points... though certainly not at the same level of research, analysis and intelligence.
Bee Boy — Thu, 10/25/07 5:54pm
Ah, yes. And my sloppy, West Wing-based retort. I agree for the most part. Personally, I'll raise my kids to say "fuck" whenever they damn well please. (I won't be allowed to fertilize a human ovum in my lifetime; it's easy to pontificate without fear of having to back it up.) It's too important a word to take away from them – it'd be like banning "is." But of course that freedom will come with an understanding of when it's generally regarded as inappropriate, and why it's worth cooperating with that consensus (or, in certain cases, worth intentionally violating it).
I was troubled by the wording here (my underline):
In other words, if an entertainer says fucking brilliant, it's none of the government's business; but, if some people would rather not explain to their young children what a blow job is, there should be television channels that don't force them to.
I think "will always be" is preferable "should be," since Pinker is referring to "standards of taste and the demands of the market." Of course there will always be people who'd prefer not to have Lenny Bruce language during the dinner hour, and of course there will be channels willing to restrict that language in order to retain that audience. Whether those will always be the broadcast networks is subject to some speculation. There are network shows today that essentially "force" parents to explain what a blow job is, even if they don't use that term. A recent Boston Legal episode examined the efficacy of today's sex-ed classes; plenty of other shows in recent years have brushed on the topic of oral sex.
I'd also be interested to see time of night used as a variable. To some extent it already is, but as long as people are being bleeped for using "Jesus!" as an exclamation on Letterman, the button is a tad sensitive for my taste. Will we ever see 10pm network dramas using terms like "blow job" or "motherfucker," even if such language is banned at 8:00? I would say probably. I won't say we should although I'd certainly like it. (Plenty of others would understandably dislike it.) But between now and the end of time? Probably.
Nothing can substitute for good old fashioned communication with your children, or monitoring of their viewing habits. It's easy to block certain channels or certain shows to avoid subject matter you don't want them to see. Ironically, the only parents who might ever use the V-chip – those with such stringent, specific requirements about what words and ideas their kids encounter – will never bother, because their kids aren't allowed to watch any TV, or even read Harry Potter. These are the kids from Jesus Camp, schooled at home and raised in a protective bubble. By the time they're adults, they're as dangerous to the real world as it is to them.
Finally, I have to applaud Pinker's liberal use of the word cunt, which is probably my favorite word. You don't see enough of it. (Which is good; preserves its power.) I'm rendered squeamish by very, very few things, but high on that list are the cutesy "nicknames" that parents train small children to use for their genitals. I've never understood this, when the technical terms are readily available, perfectly neutral, and just as easy to pronounce. Still, if a daughter of mine were raised to use "cunt," I think I'd weep for joy. (See above, spectacularly low odds of me becoming a father.)
Brandon — Thu, 10/25/07 1:53pm
Awesome piece. Very interesting read. And it reminded me of a onebee post from two years ago where I made some similar points... though certainly not at the same level of research, analysis and intelligence.
Bee Boy — Thu, 10/25/07 5:54pm
Ah, yes. And my sloppy, West Wing-based retort. I agree for the most part. Personally, I'll raise my kids to say "fuck" whenever they damn well please. (I won't be allowed to fertilize a human ovum in my lifetime; it's easy to pontificate without fear of having to back it up.) It's too important a word to take away from them – it'd be like banning "is." But of course that freedom will come with an understanding of when it's generally regarded as inappropriate, and why it's worth cooperating with that consensus (or, in certain cases, worth intentionally violating it).
I was troubled by the wording here (my underline):
I think "will always be" is preferable "should be," since Pinker is referring to "standards of taste and the demands of the market." Of course there will always be people who'd prefer not to have Lenny Bruce language during the dinner hour, and of course there will be channels willing to restrict that language in order to retain that audience. Whether those will always be the broadcast networks is subject to some speculation. There are network shows today that essentially "force" parents to explain what a blow job is, even if they don't use that term. A recent Boston Legal episode examined the efficacy of today's sex-ed classes; plenty of other shows in recent years have brushed on the topic of oral sex.
I'd also be interested to see time of night used as a variable. To some extent it already is, but as long as people are being bleeped for using "Jesus!" as an exclamation on Letterman, the button is a tad sensitive for my taste. Will we ever see 10pm network dramas using terms like "blow job" or "motherfucker," even if such language is banned at 8:00? I would say probably. I won't say we should although I'd certainly like it. (Plenty of others would understandably dislike it.) But between now and the end of time? Probably.
Nothing can substitute for good old fashioned communication with your children, or monitoring of their viewing habits. It's easy to block certain channels or certain shows to avoid subject matter you don't want them to see. Ironically, the only parents who might ever use the V-chip – those with such stringent, specific requirements about what words and ideas their kids encounter – will never bother, because their kids aren't allowed to watch any TV, or even read Harry Potter. These are the kids from Jesus Camp, schooled at home and raised in a protective bubble. By the time they're adults, they're as dangerous to the real world as it is to them.
Finally, I have to applaud Pinker's liberal use of the word cunt, which is probably my favorite word. You don't see enough of it. (Which is good; preserves its power.) I'm rendered squeamish by very, very few things, but high on that list are the cutesy "nicknames" that parents train small children to use for their genitals. I've never understood this, when the technical terms are readily available, perfectly neutral, and just as easy to pronounce. Still, if a daughter of mine were raised to use "cunt," I think I'd weep for joy. (See above, spectacularly low odds of me becoming a father.)