DMc: Bold Cultural Commentator, Massive Douche? Or Both?

WELL COLOUR ME SURPRISED.


The podcast is now up for my appearance on CBC Radio Q yesterday.


The discussion starts around 21:30 with an interview with the (surprisingly reasonable) Communications Director from the Parents Television Council, and continues with me and Timothy Jay, the author of Cursing in America: A Psycholinguistic Study of Dirty Language in the Courts, in the Movies, in the Schoolyards and on the Streets

Wow that title alone makes me want to drop an F-bomb or two.

Interestingly enough, although I immediately heard from the usual passel of friends and well-wishers saying, "heard you! sounds good" -- the fact that I also got more than one email from people who remain "highly offended" by the use of the word "douche" on TV (and by Michael Buble's use of the word to describe himself on Q, which sparked the segment yesterday in the first place.)


Now my impulse is to say, "wow, with everything people have to worry about, we make a stand on language on TV? Really?" That certainly seems to be one of the prevailing sentiments on the Q blog about the subject.

And yet...and yet... the response I got makes this easily the most controversial appearance I've had on the show. Even though I would argue that I've said way more provocative things on the radio in the past. Goes to show that whatever the conventional wisdom says, people will care about what they care about, not what you think they should care about. It's a good lesson for writers to always keep in mind.

So yeah, maybe it might be great to kill your hero or get that cat...

...but then again. Maybe not. Not if it makes the audience hate you.

One of the negative emails I got to the appearance raised the point that as a man, I really had no right to pass judgement one way or another on the use of the word 'douche.' I'd like to excerpt a little of what I wrote back. I started by pointing out that I think Jay made the point of the segment when he said that society cannot function where we go by what riles the most-easily offended. Then I wrote:

I also really think we hit a slippery slope if the only metric of whether something is offensive or not comes with the proper sex organs or racial orientation attached. What is the difference between that and the argument that only black people can write books featuring black characters, or only deaf people can play deaf people in the movies?  A non-disabled actor has no ability to play someone in a wheelchair?  I don't want to create art in that world.  It's a trap.

South Park did a pretty interesting episode a couple of weeks ago where a similar issue was explored around the use of the word "faggot."   The boys used the word to describe Motorcycle riding guys who were obnoxious, and were taken to task for being homophobic, though it was clear from their stunned reactions that the boys didn't associate that word with "gay" at all.  During the episode they managed to sneak in some of the etymology of "faggot" in there -- and uncovered that long before its association with gay people, it had other meanings -- women, heretics, soldiers drafted into armies and on and on.  Meanings change.

Similarly, where do we go with "bitch?" There's a word that was rehabilitated, robbed of its power largely by -- not women -- but gay men using it with each other, reframing it to something harmless.  That was a pretty serious word to throw around when I was a child.  Now it's mild enough that a singer could have a hit song saying "I'm a bitch, I'm a lover...etc etc." Damn catchy song.  All for the better.

I recognize that there are people out there who do find the word offensive. But the problem here is that you find it offensive because of a usage and a connotation completely divorced from the context of its current use.  By that logic, we should all not be able to use "damn" because to highly religious people, "damning" someone is serious business. 

In high school, I learned the danger of living in a context where what was offensive hewed to the most conservative definition.  I was banned from doing school announcements because I said, "What the hell?" in relation to something -- and that offended one of the highly Christian teachers.

I think in Canada, part of the reason why our art is so mild much of the time is that we use that same metric.  And I don't think it's good for either pushing the envelope of art, discourse and society.  

The other point I never got to make on the radio was that, of course, I do consider that portion of the audience (which includes my Sainted Catholic Papa, by the way) when I'm writing dialogue and cursing into dramatic scripts. One of the differences of opinions I employed on a recent show was where I'd try to shy away, whenever possible, from using "Goddamn!" or characters saying, "Jesus Christ!" because I know that there is still a very large segment of the population that might otherwise have no problem with what I was writing that would view the use of those words as a dealbreaker. Seeing as I was writing for a public broadcaster, and you could easily get at the intent and the cadence and truth of the scene by employing other salty language instead, I generally try to avoid using those epithets. Not because I'm censoring myself, but because the need to use those specific terms is low. And sometimes I think there are writers who'd use them MORE because they disagreed with religion so much that they were delighted to "stick it" to the faithful.


Now, does that make me inconsistent with the use of the word "douche?" I don't think so, cause I don't think that the opinion on that word is anywhere near as settled and universal as the number of people who'd be offended by dropping "Goddamnit!" into a script.


Does that make me a hypocrite? Or merely a big douche?


Couldn't resist. Sorry. Have at it in the comments below.