Before I post part two of this blog, I'd like to point out an interesting finding. After posting the first part, I decided to check my blog rating. Some months ago, my dear friend over at Virtual Bourgeois discovered a blog rating widget. Anyone can plug in a URL on Justsayhi.com's What's My Blog Rated? site and click Rate It! to run a simple word sampling test. What's My Blog Rated? then assigns a grade based on its database's evaluation of "bad" word frequency.
Virtual Bourgeois's rating? G.
Semeiotikos's rating? NC-17!
Now, I point this out because I was a bit shocked the first time I rated my site and discovered that it was/is so racy. It should not have been a surprise because I do tend to pepper my prose with profanity. After all, I consider myself a scholar of the English language—I even have a couple of degrees to justify that claim. And I've always been fascinated with the etymology of bad words and, well, bad culture. What can I say! I find the fringe more fascinating than the center…
But! Where does this widget providing site get its authority? Who determines which words are "bad"? It is safe to say that we might all agree that some word-offenders do merit attention.
However…
My rating was determined by these words (and yes, I repeat them with a huff of disdain!) and their frequency: 14 whores, 9 deaths, 6 shits, 5 hells, 3 farts, 2 shoots, and 1 pain.
Now, clearly from this breakdown, we can determine that the rating system hinges on the usual suspects (shit) and words relating or pertaining to violence (shoot). Makes sense.
But, does the occurrence of a word alone make it inappropriate?
Are there not appropriate uses for these words?
While I must profess my low moral character for farting so much, I can say that my use of words pertaining to violence and death is couched in discussing their complexities. My father's death, for instance, is a site of deep reflection and contemplation. I've referred to it on more than one occasion—and my analysis of Cormac McCarthy's The Road (Carry the Fire) trades heavily on issues that are universally human. I also have every intention of posting about the Coen brothers' dark, masterful take on McCarthy's No Country For Old Men. That posting will surely light up the rating monitor like a pinball machine!
Is such discussion off limits to anyone under 17? Hmm…
What got me here, now: All those "whores." Again I say, this should come as no surprise. I did mention that it is a "dirty little word." That was, after all, the point of my post.
But here's the thing: There are more instances of "pimp" in my previous post than there are "whore." 16 pimps (including "pimping"). Did the rating checker check for this word? No.
So, it is with some glee that I proclaim, "Aha! My point is proven yet again!"
Use of "pimp" = Okay (PG or, at the most, PG-13)
Use of "whore" = Bad (NC-17)
Hmm…
3 comments:
NC-17? I'm surprised it wasn't worse than that you foul-mouthed sailor. All this writin' about devil music and stuff was bound to catch up with you.
Though I too am intrigued at the notion that the word "whore" is somehow worse than the word "pimp," I have to disagree with your whole take on the situation. I agree that there is an unfortunate double standard. But what if it had been a female senator hooking up with a male whore. The media frenzy would be the same. Give Letterman a break.
And what is wrong with calling a whore a whore? You're right, Spitzer is the baddie here, but we don't exactly want our daughters growing up to go into the profession. We don't want our sons sexing themselves out for money. We don't want our children - period - trading sex for money. We have higher hopes for them; therefore denouncing the profession of prostitution is in itself a social survival mechanism.
And we are ALLOWED to use the terms whore, pimp, slut, gigolo, tramp . . . disparagingly. For God's sake, if we didn't, who could we pick on?
You can't choose your skin color, your gender (well, unless you're Michael Jackson, in which case, I suppose you can do both) - but, for goodness sake, you can choose your profession in this century.
Mark Spitzer's whore went into her profession eyes wide open. She doesn't live in central Africa with no education and hope for survival if she doesn't sell her body for a living. She doesn't live in the Victorian era where she is so horribly marginalized she has to become a hooker and a madam to raise her children. She lives right here and now in the good old USA. She's a proud capitalist.
She was on the Girls Gone Wild videos, for crying out loud.
I'll call her a whore. That's what she wants. She's in good company. AND she'll make more money than ever now.
Now, as a male feminist, you might feel you are protecting us, but let me tell you, we female feminists - we can handle ourselves.
Oh, and, you've somehow inspired me to write my own blog post about all of this: http://birdhousethought.blogspot.com/
-Teacher Lady
Post a Comment