Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:21:08 -0500
Reply-To: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: David Beierl <dbeierl@ATTGLOBAL.NET>
Subject: MOD Re: List Rating G or PG?
In-Reply-To: <eccfedcc1001141159r10a803cbh39d1c9dc9062addc@mail.gmail.co m>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Dear Volks,
First, this is a Friday subject and off limits on the list until then.
Second, please do write to both me and Ben (i.e. both addresses on
each email) with your opinions about this. Below is some grist for the mill.
Yours,
David
At 02:59 PM 1/14/2010, Michael Sullivan wrote:
>Not to start anything(really) but I suggest that this list rating be
>upgraded from 'G' to 'PG'. I guess replies should be to the moderators so
>as not to cause problems, but a vote would be cool.
Dear Michael,
I think it's been a while since you watched a G-rated movie. I would
put the list as it is now as a fairly mild PG with occasional lapses
to PG-13. It's funny, I've been thinking for the last several weeks
that specifying a G-rating might help clarify things, though I
haven't talked to Ben about it yet.
For context, the MPAA definition for G rating is this (emphases mine):
>A G-rated motion picture contains nothing in theme, language,
>nudity, sex, violence or other matters that, in the view of the
>Rating Board, would offend parents whose *younger children* view the
>motion picture. The G rating is not a "certificate of approval," nor
>does it signify a "children's" motion picture. Some *snippets* of
>language may go beyond polite conversation but they are *common
>everyday expressions.* *No* stronger words are present in G-rated
>motion pictures. Depictions of violence are minimal. No nudity, sex
>scenes or drug use are present in the motion picture.
And here is a snippet from the PG-13 definition:
>A motion picture's *single* use of one of the harsher
>sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially
>requires at least a PG-13 rating. *More than one such expletive
>requires an R rating,* as must even one of those words used in a
>sexual context.
The issues that we have to face are generation, class, context and
culture-related.
Class: Generally speaking, swearing in this country has been a
blue-collar and lower-class habit -- sailors swear (all the time) and
officers do not (much). This shows up in my family, where I was a
sailor and the rest were officers (for example, I've heard my father
swear three or four times in my life (if yelling dammit counts) and
use a crude expression once). I semi-routinely use language amongst
my acquaintances that if I used it at my parents' home or in the
presence of any of my nieces and nephews would be considered grossly
discourteous and a clear reflection on both my morals and my ability
to express myself, and I would be told off in no uncertain terms.
Generation: The middle class of my generation (I'm rising 60) is
much freer with "language" than our parents, who I believe were
somewhat freer than *their* parents. In my grandparents' and
parents' eyes habitual swearing could be expected from ditch-diggers,
longshoremen, soldiers etc, and there are a number of jokes about
middle-class citizens offended by the language of workingmen doing
jobs in their neighborhood. OTOH the youngest generation or two seem
(to me) to have lost the notion of swear words as words of power and
use them more as punctuation, the way WWII Marines were reputed to do
(and my generation of sailors did to some extent).
Context: You've heard of "unprintable" language? Within my own
lifetime it was in US/UK culture against the law to print the F word
and a number of others, and against the law to send them through the
mail. And they weren't kidding, people were prosecuted and convicted
of this. But you could go anywhere heavy labor was being done and
hear them routinely. I think it was in the late '60s or early '70s
that the American Heritage Dictionary was first published and
instantly became notorious because it listed and defined the
word. Kids like me would go look just to see it in print. People of
my generation still are much less comfortable writing it or seeing it
written than saying it or hearing it. But this clearly isn't true of
younger generations. I recently read an article in Slate, which I
*think* favors middle and upper-middle class East-Coast urbanites;
and was deeply shocked that in fifteen or so perfectly literate
comments there was no swearing at all, or even close -- except that
four or five of the commenters used the F word.
Culture: As Benoit says, Quebecois have a reputation for swearing a lot.
Now, the point of all this yak is that we have young, middle-aged,
old, lower-, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle class people on this
list, *and their children* and we have always tried to regulate our
language in such manner as to cause no concern to clean-spoken
parents about what their children might see on the list.
As I said before, comments to Ben and me are welcome and
solicited. Public comments are definitely out of order until Friday
and are not necessarily going to be welcome then -- we'll see.
Yours,
David
| 
