The 'F-word'

There are a few words that I'm not comfortable with. The 'N-word' for example. I don't see any reason to tolerate, still less use, racist abuse. I'd find it hard to say, even in the context of reported speech, and I'd draw my own (unflattering) conclusions about anybody using such language (with exceptions for the victims of racial abuse reclaiming such words, or the simple reporting of racist language from the past - you can't learn from history by censoring it).

I don't have such any such principled objections to swearing, but I'm still uncomfortable with it. Just a personal preference and the way I was brought up, I suppose. Obscenities will come out, under extreme provocation but, mostly, I do without. Apart from anything else, endless repetition robs the words of their power and leaves you with nothing in reserve for those, mercifully rare, occasions when a volley of unrestrained swearing really is the only adequate response to some really outrageous situation.

Another of the fringe benefits of of restrained swearing is pain relief. Recent studies suggest that swearing may give relief  from physical pain. But you do have to ration your swearing - the more you swear in everyday life, the less emotionally charged the words become and the less effective swearwords are in reducing pain. I saw somebody demonstrate this effect on telly, in an experiment featuring Brian Blessed and a bucket of iced water, so it must be true.

There's one F-word that I've never, ever been able to force myself to say, though - fiancée. I got engaged a while ago and, all being well, will be married this summer. I'm quite happy with the situation, but the first time I had to refer to my significant other after our engagement, I just couldn't say the F-word and found myself falling back on the tried and tested "partner". I've never yet been able to refer with a straight face - or indeed refer at all - to "my fiancée".

It's not surprising in my case. Self and partner are both well on in our fourth decade, have a school-aged child and have been cohabiting for years, so the term sits a bit oddly, rather like "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" when applied to people beyond a certain age. But even for younger people the word has an odd, archaic ring to it.

First off, it just sounds too la-di-da, like calling a napkin a "serviette". Damn your French fads! At least "partner", sounds practical and down-to-earth. Come to think of it, Peugeot make a van called the Partner, but even the French would have to draw the line at making a commercial vehicle called the Peugeot Fiancée.

Second, The Glums. Post-Second World War Austerity Britain entertained itself by tuning in to Take It From Here, a radio comedy show written by a couple of young iconoclasts called Frank Muir and Denis Norden. The most popular part of Take It From Here was a sketch called The Glums, featuring the misadventures of the desperately perky Eth (June Whitfield) and her gormless fiancé, Ron (Dick Bentley). The Pismotality blog cites David Nathan's book The Laughtermakers: Quest for Comedy to highlight how the show reflected and mocked what was happening to the institution of engagement at the time:

It was about an engaged couple, sending up the relentlessly cheerful families then prevalent on radio, possibly a hangover from the wartime need to maintain morale. The comedy was fairly broad ... but with an undercurrent of reality, reflecting those times when long engagements were a matter of economic necessity.

Sexual intercourse may have begun in 1963, as "Chuckles" Larkin maintained, but accordin' to Norden ... there had already been stirrings in the undergrowth:

 What we ... did … was to send up … family relationships, things that were fairly sacrosanct at the time.

Ron and Eth started from a sketch we did about an engaged couple. We suddenly realised that one of the most hilarious and ludicrous positions to be in was this state of being engaged. It doesn’t apply now. We described it in one of the programmes as driving with one foot on the accelerator and the other on the brake. Nowadays it is driving with both feet on the accelerator.

Strangely, there was something very sexual lurking behind it, though it could never be made explicit in those days. But that was what we were on about, that was what we found funny, that state of having to hold back all the time. Frustration. It was possibly the first glimmer of the permissive society struggling to be born. People sort of recognised that if you were engaged the question was why don’t you go to bed together. But one never dared say it, never mentioned it. It was just simply this blind groping, this aching state, the tension.

Of course we weren’t allowed to indicate any of this for a second, but I think it caught the public at a time when they were becoming aware of sexuality.

Ron’s voice was funny, grotesque, June's voice was absolutely true – we knew who she was founded on. There were a lot of cosy family serials and soap operas on the radio, so it was a slight send-up of them too...

... Eth was the sort of girl for whom women’s papers published photographs of ideal kitchens. .. we used to read them just to get the picture of Eth. .. What was extraordinary though was the number of letters we got from girls asking how we knew that when two people are alone they talk like Ron and Eth ... The obvious answer was that your fiancé is a moron, but they didn’t see it like that. They saw him as the ideal fiancé, completely infatuated and dominated by both parents and girl. That was how a fiancé should be ...

Read the whole thing here If you're not familiar with The Glums, the blog post has a link to a later TV recreation of the characters that captures their uniquely grotesque sound (the original recordings aren't readily available on line due to BBC copyright issues, but they're occasionally rebroadcast on Radio 4 Extra). I doubt whether the word fiancé(e) ever recovered from the association with the simpering Eth and her twit of a boyfriend.

Moving from the 1950s to the '60s, the economic conditions that made long engagements a standing joke, eased, but so did the puritanical attitudes towards sex outside marriage. Look at the figures for marriage in Britain and you'll see marriage rates rising in the 1960s presumably reflecting increased prosperity and a decline in long engagements for couples who couldn't afford to get wed just yet. But after the early 1970s the figures go into an inexorable decline (although remarriage rates go up to a plateau that persists into the early 21st Century).

There are probably other factors at work, but the world that came after the 1960's marriage boom was different from the one that had gone before. In the old world, the institution of marriage and its preamble was Not To Be Trifled With (at least for "Respectable" folk). In the early part of the 21st century, nobody bats an eyelid at people cohabiting, or having a child out of wedlock (things unseen and unspoken of by people like my parents). People in the '50s may have laughed at The Glums, but engagement was still seen as the prologue to Something Very Serious Indeed:

DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace. 

That's telling 'em. Compare and contrast those splendidly thunderous words from the Book of Common Prayer with the more inclusive, less scary (and, frankly, rather drippy) form of language in common use in these more permissive times:

In the presence of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
we have come together
to witness the marriage of N and N,
to pray for God's blessing on them,
to share their joy
and to celebrate their love.

Marriage is a gift of God in creation
through which husband and wife may know the grace of God.
It is given
that as man and woman grow together in love and trust,
they shall be united with one another in heart, body and mind,
as Christ is united with his bride, the Church.

The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love.

Marriage is a way of life made holy by God,
and blessed by the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ
with those celebrating a wedding at Cana in Galilee.
Marriage is a sign of unity and loyalty
which all should uphold and honour.
It enriches society and strengthens community.
No one should enter into it lightly or selfishly
but reverently and responsibly in the sight of almighty God.

The clergy aren't going to terrify anybody with that. In a world where marriage itself is optional and the language of the marriage ceremony is commonly reduced to a few neutered, inoffensive, feel-good words, stripped of any vestige of awe and majesty, it's no wonder that the word fiancé(e) is being quietly slipped into the drawer where "doily", "antimacassar" and other words too ridiculously quaint to continue existing, are put away to be forgotten.

Inappropriate politicisation

There are valid arguments for not putting Fred Goodwin on the Naughty Step - chiefly, that it's a dramatic gesture that gives the impression that politicians are "doing something" without actually obliging them to do any of the big, hard, complex, systemic, mindset-changing things needed to regulate an out-of-control financial services industry and neuter its capacity to lobby policymakers, nationalise its losses and destroy the prosperity and well-being of everybody else.

Then there are invalid arguments, like this, from Simon Walker, director-general of the Institute of Directors:

To do it because... you don't approve of someone, you think they have done things that are wrong but actually there is no criminality... is inappropriate and politicises the whole honours system.

If leading members of a society decide to honour certain achievements and not others, that's a political act. If they choose to honour certain people and not others, that, too is a political act. It's all about what and whom we value as a society, (not to mention politicians using patronage to reward loyalty or favours). What could be more political? The idea that the honours system is apolitical and that the decision to withdraw an honour somehow brings the nasty, rough world of politics into a system too high-minded to bother itself with such grubby considerations must be the daftest thing I've heard all week.

Walker gets an extra bonus bullshit bingo point for using the weasel word "inappropriate" to imply that his own personal distaste represents some universally agreed standard of behaviour.

Interesting historical fact of the day

Benito Mussolini, Premier of All the Italians, received the order of Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath from King George V. He is now at liberty to appear in the 1924 issue of Who's Who as Sir Benito Mussolini, G. C. B.! 

Time 


His title was annulled in 1940

We all say, 'Naughty!'

If the leaders of Britain's two and a half main political parties are looking for a new speechwriter, children's writer Michael Rosen (best known for We're Going on a Bear Hunt) seems to have the knack of puttiing the all-party political and economic Plan A (there is no Plan B) into words everybody can understand:

We're in trouble at the moment. Every single one of us. But why? It's simple. Poor people are too rich. Many of them work in places like hospitals and schools. This has brought the world economy to its knees.

Rich people have told us they need more money so what we're doing is rolling up our sleeves and taking money from the poor people and giving it to the rich people. Then the rich people will roll up their sleeves and save the world economy.

Of course there is a tiny minority of rich people who do bad things. And we take this very seriously indeed. We say to them, 'Naughty!'  And I'm pleased to say that even the Labour Party - who brought the world economy to its knees - are saying much the same thing. We all say, 'Naughty!' So no one accuse us of not taking this matter very seriously indeed.

There's your problem in a nutshell; poor people are too rich. Quick, give that man a job, while there's still time for him to e-mail a keynote speech over to Davos!

via

In-depth analysis

Speaking of benefit reform, you will, as always, find some of the best analysis in two of my favourite news sources:

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith insists that the current system means that there is little incentive for people to seek employment, but critics have claimed that actual jobs being available are also vital when it comes to finding work.

“In principle, encouraging people to find work is something that few people will argue with,” said Professor of Unpopular Opinions, Dr Evan Jessop.

“However, a major factor in someone’s ability to become employed is the existence of a job to become employed in.”

“A more sensible approach would be to encourage people into jobs that are actually there rather than ones that aren’t,” he argued

NewsThump

Julian Cook, chief economist at Donnelly-McPartlin, said: "Welfare reform is always complex and controversial but I think we can safely say that this time it is going to be perfect."

Long-term claimant Nikki Hollis said: "Don't get me wrong, while raising two kids in a bedsit on eighty quid a week has been a hoot, I finally have to accept that play time is over.

"I just can't decide whether to work for a major clearing bank or a traditional, high street retailer. Talk about your dizzying rainbow of life-changing opportunities." 

The Daily Mash

Carey in the community

God, apparently, takes a keen interest in welfare reform. Spokespeople for the Lord of hosts have already put forward a successful House of Lords amendment, intended to water down government proposals to impose a £26,000 household benefit cap. The Bishop of York warned that the cap would have ‘a deleterious and chilling effect on children’, making it 'harder for parents to carry out their God-given responsibility'.

The Almighty has now clarified His position on the issue, via another of His representatives, former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey, who has told the Daily Mail that the £26,000 benefit cap is a Good and Virtuous measure, reforming a welfare system that robs 'hard-working, hard-pressed churchgoers'  and 'rewards fecklessness and irresponsibility'.

So there you have it. There is, we are being told, a God who tales a special interest in humankind and offers clear moral guidance on specific issues via His representatives on earth. We can find out a lot about the nature of God by listening carefully to what His spokespeople are telling us.

His pronouncements on welfare reform tell us that God is a liberal, Guardian-reading type who always believes the best of the despised, the rejected, the poor and the needy, an interventionist, who believes in social justice and a strong welfare state. He is also a judgemental authoritarian, who believes in personal responsibility. He is an admirer of the hard-working squeezed middle classes and isn't afraid to castigate the the feckless and undeserving poor.

God's guidance on the subject of welfare reform, as reported by the people who claim to know him best, sounds inconsistent, even schizophrenic. Perhaps it's because mere mortals are incapable of appreciating the subtlety of His messages (He does, allegedly, move in a mysterious way, his wonders to perform), or maybe our minds must be too highly trained, or something like that.

I prefer the obvious, simple explanation that Man* created God in his own image and that the "will of God" is no more than the beliefs, cultural assumptions, priorities and prejudices of the individual citing it, given spurious authority by being attributed to an invisible, but all-seeing and all-wise entity. In political debate, coming out and saying 'I believe in x', is fine. 'I believe in x because [insert reasoned argument to support x]' is better. But 'I believe in x and so does my invisible friend, God' doesn't bring anything to the party.

You can debate the moral and practical pros and cons of any issue perfectly sensibly without any reference to God. Bringing God into an issue is just adding an unnecessary complicating factor. Without God, you can at least argue about the facts of the case and the merits or otherwise of what you intend to do about it. If you add 'and God thinks so, too', you are inviting at least three types of completely unhelpful response that take the debate away from the issue at hand, namely:

• 'Gosh, I'd never thought of that. I believe in God, too, so what you're saying must be right'.
• 'I disagree with what you're saying and I happen to know that God disagrees, too, because He told me so Himself'.
• 'I don't believe there is a God, so your argument is invalid' [either agree to differ or waste potentially endless time arguing about an unprovable / undisprovable assertion about a supernatural being, rather than the issue that God has been cited as being for or against]

I always thought that Alastair Campbell, Director of Communications and Strategy in the Blair government and cynical corrupter of youth in Jamie's Dream School. was a vile bully, and I haven't seen anything to make me revise my opinion, but he does deserve a tiny bit of kudos for one glorious sound bite. If only a few more people in public life (including his former boss) would just stick to the issues and say 'we don't do God'. Keep God out of politics, I say, (at least until He can come up with a consistent message and stick to it).


*The sexist language is deliberate - the Abrahamic religions show every sign of having originated with a set of rules imposed by high-status males to establish stability (and cement their own authority) within a tribal society.

Treason!

According to the Sunday Times,*  Iain Duncan Smith thinks bishops should think more about people who work and pay taxes while some unemployed people live in large houses at public expense:

I would like to see their concerns about ordinary people, who are working hard, paying their tax and commuting long hours, who don't have as much money as they would otherwise because they're paying tax for all of this. Where is the bishops' concern for them?

 Off with his head!

*Link to the BBC report, rather than the News International toll booth.