A commenter on my YTV profanity post said:
Anonymous said...It's a harmless statement all in all, and typical of those with a laissez-faire attitude towards life and child-rearing.
Come on, please get a grip. We live in world where this is a part of everyday life. If you don't like it change the channel.
Words like 'pimp' might be part Anonymous' everyday life -- but not mine. Yet somehow he believes that I must let YTV make it part of my kids' daily lives, or tune out.
Why is questioning the emerging status quo against the sensibilities of so many people? Whether it's using bad language on television or changing the meaning of the word marriage, or questioning the morality of abortion on demand, I always feel like liberals in this society are not simply telling me that they disagree with me, but that I should shut up.
If CTV had used the word 'pimp' in its advertising, I wouldn't have complained. When the Toronto Star ran that 'Pimp Your Kitchen' contest, I rolled my eyes and though 'yuck' -- but Anonymous is not telling me to ignore a word being used on a mainstream station intended for adult audiences, but rather YTV, a station that promotes itself as child-centred with programming directed at, geared to, prepared exclusively for -- children.
Maybe Anonymous thinks its okay that the lines between the ages are blurring, but I think kids should be kids.
Change the channel? Why, because some people are too lazy to think? Because hip young programmers and apparently Anonymous think that the word 'pimp' sounds okay coming out of the mouths of toddlers?
No -- this is not a censorship issue where programming is suitable for the age level and a viewer is being overly sensitive -- this is a case of a television stations pushing the boundaries of good taste. We're not talking about the word 'fart' or some other such childish word -- we're talking about a word that doesn't belong in the realm of childhood.
It strikes me funny that Anonymous took the time to stop and disagree with my position when he could have simply left the page -- odd that. Given his advice to me to 'change the channel', you'd wonder why he bothered to comment when he could simply have moved on.
The hypocrisy of some people is astounding.
canadianna
6 comments:
I read your post and agreed with you wholeheartedly.
The implied inference in using the word 'pimp' in children's programming is contemptable.
I am glad you received a response from YTV but the response was not sufficient.
The phrase 'pimp' or 'pimp up your crib' in modern parlance comes from gang/rap culture. The inference is to 'pimp' up your 'crib' so you can get 'bitches' and 'hoes' to come to it. To show off like a 'pimp' with extravagence, wealth and women. In gang/rap culture, women are used as props and playthings. It is misogynistic and that is a word I use rarely.
As someone who has studied pop culture all of his life, that is where it comes from. That YTV is using this language for children's programming is ignorant. That they sent you a letter to justify it is disgusting.
By the way, thank you for the comment you left on my blog a while back. I just noticed it a few days ago. I am alright, just trying to get an arts project off the ground which is career oriented.
I am going to try to blog more regularly.
Keep up the good fight!
Best
I had the same issue with ACCESS television here in Calgary. They used a word that I thought was inappropriate for the dinner hour and I told them so. They emailed me saying that the "word was in the dictionary" and to basically get over it. This happened several years ago and I haven't watched this station since. I should have complained to their sponsor as well.
At times I think we've gone so far down the road that I wonder if it's worth it to fight in this kind of culture --and I don't even live in Toronto or Montreal. And then I read stuff like your post and realise that we can't just vacate the space to that kind of nonsense, even if we were at a point of no return. The honour is in the fight, if nothing else, and you've shown that here. Thanks.
Regardless of how you look at this, your request to remove or not reference words borders on censorship.
Questioning person’s ideals on child rearing is silly.
Did the poster question your child rearing tactics? As stated in your eloquent response
• “It's a harmless statement all in all, and typical of those with a laissez-faire attitude towards life and child-rearing.”
Respect is a two way street. I respect your right to your opinion and acknowledge your views. Do I agree with them? No, and it certainly does not warrant you or any one else questioning my integrity or way in which I raise my children. My children are young adults now, and were schooled on discipline and respect. I can safely say that they have grown up well adjusted, well mannered and respectful of society. I can confidently say that even their grandparents are proud of them and don’t question my child-rearing methods.
I am sorry if I offended, you or your Bloggers, but really, fight the right fight.
Anonymous -- I'm not quite sure whether you are the Anonymous that this post addressed, or if you are a different person altogether, but either way, you seem to have your shorts in a knot over something. Apparently I've offended you and rather than just leaving this blog, offended, you've chosen instead to stay and question my response to a commenter (you or someone else).
Censorship has to do with interfering with free speech. Is my complaining interfering with Corus Entertainment's freedom of speech? NO. My complaining to Corus is excercising MY free speech. Corus has the right to ignore my complaint, at which point my only option would be to change the channel or ignore the offending content -- but in the initial stages of any disagreement, communication is the best course of action.
Should Corus remove the offending word from their advertisment, then they are responding to a viewer's concern -- they are not being censored. I have no authority or power over them -- I am not the government. I am a private citizen who is within her rights to challenge the programming offered to my children. If they change the word they are acting in their own interests to keep viewers, not because they are obliged to do so. So no, this is not a censorship issue.
As for questioning your(anyone's) integrity (I didn't) or a person's child-rearing attitude (again, I didn't) Anyone who believes that the best course of action when one is offended by something is to ignore it or 'change the channel' -- is living in a laissez-faire fashion -this is NOT an insult. It is a fact.
Laissez-faire means non-interference in the business of others -- in other words, leaving it to the programmers and marketing people to decide what to put on the TV.
When you submit to television programming that uses words you find offensive or when you simply switch off, you have chosen not to take a stand. How is my pointing this out offensive, if the actual act of ignoring or switching is not?
Congratulations on your children, but I don't see where they enter into this. Nowhere did I say that YOU must be offended by the word 'pimp' being used on childrens' TV, or that if you aren't offended, you're a bad parent. If you've infered that, it is without basis. Go back and read the post -- I don't demand that you agree with me - simply that you don't tell me that it isn't my right to complain about a product being delivered into my livingroom by a broadcaster who one would think wants my children to continue to watch their station.
You have picked a silly argument and have taken offense because you have misunderstood the meaning and application of a phrase.
Apparently you don't have a laissez-faire attitude, or you wouldn't have posted, so how on earth did I offend you?
The most helpful book I've read on this subject is Gil Reavill's Smut
He works in the sex industry. After his daughter reached an impressionable age, he started feeling uncomfortable with the way it had purposely moved itself into mainstream society. Like second hand smoke, he calls it.
He addresses the 'change the channel' idea.
Post a Comment