Sick = Cool
I knew I was old when a
teenager told me I was random, and I misunderstood her. I thought she meant my ideas were muddled,
and I was upset, but it wasn’t that at all: she’d been chatting to a friend,
and not listening to a word I’d been saying.
She simply meant that I was strange.
That was fine – in her terms, almost a
compliment – but it raises a problem of a different sort. If teenagers say ‘random’ when they mean
‘strange’, what word do they use when they mean ‘random’? How would they express the idea of ‘random
thoughts’: such as these? If they were
asked to take part in a random survey, what would they understand themselves to
be involved in?
At one time, “I’m good,” and, “I’m well,”
were two different things. One referred
to your moral condition; the other to your state of health. But “I’m good,” now means, “I’m well.” So how do you say you’re good? Or is morality no longer an issue?[1]
At one time, “He’s fit” referred to his
physical condition. Now it means he’s
sexy. There is, of course, an obvious
link: he’s sexy if he’s fit because if he’s fit he can keep shagging you for a
long time: the apparent ideal for the typical modern girl. There is, however, scope for endless
confusion. If your doctor says you’re
fit, what is your doctor doing: telling you you’re ready to go back to work, or
giving you the come on?
‘Sick’ used to apply to mental as well as
physical description. You could say that
Thomas Harris’ Hannibal was a sick
book, or that the Marquis de Sade had a sick mind. It’s different when ‘sick’ becomes a term of
approval. It could cause no end of a
problem in dealing with teenagers. When
they say they’re sick, are they praising themselves, or seeking medical
assistance?
‘May’ and ‘might’ used to be distinct from
one another, but are now used interchangeably: at the cost of a useful nuance
of meaning. You can, it is true, say,
“I may go to London,” or, “I might go to London,” and mean much the same thing: the distinction between ‘may’ – be allowed to
– and ‘can’ – am able to – having disappeared irrevocably. But, “I may have won the lottery,” and “I
might have won the lottery,” is not the same thing, even now. With ‘may’, you don’t yet know the
result. With ‘might’ you do: the result
is now in the past. It could have been
different: if you’d bought a ticket, say, or changed one of your numbers.
I’ve heard on the BBC that, “The
Germans may have won the Second World
War,” as if we still don’t know the result.
We do; the Germans lost. What was
meant was that they might have won
with a different strategy: using their Jewish scientists, for instance, or not
attacking Russia.
‘They’, ‘them’ and ‘their’ used to mean
more than one. They don’t any more: ‘An applicant should hand in their form...’ It is, of course, to get away from the old
chauvinism of ‘his form’, regardless
of sex. But what on earth is wrong with
‘his/her’ (alternating, if necessary, with ‘her/his’ for strict equality) or
(s)he? That way, gender and plurality are
alike respected.
There was a musical once called Guys and Dolls. The males in it were the guys, and the
females were the dolls. Now we say “You
guys,” to a mixed couple. Why hasn’t
“You dolls,” taken off in the same way?
If you can call a woman a guy, but can’t call a man a doll, then you
are, by implication, raising a woman to the temporary status of a man: the
reverse, presumably, of the actual intention behind the change of
terminology.
I can see why ‘postie’ should have
replaced ‘postman’ when the job is now often done by a woman; and why ‘Chair’
should replace ‘Chairman’, given how
often a meeting is led by a woman.
But why the term ‘male nurse’? If a judge is a judge, regardless of sex, and
a doctor is a doctor, surely a nurse should be a nurse? Otherwise, you are suggesting that there are
differences between men and women as to what they can do [2]
If the reply is that some things in
nursing are better done by a woman
than by a man, then why the beef to replace ‘actress’ with ‘actor’ for both
sexes? There are things in acting that a woman can do better than a
man: like playing a woman. (The whole
fun about a pantomime dame is that we know
she’s really a man.)
It could be argued that a ‘waitress’ should become a ‘waiter’ because the
function here is the same for both sexes.
Maybe. But think back to the days
of Carol Doda and the topless bars. An
advertisement for topless waitresses; that was something! But topless waiters: that just doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. Especially if you don’t know before you get
there which sex might be serving you.
More than language is involved in all
these examples: there has been a profound change in beliefs as well. Thinking through the implications of some of
them, and what they might mean for the future, I’m not sorry to be old.
[1] It is possible the term originally meant, ‘My health is good’, or
‘My situation is good.’ The subsequent
abbreviation has been the cause of the ambiguity.
[2] One obvious example of difference is that women can give birth, and
men can’t. It’s why the extreme sexual
egalitarians want men to be fitted with artificial wombs.
No comments:
Post a Comment