Words, words, words

[baroque_mongoose]

My childhood didn't provide me with very many advantages, but one of them is that I've been very much pre-primed against weasel words. (That's a rather bad phrase, actually. I have nothing against weasels. Still, everyone knows what it means.) So when some politician tells me that "the economy" is doing well or badly, and then I look at my own experience and those of other people around me and they don't seem to jibe with that, my first instinct is to ask myself exactly what this person means by "the economy". And then, of course, there's the old chestnut "freedom of speech", which sounds like a very good idea in theory until you realise that a) the person spouting this phrase means they should be allowed to say whatever they like but you (you pleb) should not, and furthermore that you (you pleb) should be forced to listen to whatever they say, and b) they aren't including any sensible caveats about irresponsible speech. "Freedom of speech" should be like any other freedom: you're free, but you're not free to do harm. That phrase should never in any circumstances mean it's all right to walk into a crowded cinema and shout "Fire!" when there's no fire, to deceive and defraud, or to intimidate those who are vulnerable, just to take a few examples. But it's astonishing how many people seem to think it means it's all right for them (but not, of course, for Those Other People) to do those things.

I think the first time I realised how words could be twisted was when I discovered that it was all right for adults to dislike certain foods. That was fine. Adults just disliked some things, so you didn't make them eat them because that would be rude. Children, however, were "fussy" or "faddy", rather than having genuine dislikes, and must therefore be made to eat things they disliked, because otherwise there'd be anarchy or something. (This was not entirely consistent. I did, thankfully, at least get away with not having to eat eggs or bacon; but I was forced to drink tea because it was "polite" to drink it, unless you were an adult, of course, in which case it didn't matter if you didn't like tea. Annoyingly, I was not only forced to drink it, but continually told it was "nice" or "lovely", as though this were an objective thing; similarly, I was forced to eat ham on Christmas Eve because it was a "special Christmas treat", despite my vehement protests. And my poor sister was forced to eat Brussels sprouts, which I really liked, but she had the gene which made them taste bitter. If I'd dared, I'd have swiped hers and eaten them for her; then we'd both have been happy, since we never really did get large enough helpings of vegetables.)

Then there was the whole business of hitting. Adults weren't supposed to hit other adults. Children weren't really supposed to hit other children, though if I was the one who got hit, that wasn't really important (there would have been a huge stink had I been the one doing the hitting, but I never was). Children absolutely weren't supposed to hit adults - that was well beyond the pale. And we were always told that you shouldn't hit anyone who was smaller or weaker than you were... except... that adults could, and did, regularly hit children. And that was perfectly all right, just so long as you called it "smacking". That was important. If you ever called it "hitting", you would get into trouble and be told it wasn't hitting, it was smacking. Well, of course it was hitting. What on earth else was it?

Another one was very subtle. You'd be told it was, or it wasn't, time for something; so, for instance, if you were thirsty and you asked for a drink, you'd be told it wasn't time for a drink yet (even if the adult was currently having a cup of coffee - in our world, mid-morning drinks were one of a number of adult privileges which appeared to have no purpose other than reinforcing the power dynamic). I was taken in by this one for far too long. "It's time..." or "it's not time..." sounds to a child like an abstract and unalterable thing, along the lines of "it's raining". Of course, it isn't, and I eventually realised that "no, you can't have a drink, it's not time for one yet" meant nothing more than "I can't be bothered to get you a drink right now, and I don't trust you to get your own, because you're a child, and children always make a mess".

I mean, there were a whole lot more, but you get the general picture. I'm sensitive to people in power twisting words because that's what I grew up with. Now, of course, ideally, people in power should be there to represent and advance the interests of the people who voted them into power, because that's why they were voted there in the first place. A few of them genuinely do. Most don't.

Parents should also be there to advance the interests of their children, rather than power-tripping at their expense. And, thankfully... most do.