Terence Blacker: Why do people have to be such wusses?
Friday, 6 June 2008
Onstage, the former candidate for the governorship of Texas inhaled happily and illegally on a fat cigar and confided his thoughts about the wussification of our culture. Kinky Friedman, the country 'n' western star, novelist and politician, is touring the UK, and was pausing between songs while his guitarist replaced a string.
He had first realised the power of wusses and sissies while campaigning for state office in 2006. He had been standing in the back of an open-topped car, travelling so slowly as hardly to be moving at all, talking to voters with a can of Guinness in his hand. The next day, he was accused of breaking a law about open containers in cars. There was talk of prosecution. Here, he later declared, was a serious case of wussification. As for the allegation itself, he answered like a true would-be politician. "I did drink some Guinness, he said. "But I didn't swallow."
Not for the first time, the Kinkster, as he likes to be known, had spoken a profound truth. The chronically anxious have somehow taken control of our world. Thin-blooded and censorious, they have decided that anyone who is colourful, different or eccentric represents not just a danger to himself but to the rest of us, too. Their response to each new source of anxiety is simple: if in doubt, ban it.
The rule of the wuss lies behind most the government's many pronouncements. Knife crime, to take the issue of the moment, may statistically have remained at about the same level over the past decade but it has recently become a media obsession and so yet more useless legislation will be needed.
Fear sells newspapers. It keeps people watching the news. There is a growing addiction to anxiety and guilt. The government response – yet another useless law – is designed to make voters feel more secure but almost always has the opposite effect.
A similar state of mind eats into matters of public taste and morality. It is now enough for someone, no matter how bored, bigoted or nutty, to take offence for them to be taken seriously. Such is our state of cultural cringe that the sensibilities of one wuss weigh more heavily in the balance than the views of a thousand people who take a normal, grown-up view. Last month, Manchester Museum responded to complaints from members of the public who had been offended by the dessicated 4,000- year-old remains of Egyptian mummies, on the grounds that the figures were unclothed. The response, inevitably, was a victory for dirty-minded prurience. The figures were covered up.
This week's menacing idiocy came courtesy of the government minister Anna Eagle. Proposing new anti-pornography legislation to cover computer-generated images, she remarked that cartoons and paintings should also fall within the law. This great leap forward for those who are afraid of everything, particularly freedom, was defended on the grounds that legitimate works of art would never be banned. The only sane response to this argument is derisive laughter.
Objecting to the idea of a potential new tier of censorship, David Hockney perceptively referred to "the mean spirit of the age". To oppose this scourge of nay-saying nannies, spreading guilt, fear and anxiety wherever they go, is not grumpiness but a positive, life-affirming gesture on behalf of the individual, the unusual and the risky.
As the Kinkster once said in the context of Texas, we must fight back against the wussification of our culture – even if we have to do it one wuss at a time.
Don't feel too sorry for Leah
In a game but touchingly ineptattempt to bolster her career, a Canadian journalist called Leah McLaren has written a multimedia project – column, film, and probably video game – around the exhausted cliché that Englishmen are bad lovers. She had once worked on a right-wing tabloid in London and dated, as she elegantly puts it, "a lot of crap British men".
She never apparently went to bed with any of them, a fact that she puts down to their alcoholism, misogyny or repressed homosexuality. She says that behind every well-mannered Englishman is someone "who wants to go home and be whipped and chained". It all sounds very much like a desperate cry for help. Leah is currently dating an ex-pat Canadian.
* If you are looking for a perfect symbol of the inter-relatedness of British landscape and everyday life, of the practical and the pleasurable, wild and domestic, then a leading contender would be the apple.
This month the importance of fruit growing, and of apples in particular, has received a double boost. Three collections of 1,000 varieties of apple have been sold for cultivation to the Prince of Wales's Duchy organic food range, to the Co-operative Society and to a private collector in Scotland.
At a more popular level, the environmental organisation Common Ground has published a manifesto and guide for those who want to make orchards part of their community, in the same way as a village green might be. Community Orchards Handbook, promoting the idea of a shared place which is good for people, wildlife and food, is one of the publications of the summer.




They've TEMPORARILY covered the mummies' bits, T, as a 'suck it and see' exercise (if you'll pardon the outrageous pun). Personally, I don't think Mcr Museum was right to do it, but if they want to humour these people for a while then whatever...
I'm actually in the camp of 'or what will you do?' - ie, ignore them/it and they/it will probably go away. Some ppl are all mouth and trousers. Or is it all mouth and NO trousers? Or am I just thinking about the mummies again?
Posted by Amanda Hill | 06.06.08, 20:56 GMT
I'm sure you're correct Sam but I don't really care too much. My point is with the use of the term, not the article itself. I still haven't read it...I'm being perverse maybe but it is offensive.
Posted by Michele | 06.06.08, 19:05 GMT
Michele, I dearly you hope you are aware of the irony of your post, and that it is deliberate. Really, I do.
Otherwise you have somewhat comprehensively proved his point, haven't you?
Posted by sam | 06.06.08, 17:01 GMT
I haven't bothered to read this article due to my irritation at the use, once again, of the word 'wuss'. Do you have any clue about the origins of this overused ghastly word ?
It's is a bastardised version of a vulgar term for a woman's genital area.
It's used everywhere & is offensive !
Posted by Michele | 06.06.08, 16:24 GMT
the wussification of our culture? that's rich coming from someone writing in a newspaper that claims cannabis can turn perfectly normal people into frenzied schizophrenics
Posted by dave | 06.06.08, 16:19 GMT
An extreme example of this arises from the Macpherson report, with its definition of a racist incident to include those perceived as racist by the victim or any other person. It appears to give backing for someone with a chip on their shoulder, to complain about a trivial incident even if the "victim" him or herself, sees no offence.
Posted by George | 06.06.08, 14:21 GMT
Every time another B grade government minister proposes yet another piece of restrictive legislation, this country takes another step towards the dystopia that Terry Gilliam portrayed so vividly in his film Brazil.
Posted by Michael Birbeck | 06.06.08, 12:10 GMT
I don't understand the comparison between Kinky and wusses - they both seek to ban things they don't like. As far as I can tell they are the extremes of a daft scale, people who seek to ban things they fear shouldn't be given the power too. Sometimes it's healthy to be confronted by something you find intimidating if only because it makes you think. There needs to be more thinking and less banning.
Posted by Lindsey | 06.06.08, 10:50 GMT
The museum should have had the backbone to the complainers to get a grip.
...if even on themselves, since it sounds like they need it.
Seriously..WHO looks at 4000 year old mummies and thinks "my goodness, but that is lewd.."
Censorship always seems to be bred out of the mouths of those with the minds most in need of it, then assume the rest of us are as messed-up as they are.
As the age old saying goes, "If you do not like it..then do not look at it."
Idiots!
Posted by K Douglas | 06.06.08, 10:30 GMT
Oh dear.........I think I'll go back to the BBC website, surely THEY will have written something a little interesting.
Posted by Alan Robinson | 06.06.08, 06:29 GMT