As this news story explains, Frankie Boyle has opened up another can of worms in relation to some jokes he made about people with Downs Syndrome at a live gig in Reading. I wasn't at the gig so I can't comment on what he said - and actually that is beside the point but I'll come on to that later. A couple on the front row of the theatre have a daughter with downs and they raised concerns and appear to have had a conversation with Frankie in front of the whole audience. They were able to say that they were unhappy with his jokes and challenge the jokes he had been making. The couple also seem to have enjoyed the rest of the show and were well aware that Frankie's humour is cutting and dark.
The first thing I'd like to say is that this for me shows freedom of speech at its best. Frankie said something that I'm sure many felt uncomfortable about. I admire the courage of the mother to take on Frankie and use her right to say she didn't think it was funny. It must have been painful for all of them involved. Freedom of speech is all about rights and responsibilities, many forget the latter.
So is it acceptable to make jokes about disabled people? What about jokes about racial groups, gays and lesbians or jokes about religion?
When I run equality and diversity training I always include a case study where it deals with humour. Usually I use the example of emailed jokes that are shared in the office. This is because most employers now have Internet policies if not equality policies that basically make emailing "offensive" jokes a bad idea or totally unacceptable. By using this example about emails I can also talk about the new digital realm and what we might say or not say on social networking sites that could affect us in the work place. But that would be a whole new blog entry which I may write later what with the Stuart MacLennan story in the news. Of course it always raises the question "what's offensive..." and here the proverbial piece of string really is never ending, and this isn't a training session so I'll move on!
During training we sometimes end up talking about the broader issues of humour, sometimes delegates will argue that if something is very funny or clever then its justified even if it causes offense. We live in a country where we have freedom of speech after all.
What are the basic rules of humour? Now this is my opinion only but I think humour is about power, and the best comedians play around with our notions of who has power and who doesn't. Jokes are about exchanging power. A joke can make the teller powerful or it can make the listener / observer feel powerful. Humour can do the opposite too, take the power form the teller and give it to the audience as we laugh at the comedian instead of with them. The trouble is that when the comedian is making the audience feel powerful they can do that at someone's expense too. Add into all that exchanging of power the element of shock and humour can be incredibly powerful.
Humour can be used as a magnificent tool to illuminate abuses of power in the outside world, it can also be used to champion the everyday, the ordinary and the weak. Humour can also be used as a form of solidarity.
I like Frankie Boyle on TV, I've not seen him live. He uses shock in his humour brilliantly. No taboo is too big and scary for him to deal with. He quite often uses the power of shock and gives the power of it to the audience by admitting to all kinds of terrible or taboo behaviour. We laugh because we are shocked that Frankie would admit to being so horrible or doing things we never talk about. He does also viciously attack others - if they are in a position of power then that can be liberating to those who don't have that power.
But Frankie does like to attack the weak or the mundane too - and that's when his humour can become uncomfortable for me. The constant Kerry Katona jokes on Mock the Week can be seen as kicking an easy target when she's down. But on the other hand is Frankie just uncovering the ridiculous nature of celebrity that is embodied in poor, pathetic Kerry?
Well Frankie's clever but is he that clever? Even if he's being clever isn't it just laziness to make jokes about disabled people?
When I ask that question I feel uncomfortable because it highlights the weak position disabled people have in society. Disabled people as individuals are not weak, we are all different, unique people with strengths and weaknesses like anyone else, but as a group within society disabled people are weaker than most. Disabled people do not have the same opportunities as non disabled people, society is constructed in a way to favour the non disabled. People with learning disabilities like Downs, are in one of the weakest positions in society. Even though people with Downs are all totally different individuals with different interests, abilities, likes and dislikes and very different senses of humour. As a group within society they are totally unrepresented. Until very recently they were generally kept away from the rest of society in residential homes and special schools.
I've worked with people with Downs and other learning disabilities and I'm sure they'd love to have a chat with Frankie about his jokes. Many of them probably roll about with laughter when watching Frankie on TV. Finding his jokes just as shocking and irreverent as anyone else does. They'd tell him what they thought of his "Downs" jokes. I'd like to see Frankie play the Beautiful Octopus Club (a festival of arts by people with learning difficulties) I think he's got to balls to do it and share some of that power that he's got as a comedian with the under represented arts movement.
For me any joke at the expense of someone who is not represented in society and so powerless is a lazy joke. I wish more people had the courage and conviction to challenge such jokes. As a visually impaired person I do squirm at the jokes made about blind people, the David Blunket jokes the one eyed Gordon Brown jokes. They're predominantly lazy, spiteful jokes that aren't uncovering anything new or enlightening and only serve as to make the audience feel smug for not being blind themselves. Don't get me going on lazy, pathetic humour exploiting people with mental health problems.
I'm proud that I live in a country where I can challenge such lazy humour. I hope that from this Frankie Boyle story a voice can be given to people with Downs. I am worried it will become a Frankie Boyle bashing story which is just stupid and pointless. People with learning difficulties wouldn't need to be "defended" if society actually listened to them in the first time and included them in comedy, arts, independent living and everything really!
Friday 9 April 2010
Monday 22 February 2010
On some issues just being to big
I got an email from a friend today asking me to join a group on Facebook asking me to support a campaign supporting "Assisted living" rather than supporting "assisted dieing /suicide" which has been in the news so much lately, particularly in relation to the Ray Gosling case. Although this has been in the news for quite some time as this radio piece by Baroness Campbell called "My right to live" illustrates.
I couldn't possibly consider blogging about this issue with out giving it a lot more thought, consideration and research. Instead I want to blog about why I found an invitation to this group so problematic.
I'm a member of all kinds of groups on Facebook from loving marmite to supporting the monks protests in Burma. I have never really minded much about what groups I've joined. But the issues relating to assisted suicide and what the concept says about society's attitude to disability is so huge and so complex I can't come down on one side or the other. And for me that is the whole point, it isn't about sides. There are disabled people who desperately want to end their lives, but can not do this for them selves and there are many disabled people who fervently believe that by recognizing assisted suicide, society is endorsing oppression of disabled people in the most extreme possible way.
Facebook and many other Internet hosted forum lend themselves well to presenting ideas in a focused and powerful manner or could that also be described as in a one sided and extreme manner? Communications on social networking sites are usually short, snappy and made often when someone is on the move, or doing two things at once. The best concentrated efforts of the group founders can be dashed by the people who join and post on that group. It is also easy for issues to be hi-jacked by people with a different agenda who piggy back on to an issue to propagate theirs. In the case of assisted suicide, many religious groups have strong feelings about suicide but don't necessarily share the disability equality aims of disability groups. This can lead to some uncomfortable bed fellows. I am minded of the anti pornography campaigning feminists who aligned themselves with religious groups who don't exactly embrace women's rights.
It was considering all of these factors which made me decide not to join my friends group on Facebook. The trouble is any campaign group I could support on the matter would have to be called something like:
"Society needs to do so much more to advance disabled people's human rights (including the right for disabled people to make their own decisions about life and death) we need to challenge and overturn the pervasive negative attitudes to disability and ensure that disabled people have equal rights and choices (including those that relate to life and ending life.)"
It just isn't very catchy for the Internet age is it?!
I couldn't possibly consider blogging about this issue with out giving it a lot more thought, consideration and research. Instead I want to blog about why I found an invitation to this group so problematic.
I'm a member of all kinds of groups on Facebook from loving marmite to supporting the monks protests in Burma. I have never really minded much about what groups I've joined. But the issues relating to assisted suicide and what the concept says about society's attitude to disability is so huge and so complex I can't come down on one side or the other. And for me that is the whole point, it isn't about sides. There are disabled people who desperately want to end their lives, but can not do this for them selves and there are many disabled people who fervently believe that by recognizing assisted suicide, society is endorsing oppression of disabled people in the most extreme possible way.
Facebook and many other Internet hosted forum lend themselves well to presenting ideas in a focused and powerful manner or could that also be described as in a one sided and extreme manner? Communications on social networking sites are usually short, snappy and made often when someone is on the move, or doing two things at once. The best concentrated efforts of the group founders can be dashed by the people who join and post on that group. It is also easy for issues to be hi-jacked by people with a different agenda who piggy back on to an issue to propagate theirs. In the case of assisted suicide, many religious groups have strong feelings about suicide but don't necessarily share the disability equality aims of disability groups. This can lead to some uncomfortable bed fellows. I am minded of the anti pornography campaigning feminists who aligned themselves with religious groups who don't exactly embrace women's rights.
It was considering all of these factors which made me decide not to join my friends group on Facebook. The trouble is any campaign group I could support on the matter would have to be called something like:
"Society needs to do so much more to advance disabled people's human rights (including the right for disabled people to make their own decisions about life and death) we need to challenge and overturn the pervasive negative attitudes to disability and ensure that disabled people have equal rights and choices (including those that relate to life and ending life.)"
It just isn't very catchy for the Internet age is it?!
Wednesday 20 January 2010
Disabled people on the box
I should be cleaning my flat right now in preparation for my Mum visiting, but I've been meaning to blog about the representation of disabled people on TV for ages. So it's the perfect procrastination activity - the cleaning will be done later!
the Ouch! (the BBC website's disability section) message board used to run a thread called "I just saw a disabled person on the TV" I don't know if it's still going but if it is, last night would have lead to some discussion on the thread. Channel 4's "How to look good naked" ran a disability themed show. Gok Wan used his unique style of self esteem boosting on disabled women to make them feel great about their bodies. I'm not going to write about the programme its self, I was watching the Hairy Bikers cookery programme instead. I don't want to criticise Gok either I actually use a video of him talking about his experiences as a over weight, gay, Chinese lad growing up on a London housing estate, in my equality and diversity training sometimes. I think he's a cool guy with good intentions. My complaint is that these programmes about disabled women could and in my opinion should have been included in the usual How to Look Good Naked format and not dealt with separately.
What I really want to do is address the issue of why How to Look Good Naked with a Difference is a topic to talk about at all? Why is there a need for a thread on a message board about disabled people appearing on TV?
I think this goes much deeper than TV, this is about how disabled are viewed by society. If TV is a mirror of modern society, if something matters we expect it to be on TV. I know this isn't strictly true but lets just for now agree that TV reflects broadly what the viewers are interested in, what matters to them etc. If that's the case then in the UK around 10% of the public and rising once you hit 50+, are disabled. If you then think about how many people in the UK have a family member who is disabled your looking at a huge number of people who are affected in some way by issues relating to disability. So is this represented on TV?
The thing is, forgetting TV for the moment it is a history of extremes when it comes to how disabled people are viewed by society at large. Go back to pre war UK and disabled people were either just not seen at all, locked away in hospitals, institutions, charitable homes or a few were performing and being gawped at in traveling circuses and "freak shows," some by choice but many not. (TV could still be treating disabled people this way unintentionally but more of that later.) The two world wars began to change all this as service men returned disabled and the government had to respond, wounded soldiers couldn't be gawped at in freak shows, they'd be looked after instead usually at home or in institutions.
The last 60 years have seen a hard struggle by disabled people and a gradual acceptance by some in society that we should have rights, including the right to work, access services, transport, education, basically live life! Part of that struggle is the right to be recognised by society for who we are and on our terms. This is where TV comes in.
Disabled people just don't see themselves on TV very often? If we do see disabled people on TV they are often plaid by non disabled people. I'll argue now that disabled people are currently the most under represented "minority group" when it comes to TV. Think about it, TV caters for older people and kids, for men and women, religion, it's getting better when it comes to ethnicity and entertainment and TV has always had loads of gay and lesbian performers and is at last representing this honestly and openly. Disability lags behind, even though there are disabled performers, production staff, writers out there doing brilliant work.
The disabled people of my childhood TV watching (late 70s and 80s) were rather limited. There was the blind grandmother in Heidi, who was brought soft rolls to eat from the town. It became an in joke with my friends when I was older that like the blind grandmother I needed soft rolls too. Heidi also had the tragic, sickly sweet Clara who could not walk. I was often likened to her as a child because like her I had long blond hair. I was a kind of cross between the two characters blind, well partially sighted in my case, like the grandmother but had long blond hair like the tragic Clara. Of course all Clara needs is some fresh air on the mountain side and she's soon running about with Peter the goat herd, totally cured. It's the typical Victorian take on disability those who are good and deserving will transcend their disability on the green pastures of heaven! Those bad get struck down Rochester in Jane Eyer has to be blinded in order to learn humility. Shakespeare loved using disability as a metaphor too, when he was blind he could see when he had sight he could not see (see as in understand)
In the 1980's the other disabled people I'd see on TV would be on a Sunday tea time when there would be a charity appeal on quite often for things like the Variety Club sunshine coaches. I used to actually worry as a child that if I wasn't good and worked hard at school I might be sent to one of the special schools featured on the TV appeals. I didn't want anyones help. I have to say there were positive role models too, I knew who Ian Dury was as a child my parents have good taste in music thankfully!
But things must have moved on now surely. I am pleased to say they have but things still aren't good. I think there are still far too many cheap tawdry documentaries in the true spirit of the freak show. Mitchel and Webb have the brilliant sketch about a spoof Channel 5 documentary "the boy who has an arse for a face." We've all seen them advertised those documentaries just about a person with a particular rare or extraordinary impairment for us to gawp at and feel thankful that we aren't afflicted.
When was the last time you saw a disabled person in an advert? Yes an advert? I would love to know if anyone has spotted a disabled person even a celeb who is disabled in an advert. I guess ad agencies think disabled people have no money to spend so no point including them in adverts and I'm sure they have plenty of research that shows that audiences don't want to be flogged yogurt / car insurance or furniture by a disabled person. Stephen Fry doesn't count by the way I've just remembered he does the odd advert voice over.
Everyone needs role models, so where are the role models for disabled people?
This is such a huge area I can't cover it in one entry on my blog but I'll revisit this one again I'm sure.
the Ouch! (the BBC website's disability section) message board used to run a thread called "I just saw a disabled person on the TV" I don't know if it's still going but if it is, last night would have lead to some discussion on the thread. Channel 4's "How to look good naked" ran a disability themed show. Gok Wan used his unique style of self esteem boosting on disabled women to make them feel great about their bodies. I'm not going to write about the programme its self, I was watching the Hairy Bikers cookery programme instead. I don't want to criticise Gok either I actually use a video of him talking about his experiences as a over weight, gay, Chinese lad growing up on a London housing estate, in my equality and diversity training sometimes. I think he's a cool guy with good intentions. My complaint is that these programmes about disabled women could and in my opinion should have been included in the usual How to Look Good Naked format and not dealt with separately.
What I really want to do is address the issue of why How to Look Good Naked with a Difference is a topic to talk about at all? Why is there a need for a thread on a message board about disabled people appearing on TV?
I think this goes much deeper than TV, this is about how disabled are viewed by society. If TV is a mirror of modern society, if something matters we expect it to be on TV. I know this isn't strictly true but lets just for now agree that TV reflects broadly what the viewers are interested in, what matters to them etc. If that's the case then in the UK around 10% of the public and rising once you hit 50+, are disabled. If you then think about how many people in the UK have a family member who is disabled your looking at a huge number of people who are affected in some way by issues relating to disability. So is this represented on TV?
The thing is, forgetting TV for the moment it is a history of extremes when it comes to how disabled people are viewed by society at large. Go back to pre war UK and disabled people were either just not seen at all, locked away in hospitals, institutions, charitable homes or a few were performing and being gawped at in traveling circuses and "freak shows," some by choice but many not. (TV could still be treating disabled people this way unintentionally but more of that later.) The two world wars began to change all this as service men returned disabled and the government had to respond, wounded soldiers couldn't be gawped at in freak shows, they'd be looked after instead usually at home or in institutions.
The last 60 years have seen a hard struggle by disabled people and a gradual acceptance by some in society that we should have rights, including the right to work, access services, transport, education, basically live life! Part of that struggle is the right to be recognised by society for who we are and on our terms. This is where TV comes in.
Disabled people just don't see themselves on TV very often? If we do see disabled people on TV they are often plaid by non disabled people. I'll argue now that disabled people are currently the most under represented "minority group" when it comes to TV. Think about it, TV caters for older people and kids, for men and women, religion, it's getting better when it comes to ethnicity and entertainment and TV has always had loads of gay and lesbian performers and is at last representing this honestly and openly. Disability lags behind, even though there are disabled performers, production staff, writers out there doing brilliant work.
The disabled people of my childhood TV watching (late 70s and 80s) were rather limited. There was the blind grandmother in Heidi, who was brought soft rolls to eat from the town. It became an in joke with my friends when I was older that like the blind grandmother I needed soft rolls too. Heidi also had the tragic, sickly sweet Clara who could not walk. I was often likened to her as a child because like her I had long blond hair. I was a kind of cross between the two characters blind, well partially sighted in my case, like the grandmother but had long blond hair like the tragic Clara. Of course all Clara needs is some fresh air on the mountain side and she's soon running about with Peter the goat herd, totally cured. It's the typical Victorian take on disability those who are good and deserving will transcend their disability on the green pastures of heaven! Those bad get struck down Rochester in Jane Eyer has to be blinded in order to learn humility. Shakespeare loved using disability as a metaphor too, when he was blind he could see when he had sight he could not see (see as in understand)
In the 1980's the other disabled people I'd see on TV would be on a Sunday tea time when there would be a charity appeal on quite often for things like the Variety Club sunshine coaches. I used to actually worry as a child that if I wasn't good and worked hard at school I might be sent to one of the special schools featured on the TV appeals. I didn't want anyones help. I have to say there were positive role models too, I knew who Ian Dury was as a child my parents have good taste in music thankfully!
But things must have moved on now surely. I am pleased to say they have but things still aren't good. I think there are still far too many cheap tawdry documentaries in the true spirit of the freak show. Mitchel and Webb have the brilliant sketch about a spoof Channel 5 documentary "the boy who has an arse for a face." We've all seen them advertised those documentaries just about a person with a particular rare or extraordinary impairment for us to gawp at and feel thankful that we aren't afflicted.
When was the last time you saw a disabled person in an advert? Yes an advert? I would love to know if anyone has spotted a disabled person even a celeb who is disabled in an advert. I guess ad agencies think disabled people have no money to spend so no point including them in adverts and I'm sure they have plenty of research that shows that audiences don't want to be flogged yogurt / car insurance or furniture by a disabled person. Stephen Fry doesn't count by the way I've just remembered he does the odd advert voice over.
Everyone needs role models, so where are the role models for disabled people?
This is such a huge area I can't cover it in one entry on my blog but I'll revisit this one again I'm sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
