Title Fight: Rock vs Smith

 I haven't done a blog in A G E S cos I prefer to vent my spleen at humanity over on Twitter (@HeggieFVK again - my boys are back!!! ;; ) but this one is a gnarly situation...

The Cast
Chris Rock (b. 1965), a 'comedian' of dubious humour
Will Smith (b. 1968), an actor
Jada Pinkett Smith (b. 1971), Will's wife / an actress

The Plot
Rock is presenting the Oscar for best documentary (going to Questlove for 'Summer Of Soul') at the 2022 Academy Awards. Smith is up for (and eventually wins) best actor (King Richard - which it turns out is about tennis and not Shakespeare). But before that can happen Rock goes off script and makes a 'joke' about Pinkett Smith and G.I. Jane 2.

The Event
Smith strides up to the stage and slaps Rock across the face (a lot of reports and comments say it was a punch, depending on exactly what you think you see in the footage, personally I'm not interested in trying to analyse it although I will say that I thought it looked FAKE) before returning to his seat.

The Fall Out
Naturally enough the morning after the night before it's practically the only thing the interwebs are talking about. There are a whole bunch of takes that I'll tackle in no particular order.

1) Violence Is Always Wrong
I don't think there's any disagreement that Smith was at fault. It was an unacceptable reaction. However the calls from certain people (mostly, from what I've seen, outraged white men) for Smith to be stripped of his well-deserved Oscar is also an unacceptable reaction. Sure, Smith may have lowered the tone but Rock used a joke that was not pre-vetted and consequences were had. I feel it is worth noting that Smith apologised to the Academy for his actions... but not to Rock.

2) It was a G.I. Jane joke
This was Rock's response although TBH I'm not clear what he could have meant by that. My INITIAL response was that he was making a rude comment about Pinkett Smith's career. G.I. Jane (1997 movie starring Demi Moore in the title role) was a rubbish film - Moore got a Worst Actress Razzie and it made a loss at the box office Meanwhile Pinkett Smith's movies include a number of sequels, remakes, cameos, voice roles, etc. It's not an exaggeration to say she's most famous for being Mrs Will Smith.

3) Ableism
The G.I. Jane character is most famous for being BALD. Pinkett Smith suffers from alopecia areata, an autoimmune disease. Smith, and a large proportion of the internet denizens putting in their tuppenceworth (myself included) that 'making fun' of people's illnesses, disabilities, visible differences and so forth is entirely unacceptable.
If a 'joke' of that sort was made in a classroom or playground it would be classed as bullying; if it was in a work environment it'd be 'creating a toxic working environment'. The context of an awards ceremony does not make it okay.

4) Political Correctness Will Kill Comedy
First off, Chris Rock isn't remotely funny. Secondly this was not a skit in which fun was made of bald people or bald women, it was a specific comment directed at a specific woman. That's not 'political correctness gone mad', it's being 'anti-bullying'. I dislike the whole 'roasting' thing anyway but certain topics SHOULD be off limits, especially when aimed at individuals.
Since my mum's incapacitation my tolerance for stroke jokes has become non-existent but try to be funny at her expense and I'll show you an alternative meaning of the word 'punchline'.

5) The "maybe Chris Rock didn't know about the alopecia, I didn't" argument
This one is REALLY hard to swallow. Unless Rock had been living under a rock it's really damned unlikely. I don't follow celebrity shit beyond what pootles past my nose when scrolling Twitter but I've known about her alopecia for ages (she was diagnosed in 2018). It's had a lot of publicity.

6) It was just a joke
Okay, so this isn't REALLY a point here but following on from the maybe-he-didn't-know idea... In 2009 Chris Rock PRODUCED AND NARRATED a documentary called Good Hair, on the subject of the importance, social acceptance, and desirability of black American women's hair.
There is literally NO WAY IN HELL he didn't understand that a woman like Jada would hold their hair as an integral part of their identity and grieve its loss. Even if a woman has chosen to shave her head joking about people's appearances is never a good move.

7) Smith is henpecked / cuckolded / at his wife's mercy yada yada yada
Obviously, I don't know these people but I've seen bits and pieces over the twenty four years of their marriage. Whether she has cheated on him or whether they have an open marriage is entirely their business. Personally I dislike the dynamic they have as a couple but if it works for them it has nothing to do with anybody else.
The idea that Will hit Chris because 'Jada made him do it' is not outside the realms of possibility but I dislike the inherent sexism. When a woman is seen to be 'controlled by her husband she is an object of pity; when the reverse seems to be the case he is seen as pathetic, an object of ridicule.
IMHO it looked like Will was laughing uncomfortably at Rock's joke (knowing full well he was on camera, being seen by the world) and then caught the expression of hurt on Jada's face. Knowing that she'd just been insulted before an audience of over fifteen million at the most prestigious awards ceremony in the cinematic world must simply have been too much.
I also want to note here that in a long and prestigious career this is the VERY FIRST TIME I have seen Will Smith's name linked to any kind of questionable behaviour, let alone violence.
Rock however had insulted Jada at the 2016 Oscars too, making fun of her non-appearance as she hadn't been invited to attend. He's been in hot water for other controversial jokes and has not exactly led a squeaky-clean life. People in glass houses and all that...

My Review: Three Stars (wink-wink, get it???)
Violence is a pretty poor response but I can understand it. I have been bullied and I abhor trying to pass off hurtful behaviour as comedy or banter. Everyone sucks here, but Rock somewhat more than Smith.

A Hairy Problem

I woke up this morning to the following article on the BBC News website:

"Alopecia patients call for NHS to fund real hair wigs"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-46194962

1) Why are people with alopecia being 'treated' on the NHS??? A condition of hair loss is not an illness and there is no treatment. 

2) Wigs are purely cosmetic and the NHS should not imho be funding things that do not improve a person's health. 

As synthetic wigs ARE provided on the NHS it's not like there's nothing available for those who can't afford such things. NHS glasses used to be ugly af - if you wanted something nicer you had to pay for it. If you couldn't afford it you were stuck with functional. The voucher system on prescription specs has helped with this and maybe could be applied to wigs...but there are opticians on every high street in a way that wig suppliers just aren't. Not to mention the shortfall would be drastic and still price a lot of people out of real-hair wigs...but that does not mean the NHS should foot the bill.

"For many people with alopecia, wearing a wig is an essential part

of managing the psychological impact of losing their hair;

those who wear wigs for medical necessity

don't see their wig as an optional luxury."

3) As the impact of alopecia is psychological the treatment should also be psychological. However, as much as I feel for the mum in the article whose teenage son hasn't received any counselling for his hair loss I would point out that even after a suicide attempt many kids have to wait ages to see a counsellor. IF there's even a referral, that is; my kid didn't get counselling for 6 years!!! OBVIOUSLY that's not saying one psychological issue is more important than another but the system is already unfit for purpose - spend NHS money on improving counselling services for ALL conditions and you save money on dozens of other things; such as A&E visits, addiction services, eating disorder clinics, and maybe even wigs. 

Usually I argue for treating the cause, not the symptom but there is no known cause for alopecia so there's no choice but to go after the symptom...the symptom is lack of hair so address that with a wig, but that doesn't address the real issue which is psychological impact. Wigs are a band-aid solution, fixing nothing.

"Your hair is the first thing people see...

I've always had long hair, it's part of my identity."

We are socially conditioned to think that people (particularly women and younger men) should have hair while older men get a pass, baldness even being seen as attractive in some instances. It is cultural too - shaved heads being normal in many cultures. Addressing the social norms of hair and the psychological impact of losing it would be far more helpful in the long run. Those with baldness shouldn't feel obliged to hide it.

Taking the idea of hair being 'essential' to the extreme, you could in theory argue that if hair loss is to be treated as a medical issue then hairdressing, grooming products, razors etc should logically be available on the NHS - for those with conditions such as male-pattern baldness or excessive body hair for example. Actually, that's a bad example as male-pattern baldness and excessive body hair usually are related to hormone levels which could actually be treated medically...

For myself I could wrangle an argument that being stuck with my natural hair colour is detrimental to my psychological well-being. True but ludicrous. But so is arguing for a wig because your hair is your identity. Just because you've always had something doesn't mean you will, or can or should, always have that thing. You can get false teeth on the NHS cos you need them to talk and eat properly. You can get functional prosthetic limbs on the NHS but cosmetic ones cost extra because they are not medically necessary. What function does hair even have?! Answer is: none at all. 

Next issue: women from poor countries being targeted for their hair.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/ugly-truth-behind-multi-million-7513507

Yes, this particular article from 2016 cites the beauty industry's demand for hair but it would be naive to think there is a clear line separating cosmetic hair pieces from wigs for those with alopecia or cancer. Human hair has to come from somewhere and most of the time it's poor women being exploited. There have also been stories of women being attacked and their hair cut off - some baseless rumours, others may be for motives such as humiliation - but in a world where human hair has monetary worth such things are liable to happen.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an industry based on human hair but I'm saying there is an ethical argument against the NHS buying into it.

In the western world we see altruistic kids having their hair cut off for people with cancer but that's just a strand in a big ol' hairball. I don't think many people really consider where their real hair wigs and extensions actually come from.

In Les Miserables by Victor Hugo (1862) a desperate and destitute Fantine sells first her only possession of worth - a locket - then her hair and teeth, then finally falls into prostitution; scenes which are deeply distressing to a modern audience - be it the book, musical or the 2012 film (with Anne Hathaway winning an Oscar for her portrayal of Fantine). Set the best part of 200 years ago you'd hope that such events were firmly in the past but clearly they are not. No 21st century woman should have those life experiences.

Most of us accept the idea that the NHS is underfunded but with a limited set of resources should this even be open for discussion?! Essential services that save lives HAVE to come first. The NHS should be about what you NEED not what you WANT. Waiting lists can appalling - months waiting for cancer testing and ECGs. My mum waited 4.5 months after discharge from hospital for a physiotherapy referral - she now refuses to go because it has been 'too long'. That will inevitably impact her life expectancy as her mobility continues to deteriorate. These are things people NEED - not prettier wigs.

One more point before my rant comes to an end: IF the NHS were to supply real hair wigs who would be responsible for the products and care required to maintain them?!