Can ye believe it?

Once again, The Heggie Zone is kinda embarrassed to present and expanded & explained Twitter rant.
This one is on the linked article, entitled "Kanye West Is Publicly Struggling. We Need To Give Him Grace"
(source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/elaminabdelmahmoud/kanye-west-mental-health-dangerous-media-narratives?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc)

A quote from Craig Jenkins included within reads

“The lack of context regarding his [bipolar] diagnosis...in coverage...

which questions the viability of the presidential bid

but never entertains the possibility that the man giving all the

outlandish pull quotes might not be doing so well right now,

illuminate our inability to step back and ponder the ethics

of the internet content mill…”

But is this even TRUE? How is there a lack of context?! I'm not American, I have never heard anything he's done BUT I know he's bipolar and super irresponsible about it.
West's struggles with Bipolar Disorder have been widely reported and discussed. It'd be like adding context that Stevie Wonder is blind - it is a really well-known factor. We all KNOW he's 'not doing so well' but he is deliberately putting himself out there to be seen.
He is also putting himself out there to be ELECTED. The press' ethics must be first and foremost concerned with protecting the public more than Kanye West.

My tweets in bold, copied directly from my feed 29/07/2020.

It's a challenging read but I can't say I fully agree with it. Mercy & compassion have their place but Kanye & HIS ENTIRE TEAM are guilty here of some f*ck*d up sh*t that negatively impacts anyone living with mental health issues.
Kanye West is not an individual, he is a person with EXTENSIVE management and a very famous family of in-laws. It seems that not one of them, let alone all in a unified action, is capable of 'controlling' the situation. Not that I blame Kim for example - but she's begging for understanding after the fact each time. I can understand she loves him... okay, I can't but I get her commitment to her marriage, but I don't understand why she is 'letting him do this' to himself, her, and their children. It's ultimatum time, dearie. Get help, step away from the limelight, or I take the kids and leave.
Most of us would be subjected to an intervention - and probably sectioning under the mental health act. If you had a meltdown at work your boss would (hopefully) send you home cos no way can you be doing this sh*t in front of customers / clients / members of the public / co-workers. But more than this, every negative bit of press Kanye-and-team whip up affects EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL WITH A MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER. He is perpetuating all the negative stereotypes of mental illness.

I feel it is wrong to blame the media for the media hungry Ye machine. They don't seem to be inaccurately, cruelly, or especially unkindly representing him. And plenty of similar speculation has been applied to Trump's incoherent ramblings. It's par for the presidential course.
The press aren't hunting out these stories - they're attending 'campaign rallies' and interviewing him (probably at invitation) to promote the albums he endlessly fails to deliver.
I have seen lots of articles questioning Trump's sanity, his 'fitness to lead', and speculating as to whether he's had a stroke. Now, whether or not Trump has a diagnosable disorder he is clearly several sandwiches short of a picnic. I am bothered by the stroke speculation as a brain injury does not necessarily make him 'unfit' although if it was covered up in his medical that's a pretty serious business.
Kanye cannot possibly expected to run for POTUS without speculation, analysis and criticism. Saying he should be exempted from such scrutiny on grounds of his well-publicised mental health problems is a really irresponsible stance that could theoretically help him into the White House!
It takes a lot for me to defend the press. But here they are not being intrusive, sensationalist, dishonest, manipulative... which is quite remarkable in and of itself. What they are is standing back and letting West rip himself apart. If you're asking "but should they?" how do you think journalism works?! Reporters don't start or end wars, they write up what is going on. Criticism is fair when they are unfair... but West's rants are his own.
And now he's running (however implausibly) for POTUS his instability becomes a matter of American National Security and needs to be reported as such.

IMHO Kanye risks making people believe that all bipolar people are... wildly unstable, incapable of holding responsibility etc. and that is TERRIBLE. The stigma of mental illness is bad enough without him taking it back DECADES.
The article keeps going on about Kanye's pain and trauma. We all have pain, we all have trauma, not all of us are bipolar but even those who are don't all act out so badly.
Mental health has long been taboo but headway has been made in recent years - so why is Kanye being encouraged / enabled / excused from f*ck*ng over every other person battling their demons?!
I am 'only' struggling with 30 years of depression but this angers me so much. People are mistreated, outcast, shunned, denied housing, denied work - and West, a bloody billionaire, is making their lives harder and causing people to be afraid of people with mental health problems.

What I think Kanye / his team *should* have done is take him down a Kate Bush style path - all the creativity, minimal public appearances. Let him have dignity in mystique. Especially after the first few meltdowns. NOT about hiding but saving him from himself.
At a time when Black Lives Matter is a major headline West is accusing Harriet Tubman of selling out black people, he has previously called slavery a choice. If he were anything but a Black person himself he would have been 'cancelled' by now! He says the most appalling things and is given a pass, time and time again, because of his diagnosis... but is it right to do so? Oddly enough you can be an asshole AND bipolar; the one does not necessarily stem from the other.
Being a creator does not mean you have to be constantly on stage, giving interviews, etc. You can release albums, even play concerts, but you don't need to keep talking shit. If this was his first major incident I would be more forgiving but at this point there have been MANY. You would think that the prior experiences would keep him on his medications and off his soap-box...

How can you treat Kanye as multiple people? Even if he had multiple personality disorder the 'man who knows what he's doing' is the same being who is saying these outrageous things. The same person who admits not taking his meds is running for POTUS. That CANNOT BE IGNORED.
This comment is particularly aimed at the following quote:

"The truth is you have to be rather callous to laugh at the unwell person

in front of you. But you don’t need that callousness

when you imagine it’s the West who knows what he’s doing,

the West who is immensely capable of processing his pain."

Can you actually run for POTUS without knowing what you are doing?! He knows he needs his meds, he knows what happens when he is off them, he knows he has embarrassed himself, humiliated his wife and offended his entire race several times before now... More to the point his extensive support team - managers, agents, assistants of every kind - know what he's doing and they are LETTING HIM. It is the moral equivalent of watching someone neck a bottle of vodka and then take their truck for a drive. THAT IS NOT ON THE PRESS.

Should the media be *accountable* in the articles they write about a misician [sic] having a spectacular and uninhibited public brain fart or should they be responsible and accurately represent a man who is running for the ultimate public office? Literally can't be both.
IF West was JUST promoting another undelivered album... no, even then - cos he's consciously, deliberately seeking promotion. This is not press intruding into Harvey Price's hospital room, unresearched speculation on royal doings, or any other number of invasive examples of sensationalist journalism.

If Kanye was a private individual, or an involuntary public figure like a royal or a WAG, I would totally agree that the media needs to step back... but there's a world of difference when the person you're writing about is actively courting publicity.
As I put a moment ago - royalty never asked for publicity, children and spouses (or other relatives) of celebrities shouldn't be hounded, used or abused for the sake of a story. But Kanye isn't an involuntary celebrity, he's not even a private celebrity - he is a courting publicity, letting it all hang out as publicly as possible celebrity. Even then, if he was a recording artist having a mental breakdown there'd be an argument that they should back off* but he's RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

*In the UK right now Johnny Depp is suing the press for calling him a wife-beater and Prince Harry & Meghan, Duchess of Sussex are also suing the press for unwarranted breaches of privacy. The press, as a whole, are SHIT. They don't back off, they hound people until they break. Then they make a big deal out of the obituaries. Kanye West is not being hounded - he is feeding them.

How exactly is the press supposed to address the negative depiction of someone battling mental illness when this is what they're handed on a plate? I dare say there are lots of positive stories they could write for balance but a lot of people don't want their diagnosis 'outted' [sic].
Again, as I said before, this negatively impacts a lot of people. Lots of people with bipolar disorder and other mental health diagnoses are out there, doing good, being responsible, getting on with their lives but they shouldn't have to put their stories out there JUST to counterbalance West's breakdowns so the public can get a more nuanced view of mental health issues.

I have nothing against Kanye West as a human being. I hope he gets the help he needs. I just have a problem with blaming others for the harm he is doing.

White-privilege or targeting the vulnerable, regardless?

I've seen a lot of commentary about the racism at play in the press regarding Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and this article in particular emphasises the crap she's had to deal with, comparing headlines about her with virtually identical instances featuring Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-double-standards-royal?utm_source=dynamic&bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc
This pair of headlines from the Daily Mail sums it up rather well as they're by the same writer, only weeks apart:
"How Kate went from drab to fab! From eyebrows and pilates to a new style guru, our experts reveal the Duchess of Cambridge's secrets to looking sizzling" - Sarah Vine 14 Jun 2019
"My memo to Meghan Markle following her Vogue editorial - we Brits prefer true royalty to fashion royalty" - Sarah Vine 29 Jul 2019
If you don't want to click the link other examples include: 
Praising Catherine's simple and elegant choice of wedding flowers (inc Lily Of The Valley) to claiming Meghan put her bridesmaids lives at risk...for using Lily Of The Valley. 
Saying simply that William and Catherine would be spending Christmas with the Middletons in 2016, pointing out that they also had in 2011 - the first year they were married; but accusing Meghan and Harry of snubbing the Queen when they chose to spend Christmas with her mother in 2019 - the first year with their son. 
Positive coverage of Prince Louis' Christening (which the Queen did not attend) and criticising the Sussexes planning because the Queen was unavailable when they'd scheduled Archie's Christening.
Note: these examples are all tabloid press - The Sun, The Express, The Daily Mail and so on.

That stories are handled differently whether they are about Catherine (with or without William) or Meghan (with or without Harry) is pretty clear.
It is also worth noting that the press is pretty disrespectful of BOTH Duchesses - Catherine is repeatedly called Kate although she is supposed to be styled Catherine. Both are repeatedly called by their maiden names of Middleton and Markle despite being married with children - although many women choose to keep their name after marriage it is traditionally a great insult because it strips a woman of her married, and in this case Royal, status and implies illegitimacy of her children!

The question is: 
Is the press prejudice against Meghan RACIST?

Whilst quite probably there are racist motivations for the press' shitty attitude toward the Duchess it's a problematic assumption to make as nothing provably racist has been indicated; although certainly the public comments on these various stories can be overt.
I understand, to an extent, the accusation of white-privilege - that because I am white and see no racism in the press' words doesn't mean it's not there. However, the reverse also holds true - it is possible to be black (or indeed any ethnicity) and see racism which is not there. [Edit: claiming racism purely on the basis of Meghan's skin colour is itself an unfounded racial bias]

Back in the dark ages of my youth the press was being shitty to Diana, Princess of Wales (the former Diana Spencer) and Sarah, Duchess of York (the former Sarah Fergusson). The spouses of Anne and Edward largely seem to escape such attention - possibly a throwback to the idea of an heir (Charles) and a spare (Andrew), which would apply to William and Harry also.
Both of them were white but the press had a whale of a time hurling abuse at the both of them. It's easy to remember the hell they put Diana through as she died as her car attempted to out-race paparazzi but Sarah's marriage was destroyed and press attention / intrusion caused her a great deal of harm as well. I have decided to include their examples in this blog in the hope it might create a slightly better basis for comparison.

Is this 'simply' a matter of the press, limited in the shit they can throw at the royal family themselves feeling justified in targeting the 'outsiders'? In which case, why has Catherine been virtually left alone? Perhaps they decided to give her a pass because she is mother to the heir to the throne?
Certainly a lot has changed in the decades since Diana's death but the press are still happy to target Meghan - why?

If an argument is to be made that this is racism in action we'd need to exclude other factors which could cause prejudice.

First, nationality.

• Diana, British
• Sarah, British
• Catherine, British
• Meghan, American

Meghan is certainly different in this regard. Anti-American sentiment isn't usually a thing in Britain but then the last time and American got close to a Prince it almost brought down the whole monarchy. I don't really credit this theory but it can't be ignored as a factor in making Meghan an 'outsider' and a target for negative press attention.
Prince Philip similarly started out deeply unpopular because he was Greek and whether that xenophobic streak is still relevant it's hard to say. Prince Harry's former girlfriend Chelsy Davy is Zimbabwean but their relationship never reached the point where she was targeted by the press - whether she would have been welcomed (as a white woman) or vilified as a foreigner cannot be known.

Secondly, pre-marital styles and social class.

• Diana was the Honourable Diana Frances Spencer - daughter of the 8th Earl Spencer. Parents divorced 1969. Both parents remarried and her stepmother was the only child of romantic novelist Dame Barbara Cartland.
• Sarah was Miss Sarah Margaret Fergusson - daughter of Major Ronald Fergusson. Parents divorced 1974. Both parents remarried - her stepfather was Argentinian.
• Catherine was Miss Catherine Elizabeth Middleton - daughter of Michael and Elizabeth Middleton who are described as 'upper middle class' and remain married.
• Meghan was Miss Rachel Meghan Markle - daughter of Thomas Markle Sr and Doria Ragland who divorced in 1987. Neither parent has remarried.

All four are considered 'commoners' but all commoners are not created equal - Diana's father was an Earl, Sarah's was a Major. With three of them come from broken homes it seems unlikely to be a factor.
Public opinion seemed clear at the time of the wedding that sympathy was strongly with Doria - who had largely raised Meghan as a single mother (Diana and Sarah's mothers both having new partners to support them) - and against Thomas - whose heart attack ahead of the wedding meant he could not attend seemed suspiciously unverified and curiously timed as his attendance had already had doubt cast upon it. Doria has handled herself well, as has her extended family. In contrast Thomas has courted media attention, as has Meghan's half sister Samantha Markle and, to a lesser extent, her half brother Thomas Markle Jr.
Personally I find it curious that Mr Markle has been given a platform at all. Nothing I have seen from him has been in any way 'in the public interest'. Is his voice being heard because he is white? I don't think so, personally. I think he's being heard because it makes it easier for the press to legitimise Meghan as a target - a royal target they haven't had since Diana's death. I can't think of any example of a royal bride being undermined by her own family in such a way. Even Diana's dysfunctional relationship with her stepmother never sunk to such depths.

Thirdly, pre-marital life.

• Diana, age at marriage: 20, occupation: kindergarten assistant, status: single.
• Sarah, age at marriage: 25, occupation: worked various jobs which are not clearly documented, status: single
• Catherine, age at marriage: 29, occupation: worked in her family's business doing 'catalogue design & production, marketing and photography', status: single.
• Meghan, age at marriage: 36, occupation: actress, status: divorced.

Again there is a bit of variety here but three distinct factors stand out - Meghan was the oldest royal bride by nearly a decade although I have no idea why that might make any difference; she was previously in the 'disreputable' business of being an actress*; she was divorced - bringing to the fore the comparison to Wallis Simpson again.

* Although unlikely to be considered nowadays actresses were historically associated with prostitution and a career in which deception is kind of the point led to even more successful actresses being outcast from polite society. it is worth noting that whilst Meghan's acting skills have been unkindly critiqued she's also dismissed as a 'consummate actress' any time she shows emotion.

Whether any of these factors in any way explains the press vilification of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, it seems clear to me that there are multiple potential reasons why she has been singled out as a particular target, none of which can be definitely excluded.

• American (xenophobia, comparison to Wallis Simpson)
• Raised by a single mother (classism, the tabloids have long enjoyed slagging off single mothers)
• Undermined by her father and step-siblings (family collusion in targeting her)
• Older bride (ageism, although unlikely relevance)
• Former actress (classism)
• Divorcee (possible classism? Comparison to Wallis Simpson)
• Mixed race (racism, colourism) 

What is also clear is that Meghan herself has done nothing whatsoever to warrant such vile and unreasonable treatment.
I have every sympathy for the couple and support their decision to step back from the front line.
Whilst I fully support the Queen sharing out the workload, Charles has expressed the desire for a slimmed-down monarchy. The royal family are damned if they aren't seen to be doing enough to 'earn their keep' and damned if they want to live their own lives it seems.

Unequal Equality

Over the last few days I've been getting a fair bit of hassle over a tweet. Specifically:

Somewhat vexed that the disappearance of Libby Squire (21, Hull Uni)

seems to be getting more coverage than that of

Daniel Williams (19, Reading Uni). Everyday sexism?

- @HeggieTBK; 10:24pm 4th February 2019

I have been called disgusting, despicable, bloody awful etc for it...why? Because I dared to suggest a man might be disadvantaged based on gender. Equality, it seems, is only attractive if it applies to our preconceived ideas of the underdog.

First of all lets just go over the facts. Both disappearances involved young white British university students. Daniel disappeared first - he was last seen alive around 1am on Thursday January 31st 2019. Sadly his body was found in a lake on campus five days later but he was still missing at the time of the tweet. Libby vanished less than 24 hours later - last seen at 11:40pm. At the time of blogging she remains unfound. 

Let me go through a few key points for a moment here...

• Neither student has been flagged in the media for being an especially at-risk individual (eg. medical issues or disability) which would be an acceptable contributing factor to the discrepancy in coverage. In short, both cases are strikingly similar and noteworthy for being the same day - making an assessment of the coverage that bit easier. However, I certainly acknowledge that what I personally have seen is just a partial sample. I deliberately wrote that it 'seems' to be a difference in coverage, not an absolute statement that this was the case.
• Contrary to what people inferred I never stated that the reason for any discrepancy was sexism. The question mark after 'everyday sexism' is significant here; I was SUGGESTING it as a cause or at least a contributing factor.
• A few people claimed that Libby's case got more coverage because she had gone missing more recently. At the time, Daniel had been missing 22 hours longer, not that a matter of hours should matter - if one had been already missing weeks or months it would be different. Indeed, at least one person claimed Daniel had been missing since New Year's Eve, confusing his case with another. A genuine mistake or perhaps another sign that Daniel's case really was less reported?
• Several people asserted that Daniel's family wanted privacy and that was the reason his case got less media attention. This may be so - but is it acceptable that a missing young person should get more or less attention based on their family's interaction with the press? I certainly understand that some families actively drive media campaigns, especially after the first flush of interest dies down but just because a distressed family aren't keen to talk to journalists or make TV appearances doesn't mean their loved-one shouldn't still be front page news. The missing person should take precidence over their family's actions / inactions.

One of the weirdest accusations leveled against me was that I was "trying to score points" off these people's disappearances. What the hell is that even supposed to MEAN? It's not a game. I was commenting on my perception of current affairs. I could comment until the cows come home on how historically the disappearances of various young people have been handled in the press - girls and young women getting far more attention than boys, men and older women; whites getting more attention than other ethnicities; well-off getting more attention than the poor. I have nothing to gain from my speculation, it merely bothered me that the lad at a university geographically close to me seemed to be getting mentioned as a footnote to a girl's disappearance. I would not be happy if my child's disappearance only seemed to be mentioned as an afterthought in the coverage of another person's case.

For many the problem seems to be applying the word 'sexism' to a scenario where the male is disadvantaged on grounds of gender. Men ARE disadvantaged in many ways in our society; they are inherently distrusted, a woman's word is valued more highly; men are disadvantaged in many careers and in custody hearings. But people seem to find acknowledging this distasteful.

Now, those of you who have read my blogs will know that I am agender. I am biologically (and presenting) female but I don't identify as such - my sex has nothing to do with who I am as a human being. I don't expect to be treated better or worse for being biologically female; the only reason that should matter is in terms of sex-differentiated medical conditions. I am also the parent of two biologically female offspring - one is at uni, the other has graduated. I don't expect them to be treated any differently based on their biological sex or gender identities either! I am not beyond imagining myself to be the parent of male offspring who I also would not want treated any differently based on gender. This is what equality means to me.

The only reasons to treat people differently in this scenario is if one was at more risk than another - one is an insulin-dependent diabetic, for example, or if there are specific indications of foul play. It makes me mad to think that a young woman is considered to be at greater risk than a young man purely because she is female. Like men cannot be victims of sexual assault or violence. It makes me mad that people think their fathers / brothers / husbands / sons deserve anything different than their mothers / sisters / wives / daughters.

I have commented a number of times that I dislike 'feminism' and prefer the term 'egalitarian'. Strictly speaking the one is a branch of the other but to me, feminism implies firstly the necessity of a female identity (and there are self-identified feminists who disregard non-cis females - there are also groups of feminists who disregard the problems specific to women of colour - feminism is not especially inclusive) and also a strong suggestion that women are inherently disadvantaged and victimised. On this second point I disagree. I know that my own experiences of being female aren't an absolute but I cannot relate to issues such as cat-calling or being disrespected on ground of gender. I am not saying these things are not common but at 40 years old I can only say that I have not experienced them - I can be indignant that others have suffered but so many interpretations of feminism start from a position of victimhood that I cannot identify with...and even if I could, I do not find strength in victimhood. I prefer to assume I have power; that I am equal to anyone else.

Now obviously, that is all about me and why I look at things the way I do. I understand that others are different, of course I do. But I find it confusing how my tweet calling for actual meaningful equality resulted in personal attacks on me. That their are women who think wanting males to be treated equally is unacceptable is both weird and disturbing but the fact that men responded angrily to my tweet I find utterly baffling. Is that toxic masculinity - men who are offended that any man could be considered as vulnerable as a female? Or is it toxic feminism - convincing men that their needs are less than those of women?

Maybe Daniel and Libby's disappearances were treated equally in the press...but why are people (of a non journalist persuasion) so offended by the suggestion that they weren't? In my humble opinion this is why true equality is a long way off for our society - because we still can't acknowledge that certain forms of inequality even exist. I for one only want equality if it really is the same set of rights and privileges for everyone.

UPDATE
Libby Squire's body was found in the Humber 7 weeks after her disappearance and is being treated as a potential homicide.
Daniel Williams' death was considered misadventure - drowning under the influence of alcohol.
I'm not saying Daniel didn't die in a tragic accident or that Libby wasn't murdered but it still seems odd from my outside perspective that the cases STILL strikingly similar seem to be considered so differently - that the male caused his own death but that the girl must've been hurt by someone else? Presumably there is some evidence but what evidence would there be if a drunk lad was pushed into a freezing lake? I also wonder what evidence of foul play they might have in Libby's case as nearly 2 months in the water isn't good for preserving traces...