Showing posts with label representation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label representation. Show all posts

Thursday, 30 July 2020

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.

Tuesday, 27 August 2019

Grilling a Barbie Controversy

"[The introduction of Barbie dolls with wheelchairs / prosthetic legs] adheres to safe disability stereotypes, and reinforces the perception that disability means a visible mobility impairment."

Stumbled across this (https://themighty.com/2019/03/new-disabled-barbies-representation/) opinion piece by Erin Pritchard while reading a BBC story about a new Rosa Parks Barbie.  And I'm just...gobsmacked to be frank.

Representation matters, visibility matters but precisely how specific do you expect a MASS PRODUCED TOY to be???? People come in an infinite variety - unless you have dolls custom made they're really not likely to look like anyone in particular. Does anyone really think it's feasible to make dolls in seven billion variations?! We're supposed to be cutting down on plastics for heaven's sake!

Barbie's are DOLLS, they are very much of the Caucasian persuasion with a lot of parents rightfully indignant that ethnic variants are hard to come by.
They do not have realistic body proportions, have been criticised for glamorising anorexia and certainly do not represent the obesity problems especially prevalent in the western world.
Dolls are for creative play...why are modern-era kids so incapable of making stuff up?! Or is just that adults can't imagine being creative? There's a comment following the article "Autistic Barbie doll with stim toys and noise cancelling headphones in case of sensory overload." ...in my youth a pipe-cleaner would be fashioned into headphones & other accessories improvised to achieve this.  A bit of blu-tack for a hearing aid (Hearing Impaired Barbie), a lollipop stick or a roll of paper for a cane (Visual Impairment Barbie), we used to PRETEND. WHY do you need a special doll for that? Erin Pritchard (who has dwarfism) asks "What about a cousin for Barbie who has a more contested disability, such as dwarfism or vitiligo etc." So I ask, which of the myriad different forms of dwarfism do you feel they should represent? YOURS, I suppose... Also, do you want representational dolls for those who undergo limb-lengthening surgeries?! Vitiligo can be represented with a custom paint job if you're up for a bit of craft work. Improvising a wheelchair might be rather harder to achieve, not to mention the multitude of different disabilities that might require a person to use one. And whilst you can remove a doll's limb, creating a prosthetic could be tricky. Then there's the fact that many people have combined disabilities - a person with dwarfism AND vitiligo for example? You simply can't give everyone representation and as I've already stated, with a bit of imagination (optional glue, paint, scissors and sticky-back plastic) dolls can often be adequately customised anyway.

The author cites this WHO South-East Asia factsheet (http://www.searo.who.int/entity/ disabilities_injury_rehabilitation/wheelchair_factsheet.pdf) to show that (a) 10% of the world population have disabilities only 10% (i.e. 1% of the whole) require a wheelchair for mobility. However, many disabilities have no physical characteristics - in terms of Barbie, a person with a cognitive or intellectual impairment, developmental disorder or mental disability may look like any other Barbie. Even many conditions under the heading of physical disability might have no outward sign - chronic fatigue, epilepsy or fibromyalgia for example. I'd be interested to know what proportion of people with a visible disability use a wheelchair, because in terms of Barbies it's all about looks!
I'd also like to point out that one way or another most of us will be in a wheelchair at some point, even if temporarily - sprained ankles, broken bones, an expectant mother being wheeled down to delivery...a lot of older people, such as my stroke-survivor mum, might be wheelchair dependent without being 'registered' anywhere as being disabled and therefore not included in any statistics.
But most importantly, The Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ 2019/feb/25/disability-barbie-dolls-emojis) that the opinion piece is responding to - which is itself an opinion piece by Karl Knights (a writer with autism, ADHD & Cerebral Palsy) - states clearly that "Mattel commented that a wheelchair has been among the most frequently requested accessories for the doll." There is, quite clearly, a demand for this type of doll. I'm certainly not seeing anything in his piece to back up Ms Pritchard's assertion that Mattel are "reinforcing the problematic stereotype that all disabled people use a mobility aid, in particular a wheelchair" - she's reading an opinion piece by a man with a disability who is happy at a form of non-patronizing representation and interpreting into HIS words that Mattel are representing ALL disabled people? That's not even what Mr Knights is saying in that article! The closest thing I can see is "If I had even something as simple as an emoji representing myself as a kid, I wouldn’t have felt so isolated." - clearly using 'I', clearly not mentioning wheelchairs, just referencing the idea that acknowledging that disabled people exist is important with no caveat that it has to be the same kind or form of disability.
"If companies still choose to use a more “acceptable” impairment to indicate that they are inclusive and diverse, can they please not claim they are representing us all?" (1) who is to decide what is an "acceptable impairment"? The wheelchair is an internationally recognised symbol of disability - yes, it is enormously problematic and there are campaigns for awareness that non-wheelchair users can use disabled loos & parking spaces - but at the same time it is an inclusive and diverse symbol because it is used by people with such a wide variety of needs (2) they never did make that claim - it is your misinterpretation.

I for one am glad to see Mattel doing ANYTHING to improve diversity - more natural body shapes, more ethnic variety, any level of disability representation - these things are GOOD.  For people who've read my blogs before you might be surprised at me, an agender potato, defending Barbie.  Admittedly I LOATHE the pink but Barbie has long been a remarkable 'role-model' for girls with some impressive careers represented.  For example she was first depicted as an astronaut in 1965, only 2 years after Valentina Tereshkova became the first woman in space - the US didn't have a female astronaut until 1983.  She was also the first female POTUS in 2000 (tbh a lump of plastic is still a better candidate than Trump).  She has been a business executive (in 1960, not a secretary until 2007), two forms of Olympian (1975), a pilot (1990), an army medic (1993), a paratrooper (2000), a surgeon (1973)...and a sign language teacher in 2001. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie%27s_careers).  Barbie may be unashamedly feminine but it's a gender stereotype in itself to suppose that that is somehow innately negative.

Wednesday, 24 April 2019

Women In Music

In response to a video by Brian Blessed / LadBible / Smirnoff Vodka available from

*SIGH* Now I'm not saying there's no gender inequality behind the scenes of the music industry or that sex discrimination never happens... but lack of opportunity for female talent? REALLY??? Women can and do and have FOR GENERATIONS stamped their mark all over the music industry.

Simplifying music down to gender (or more specifically sex cos we're not even considering if any of these people identifies as agender, non binary, gender fluid etc) is pretty damn idiotic - festivals book acts based on bums on seats; compilation albums are linked to 'record' sales. Anyway, who buys music because of the gender of the artist, the gender of the songwriter, the gender of the producer??? Maybe men win more awards - but were they decided by gender?! It's also pretty dumb to imagine that because the split male and female sales or awards won isn't 50/50 there's inherent inequality as there are a whole bunch of factors at play...including the unpopular concept that not all female artists are any good! Maybe some women haven't received the support and promotion they feel they deserve from their agents / managers / record labels but is that gender discrimination or savvy business sense based on the sales of other comparable artists? If men are more successful so be it. Got a problem with it? Get out there and DO something to change things.

There are more male acts in the lists of best-selling music acts but does that mean inequality or does that reflect more on who is buying music? As children boys statistically get higher allowances than girls; young women go on to have less disposable income - now THERE is some serious inequality - although maybe people just LIKE songs by guys more. Thinking back through the music I've bought less than 5%, maybe not even 1%, was by female artists - not because the music isn't there but because I personally just don't like it overmuch, generally speaking.

There are loads of amazingly talented AND SUCCESSFUL women out there...and always have been, fighting against worse gender stereotypes and inequality than society is dealing with now - not to mention racism and other prejudices. I feel like claiming a lack of opportunity for women somehow diminishes the INCREDIBLE achievements of artists such as (in no particular order) -
            • Sister Rosetta Tharp
            • Barbra Streisand
            • Ella Fitzgerald
            • Lady Gaga
            • Aretha Franklin
            • Joan Jett
            • Nicki Minaj
            • Billie Holiday
            • Celine Dion
            • Beyonce
            • Siouxsie Sioux
            • Pink
            • Tori Amos
            • Mary J Blige
            • Nina Simone
            • Dolly Parton
            • Asha Bhosle
            • Adele
            • Seiko Matsuda
            • Rihanna
            • Marie Fredriksson
            • Madonna
            • Tina Turner
            • Taylor Swift
            • Whitney Houston
            • Cher
Where the hell would the music industry be without these incredible artists - representing different nationalities, ethnicities, music genres, and noted for a wide variety of achievements such as biggest selling / most recorded / award wining / voted most popular etc etc etc?! They are each an embodiment of what talented females can achieve if they get out there and make it happen. They weren't handed their successes on a plate but they clearly weren't blocked from making it to the top either. And these women are just the tip of a metaphorical musical iceberg - a huge number of women who've worked hard to achieve various degrees of success in their particular field.

As for behind-the-scenes... just take a glance down the list of songs written by Diane Warren - and the artists who recorded them. There are lots of female songwriters; lots of female record producers too - Cathy Dennis for example? Or Linda Perry who has founded two record labels? Sure, these are just a handful of names. Try looking on Wikipedia under 'women in music', 'female songwriters', 'women record producers'... go back further with 'female composers' and 'women hymnwriters' too. There are women in every branch of music, many of them immensely successful, many pioneering. Maybe there ought to be more, maybe we need to do more to support the ones we have but please don't say there aren't opportunities or imply insurmountable obstacles.

See also: "10 'lost' female musicians who deserve more recognition' (BBC 2018) https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/articles/343718ed-4caf-44a2-8291-4aaa18d48c2c