Archive

TV

Well, that’s interesting.

I’m currently having a fascinating conversation on Twitter with some fellow Whovians discussing the big reveal today for the 13th regeneration of Dr Who.

We’ve got the usual posts and suggestions for a female Doctor or a Black Doctor but I suggested the possibility of a Disabled Doctor.

And I got this instant response ‘Get what you’re saying, but why would the Doctor’s regeneration leave him with a disability? Unless it went wrong, future story perhaps?’.

My hackles were raised – doesn’t this reply indicate the issue in a nutshell – ‘unless it went wrong’.

This implies disability is bad.

How about equality?

If a Black Dr or a Female Dr or an LGBT Dr is not a stretch, why would having a Disabled Dr mean that something went ‘wrong’? Where’s the big issue here? What’s the difference?

A friend has pointed out that the Doctor goes to places throughout the universe and, in that case, for some races/groups of Aliens, couldn’t being regenerated as a human be seen as something going ‘wrong’? If those aliens saw having six legs, two heads or wings and a tail as ‘normal’ then, being regenerated in human  form as completely wrong. If the Doctor regenerated as a Dalek, Cyberman or Sontaran then, for humans, that would be ‘wrong’ but for another Dalek, Cyberman or Sontaran it would be right and nothing to comment upon. Being human, in that instance, would be the abnormality.

I think this is actually yet another example of many people’s inability to deal with the concept of disability as just an alternative form of ‘normal’ . People don’t like to think of disability as anything else apart from being ‘wrong’ when it’s actually their attitude that’s wrong. If I’m out and about with a group of other wheelchair users, we’re our own normal and any upright or walking companions are the ones who are different. A group of hearing impaired people chatting away using BSL are no different from a group of French or German people speaking their own native tongues to one another, they just can’t hear the words or voices, rather, they just see them instead. Visually impaired people reading books with their fingers, in Braille, are not doing it wrong, they are just doing it as an alternative form of right, just as people who are not visually impaired reading print or handwriting is right.  We’re still seeing non-disabled actors ‘cripping up’ for roles in films as disabled characters. We have heard, only this week, of people being unsure about talking to disabled people in case they offend us. We’re seeing paralympic athletes being seen as ‘superhuman’, ‘brave’ and ‘inspirational’. Why? Disabled people are, after all, just people, we’re just people who are different in some way to what is perceived by the majority to be ‘normal’. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with any of us, we’re all just different and it’s time to start seeing ‘different’ as ‘normal’. We need to start seeing people just as people, regardless of their gender, sexuality, colour or disability. Sure, the Doctor recently had a storyline where he was blind for a couple of episodes, but he got ‘better’. Baby steps in the right direction but we’re nowhere near ‘there’ yet.

So, do I think we’ll get a disabled Dr for number 13? Almost certainly not. I still don’t think  people are ready for it. Dr 13 my well be Black, they my well be female but I think we’re still going to be waiting for a disabled Doctor until regeneration 14, 15 or 16. It will happen, I’m convinced that it it will, eventually, happen but probably not today.

But I’ll still be watching, I couldn’t not…

Advertisements

I am angry.

Yet again, I am angry and yet again it is our not-so-noble Prime Minister and her Tory cohorts who have angered me. What a surprise eh? Who would have guessed it.

So, what has Mrs May done his time to rattle my cage?

Well, it’s not hard but, amongst a plethora of other things, the thing that has really riled me this time is the TV interview that she gave, with her husband Philip, on the BBC1 early evening chat show, ‘The One Show’ on Tuesday. I freely admit that I didn’t watch all of it. I couldn’t but the little I did watch made me seethe. I lasted for a total of about five fist-clenching, teeth-grinding minutes before I was forced to change channel. Not because I desperately wanted to watch the programme I switched to, no, I just couldn’t stand to watch any more of the cringe-worthy, sexist clap-trap that was being spouted by our leader and her lap-dog of a husband.

Totally disgusting tripe.

And now, today, the spouse of another Tory grandee is reiterating the self-same nonsense in an article in a Tory-loving daily newspaper. Argh!!!!! Horrible, revolting, mid-20th-century, sexist garbage.

But, what, I hear you ask, was it?

Well, on Tuesday night, Mrs and Mr May, when talking about their day-to-day lives and trying to sound as if they lived lives that are the same as everyone else’s lives, started talking about the household chores that they each undertook. Mr May said that, just like everyone else, he took the bins out. The PM was asked by the interviewer if she did this too and that’s when she made me angry. She told the nation that no, she didn’t because there were ‘Boy jobs and Girl jobs and taking the bins out was a Boy job.’ And now, Sarah Vine is saying the exact same thing. She is saying that the secret to a lasting, loving relationship is for there to be ‘Girl jobs’ and ‘Boy-jobs’.

Excuse me?

Boy jobs and Girl jobs? Which decade do these women live in? Why is taking the bin out a so-called Boy job? Because girls can’t do it because it will mess up their pretty frocks or grubby up their delicate hands? Balderdash. I thought that attitude went out in the nineteen sixties and seventies, almost half a century ago. The Sexual Revolution, Sexual Liberation, is something that happened in the past, something that should rightly be consigned to the history books and Wikipedia, not something we should still be fighting for now, in the twenty-first century.

And what about ‘Girl-jobs? What are they exactly? Should women be found solely in the kitchen, doing the housework or looking after the kids whilst the men do the difficult things such as putting up shelves, manufacturing flat-pack furniture and disposing of household waste. Is this what Mrs May and Ms Vine are saying? Well that’s what it looks like to me. The Tories accuse Corbyn and the Labour Party of trying to take this country back to a previous age but they’re trying to do exactly the same thing themselves.

What about women who live alone or, live in an all female household? What are they supposed to do? Live in filth because they are unable to take a bin-bag to the wheely-bin outside, survive without their flat-pack wardrobe and pile all their things on the floor because they have insufficient shelving? Ring for help from an ex-partner, husband or expensive handyman service? Ask the nearest male they can find such as a neighbour or passer-by for help? I don’t think so. Unless Mrs May or Ms Vine have a better idea, many women will just have to get on with it and do it themselves.

And this throw-away comment has made me wonder what the Department of Work and Pensions would have to say on the subject. All over the country there are men and women who have to document their job-search activities if they are to receive their meagre weekly or fortnightly Welfare Benefits payments. When someone applies for Job-Seekers Allowance they have to sign a pledge or contract that stipulates that they will apply for any suitable jobs that come up. They have to document all their efforts which then have to be shown to the people at the Jobcentre every time they sign on. And then, if their efforts to find work are deemed to be insufficient and they don’t have a valid reason for their failure to get a job, they are sanctioned and lose benefits for a shorter or longer period of time until the can show they are trying harder. I wonder what would happen if a job-seeker told their employment adviser at the Job-Centre that the reason they had not found work was that yes, there was work available but that work was for the wrong gender. Would that ever be acceptable?  Somehow, I don’t think so. Anyone who tried that trick would swiftly find themselves with no money and queuing outside their nearest foodbank.

When will Mrs May and Ms Vine join Mr Corbyn, Mr Farron, Ms Sturgeon, Ms Wood et al in the real world and not remain firmly stuck in the past. Boy-jobs and Girl-jobs have been and gone and, in my opinion, good riddance to them. Household tasks are just that, tasks. Tasks that can be done by anyone in the household, regardless of gender, not girl-jobs and boy-jobs, just boring, mundane, everyone tasks.   

I am getting entirely fed up with the number of adverts I am seeing on my TV for lotteries and, in particular, lotteries for charities.

Seemingly endless ways of people wanting to take my money for largely, no return.

RNIB, Poppy Lottery, Oxfam, Cancer Research, they’re all doing it. The list is never-ending.  

Why are these charities spending, what must be thousands, on this sort of TV advertising and why are they pandering to our ‘get rich quick’ society. Why re they trying to take our money for virtually nothing. Celebrities don’t do these ads for free, they charge, the TV companies showing the ads don’t air them for nothing, they are out to make a profit. £1 per week here, £1 per week there, for every pound spent on lotteries, that’s one less pound that could be spent on things more important things such as food, clothes, heating and lighting.

It all mounts up, there must be another way.

And, who are the people who spend money on lotteries, speculating on financial pipe-dreams? Is it the people at the top, the people with money to burn, the bankers, the politicians, the businessmen and women in the gilded skyscrapers of the City, the high rollers, the elite or is it the people at the bottom who just scraping by and who barely have enough for their daily living needs. The celebrities who are promoting these lotteries are unlikely to be buying their weekly ticket, the shareholders of the TV companies showing the ads are not dreaming of a big win, they already get that when their dividends are paid. A study in the USA in the Journal of Gambling Studies in 2012 found that ‘Those in the lowest fifth in terms of socioeconomic status (SES) had the “highest rate of lottery gambling (61%)’. It’s not the rich who are gambling away their money because that’s what it is, gambling, it’s the poor who have little enough disposable income as it is. I know that someone has to win and that some lucky people actually have, but the chances ‘It Could be You’ are vanishingly small.

Unlike the National Lottery, big-charity lottery players don’t even receive a ticket or have a thrill of anticipation, watching the balls being drawn live, checking their numbers off when the draw is made after yet another TV, get rich quick, game show. They don’t even know what their numbers are or which numbers have been drawn each week. Nothing to show for what they have spent. They just have the money taken out of their bank accounts, week in, week out for nothing more than an sophisticated raffle.

It all mounts up, there must be another way.

I know these charities do amazing things for their beneficiaries. I know they need to get their money from somewhere. Having worked for one of them I am fully aware of the great work that is being done, how much it costs and all the people who are being helped but, much of the time, the people paying out and buying the tickets are the very same people who are on the receiving end too. All too often the pound they spent on their ticket is going into the grants for good causes which they are using and benefiting from anyway.

Why not cut out the middlemen who are making and showing the ads and doing something else instead. If the celebrities, TV Companies and big businesses who have so much just gave just a little of it every year to Charities then we wouldn’t need the endless lotteries. And regular donations would be so much better and so much more helpful anyway. The big charities could still get their money and the smaller charities could still get their grants but there would be some certainty to the charity’s income. And the government could help too. Instead of giving tax-breaks to the rich they could give more of our tax money to the services that are currently being propped up by the charities operating lotteries.    

I’m not against people having fun or trying to dictate how people send their money but I do find the non-stop ‘it’s only a pound’ mantra more than a little cynical. Paying fifty pence on the raffle or the tombola at the church fete, school fair or country show, where players stand a reasonable chance of winning a box of chocolates or a bottle of bubbly is one thing but the big, national charity lotteries where your chance of winning anything meaningful are something else entirely.

It all mounts up, there must be another way.

Robin Hood robbed the rich to give to the poor but we appear to be robbing the poor to help the poor down the road whilst the rich sit in their ivory towers raking in the proceeds.

There has to be another way.

Interesting.

I have been watching ‘This Morning’ on TV and they were doing a phone-in about a storyline that’s coming up on Corrie and it got me thinking. Given that many people could get help with their issues by seeing characters in their favourite soap operas going through the same thing, could this be exploited in some way? I know that, quite often, we get the helpful message at the end of a programme giving a phone number that people can ring if they have been affected by any of the issues they have just seem, but could more be done?

I think it could.

Soap operas are supposed to represent a dramatised view of everyday life, but do they? As far as I am concerned, we are supposed to relate to various characters because they are going through the same life challenges as us. Sure, most of the time the people on the Street, in Albert Square or up in the Dales seem to lurch from crisis to crisis but can any of these crises be used to help us?

I think they can.

Let’s look at Eastenders, my soap of choice, how come none of the characters appear to be unemployed? They seem to come out of school and waltz straight into a job on the market, in the cafe or convenience store or at the Vic. Is that realistic? No, it isn’t. Most young people move from school to Uni, College, an apprenticeship or, in many instances, down to the local Job Centre to sign on for JSA or ESA. Why does this never seem to happen in Eastenders? It also appears that every single character has a job on the Square. Not one of them, as far as I can see anyway, leaves their house in the morning to battle their way through London congestion to work in the city or somewhere else closer to home. No-one seems to return in the evening exhausted and stressed after another day in their boring office job, pen-pushing. That’s what the rest of us do, why not the Beales, the Mitchells or the Fowlers? Do they all work in the Square? What an amazing place Walford must be with full employment and apparent jobs available at the click of the fingers whenever they are needed. I almost want to move there myself.

Then there are the other opportunities there are to help viewers. What about the obviously disabled character, Donna, does she receive DLA and is she about to be transferred to PIP? In the real world, almost certainly, in the wonderful world of Walford, who knows. Disabled people nationwide are having to go through reassessments, invasive medicals and endless appeals, maybe Donna should have to go through this too. That way the viewing public could be guided towards all the wonderful, helpful organisations that are out there when it seems there is nowhere else to turn. When it comes to Welfare Benefits, a storyline that would resonate with so many people would be a character who is in receipt of JSA or ESA and who gets sanctioned for no real reason apart from a delayed bus making them late to sign on. Someone needing to use a Foodbank and dealing with the potential embarrassment and stigma this can cause. And what about that same character falling into debt and having to resort a payday loan company? Just seeing the problems that can cause and where people need to go to sort things out would be so helpful.

That, in my belief, is only the start of things. I would like to see stories that better reflect the problems of the wider community and potential solutions. I think that would be so helpful to so many. I know Soap Operas are not here to educate, they are here to entertain but surely education and entertainment can be combined. To all the writers and Directors and Producers out there, what about using your characters go through the same things that we do. We’ve had Hayley Cropper in Corrie and Dot Branning in Eastenders, give us more and reflect the lives we are all living every day. Have desperate people who are looking for help and support the same way we do. Show us some of the places we can go and some of the things we can do and you would be doing so much for your audience. Apparently the average Briton spends an entire year throughout their lifetime watching soaps. Help to make that a year well spent and not a wasted year. Help us to help ourselves and give us all some idea where we can go when it looks like there is nowhere. Do that and, I’m sure, we will all place greater value on our TV licences and resent the advertising revenue that is generated for big businesses on Commercial Channels less. Help us to help ourselves and, in exchange, we, your audience, will thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

Education and entertainment intertwined.

Think about it.