Mental Health and the Media

One in four people will be affected by mental illness in their lifetime. Yet over 50% of people would not to tell anyone if they were going through this themselves.

These statistics may initially be shocking to some, however, it is not surprising that people have these feelings towards mental illness and the media needs to accept its part in this. Contributing factors to the negative and distorted image of mental illness are shown on our TV screens on a frequent basis. None so much as the one that displayed itself, unashamedly, in such an obvious manner on my own TV a few weeks ago.

Dinner date is one of many reality TV shows that are screened on ITVBe on a regular basis. One episode – first aired in 2010 and replayed a total of 26 times since – showed a blind date between a man named Al and a women named Danielle who claimed to have an alter-ego called 'Bad Dani'. A conversation around Danielle’s alter ego prompted the presenter to make a comment, labelling her as a ‘crazy women’, before questioning if she heard ‘voices in her head’ in a humorous tone. This comment hit me like a tonne of bricks. Was this presenter honestly making a joke out of the symptoms of schizophrenia? It definitely came across that way.

This is a problem. Hearing voices is a very well known symptom of schizophrenia and no matter what caused the presenter to say it – weather it was due to Danielle being drunk and babbling to herself – there is no getting away from its direct reference to mental illness.

There is a real issue with how mental illness is perceived by the general public and people suffering with illnesses such as schizophrenia can find it extremely hard to disclose their situation due to these perceptions. In fact, studies by rethink show that 70% of people affected by mental illness have experienced discrimination because of it.

The media has a responsibility to help break down these barriers – not to build them up. By airing a show that makes flippant remarks about symptoms of a serious mental illness, ITV is actually contributing to a much wider problem that society is facing today. Making a joke about direct symptoms of schizophrenia is completely wrong. Underlining this with the use of the phase ‘crazy women’ just makes it even worse.

I immediately contacted the ITV complaints department and shared my distress with them – asking them to make a public apology. They took the time to review my complaint and located the correct episode. After a few emails back and forth, this was their response:

Dear Becky,

Thank you for your email to ITV dated June 20th. 

We were very sorry to hear that you felt shocked and upset after watching Al's Dinner Date with Danielle on ITVBe recently. This episode was filmed and first broadcast in 2010. It has been transmitted 26 times and we have never previously had a complaint about the programme.

We have referred back to the programme as broadcast and the post-production script after receiving your email. 

We would like to assure you that the narrator does not refer to Danielle as 'a mental person' at any point. There is a line of commentary that refers to Danielle as 'a crazy woman' in a humorous tone of voice. This was intended as a nod to Danielle's unique, funny and 'out there' behaviour towards her date. It was not a reference to mental illness.

Admitting to having an 'alter-ego' is not the same as a diagnosis of schizophrenia or struggling with multiple personalities. The term 'alter-ego' is common parlance and had no medical subtext at all when used in the programme by Danielle. The voiceover did ask at one point if she 'hears voices in her head', but only to highlight the fact that Danielle was rather inebriated and babbling at this stage and should perhaps 'stop talking'.

ITV and Hat Trick both have well-respected and long-established diversity policies which have been in place at every level of their business for many years. 

Thank you again for contacting us here at ITV.

Kind regards,

ITV

To me, this response was unacceptable. There is a clear correlation between a joke about someone hearing voices in their head and schizophrenia. The fact that ITV have aired this show 26 times and I am the first to make a formal complaint does not mean that they should not publically aplogise. It does not mean that this ‘joke’ hasn’t hurt or damaged anyone’s confidence those 26 times. People suffering with ill mental health are usually likely to suffer in silence, they are not likely to write to a TV broadcaster and share their upset.

The fact that they have repeatedly aired this and have had no formal complaints also highlights the issue that we are dealing with here – ITV are setting a precedent that making jokes that poke fun at mental illness is something that is normal and should not be aplogised for, when of course it should be.

Let me put this into context – we wouldn’t stand by and accept a TV show making fun of someone’s race or sex. Nor would we stand by while they made distasteful jokes about physical disabilities. It does not matter that the people on the screen were not suffering with this sort of illness (nor did I ever imply this in my original email – there was obviously huge misunderstanding and I am fully aware of what an alter ego is and the differences between that and multiple personalities). The joke was still made.

This sort of remark, when viewed by an individual suffering from mental illness, can not only do immense damage to their self esteem and their perception of how the general public view them, but it also adds to a much wider issue of how mental health is put forward in the media and gives the impression that it is okay to make little jokes about the symptoms. The fact that these remarks were made in a “humerous tone of voice” - as ITV stated in their email - does not make it okay.

As I said, people battling ill mental health, often suffer in silence. It is up to the rest of us to stand up for them when we see situations like this one.

One in four people will be affected by mental illness in their lifetime. This could be your mother, your father, your best friend. Or it could be you. The only way that we can help to break down the stigma is to call people or media out on their actions that directly contribute to the problem.

There is nothing funny about mental illness.

If you would like to help me encourage ITV to make a public apology for this, please email them at: viewerservices@itv.com and show your solidarity to all those silently fighting their battles with mental illness. 

(Image source: https://cdailytroubles.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/introduction-into-autism-and-autistic-spectrum-disorder-asd/)

Why I’m Backing Corbyn

Nine months ago, on 12 September 2015, Jeremy Corbyn was elected by an overwhelming mandate of nearly 59.5% first preference votes.

Fast-forward to today and we are currently facing the most turbulent time in British politics in this lifetime. With the Leave campaign coming out top on the referendum of the European Union, there is huge economic uncertainty that is having a domino effect across our communities.

It is important, however, to recognise that economic instability is not something that was born overnight in the UK.  Although not as acute as at present, this is something that has been going on for years, since the 2008 recession. Ever since the Conservative government got their foot in the door by carrying out a Con/Lib coalition and continued from that with the 2015 election, when they won by 36.9% of the vote, they have been carrying out crippling austerity, hitting the most vulnerable in society the hardest.

Thursday’s referendum sent out a clear message from the British public. They are not happy with the status quo and they want to see change. To put this down to racism, stupidity and an older generation that no longer cares for young people is a lazy and extremely unhelpful stance. Johnson, Gove and Farage lead an tremendously twisted campaign, based around immigration, in which they blamed the pressures on the welfare state and the rise in poverty that we have seen over the past six years on people who have moved here from overseas - including those fleeing from wars and persecution. This is simply not true. Austerity is a political choice that involves pushing the poorest people further into poverty whilst keeping the richest comfortably afloat.

Now, as I said, to blame the poorest people who voted leave of being racists is simply not helpful at all. These are some of the people who have been hit the hardest by cuts to public services and benefits. They are desperate to stamp out what is causing their problems and the likes of UKIP offered them an answer. The wrong answer, of course, but an answer all the same. You cannot threaten the poorest during a referendum like Thursday’s by using an economy that is already failing them. Telling these people to vote remain in a referendum based on the economy was never going to work, as they had nothing to lose from voting leave.

Right now the only way to challenge the Tories and challenge racism is to have a strong anti-austerity opposition. Jeremy Corbyn seems to be the only leader who has mapped out an alternative to the Conservatives financial plans that continue to pray on the weakest and most vulnerable.

The last two days have seen huge numbers of the PLP resign from their posts on the claims that Corbyn did not do enough to persuade Labour voters to remain in the EU and that he was not a strong enough leader. These claims are absurd, not least because the Labour party saw 63% of members backing Remain (just 1% less than the SNP membership), but also because of everything else that he has fought and won during his opposition of just nine short months; reversing cuts to disability allowance, reversing cuts to tax credits, reversing cuts to Police and the U-turn on Saudi prisons. Firefighters have also restored ties with Labour since Corbyns leadership and he has successfully reconstructed PMQ’s to include more questions from the general public, not to mention gaining significant amounts of new Labour members. I welcome anyone to argue that any of this this does not show strong leadership. Even now, Corbyn’s refusal to be forced into resignation against the will of the electorate speaks volumes about his leadership qualities.

We must also think back to the last two general elections in which Labour put forward Tory-lite policies that did absolutely nothing to inspire voters and caused movement towards far-right parties such as UKIP. The working class felt abandoned by New Labour and didn’t feel that their voices were being heard.

The fact that the Blairites of the PLP have done this now has nothing to do with the referendum result and everything to do with their own person gains and beliefs that do not represent the party members.  This is not a reaction to the referendum result – this is well planned out strategy that has been building ever since Corbyn was first elected to lead the party and shows just how out of touch they are with the Labour membership. To force Corbyn to resign would not only be exceptionally undemocratic - taking into account his overwhelming mandate – but has also been so damaging to the party when they have this opportunity of the Conservatives being at their most vulnerable. The timing of this theatrical display of selfishness, has made it abundantly clear that the MP’s that have resigned would rather see a Tory led government than a Corbyn led Labour government.

Who would replace Corbyn and lead the party? Trying to go for a Tory-lite, austerity-lite stance has failed Labour again and again. And for good reason. The belief that immigration is responsible for the economic pressures people are feeling is simply a product of the effects of austerity. The only way to stop the blame of immigrants for the damage to the working class is to oppose austerity at all measures – to send out a message to those who are suffering that the reason for this is not our neighbors but the Westminster elite. We need an opposition strong enough to demonstrate that the Conservative governments reign of austerity and neoliberalism is responsible for the rises in child poverty, in-work poverty, homelessness, food banks, cuts to public services and the strains on our beloved NHS.

As George Galloway said, by the end of this week we may be looking at the possibility of two Labour parties. One in Parliament and one in the country. One with 200 members and one with hundreds of thousands of members and millions of affiliated trade unions.

One that mimics the Tories failing budgets and one that has a clear strategy to oppose poverty at all cost.

I know which one I will be voting for.

The Meaning of Feminism

As with the names of many political and social movements – the meaning of the word feminism has been twisted, distorted and misinterpreted. A word built on a movement of bringing hope and prosperity to women across the globe, has become a one weighed down with baggage and shame.

Before I begin this post, it is important for me to be clear on the true definition of feminism when discussing it. Gender is such a complex issue alone that changing the definition of a whole movement can cause misunderstanding, which can result in misled anger or offence.

Feminism - the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

When we hear people criticising feminists – often women themselves – it is extremely hard to believe that they really do disagree with the simple ideology of women being equal to men. Some might. However, there must be something missing from the debate. Such people often use words and phrases like ‘irrational’ and ‘angry’ when describing feminists. The first of these words must be wrong – it is not irrational to strive to be seen as equal if you are in the same job as a man, participating at the same level and with the same skillset, yet getting paid less, just because you are female. It is not irrational to feel it is wrong have to work harder, worry about what you wear and the way in which you present yourself, just to be taken seriously – whether at an interview, a social event or in the public eye – just because you are female. It certainly is not irrational to want to change the fact that if you are touched, sexually assaulted or raped, the blame could be put on you because alcohol was in your system or you were wearing revealing clothing, just because you are female. (Some people may remember the controversial ad campaign put out by the NHS in 2005-2007 stating the words ‘One in three reported rapes happen when the victim has been drinking’).

The second word regularly used by people who argue against feminism – angry – is correct. At least when put into context. I’m sure most feminists are generally happy in their day-to-day lives but how could you not be angry that just because you are female, you face oppression, judgement and shame throughout your life. These are issues that we should feel angry about. Not just women but men as well. We must realise that a vital aspect of the journey towards equal rights for women is how it directly affects men. This is not a fight for dominance; it is not a movement for women to be regarded at a higher status to men. Yes, we have fought to get to where we are and we still fight every day, but we fight beside men as well.

Masculine

‘Masculine’ is a word that sticks out when exploring these issues. What is masculine and what does it actually stand for?

Masculine  - having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men, especially strength and aggressiveness: "he is outstandingly handsome and robust, very masculine"

Synonyms: virile, macho, manly, muscular, muscly, strong, strapping, well built,rugged, robust, brawny, heavily built, powerful, red-blooded, vigorous…

When we consider the history of the concept of masculinity, it can date back as far as 3000 BC, where expectations for men for were fierce and gods and heroes defined the strengths and characteristics of those expectations.

It is clear that throughout history, as much as cultural guidelines, restrictions and expectations have been laid out for women, men have had to face them as well.  Just as women have been taught to be seen but not heard, to be domesticated and to aspire ultimately to become a mother and a wife, men have been taught to shy away from ‘feminine’ emotion – never to show fear - to be the pack leader, the hunter, the protector and the provider. To show violence over kindness and to show anger over empathy.

The suicide rate for men is over three times more than women.

Expressing emotions that could be perceived as weak and therefore confiding in someone and seeking professional help for depression has become a huge challenge for many men.

Suicide is the biggest killer of men under the age of 45.

None of these issues are a reason to reject the concept of feminism. They are in fact a direct reason to embrace it - the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes – as soon as we have equal footing for women and as soon as women’s strengths and attributes are put on a level playing field to men’s strengths and attributes, society has to become more accepting of the traditionally feminine qualities so often hidden by men.

It already exists

Gender equality is a vast and complex subject and there is far more that I feel should be covered in this post so I may have to revisit the issue at a later date, however, there is a key element that I feel must be highlighted. This element stems from a phrase often used when critiquing feminist views – “We live in modern western communities, women have the right to vote, they can go out and get the same jobs as men, they can make their own decisions, we are already equal by law, therefore feminism in the UK is pointless – it already exists.”

The truth is that it does not exist. There are many examples that can be used to demonstrate how gender inequality is still prominent in our society; I could go down the route of body image, social inclusion and how women are constantly defined through their sexuality. How we teach women that they must be built on a framework shaped by the desires of men, how they should be sexually attractive, yet at the same time be ashamed of showing too much sexuality. How there is a one in four chance of a woman facing issues of domestic violence in their lifetime. How over two women a week are killed by their current or former partner. I am, however, going to go down a different route and speak about how women are being oppressed by the very leaders of this country.

Austerity

The UK has been facing crippling austerity over the past six years. Our government claims to be fair, however, it is a fact that austerity hits women the hardest. Women make up around 65% of public service workers, meaning that cuts to the public sector – resulting in pay freezes and job losses – have affected women the most and will continue to primarily hit women the hardest as hundreds of thousands of more jobs are set to be lost in the near future.

Benefit cuts also hit women harder than men as benefits make up, on average, one fifth of women’s income, whilst only making up one 10th of men’s. With plans for billions of pounds worth of cuts still to be made, women will be feeling the negative impacts of the governments ‘long term economic plan’ the most.

In fact, according to UNISON, of the £14.9bn welfare savings already being implemented, around three-quarters (73%) are coming straight from women’s pockets.

Unite

All of these factors demonstrate why the movement of feminism is so vital to our society today. By misinterpreting the message of feminism we are doing an injustice to not only women, but to men as well. The word itself is not important, but the meaning behind it is.

Whether man or women, feminist or humanist, conservative or communist, we must speak together, for if we place ourselves into separate pockets our messages become fragmented and we may all be burned by the effects of inequality. If we stand united and speak our message together, we can turn weakness into strength, minorities into majorities and words into meaning.