Recently I have found myself torn about what to write about. Every time I felt ready to put finger to keypad, another issue caught my attention. Then I realised that they were all connected.
The first big issue to drive me to my blog page was the recent changes in the Motability scheme. Motability is the charity that was set up to allow disabled people to afford to be able drive themselves around. It replaced the old blue three wheeled Noddy car, that not only meant that disabled people had to go everywhere alone as it was a one seater but also that they took their lives in their hands as it was a total death trap. Anyone who saw Jeremy Clarkson drive round Sheffield in a three wheeler will have seen why. Originally it only offered a few cars, but it grew to allow disabled people to use their Mobility component of their Disability Living Allowance to fund a huge number of vehicles, along with a deposit for the more expensive models. Another reason why so many disabled people had to use the Hire Car Scheme from Motability is because getting insurance when you are disabled is very difficult and expensive, but insurance is included with the scheme. This because when you get a car under this scheme you don't own it, you lease it. So the insurance is a fleet insurance, which is nice. Not so nice is that the car is never yours and after three years you return it to Motability, who then sell it on as a second hand car.
Just before I started my search for a new car I recieved a letter from Motability outlining changes to the scheme. From now on fewer cars would be available, with a total deposit limit of £2000 and any other named drivers had to live within five miles of the primary vehicle user. It was explained that this was due to the recent stories in newspapers such as the Daily Mail, where apparent cases of fraud had been discovered. They also complained that Motability allowed disabled people to drive expensive cars. Check out the story to see some of the examples. The one thing they totally ignored was that all cars under Motability scheme owned by Motability, and after the three year lease period are returned for resale. If you add this to the fact that for most cars that they used to offer had a deposit of around £500 right up to £4000, which is non-refundable, and a hire fee £50 per week to Motability. On top of this Motability has negotiated serious discounts on new cars, and in many instances Motability must break even or maybe make a small profit.
Let me demonstrate with a a personal story. Many years ago, when my Mobility Allowance was around £38 per week, I hired a Ford Escort through Motability. I paid £500 deposit and signed over the full £38 per week for a three year period. During the process I recieved some paper work, but it should have been sent to Motability. It was the invoice for the car and it was for under £3000, even though the list price was around £9000. So let's do the maths. £38 times 52 weeks times 3 years equals £5928. Add my deposit of £500 and we end up with £6428. So for a car that cost Motability £3000 I paid £6428 and gave it back for them to sell on... and they kept any monies received from that sale. Now I don't mind this situation as I know that I would never been able to get car insurance, seeing as I was a musician and TV presenter with a disability. But it does demonstrate that all this fuss about disabled people getting favourable treatment are just lies. I just wish that Motability had tried to fight the smear campaign from the press instead of just giving in. I do know that I am having real trouble finding a car that is suitable for me now. So thanks The Daily Mail.
Another story that caught my eye is that of David Askew, the disabled man who was bullied to death by local youths up in Manchester. My wife and I were targetted by a group of "youths" when we lived in Hammersmith, West London. In the end it got so bad I had to leave my home, even though I lived under the Housing Association Habinteg who were set up to ensure disabled people could live independently in society and was totally adapted to suit my needs, as no one came to our aid. The police said they could do nothing until we were attacked, but when my wife was seriously beaten up by three masked yobs while I helplessly watched, they could do nothing as we could not positively identify our attackers. My HA were useless and so I gave up my flat and moved into a totally unsuitable place to get away from the threats and violence. It took me three years to find a new flat suitable for me, and this really damaged my health. It is a fact that disabled hate crime has increased in the last few years, and it is partly due to stories like the one in the Daily Mail mentioned above. These lies and half truths have caused many people in society to see disabled people with jealous eyes. We are no longer pitiful, which is great, but are now objects of hate and envy. But this attitude is not just for disabled people. At a time of massive unemployment and poverty, anyone who may need to ask for assistance from the state is now seen as an easy undeserving target.
Strangely I am currently reading Charles Dickens' Christmas Carol, and have watched both the modern version with Patrick Stewart (Star Trek's Captain Pickard) and the classic Alistair Simms version on the old google box. This tale of a man with a hardened heart discovering the truth behind the point of life should have resonance with all of society today. We should listen to the three spirits and see the truth about the world we live. Sure there are people out there that break the rules, but most are really in need and we should be happy to help them. And the rich should be even more happy to contribute more to making sure our society is a fair and happy place to live in, not only at Xmas but all year round. Sadly more and more people seem to be touched by the spirit of Humbug at the minute, aided by our press.
So come on every one. We live in a rich society, where some people are so rich that they an afford flats in London that cost over £9 million pounds - yes I saw a recent advert for a flat near me for that much.... a flat? £9 million? they must be mad, you could buy a small county for that much in some parts of the UK! - so we should not listen to our inner Scrooge. Instead we should have an open heart and wish good will to all. In the words of Tiny Tim, one the most famous disabled people in literary history and someone I know I resembled when I was a kid, "God bless us, everyone". Just think if he was around today the Daily Mail might describe him as a scrounger and accuse his family of being benefits cheats if he got any of the help he was entitled to. And never forget it was stories like The Christmas Carol that slowly led to the Welfare State. The last thing we want to go back to the time the tale was set in, with workhouses and poverty on an unimaginable scale.
Anyway, rant over. Happy Xmas to you all and superb New Year!
Monday, 19 December 2011
Friday, 18 November 2011
Love, Life and Cripples
On Wednesday I took part in a phone in on the Channel 5 morning show The Wright Stuff. The topic for discussion was " is a relationship between a disabled person and some who is able bodied different that one between two able bodied people?", and so I felt I had to contact the show. Now I doubt anyone reading will be amazed to know that I wanted to make it clear that of course there is no difference, but I was also kind of amazed that anyone would think something so strange.
As I waited on my mobile for my turn speaking to Matthew Wright and his panel, I could hear the discussion in the studio. It transpired that the topic had been picked after an article in a magazine about a relationship between an able bodied woman and a disabled man who cannot speak. The reason why it had led the production team to pick the subject was the question of how love could blossom if you had never spoken to your partner or even heard their voice. One of the panel, the flamboyant Craig Revel Horwood, who is a favourite of my Mum (She seems to have been born with no gaydar at all - she fancied Freddie Mercury and still can't believe he was gay!), told the story of a choreographer friend who feel in love with someone who was deaf and so obviously they were in relationship were at least one person had not heard the other speak. In fact the able bodied partner loved the signing so much they now include it in their dance shows.
As my turn came, I told the story if my relationship with my wife Diane, and how I see the prejudices that I have witnessed in the past as a kind of filter that allowed me to discover what kind of person I was with quickly. I must admit I was playing up to the panel and my stories caused much mirth and laughter in the studio. The people that also phoned in all had stories of love between disabled and non-disabled people that proved just how good it can be.
But I was left with a weird feeling about the fact that people are still put off by the idea of dating someone who is disabled. What is so strange to me is that surely everyone realises that able bodied people are just disabled people waiting to happen? So if you wake up one day in a hospital bed and discover you've joined the disabled gang why would the person you are and your wants and needs have changed? Us disabled types are just like anyone else. We can be great life partners and we can be total gits. We can be caring and generous lovers and we can be selfish "wham bam"ers. I just think it is sad that many non-disabled people still hold so many stereotypes around disability and especially around sex, relationships and disability. Even the panel trotted out the old clichés about only really caring people dating disabled people and how our sex lives were all about touching and stroking.
The truth is a disabled partner can be just like anyone else. They can be the love of your life, they can be a great one nighter or they could be a bloody nightmare. My only piece of advice to anyone who isn't disabled is don't be put off by disability. You won't have to end up being a nurse or wiping our arses (unless you're both into that kind of thing), but you may find the person of your dreams. Sure you might end up with yet another story of a crappy relationship, but if you don't try... you won't know. Oh, and even if you do find yourself with a dud, it's not a sign that all disabled people are like that. You just picked badly. I mean Diane thinks I great but there are quite a few of my past lovers who would not describe me as anything other than a total pig. I leave it up to you all to decide which I am.
To Watch the episode go to - http://www.channel5.com/shows/the-wright-stuff/episodes/episode-218-15
As I waited on my mobile for my turn speaking to Matthew Wright and his panel, I could hear the discussion in the studio. It transpired that the topic had been picked after an article in a magazine about a relationship between an able bodied woman and a disabled man who cannot speak. The reason why it had led the production team to pick the subject was the question of how love could blossom if you had never spoken to your partner or even heard their voice. One of the panel, the flamboyant Craig Revel Horwood, who is a favourite of my Mum (She seems to have been born with no gaydar at all - she fancied Freddie Mercury and still can't believe he was gay!), told the story of a choreographer friend who feel in love with someone who was deaf and so obviously they were in relationship were at least one person had not heard the other speak. In fact the able bodied partner loved the signing so much they now include it in their dance shows.
As my turn came, I told the story if my relationship with my wife Diane, and how I see the prejudices that I have witnessed in the past as a kind of filter that allowed me to discover what kind of person I was with quickly. I must admit I was playing up to the panel and my stories caused much mirth and laughter in the studio. The people that also phoned in all had stories of love between disabled and non-disabled people that proved just how good it can be.
But I was left with a weird feeling about the fact that people are still put off by the idea of dating someone who is disabled. What is so strange to me is that surely everyone realises that able bodied people are just disabled people waiting to happen? So if you wake up one day in a hospital bed and discover you've joined the disabled gang why would the person you are and your wants and needs have changed? Us disabled types are just like anyone else. We can be great life partners and we can be total gits. We can be caring and generous lovers and we can be selfish "wham bam"ers. I just think it is sad that many non-disabled people still hold so many stereotypes around disability and especially around sex, relationships and disability. Even the panel trotted out the old clichés about only really caring people dating disabled people and how our sex lives were all about touching and stroking.
The truth is a disabled partner can be just like anyone else. They can be the love of your life, they can be a great one nighter or they could be a bloody nightmare. My only piece of advice to anyone who isn't disabled is don't be put off by disability. You won't have to end up being a nurse or wiping our arses (unless you're both into that kind of thing), but you may find the person of your dreams. Sure you might end up with yet another story of a crappy relationship, but if you don't try... you won't know. Oh, and even if you do find yourself with a dud, it's not a sign that all disabled people are like that. You just picked badly. I mean Diane thinks I great but there are quite a few of my past lovers who would not describe me as anything other than a total pig. I leave it up to you all to decide which I am.
To Watch the episode go to - http://www.channel5.com/shows/the-wright-stuff/episodes/episode-218-15
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
What The F**k? or Has The World Of TV Gone Mad?
I have just seen an advert for a new Channel 5 show featuring Tamara Ecclestone Billion Dollar Girl and find myself mystified as to who the hell watches this crap. At a time of recession, where the government is slashing the services and benefits of those at the bottom of the heap, who really wants to see a "reality" show about a spoilt little rich girl? Why would any TV company think that this is the right time to make such a show?
Last weekend I compared at the Hardest Hit Rally in Brighton, where a large number of disabled people came out to make their voices heard about how the government's policy of cutting benefits is really effecting them and making their lives incredibly difficult. I heard many people talk about their worries and panic regarding how the cuts and changes will make it impossible continue to live independent and happy lives. Speaking to many of the people there I discovered facts about the proposed changes to those benefits awarded to disabled people and some of them made no sense. One shocking change is that the Mobility part of DLA, or the new PIP, will stop at the age of 64. Now what actually happens to people with mobility issues at the age of 64 that means they no longer need help with getting around is beyond me. I would have thought that many people, even non-disabled people, will end up becoming worse at getting around as they get older and so be entitled to more financial help not less... or none.
But then that is what is really behind these changes and cuts. It's not making the benefits system fairer or target those who really need it, it's just a way of saving money. As we now live in a society where the number of older people is growing massively, any payment that goes towards helping people who develop problems with mobility will end up being paid to more and more people who really are entitled to it. Oh dear, that will cost us more... what shall we do? Just get rid of the benefit, not caring if this means more and more people are left in real financial difficulty and loose their independence. (I feel at this point I should mention that many people who receive the mobility payment put it towards getting a Motability hire car. Motability is one of the biggest fleet car companies in the UK and plays a massive role in keeping the UK car industry afloat. With out it countless jobs will go, damaging our economy hugely) And that's just one of the changes that will have a real effect on people who do not have much money to start with.
Now maybe that would be OK if we lived in a society where everyone was poor or at least feeling the effects of recession, but it is criminal that while some are living in fear about how they will be able to afford to live others are so rich they can throw money away. How can it be OK that billionaires are out buying massive yachts, ridiculous sports cars and house after house costing huge sums that they only live in for a few days a year when others are terrified about being able to heat their home this winter? Ms Ecclestone is currently redecorating a mansion in Kensington that is worth 45 million pounds, so she will never have to worry about making ends meet will she? Yes I know I'm a rabid lefty, and so obviously this huge disparity in wealth offends me but even if you don't think there is something wrong with the rich being so rich while others freeze, surely you do see that making a TV show about the rich spoilt daughter of one the those billionaires is in bad taste?
As well as the timing and subject, the thing that really grinds my gears is that the star of this show is already super wealthy, yet she will be getting paid for the show and will earn even more money because of the publicity she will receive from it. We already have the awful Made In Chelsea on Channel 4, filled with vacuous rich kids hamming it up for our "entertainment" but Billion Dollar Girl is a step too far. I for one will not be watching this waste of time and have no idea who will.
Last weekend I compared at the Hardest Hit Rally in Brighton, where a large number of disabled people came out to make their voices heard about how the government's policy of cutting benefits is really effecting them and making their lives incredibly difficult. I heard many people talk about their worries and panic regarding how the cuts and changes will make it impossible continue to live independent and happy lives. Speaking to many of the people there I discovered facts about the proposed changes to those benefits awarded to disabled people and some of them made no sense. One shocking change is that the Mobility part of DLA, or the new PIP, will stop at the age of 64. Now what actually happens to people with mobility issues at the age of 64 that means they no longer need help with getting around is beyond me. I would have thought that many people, even non-disabled people, will end up becoming worse at getting around as they get older and so be entitled to more financial help not less... or none.
But then that is what is really behind these changes and cuts. It's not making the benefits system fairer or target those who really need it, it's just a way of saving money. As we now live in a society where the number of older people is growing massively, any payment that goes towards helping people who develop problems with mobility will end up being paid to more and more people who really are entitled to it. Oh dear, that will cost us more... what shall we do? Just get rid of the benefit, not caring if this means more and more people are left in real financial difficulty and loose their independence. (I feel at this point I should mention that many people who receive the mobility payment put it towards getting a Motability hire car. Motability is one of the biggest fleet car companies in the UK and plays a massive role in keeping the UK car industry afloat. With out it countless jobs will go, damaging our economy hugely) And that's just one of the changes that will have a real effect on people who do not have much money to start with.
Now maybe that would be OK if we lived in a society where everyone was poor or at least feeling the effects of recession, but it is criminal that while some are living in fear about how they will be able to afford to live others are so rich they can throw money away. How can it be OK that billionaires are out buying massive yachts, ridiculous sports cars and house after house costing huge sums that they only live in for a few days a year when others are terrified about being able to heat their home this winter? Ms Ecclestone is currently redecorating a mansion in Kensington that is worth 45 million pounds, so she will never have to worry about making ends meet will she? Yes I know I'm a rabid lefty, and so obviously this huge disparity in wealth offends me but even if you don't think there is something wrong with the rich being so rich while others freeze, surely you do see that making a TV show about the rich spoilt daughter of one the those billionaires is in bad taste?
As well as the timing and subject, the thing that really grinds my gears is that the star of this show is already super wealthy, yet she will be getting paid for the show and will earn even more money because of the publicity she will receive from it. We already have the awful Made In Chelsea on Channel 4, filled with vacuous rich kids hamming it up for our "entertainment" but Billion Dollar Girl is a step too far. I for one will not be watching this waste of time and have no idea who will.
Monday, 17 October 2011
Blonde Ambitions
A few months ago I had a meeting with a BBC exec who works with talent, to see if the BBC might be interested in getting me back on our TV screens. We had a productive chat, and fingers crossed things might happen. One thing that threw me was the comment that my peroxide hair dye job might be stopping me get work. The exec thought it didn't look right for current tastes and advised me to try for a more natural look. Through out my life people have reacted badly to my alternative image, from before I entered he media and worked in a dole office to my short period as news reporter for BBC News. I never really took much notice, and saw my bleached hair as part of the Mik Scarlet brand. I mean my sign name is the signs for Mouthy with Blonde Spiky Hair, so it is part of who I am.Or was. You see I really want to get back to work, and decided to give it a go. I mean with the Paralympics coming up and there's window within the media for disabled broadcasters like me to either get on board or miss out forever. So I went natural, and changed my hair style to something more current and put away my leather trousers.
Now I won't deny
that I don't miss the hassle of bleaching my hair. Leaning over the sink, with peroxide running in my eyes as I try to wash off the chemicals is not fun. I started dying my hair at the age of 16, and after a period of going from blonde to red to black and red and then black before going back to blonde, I began sticking with peroxide around the age of 23. So that's exactly half of my life with a blonde spiked hair do. But the spiky thing goes back further. The treatment I had as a baby caused my hair to grow very thick and spiky. Nothing my Mum did would get it to lay down, and so everyone nicknamed me Tufty. This left my hair with a natural need to spike up, and getting it to do anything else is real battle, even today.
But it's not only that my hair has been punk since the mid 60's, but being blonde is now so much part of me that I don't recognise the person I see in the mirror every morning since going natural. If you spend half your life looking one way, and then suddenly dramatically change it's weird. It's harder as I didn't really do it because I felt it was time for a change, but more because someone else did. I broke a rule I set down for myself was a teenager. I changed the way I look for a job. Not even a real job, but the possible promise of one. As I write this I feel such a traitor to myself. Not only to me today, but to the young me. I mean I had real commitment to my beliefs back then that I would never have changed the way I look for anyone or anything. But that's OK when you're young and filled with confidence and belief that your generation will change the world.
Now I am an old duffer, and no longer feel that my alternative image is of such importance. I also want to avoid looking like an old git, dressed the way I used to over 20 years ago. But should I have to go so heavily the other way? Is there a middle ground? On top of that question, I am finding that the new natural Mik is not as confident and confidence is key to getting work in the media. I'll never get the few jobs I get to audition for if I'm not on my A game, and changing my image has made me less "me".
The most annoying part of all this is that I still have my hair. I always thought I'd be bald by now, with so many years of abusing my hair behind me. Sure it's receding a little, but it's pretty good for 46. So what should I do? Do I stick with the natural look and learn to love it, or reach for the peroxide, feel more Mik and maybe loose out on work as I don't fit with the current ideas of a what a TV presenter looks like? Of course, I never fitted with the stereotype of a TV presenter, or a wheelchair user for that matter. All I can say is watch this space. I promised myself that if I don't get any work within six months I would say "Sod it" and go back to the old Mik. But I am finding the wait too much to bare.
I ask you dear reader, if you have any thought's on what I should do, please comment below.
Friday, 7 October 2011
The Law Should Be The Law
This won't be up to my normal essay length blogs (hooray I hear you all cry) but I just wanted to comment on something my wife showed me after she received an e-mail today from the League Against Cruel Sports regarding a Fox Hunt that went through a village in Kent. I won't give you all the gory details, but please visit the story on their website for the full story.
Whatever your beliefs on Fox Hunting (yes as a life long veggie I am against it), the big problem with this story for me is that what occured is currently against the law. Allowing the fox hounds to kill the fox is illegal, and to do it in front of a village full of people means that the hunt cannot claim it did not happen. Yet it is normally the kind of people who go fox hunting are amongst those cry out against light sentencing and criminal behaviour. I am sure many of the people on that hunt would have been baying for blood after the recent riots, crying for harsh sentences for all rioters. Surely law breakers are law breakers, and if you break the law you should face the consequences?
To me if you want a society that works, but believe that some laws are unfair or wrong, then you don't just do as you want. You campaign and work to change how society feels about the laws and thus bring pressure on the government to change them. Those who feel they are being unfairly targeted by out of touch city based governments should be running campaigns to explain the reason behind their desire to hunt and to try to change the law. Instead it appears that many are choosing to break the law, just like a teenage rioter.
So surely all involved with this hunt should be hunted down themselves and prosecuted with an equal vigour as any other criminal? I know I do not want to be part of a society that allows this level of cruelty in the name of sport, and I am sure many of you agree with me. This lack of support from the majority of the country is the real excuse behind the flouting of the current laws. If we all feel that rioting is wrong and we also feel that fox hunting is wrong then there should be no difference between them in the action undertaken by the police and courts. I just hope that the proof gathered by the LACS leads to legal action and prosecutions.
Whatever your beliefs on Fox Hunting (yes as a life long veggie I am against it), the big problem with this story for me is that what occured is currently against the law. Allowing the fox hounds to kill the fox is illegal, and to do it in front of a village full of people means that the hunt cannot claim it did not happen. Yet it is normally the kind of people who go fox hunting are amongst those cry out against light sentencing and criminal behaviour. I am sure many of the people on that hunt would have been baying for blood after the recent riots, crying for harsh sentences for all rioters. Surely law breakers are law breakers, and if you break the law you should face the consequences?
To me if you want a society that works, but believe that some laws are unfair or wrong, then you don't just do as you want. You campaign and work to change how society feels about the laws and thus bring pressure on the government to change them. Those who feel they are being unfairly targeted by out of touch city based governments should be running campaigns to explain the reason behind their desire to hunt and to try to change the law. Instead it appears that many are choosing to break the law, just like a teenage rioter.
So surely all involved with this hunt should be hunted down themselves and prosecuted with an equal vigour as any other criminal? I know I do not want to be part of a society that allows this level of cruelty in the name of sport, and I am sure many of you agree with me. This lack of support from the majority of the country is the real excuse behind the flouting of the current laws. If we all feel that rioting is wrong and we also feel that fox hunting is wrong then there should be no difference between them in the action undertaken by the police and courts. I just hope that the proof gathered by the LACS leads to legal action and prosecutions.
Friday, 23 September 2011
Ranting Round-Up No.1
Now where to start? As I've been crazy busy recently the list of things "Grinding My Gears" is quite long.
The first was C4's Sainsbury's Super Saturday. This music and sports show was to celebrate the launch of ticket sales for the Paralympics and was aired over a whole weekend on Channel 4. My issues with the show were many. Why was it only presented by non-disabled talent and why did so many of the pop stars who were interviewed allowed to use such out of date and non PC language to describe Paralymians? Those were the biggies. Surely C4 could have found some disabled presenting talent to work with Rick Edwards and Lisa Snowdon? Yeah they chatted with Paralympic stars but it would have made much more impact if the show had a disabled presenter too. The thing that really drove me mad was the way disabled people were talked about by various pop stars. The Sugarbabes condescendingly describing sport as a method to recover from the trauma of not being able to use your legs, for wheelchair users who were either born disabled or made that way through accident, got me so cross that I felt the steam coming out of my ears. Dappy making incoherent comments about the Paralympics was equally ridiculous. And they were just two of many to use language that seemed out of the 70's. If C4 is going to be the Paralympic channel for 2012 they must have someone on their staff that ensures all of their output uses language that is currently acceptable and that does not set back the battle for equality for disabled people? I just pray that they clean up their act before the games begin.
Then I attended a meeting of a new charity run by disabled people called Enhance the UK , about a campaign they are planning. ETUK wants to design a campaign that questions the way disabled people are perceived when it comes to attractiveness. I don't want to give away too much as I think it will be a really important campaign, so watch their website, but while we were all discussing how we could make an impact and what we should we cover, I realised that those of us who have issues of sexual function to deal with on top of the usual ignorance around disability have the journey we have to go on before we feel able to be sexy massively underestimated. Even by other disabled people. I know that I spent years coming to terms with the new me, and how bits of me worked. In a society that equates sex with penetration, to loose the ability to get a stiffy really messes with your head. I was just shocked that as we all sat round a table, discussing confidence, relationships and sexuality, everyone believed that most men who used a wheelchair were lucky as they all seemed to be confident. No one had any understanding that the huge bravado that most male wheelies exude is just a cover for exactly how messed up they are over the loss of what the world tells them makes them a man. I plan to write an article for ETUK's website on the subject soon, and will point you all there as soon as it's online.
Then this morning I was watching The Wright Stuff, as I do every morning, and found myself amazed at the discussion on whether Page 3 girls could be feminist role models. The women on the panel seemed to think that Page 3 girls were less damaging to the feminist cause than Size 0 fashion models, and this totally shocked me to the core. Now I can't say that I haven't used pornography, or looked at a Page 3 girl, but I can't imagine that anyone could claim they were role models for young women. Especially compared to fashion models. I shall explain why using my own analogy. I got into the media after I was spotted by a TV producer while performing a gig with a band I fronted. Everyone who booked me to present, act or appear on a TV show always said that one of the reasons they hired me was because I was nothing like the stereotype of a disabled person. With my bleached spiky hair, leather gear and massive motor bike boots I was in fact the antithesis of that stereotype, and so using me made people question their attitudes of what a disabled person was. A lot of disabled people thought I was a bad role model because by being so different from what most disabled people were like I gave a false impression. I understood this view, but as I was just being myself and I spent a large amount of my time using my high profile to raise issues around equality and access, I did not feel I had to change. I also know that if had, the work would have dried up quick time.
So how does this have anything to do with Page 3? Well Page 3 creates a unreachable ideal of a sexualized female that impacts on all women and how men perceive them. They use their sexuality and the way society expects attractive women to be sexually available as a way of making money. Fashion models however, are not playing on sexual availability to further their career. They are playing on how clothes hang on them, and how the fashion industry wants their output to be seen. Sex rarely comes into it. Sexiness maybe, but not sexuality. In the past I have been friends with several fashion models and they are actually very normal women. They aren't even that thin, just really, really tall. When you meet fashion models the first thing that hits you is how tall, and big they are. They are mostly around six foot tall, and their bodies match their height. They just look thin in photographs.
But I digress. No matter if they are very thin, or just really tall, they have a very different role from Page 3, and they have a very different effect on society. Some people claim that fashion models create an unobtainable ideal for young women and girls, and there is some truth to that. Just as some disabled people claimed that I created an ideal of being disabled that many disabled people could not achieve and that was not representative. But those ideals did not create an atmosphere and perception in society that makes the world less safe. Any ideal that revolves around a false impression of sexual availability damages society, and Page 3 must make the world less safe for women. Fashion models do not. In the same way that I may have had an image that was very far away from what most disabled people were like, but they could have achieved my "look" if they had have wanted to. Just most didn't! I really feel I never had a damaging effect of the way society thinks of what a disabled person is like. To have the same effect as a Page 3 girl I would have to start claiming that all disabled people were just lazy and were all benefit fraudsters. We all know how damaging that has been to the way society thinks about disabled people as it now seems to be the way the press paints us at every turn. Either that or we're super humans that are bravely over coming adversity. I can proudly say that I was neither. Just a punky, loud mouthed weirdo that told everyone to be whatever they wanted. I also never got my chest out for money... and I was offered!
So that's my ranting round up for now. Not sure it all flows the way I'd like, and maybe I should have edited this blog before posting it, but I always feel that blogs are more fun if you use them as a stream of thought affair. I'd love to know what you think on any of the subjects in this blog, dear reader, so comment below.
I will close by saying if anyone at The Wright Stuff is looking for a panellist I am available. It's been a ritual for me to watch it since the show started and I was even up to appear to the show many years back, but was too ill (with my second broken back!) to do it. It's always been something I want to do... get paid to get the chance to air my opinions on National TV. Pure bliss.
The first was C4's Sainsbury's Super Saturday. This music and sports show was to celebrate the launch of ticket sales for the Paralympics and was aired over a whole weekend on Channel 4. My issues with the show were many. Why was it only presented by non-disabled talent and why did so many of the pop stars who were interviewed allowed to use such out of date and non PC language to describe Paralymians? Those were the biggies. Surely C4 could have found some disabled presenting talent to work with Rick Edwards and Lisa Snowdon? Yeah they chatted with Paralympic stars but it would have made much more impact if the show had a disabled presenter too. The thing that really drove me mad was the way disabled people were talked about by various pop stars. The Sugarbabes condescendingly describing sport as a method to recover from the trauma of not being able to use your legs, for wheelchair users who were either born disabled or made that way through accident, got me so cross that I felt the steam coming out of my ears. Dappy making incoherent comments about the Paralympics was equally ridiculous. And they were just two of many to use language that seemed out of the 70's. If C4 is going to be the Paralympic channel for 2012 they must have someone on their staff that ensures all of their output uses language that is currently acceptable and that does not set back the battle for equality for disabled people? I just pray that they clean up their act before the games begin.
Then I attended a meeting of a new charity run by disabled people called Enhance the UK , about a campaign they are planning. ETUK wants to design a campaign that questions the way disabled people are perceived when it comes to attractiveness. I don't want to give away too much as I think it will be a really important campaign, so watch their website, but while we were all discussing how we could make an impact and what we should we cover, I realised that those of us who have issues of sexual function to deal with on top of the usual ignorance around disability have the journey we have to go on before we feel able to be sexy massively underestimated. Even by other disabled people. I know that I spent years coming to terms with the new me, and how bits of me worked. In a society that equates sex with penetration, to loose the ability to get a stiffy really messes with your head. I was just shocked that as we all sat round a table, discussing confidence, relationships and sexuality, everyone believed that most men who used a wheelchair were lucky as they all seemed to be confident. No one had any understanding that the huge bravado that most male wheelies exude is just a cover for exactly how messed up they are over the loss of what the world tells them makes them a man. I plan to write an article for ETUK's website on the subject soon, and will point you all there as soon as it's online.
Then this morning I was watching The Wright Stuff, as I do every morning, and found myself amazed at the discussion on whether Page 3 girls could be feminist role models. The women on the panel seemed to think that Page 3 girls were less damaging to the feminist cause than Size 0 fashion models, and this totally shocked me to the core. Now I can't say that I haven't used pornography, or looked at a Page 3 girl, but I can't imagine that anyone could claim they were role models for young women. Especially compared to fashion models. I shall explain why using my own analogy. I got into the media after I was spotted by a TV producer while performing a gig with a band I fronted. Everyone who booked me to present, act or appear on a TV show always said that one of the reasons they hired me was because I was nothing like the stereotype of a disabled person. With my bleached spiky hair, leather gear and massive motor bike boots I was in fact the antithesis of that stereotype, and so using me made people question their attitudes of what a disabled person was. A lot of disabled people thought I was a bad role model because by being so different from what most disabled people were like I gave a false impression. I understood this view, but as I was just being myself and I spent a large amount of my time using my high profile to raise issues around equality and access, I did not feel I had to change. I also know that if had, the work would have dried up quick time.
So how does this have anything to do with Page 3? Well Page 3 creates a unreachable ideal of a sexualized female that impacts on all women and how men perceive them. They use their sexuality and the way society expects attractive women to be sexually available as a way of making money. Fashion models however, are not playing on sexual availability to further their career. They are playing on how clothes hang on them, and how the fashion industry wants their output to be seen. Sex rarely comes into it. Sexiness maybe, but not sexuality. In the past I have been friends with several fashion models and they are actually very normal women. They aren't even that thin, just really, really tall. When you meet fashion models the first thing that hits you is how tall, and big they are. They are mostly around six foot tall, and their bodies match their height. They just look thin in photographs.
But I digress. No matter if they are very thin, or just really tall, they have a very different role from Page 3, and they have a very different effect on society. Some people claim that fashion models create an unobtainable ideal for young women and girls, and there is some truth to that. Just as some disabled people claimed that I created an ideal of being disabled that many disabled people could not achieve and that was not representative. But those ideals did not create an atmosphere and perception in society that makes the world less safe. Any ideal that revolves around a false impression of sexual availability damages society, and Page 3 must make the world less safe for women. Fashion models do not. In the same way that I may have had an image that was very far away from what most disabled people were like, but they could have achieved my "look" if they had have wanted to. Just most didn't! I really feel I never had a damaging effect of the way society thinks of what a disabled person is like. To have the same effect as a Page 3 girl I would have to start claiming that all disabled people were just lazy and were all benefit fraudsters. We all know how damaging that has been to the way society thinks about disabled people as it now seems to be the way the press paints us at every turn. Either that or we're super humans that are bravely over coming adversity. I can proudly say that I was neither. Just a punky, loud mouthed weirdo that told everyone to be whatever they wanted. I also never got my chest out for money... and I was offered!
So that's my ranting round up for now. Not sure it all flows the way I'd like, and maybe I should have edited this blog before posting it, but I always feel that blogs are more fun if you use them as a stream of thought affair. I'd love to know what you think on any of the subjects in this blog, dear reader, so comment below.
I will close by saying if anyone at The Wright Stuff is looking for a panellist I am available. It's been a ritual for me to watch it since the show started and I was even up to appear to the show many years back, but was too ill (with my second broken back!) to do it. It's always been something I want to do... get paid to get the chance to air my opinions on National TV. Pure bliss.
Saturday, 10 September 2011
Proud to be a Freak!
One of my favourite shows on TV at the minute is C4's Seven Dwarves. When I saw it advertised I thought I was going to hate it, but it is probably the best example of this kind of TV I have ever seen. Normally "Freak" TV focuses on what is so different about it's stars, but Seven Dwarves flips that on it's head. Most of the time you are watching the lives of seven performers, their friends and family and only occasionally are you reminded that they are "different". I really think that all TV production companies that are commissioned to make a show like this should be forced to watch Seven Dwarves to see how it should be done.
Another reason why I think it is so good, is that it really proves the Social Model of Disability. To anyone who does know what that is, it's a way of examining disability that states that we are not disabled by our conditions or differences but by the way the society disables us. I'll explain using little old me as an example. I cannot walk due to a spinal collapse caused by a childhood cancer. So in medical terms I am a paraplegic due to a partial spinal injury, through complications caused by an Post Natal Adrenal Neuroblastoma, that confines me to a wheelchair permanently. But the Social Model states that by using a wheelchair I am able to live life exactly the same I would have if I could walk, barred only by environmental barriers such as steps, uneven pavements, lack of lifts and accessible toilets. If the world I lived in was designed to be fully accessible then I would not really be disabled. The Seven Dwarves live in a normal house, and use aids to be able to access it's facilities. Thus they are not disabled by their difference within an environment that they have adapted to suit their needs. It's only when they enter the outside world that barriers can cause difficulties. If the wider society understood this, then maybe we could actually start working together to build a world that was totally inclusive. This would mean that disability would not be such a big thing and we'd all be able to live equally. Sure there are elements of being disabled that are medical. I have chronic pain as I have some nerves trapped in my back, and the Seven Dwarves speak about some medical hassles that arise form time to time, but everyone has illnesses and health issues. It's just ours are made into a bigger deal by being labelled as disabled.
The thing that shocks me the most as I watch Seven Dwarves is how much the public seems to laugh at them and ridicule them to their faces. Us "freaks" are expected to put up with this kind of thing, even by people who would be furious if they were at the sharp end. My wife has a big scar on her right arm and when we first met she would regularly get shouted at in the street by people offended that she dared to go out in public without it being covered. Many of these people were from ethnic minorities, yet they never seemed to see the irony that they were shouting at a person in the street about a difference that only went skin deep. I mean my wife's scar impairs her abilities in no way at all. The only time it impacts on her life is when people make comments about it. I also regularly get comments and negative reactions, yet really I look like a bloke sitting down. The way that everyone on the planet does when they sit down to eat. But the wheelchair seems to make it open season. I must admit I tend to react in a more openly upset way than my wife, and it did make me happy that the stars of SD also react in a proactive manner. Tee hee.
What amazes me is that people think that acting like this is acceptable behaviour. More amazing is that the next generation are continuing to be arses. My nephew was diagnosed with Luekeamia when he was 5. He is now 13 and has totally cured. Yet he has been bullied at school by kids telling him he is weak and inferior as he had cancer. When he told me, and fellow cancer survivor, I nearly drove up to his school had showed the little shits just how inferior someone who beat cancer can be... with my fist. But apparently he had already done this, and ended up getting suspended for a week. For standing up for himself! When I was his age, kids bullied me but I used the patented Mik technique for stopping this kind of behaviour. I kicked them in the bollocks. Hard and with my metal sided caliper. They never did it again. In fact a few became good mates, if only to avoid the "leg of doom". Yet now over 30 years later, instead of the kids bullying someone because he was different from them getting in trouble for doing something that should be unacceptable, the kid being bullied and standing up for himself was punished. If that's the way schools deal with this sort of thing, then God knows what kind of world we will be living in when they grow up.
Before I go, I shall explain the title of this blog. I told my nephew that he was not weak and inferior. In fact he was strong and superior. He had beaten an illness that kills many of the people it touches. That goes for all of us who have been touched by illness, disability and difference. We have the strength to fight our conditions, whether we win or not, but we also have to exist in a world that causes our disabilities and differences to impact on our lives, and we're expected to put with it. At the minute we are being told we should all be going out and getting jobs and contributing to a society that still thinks we are less than them, and gets away with telling us so... to our faces. All I know is that I have always been proud of who I am. My disability has shaped the person I am, and I like me. I am disabled and bloody proud of it. So up yours, all you perfect people. All the same, all healthy and "perfect". I rather be me any day!
I am a Freak and Proud!
Another reason why I think it is so good, is that it really proves the Social Model of Disability. To anyone who does know what that is, it's a way of examining disability that states that we are not disabled by our conditions or differences but by the way the society disables us. I'll explain using little old me as an example. I cannot walk due to a spinal collapse caused by a childhood cancer. So in medical terms I am a paraplegic due to a partial spinal injury, through complications caused by an Post Natal Adrenal Neuroblastoma, that confines me to a wheelchair permanently. But the Social Model states that by using a wheelchair I am able to live life exactly the same I would have if I could walk, barred only by environmental barriers such as steps, uneven pavements, lack of lifts and accessible toilets. If the world I lived in was designed to be fully accessible then I would not really be disabled. The Seven Dwarves live in a normal house, and use aids to be able to access it's facilities. Thus they are not disabled by their difference within an environment that they have adapted to suit their needs. It's only when they enter the outside world that barriers can cause difficulties. If the wider society understood this, then maybe we could actually start working together to build a world that was totally inclusive. This would mean that disability would not be such a big thing and we'd all be able to live equally. Sure there are elements of being disabled that are medical. I have chronic pain as I have some nerves trapped in my back, and the Seven Dwarves speak about some medical hassles that arise form time to time, but everyone has illnesses and health issues. It's just ours are made into a bigger deal by being labelled as disabled.
The thing that shocks me the most as I watch Seven Dwarves is how much the public seems to laugh at them and ridicule them to their faces. Us "freaks" are expected to put up with this kind of thing, even by people who would be furious if they were at the sharp end. My wife has a big scar on her right arm and when we first met she would regularly get shouted at in the street by people offended that she dared to go out in public without it being covered. Many of these people were from ethnic minorities, yet they never seemed to see the irony that they were shouting at a person in the street about a difference that only went skin deep. I mean my wife's scar impairs her abilities in no way at all. The only time it impacts on her life is when people make comments about it. I also regularly get comments and negative reactions, yet really I look like a bloke sitting down. The way that everyone on the planet does when they sit down to eat. But the wheelchair seems to make it open season. I must admit I tend to react in a more openly upset way than my wife, and it did make me happy that the stars of SD also react in a proactive manner. Tee hee.
What amazes me is that people think that acting like this is acceptable behaviour. More amazing is that the next generation are continuing to be arses. My nephew was diagnosed with Luekeamia when he was 5. He is now 13 and has totally cured. Yet he has been bullied at school by kids telling him he is weak and inferior as he had cancer. When he told me, and fellow cancer survivor, I nearly drove up to his school had showed the little shits just how inferior someone who beat cancer can be... with my fist. But apparently he had already done this, and ended up getting suspended for a week. For standing up for himself! When I was his age, kids bullied me but I used the patented Mik technique for stopping this kind of behaviour. I kicked them in the bollocks. Hard and with my metal sided caliper. They never did it again. In fact a few became good mates, if only to avoid the "leg of doom". Yet now over 30 years later, instead of the kids bullying someone because he was different from them getting in trouble for doing something that should be unacceptable, the kid being bullied and standing up for himself was punished. If that's the way schools deal with this sort of thing, then God knows what kind of world we will be living in when they grow up.
Before I go, I shall explain the title of this blog. I told my nephew that he was not weak and inferior. In fact he was strong and superior. He had beaten an illness that kills many of the people it touches. That goes for all of us who have been touched by illness, disability and difference. We have the strength to fight our conditions, whether we win or not, but we also have to exist in a world that causes our disabilities and differences to impact on our lives, and we're expected to put with it. At the minute we are being told we should all be going out and getting jobs and contributing to a society that still thinks we are less than them, and gets away with telling us so... to our faces. All I know is that I have always been proud of who I am. My disability has shaped the person I am, and I like me. I am disabled and bloody proud of it. So up yours, all you perfect people. All the same, all healthy and "perfect". I rather be me any day!
I am a Freak and Proud!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)