Skip to main content

The Unwatchable.

Source: The Sun - https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/nintchdbpict000351308634.jpg?strip=all&w=960

I don't know if your perception of a good evening's entertainment is watching people with intellectual disabilities being mocked on television? It certainly isn't mine.

Channel Four's The Undateables advertises itself as a "documentary series following people with challenging conditions who are looking for love." The title itself portrays the protagonists of this show as having such "challenging conditions" to the extent that they are rendered "undateable". According to Wikipedia, a spokesperson for the show defended criticism about the show's condescending name, stating that it is the public's perception that these people are 'undateable'. I do not identify as a member of the public, if this is the case. Furthermore, if this is the genuine public perception, would it not perhaps be more constructive, and more fundamentally human to challenge the public's narrow-minded, ignorant view? This show doesn't seem to attempt to do this.

The name is only the start. It seems to me that The Undateables sets up vulnerable people with intellectual disabilities for the purposes of entertainment. The show feeds off the naivety of its stars, The daters, in all their vulnerability, often do not realise that they are acting in a way which may appear comical. These moments of unintentional humour are penetrated into our Facebook feeds, in a desperate attempt to fish for likes.

Furthermore, doubt has been raised as to whether people with certain intellectual disabilities may be able to give fully thought-through consent to appear on the show. This might sound like a patronising viewpoint, but it is a genuine concern which was raised by a doctor and member of the British Medical Association who is also the mother of an autistic child.

"How do these programmes' producers ensure that participants who have autism or intellectual impairment can give truly informed consent to this potential consequence of them becoming reality TV stars?" - Dr Rachael Pickering

If the purpose of this show is not to mock disabled people and make their normal conduct into a form of entertainment, what is it?

To promote awareness about disabilities? - This is probable, and I'm sure it is thought-provoking for viewers.

To change people's perceptions about disabilities? - This could be a side-effect of the show, as such, but I don't think it is what the show really aims to do. We must bear in mind the view of the show's the spokesperson which I referred to earlier: that the public's perceive people with intellectual disabilities to be 'undateable'.

How would you like to be set-up, ridiculed and mocked, all for the benefit of somebody else to chuckle at your vulnerability? The answer to this question says all you need to know about The Undateables.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Preference VS Protest: Democracy isn't a Competition.

 Shock and awe were evoked in Britons, among people across the European Union and in the greater world community today. The Brexit result left everyone in surprise. It was all very unclear as the polling stations closed last night. With a lack of exit polls, people were left to focus on odds set by bookmakers who ironically predicated the remain side winning. “I voted ‘no’ but I didn't foresee this outcome”   - the words of a bemused voter on the BBC this morning.   Almost with a tinge of regret, the man appeared to be piecing together the consequences of this landmark vote in his own mind as he answered the question. To him and many Britons, leaving the EU seemed so radical that it could never happen. Well I wonder if the thought crossed his mind that the government could take the Irish approach. That's the tactic which involves re-running a referendum and giving voters a little light encouragement to change their preference. It worked for us. But it see...
Post a Comment
Read more

Legal Process and Values

I was struck by a remark made by Jolyon Maugham QC in an interview with LBC's James O'Brien . Maugham is a high-flying tax lawyer turned Brexit crusader, leading a number of constitutional challenges to the English government's handling of matters since Art 50 was triggered. The conversation turned to how great lawyers are not innately good politicians (Keir Starmer's name was dropped with uncomfortable regularity). In fact, the two skillsets might be somewhat mutually incompatible. Maugham noted that lawyers are obsessed with process. By that he means not just the granular detail that the law requires, but a slavish focus on the rules as prescribed by the law and their application, as opposed to the substance or merit of those rules. Though this might seem a somewhat trite observation, it reminded me of a remark made by Michael Kirby, a former Australian High Court judge. Kirby J as he was identified in cases, was a senior judge for many years and was known colloquiall...
Post a Comment
Read more

The 'A Word'

"YOU support murdering children?"   It was a simple exchange. We were talking about faith in the modern world, and I foolishly dropped the 'A Word'. Hinting my feelings in relation to this controversial topic, I was immediately stopped in my tracks. My words had led to a judgement being made about my character and my personality. This headline from Waterford Whispers News summarises what has happened to the debate in Ireland: It's ironic, because since the debate has come into general public consideration in Ireland, it has almost become more of a taboo. A highly emotionally-charged debate, both sides will shoot the other down with provocative statements. People are afraid to open their mouths about it in case they are ridiculed for their views. This is exacerbated by the far-left and far-right musings on social media, suggesting that there is little or no middle-ground in this debate. Whatever side of the tracks you are on, or whether you have made ...
Post a Comment
Read more