Speaking Out About Your Problems: What's So Bloody Wrong With That?

I just read an article written by Brendan O'Neill (Big Issue columnist, Daily Telegraph blogger) about Angelina Jolie (see here). It baffles and saddens to think that someone can be so mean-spirited and cynical as to write a piece that so blatantly criticises another purely based on their celebrity status.

Of course, we all take jibes at the rich and famous when they make blunders or comment on issues we feel they aren't qualified to speak of, because it's fun. Quite simply, the vast majority of us are not rich and famous and therefore possess ever-so-slightly more than a hint of jealousy, or rather, a smidgen of sadism. And that's perfectly fine. It's empowering for us, as everyday go-doers, to see these deified beings knocked off their pedestals. However, it is quite a different ball game when an individual ridicules another, celebrity or not, for speaking out (or in this case writing-out) about serious issues concerned with health, beit physical or mental, and well-being.

Photo copyright: Philipp Von Ostau

O'Neill's article asserts that we live in a society in which it's trendy to "be ill" and implies that any efforts to inform, enlighten and educate the public is merely an effort to accrue more time in the limelight and delay the inevitable crescendos of fame in this; an era of self-helplessness. He uses Stephen Fry's writings and programs about his struggle with bi-polar disorder and Jade Goody's televised cancer diagnosis and subsequent, much publicised, battle with the disease as examples. While Fry and Goody could both be loosely accused of being and having been "media whores" (In Fry's case it's most probably because he seems to be on television everywhere, but maybe that's just because he's pretty damn good. As for Goody, she unfortunately gained much media attention for more tragic reasons which we'll discuss shortly.), it seems pretty callous to downright deny and refute any noble intent or philanthropic urges they may have had when opening up about their respected problems. Regardless of your views of these people as individuals, it's more constructive (and part of the point of their actions) to think about the causes they champion.

To briefly expand on the examples given by O'Neill. Stephen Fry's account of his experience with bi-polar disorder (BPD) is actually less to do with his personal struggles with the illness but rather an exploration of the different kinds of treatment. While his own writings have discussed his own experience with the illness, his better known documentary mini-series, "The Secret Life Of The Manic Depressive" is a far more general examination of BPD with anecdotal elements included. To be honest, it's very candid at times and gives a profound insights into both a condition of which we still know quite little about and accounts of people who suffer from it in it's varying degrees. Typically, before then, when many of us read that someone was diagnosed with BPD we assumed they were just crazy celebs in need of a good cuddle. Thankfully, Fry was one of the first to speak openly and unashamedly about the illness. He restored much of the attention and importance that it commands during a time when it seemed that BPD was being used as a cop-out for the bad behaviour of the glitterati. Personally, I found it to be enlightening in that it allowed me to understand certain feelings and waves of emotions that I felt in strength from time to time. Furthermore, it encouraged me to look a little closer and attempt to learn more about what it was that I was feeling and why I was feeling that way. I'm sure that many others were equally as interested and did the same for themselves. Luckily for me, I do not share this condition but I have a much greater understanding and appreciation for mental illness that I may never have had, had it not been for his documentary. The more important consequence of Fry's expansion on the topic was that it led to the growing deterioration of the stigmas possessed by the public at-large regarding BPD and other mental illnesses. For that, I'll shake his hand and thank him should I bump into him.

Taken from TCD Phil website

As for Jade Goody, her saga is far less of the conventional cause-championing story than she may have wanted. The circumstances of her "going public" were most unfortunate and stripped her of much of her dignity in an effort to hastily provide any kind of financial security for her relatively newborn child after Goody's own inevitable death. What was truly sad about Jade Goody's experience was the manner in which she was cuckholded by the media. Prior to her illness she was, as the tabloids slurred, a "pig-faced", "common-as-muck" reprobate who the media felt whored her way into the public eye. To them, she was a person who went to great and embarrassing lengths, ultimately at her own expense, to try to stay there. And then, once she became ill, and then gravely ill, she was hoisted upon their shoulders and hailed as their sweetheart. Her relationship with the media was, in reality, not much different to that of Lady Diana. She was treated like a gimp who was punished and/or pampered at her mistress' (the media's) will. When she died, she became a martyr and "ours". In Goody's final months she did champion a number of cancer awareness causes but those were much ignored by the press. The media began a slew of campaigns to raise money and awareness for Jade. A cynic would say that this was a way for the tabloids to wash their hands of the blood from Goody's on-going public torture at the hands of the press...or maybe they aren't cynics at all, but simple and objective onlookers? However, when all is said and done, one can hardly couple both the examples of Fry and Goody together. Fry managed to maintain his self-respect, a seemingly good general health and sought purely to educate others, and perhaps himself, so as to change public perceptions of an often misunderstood set of health problems and conditions. Goody was not afforded the same opportunity or time. Her primary concern was her child's future after the event of her death, even if it came at the cost of her own dignity. Nonetheless, given her strangest and most unfortunate set of circumstances, Goody, like Fry, spoke out about issues that affected her.

Taken from TopNews.in

Having a pretty good understanding of cynicism and cynical people (I did work in a politics department, remember), it still seems quite unnecessary to possess that most abhorrent of perspectives when examining the work of people trying to increase awareness about issues which are of interest to them. In particular, issues as serious as those of which they have suffered the effects from themselves. Sadly, as is the case with most causes, funding and budgetary concessions for raising awareness remain extremely low. Money is generally saved to cover more practical project and program implementation costs. Therefore, having someone with a modicum of fame and, if they have, a power profile is a blessing for any advocacy group, cause or not-for-profit organisation. What's more; we, be us cynics or not, slate these people constantly for having mountains of cash while the great majority of the World suffers in poor health and poverty. That may be a reasonable complaint; social cleavages are difficult to ignore. But, when some choose to make an effort to alleviate these issues, we shit all over them! Granted, while I'm not the biggest fan of Bono or Lord Scruff (Geldof), at least they are making some kind of effort. I don't like them personally (at least I don't think I do...) but it's hard to argue with the fact that they've championed causes that have since become a part of the public discourse. It's also hard to dispute that they both, along with many others, played important roles in facilitating that entry into the public policy mainstream. What's so bloody wrong with that?

As for Angelina Jolie, to be honest, I don't think very much of her. I have nothing bad to say about her, but I don't particularly like her acting. She is indeed a beautiful woman, but I have never viewed her as the 'goddess' as most of my contemporaries have. In fact, I may be one of the few straight men who find the likes of a younger Jane Seymour to be far more physically appealing. However, I have great respect for Jolie's advocacy of different issues. Being frank, here is a woman who, over the last two decades, has been labelled the sexiest woman in the World. She's a woman who is said to have curves in all the right places etc. and she has just had a double mastectomy to help prevent her from developing breast cancer. As a result of her experience, rather than crawling into a hole and feeling sorry for herself, she felt compelled to write about it. In doing so, at the very least, she will educate people as to simply one of the choices out there to try and avoid an illness which consumes and kills so many women AND men every year. What's so bloody wrong with that?

People like Brendan O'Neill are not too dissimilar to us though. Most of us, whether we admit it or not, foam at the mouth when we learn of mishaps that our beloved heroes and heroines of the screen and airwaves endure. We salivate upon learning about who's fucking who and who fucked who behind someone's back. Often, we cross our fingers and bite our lips with anticipation and high hopes that there emerges that elusive tape of said 'fuckings' taking place. We internally jump with excitement but display apathy when 'so and so' has been outed or they've been caught snorting something off someone's backside. We rejoice somewhat in these things because these are the the necessary pieces of evidence that we need to humanise them and declare "you're no better than me". However, what makes people like O'Neill different to people like us, us being those who aren't hopelessly cynical c**ts, is that we maintain a tiny shred of empathy. Whether the acts of people who speak out about their illnesses or life-experiences are considered "rebellious", or not, is not the issue. Even if done for some token of self gain, their actions should be somewhat commended. What counts is that they have at least made an effort to educate and enlighten others who might otherwise be needlessly ignorant of the options they may have if stricken with the same ailments or problems. Again, what's so bloody wrong with that?

It's quite right to say that we shouldn't solely hold these individuals in high standings as would-be martyrs or major ambassadors for their respected causes. There are a great many more ordinary Joe Soaps, Bloggs, Jane Does and Roes that endlessly struggle to be heard on a day to day basis about issues as serious and, if not, more profound. But, if silence is your panacea, the World would still be flat, a good percentage of us would be burned for being heretics, we'd be bottle feeding our children with asbestos teats and "Another Rock N' Roll Christmas" would still be being played on the fucking radio every bloody year!!!