Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference

EazyD

EazyD wrote: »

Perhaps in your circles using that kind of terminology to refer to disabled people is seen as normal. I think you’ll find most reasonable well adjusted people wouldn’t use or condone same.

Ouch. That's a little mean.

And yes, when talking to my "disabled" relatives about what we describe as their "gammy" arm or their "gammy" foot, we find it much more personable and less clinical than discussing the actual medical terms.

Nice to see you consider them not only disabled but also unreasonable and not well adjusted.

Glad to see you are so tolerant and well adjusted.

BattleCorp

I'd like to apologise for causing offence to myself for once describing my leg as 'gammy', that time I fell off my bike.

Once again , I'm truly sorry that I offended myself and hope to take learnings from this and never offend myself in the future.


..................oh my God, I'm so sorry if I offended anybody who is terminally ill when I used the word 'future'.


.............and for offending non-believers in a deity when I used the word 'God'..

oops, there I said the 'G' word again, sorry.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd like to apologise for causing offence to myself for once describing my leg as 'gammy', that time I fell off my bike.

Once again , I'm truly sorry that I offended myself and hope to take learnings from this and never offend myself in the future.


..................oh my God, I'm so sorry if I offended anybody who is terminally ill when I used the word 'future'.


.............and for offending non-believers in a deity when I used the word 'God'..

oops, there I said the 'G' word again, sorry.

Your repetition of the word sorry offended me.

BattleCorp

Deleted User wrote: »

Your repetition of the word sorry offended me.

I'm sor.............sh1t.

EazyD

EazyD wrote: »

With all due respect there is no instance where substituting a word like “disabled” with “h-capped” would be deemed socially acceptable and that has been the case for quite some time, why would this be considered any different? You wouldn’t refer to your own parent/sibling/child with such terminology so why not extend that courtesy to others?

when I was diagnosed 34 years ago, my condition came with a nice little term called "Benign Essential Tremor", because it's not life threatening. People don't die from this condition. Seemed fine to me. However, over time, and with the limited research done into the condition, it's become connected with Parksinsons, and Alzherimers, so... "benign" is no longer acceptable. now, the term used is simply "Essential Tremor", and I've heard from a number of specialists over the years, the name change was more to do with social politics than any real recognition of what happens with the condition.

Now. You used the word dense. I've worked with people with mental problems before, and while they/I was growing up, teachers would often call someone who was slow to be dense. It's not a particularly nasty word, but it can be taken as a particular negative comment if someone wished... I know, because I've heard people get annoyed by the use of it, just as I've encountered the same with mentally retarded or retarded. At the same time, though, I know a few people who call themselves retarded because it has their own slant on the meaning.

With all respect, you're shifting goalposts. The point is that making a word taboo, especially a word which has been part of peoples vocabularly for a long time already, isn't going to remove the conscious awareness behind the choice of that word. Forcing people to adopt a different way to speak is only going to draw negative attention to the overall issue, rather than encouraging acceptance for these conditions.

Here's an example. People look away, when I get my heavy shakes. I don't get anything like a seizure, but since my spine shakes, the whole body shakes, including my head. I can anchor my body in certain ways through physical positions, but I can't lock my head the same way... so... people notice, and out of politeness, they look away. When I was young, this disturbed me, but as I got older, I understood more the context from their perspective.. and just as I expect others to be courteous, I expect myself to do likewise.

The point being that their behavior isn't going to change my condition. It's part of me. Changing the way they label my condition isn't going to change the actual condition. Changing their behavior itself, invariably leads to more negative expressions. I saw this in school, where teachers forced students to act certain ways around me, or to temper their speech, and.... there was usually a pushback at some later stage.

So... I'm highly critical of this need to censor speech, or to seek to control peoples behavior, because, it's a superficial movement. It's not about acceptance of people with disabilities. It's not about people considering such differences as being normal. It's about highlighting the differences in their minds, because their speech is restrained, and their behavior is punished.

I remember when common decency and politeness was enough in society. In the vast majority of cases, it worked because it wasn't invasive. It didn't force people to behave a certain way.. it certainly didn't seek public recognition for doing so. But this movement to be offended does seek to control, and does seek public recognition.. and I question the motives of those involved.

Fair?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

when I was diagnosed 34 years ago, my condition came with a nice little term called "Benign Essential Tremor", because it's not life threatening. People don't die from this condition. Seemed fine to me. However, over time, and with the limited research done into the condition, it's become connected with Parksinsons, and Alzherimers, so... "benign" is no longer acceptable. now, the term used is simply "Essential Tremor", and I've heard from a number of specialists over the years, the name change was more to do with social politics than any real recognition of what happens with the condition.

Now. You used the word dense. I've worked with people with mental problems before, and while they/I was growing up, teachers would often call someone who was slow to be dense. It's not a particularly nasty word, but it can be taken as a particular negative comment if someone wished... I know, because I've heard people get annoyed by the use of it, just as I've encountered the same with mentally retarded or retarded. At the same time, though, I know a few people who call themselves retarded because it has their own slant on the meaning.

With all respect, you're shifting goalposts. The point is that making a word taboo, especially a word which has been part of peoples vocabularly for a long time already, isn't going to remove the conscious awareness behind the choice of that word. Forcing people to adopt a different way to speak is only going to draw negative attention to the overall issue, rather than encouraging acceptance for these conditions.

Here's an example. People look away, when I get my heavy shakes. I don't get anything like a seizure, but since my spine shakes, the whole body shakes, including my head. I can anchor my body in certain ways through physical positions, but I can't lock my head the same way... so... people notice, and out of politeness, they look away. When I was young, this disturbed me, but as I got older, I understood more the context from their perspective.. and just as I expect others to be courteous, I expect myself to do likewise.

The point being that their behavior isn't going to change my condition. It's part of me. Changing the way they label my condition isn't going to change the actual condition. Changing their behavior itself, invariably leads to more negative expressions. I saw this in school, where teachers forced students to act certain ways around me, or to temper their speech, and.... there was usually a pushback at some later stage.

So... I'm highly critical of this need to censor speech, or to seek to control peoples behavior, because, it's a superficial movement. It's not about acceptance of people with disabilities. It's not about people considering such differences as being normal. It's about highlighting the differences in their minds, because their speech is restrained, and their behavior is punished.

I remember when common decency and politeness was enough in society. In the vast majority of cases, it worked because it wasn't invasive. It didn't force people to behave a certain way.. it certainly didn't seek public recognition for doing so. But this movement to be offended does seek to control, and does seek public recognition.. and I question the motives of those involved.

Fair?

No.

How come your tremor is essential? Seems a little non inclusive of people with unessential tremors.

Does your tremor get to still operate under level 5 restrictions?

*Edit.. great post btw*

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

No.

How come your tremor is essential? Seems a little non inclusive of people with unessential tremors.

Does your tremor get to still operate under level 5 restrictions?

*Edit.. great post btw*

Hmmm... good point. You should let the doctors know.

James Brown

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2020/1106/1176307-anne-hathaway/

For **** sake. What the hell is wrong with people getting so easily offended?

Before the usual suspects get in to accuse me of being offended by the apology, I'm not. Yes, I'm baffled, but certainly not offended.

It's so bizarre.

People were upset and she apologised for upsetting them. I don't know why it's news or what the deal is either way.

BattleCorp

Bowie wrote: »

People were upset and she apologised for upsetting them. I don't know why it's news or what the deal is either way.

People have little to be upset about.

She played a character in a movie. Surely any sensible adult would know that a movie isn't real. What next, someone playing Hitler in a film apologising for Nazi atrocities in WW2?

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

People have little to be upset about.

She played a character in a movie. Surely any sensible adult would know that a movie isn't real. What next, someone playing Hitler in a film apologising for Nazi atrocities in WW2?

In fairness, people who may resemble Hitler aestheticallyay get bullied about it....

Get a grip lads.

Essentially a film portraying witches gave them elongated talon like fingers and people are complaining that long fingered people may be slagged about being a witch.

Ffs.

Tony EH

Deleted User wrote: »

Orcs are apparently a racist troupe.

As with everything fun or interesting, those with the outrage boner, need to ruin it for everyone else.

When the hell did that happen though?

And just how does one think "black people" when they see an orc in a film or a game?

It also begs the question that if one sees black people when an orc is on the screen/page, wouldn't the "problem" be with them and not the, entirely, fictional being?

What do people think when they see goblins?*



















































*I don't really want to know.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

When the hell did that happen though?

And just how does one think "black people" when they see an orc in a film or a game?

It also begs the question that if one sees black people when an orc is on the screen/page, wouldn't the "problem" be with them and not the, entirely, fictional being?

What do people think when they see goblins?*



















































*I don't really want to know.

It's because people clamour to take offense on behalf of what they perceive to be people who they deem are below them.

Completely oblivious to how discriminatory and prejudiced they are as a result.

Tony EH

Tony EH wrote: »

When the hell did that happen though?

It's been going on for a few years now. The feminists and SJWs moved into the fantasy/sci-fi industry about a decade ago, and you could feel their influence growing at conventions around the same time. There's quite a large group of feminist writers these days, who will support all the SJW causes, and they encourage the publishing companies, and larger corporations (like White Wolf, or Wizards of the Coast) to pander to the group, since they want more consumers (little caring that they lose their more established customer base)

And just how does one think "black people" when they see an orc in a film or a game?

It also begs the question that if one sees black people when an orc is on the screen/page, wouldn't the "problem" be with them and not the, entirely, fictional being?

What do people think when they see goblins?*

Because the people who think race is all so important, need to make us feel the same way. It's one of my biggest gripes with the SJW/PC movement, in that the focus is not on normalising conditions, so that people don't think it important at all. Instead, the focus is on raising issues to be primarily important, and woe on to anyone who doesn't acknowledge that importance. TBH I find that the pro-race crowd are as fixated on race as the racial superiority groups.. they're just coming from different angles, but ultimately, they're ensuring that race remains a distinguishing factor in everyone's minds. Just as feminists need desperately to make everything about gender, and nothing about actual equality. They need to justify their own existence, and righteous crusade against the evils of others.. if it doesn't exist, create it.

And the thing with the fantasy races (it's not just Orcs, but Elves, and others have been hit with this), is that it reinforces their agenda. It shows that if there isn't a problem existing, then they will create one themselves.

My last roleplaying convention ended prematurely because groups of SJWs joined the teams, and then protested the rights of the racial groups, crying out against the stereotypes. I did find it strange nobody was seeking to protect the supposed rights of the stereotypical dumb white Barbarians, but every other racial group was well defended or attacked. TBH I've kinda lost any interest in doing conventions anymore, because the last three LARPS i've tried attending were broken up by these fools. (I've been big into roleplaying, LARPS, and magic cards for three decades, but I've kinda given up now. Not because i lost interest but because it's not allowed to be fun anymore. Too many agendas being pushed all the time)

StupidLikeAFox

I can't believe these two inconsequential sentences can provoke 300+ posts of discussion, incredible stuff.

"I particularly want to say I'm sorry to kids with limb differences: now that I know better I promise I'll do better. And I owe a special apology to everyone who loves you as fiercely as I love my own kids: I'm sorry I let your family down."

Tony EH

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I can't believe these two inconsequential sentences can provoke 300+ posts of discussion, incredible stuff.

"I particularly want to say I'm sorry to kids with limb differences: now that I know better I promise I'll do better. And I owe a special apology to everyone who loves you as fiercely as I love my own kids: I'm sorry I let your family down."

Conversations evolve.

That's the whole point of the website you've commented on yourself.

StupidLikeAFox

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I can't believe these two inconsequential sentences can provoke 300+ posts of discussion, incredible stuff.

"I particularly want to say I'm sorry to kids with limb differences: now that I know better I promise I'll do better. And I owe a special apology to everyone who loves you as fiercely as I love my own kids: I'm sorry I let your family down."

Nah man, you have us bang to rights. We are just all giving out about a woman not being mean to kids.

There is no way we are discussing the possibility that society has become too easily offended or that media is capitalising on this trend of people flaunting perceived victimhood for social status gain.

StupidLikeAFox

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

I can't believe these two inconsequential sentences can provoke 300+ posts of discussion, incredible stuff

Nah. I'm calling this one. You've got 5k posts on boards. You're not new to this gig. .

"I particularly want to say I'm sorry to kids with limb differences: now that I know better I promise I'll do better. And I owe a special apology to everyone who loves you as fiercely as I love my own kids: I'm sorry I let your family down."

How will she do better? By not representing roles where such people are included? why does she owe anyone an apology unless she intentionally sought to do harm to others...? How did she let anyone down, unless she wasn't the actor, others expected her to be?

It's drivel. It's pandering to the mob, and I feel it's beneath anyone to do so.

Do you think Daniel Day-Lewis should apologise to everyone for his amazing role in "My left foot"? No, seriously, I'd like an answer.

StupidLikeAFox

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is no way we are discussing the possibility that society has become too easily offended or that media is capitalising on this trend of people flaunting perceived victimhood for social status gain.

Society has become far to easily offended, that was actually my point

StupidLikeAFox

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nah. I'm calling this one. You've got 5k posts on boards. You're not new to this gig. .
How will she do better? By not representing roles where such people are included? why does she owe anyone an apology unless she intentionally sought to do harm to others...? How did she let anyone down, unless she wasn't the actor, others expected her to be?

It's drivel. It's pandering to the mob, and I feel it's beneath anyone to do so.

Do you think Daniel Day-Lewis should apologise to everyone for his amazing role in "My left foot"? No, seriously, I'd like an answer.

Well I can't answer for Anne Hathaway but I assume she is implying that she is aware of an issue now that she wasn't aware of before she took the role, and that perhaps she didn't realise that this small detail in a film might actually be offensive to some people. She might be saying that if she knew this would offend people that she might have said that maybe the witches didn't really need to have long fingers as it's unlikely that is central to the plot, yet it might actually cause some issues irl for a small number of people. Maybe she's plàmasing, maybe it's genuine, maybe it's pandering to the mob as you say, but in reality who knows?

Regarding the my left foot reference, to be clear, you are comparing a film centered around a person who overcomes their disability to succeed in life, to a kids film which portrays a disability as being a core attribute of being a witch?

StupidLikeAFox

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

Regarding the my left foot reference, to be clear, you are comparing a film centered around a person who overcomes their disability to succeed in life, to a kids film which portrays a disability as being a core attribute of being a witch?

The type and quality of the movies don't matter. I'm not comparing the two movies. I'm talking about a person without any disabilities taking on a role which shows a person with disabilities (and "my left foot" is a comedy. a dark comedy but still a comedy) in ways in which might, possibly, be embarrassing/offensive to those with similar disabilities.

[For the sake of ease, just place condition or whatever, to replace disabilities. After a bottle of wine, my ability to be specific is slipping. Night Night,]

dubrov

Is anyone actually offended on this thread though?

Seems more like cheap virtue signalling. The apology is free and if anything attracts attention to what appears to be a poor film anyway.

AmyJane2018

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nah. I'm calling this one. You've got 5k posts on boards. You're not new to this gig. .



How will she do better? By not representing roles where such people are included? why does she owe anyone an apology unless she intentionally sought to do harm to others...? How did she let anyone down, unless she wasn't the actor, others expected her to be?

It's drivel. It's pandering to the mob, and I feel it's beneath anyone to do so.

Do you think Daniel Day-Lewis should apologise to everyone for his amazing role in "My left foot"? No, seriously, I'd like an answer.

My left foot was about the insight and struggles of a person with a disability.

I have a child with a limb difference. A beautiful sunny gorgeous boy who was born missing his hand. Not in a million years would I of heard the term gammy used to depict his difference. I think the last time I heard that term was in the 80s. I’m lucky to live surrendered by a wonderful kind community who have always been nothing but accepting towards my son.

I’ll really shocked by this tread. Maybe if I didn’t have a son with a limb difference I would be thinking what’s the fuss about...

The fuss is because Anne Hathaway's character in the new movie is seen to have missing middle fingers on each hand (not in the original book btw) , similar to the limb abnormality ectrodactyly. Kids and young people that are bullied all their lives and in recent years starting to show their hands proudly, to now feel like sticking their hands back up their sleeve again. A phase that my son went through when he started school very briefly until the new stares and questions eased off.

Only in the last maybe 2/3 years we where starting to see a really visible presence of people with limb disabilities in ads and landing tv roles. There disability’s where not to be feared or grossed out by as in this ‘children’s film’.

These children / adults are notawitch. That’s the point. That’s why the lash back.

km991148

It seems another non event.
Some kids probably got bullied and she is just trying to correct for that. So what?

Throw in a bit if mock outrage and the resulting counter outrage (with all the usual boring stereo types regarding liberals etc) and it's par for the modern day course..

Foweva Awone

I don't know ... I really hate political correctness for the sake of political correctness.

However .... I don't have any limb deformities. If the community of people who do have such deformities say that they take offence at this portrayal, shouldn't we accept and respect that?

I mean, say for example the entire cast of witches were black in this movie, and we were told we can identify witches by the dark colour of the skin. The black community (and most of the rest of us) would be up in arms over it.

Just because the community of people with limb deformities is much much smaller, should we respect their feelings any less? I don't think so.

Foweva Awone

Foweva Awone wrote: »

I don't know ... I really hate political correctness for the sake of political correctness.

However .... I don't have any limb deformities. If the community of people who do have such deformities say that they take offence at this portrayal, shouldn't we accept and respect that?

I mean, say for example the entire cast of witches were black in this movie, and we were told we can identify witches by the dark colour of the skin. The black community (and most of the rest of us) would be up in arms over it.

Just because the community of people with limb deformities is much much smaller, should we respect their feelings any less? I don't think so.

Respect their feelings that fictitious witches can't have long fingers?

No. I don't think we should.

Galwayguy35

Some people just go out of their way to be offended, the only mistake others make is giving them any heed.

Foweva Awone

Foweva Awone wrote: »

I don't know ... I really hate political correctness for the sake of political correctness.

However .... I don't have any limb deformities. If the community of people who do have such deformities say that they take offence at this portrayal, shouldn't we accept and respect that?

I mean, say for example the entire cast of witches were black in this movie, and we were told we can identify witches by the dark colour of the skin. The black community (and most of the rest of us) would be up in arms over it.

Just because the community of people with limb deformities is much much smaller, should we respect their feelings any less? I don't think so.

Where does it end, when associations can be made about anything? Everyone is connected due to the internet, so someone somewhere might possibly be offended.

So, do you seek the removal of all expressions of horror, fantasy, etc which might offend someone?

Do you really want to live in a whitewashed world where everything is toned down so that nobody might be offended?

tscul32

Foweva Awone wrote: »

I mean, say for example the entire cast of witches were black in this movie, and we were told we can identify witches by the dark colour of the skin. The black community (and most of the rest of us) would be up in arms over it.

The entire cast of witches was female and I think when the masks came off they were all bald too.
I'm surprised there hasn't been a gender issue raised.

AllForIt

Only actors with limb differences should play characters with limb differences.

OscarMIlde

Nermal wrote: »

Prejudice against the deformed or ugly is older than time and universal.

Think of all the stories you have read or seen where the villain has a scar or defect. Even the stories where the stereotype is subverted only serve to prove it's depth.

Perhaps we should make beauty one of the protected classes under the equality act, and make sure that the short and ugly have as much chance to be models as those blessed with long limbs and symmetry. Patently ludicrous, but the logical outcome of the movement.

I did like in the Twits I think it was when Roald Dahl said that no matter how beautiful, anyone with ugly thoughts becomes ugly over time, while nice people are always lovely as their loveliness shines through.

I'm paraphrasing as it's from a childhood memory, but it really is true. Once you know someone you cannot disassociate their personality from their looks, so plain sound people become attractive and good looking mean people become offputting.