Tesco and Asda remove fancy dress costumes

greg66_tri_v2.0

Read all about it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24278768

Simple version - mental health charities have persuaded Tesco & Asda to remove fancy dress costumes that suggest a stereotypical link between mental illness/psychosis and violence.

Seriously?

Why aren't these charities complaining about sales of DVDs of Hallowe'en, Silence of the Lambs, The Dark Knight, or, well, Psycho?

DrLex

WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

Oh; wait...

Meh- still get the KKK outfit.

Kieran_Burns

I would think some people would be in two minds about whether that was appropriate....

nicklouse

time to get to the Pound shops for your Halloween "outfits".

graham.

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I would think some people would be in two minds about whether that was appropriate....

The Rookie

These nutters have no sense of humour.......

jonginge

It's political correctness gone mad, Stu

Agent57

JonGinge wrote:

It's political correctness gone mad, Stu

bigmat

Its pretty bad though isn't it? Stigmatising mental illness like that.

Kieran_Burns

BigMat wrote:

Its pretty bad though isn't it? Stigmatising mental illness like that.

Yeah - they should be crucified for their insensitivity.


(see how many get THAT one)

schlepcycling

JonGinge wrote:

It's political correctness gone mad, Stu

Surely it's madness gone politically correct.

rjsterry

Kieran_Burns wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Its pretty bad though isn't it? Stigmatising mental illness like that.

Yeah - they should be crucified for their insensitivity.


(see how many get THAT one)

Yes, yes, don't pat yourself on the back too hard :roll:

Kieran_Burns

rjsterry wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Its pretty bad though isn't it? Stigmatising mental illness like that.

Yeah - they should be crucified for their insensitivity.


(see how many get THAT one)

Yes, yes, don't pat yourself on the back too hard :roll:

don't get cross. :P

DonDaddyD

My personal view is that it is offensive.

Mental health carries a huge stigma, born from ignorance - as demonstrated by some of the responses in this thread, what the name of the costume suggests is that is a depiction of a personwho receives mental health services.

It is insensitive and unkind.

sketchley

It wasn't the custome that was offensive, it's marketing them as "mental patient fancy dress custome" by Asda, and "Pyscho Ward, Adult Costume" by tesco. The link wasn't a suggessted link as OP stated it was direct and obivous.

DonDaddyD

Sketchley wrote:

It wasn't the custome that was offensive, it's marketing them as "mental patient fancy dress custome" by Asda, and "Pyscho Ward, Adult Costume" by tesco. The link wasn't a suggessted link as OP stated it was direct and obivous.

Yep, this is why I said

"what the name of the costume suggests is that is a depiction of a person who receives mental health services."

The costume by itself is not offensive.

greg66_tri_v2.0

You two are bonkers. Bonkers in the head. Mentalists, like.

rubertoe

Kieran_Burns wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

BigMat wrote:

Its pretty bad though isn't it? Stigmatising mental illness like that.

Yeah - they should be crucified for their insensitivity.


(see how many get THAT one)

Yes, yes, don't pat yourself on the back too hard :roll:

don't get cross. :P

You should of said "dont get thorney" - bit less obvious.

notsoblue

I always think it odd that people get outraged about supposed fake outrage.

If you don't feel strongly about mental health issues, then I have no clue how this story can affect you at all.

DonDaddyD

Well then professionally speaking, the name of the product and the imagery it is associated with is offensive.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

I always think it odd that people get outraged about supposed fake outrage.

If you don't feel strongly about mental health issues, then I have no clue how this story can affect you at all.

Well, I see it as an example of two large organisations rolling over in response to adverse social media reaction, rather than saying "Hold on. Back up. We don't think this is offensive, and our argument is x/y/z".

Rolling over as soon as the twat-o-sphere starts to twitch strikes me as a quick way to set yourself up as an easy target.

Kieran_Burns

DonDaddyD wrote:

My personal view is that it is offensive.

Mental health carries a huge stigma, born from ignorance - as demonstrated by some of the responses in this thread, what the name of the costume suggests is that is a depiction of a personwho receives mental health services.

It is insensitive and unkind.

The problem being Don is that you do not know the background of the people making the jokes. Which displays your own ignorance and readiness to judge others unfairly.

sketchley

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I always think it odd that people get outraged about supposed fake outrage.

If you don't feel strongly about mental health issues, then I have no clue how this story can affect you at all.

Well, I see it as an example of two large organisations rolling over in response to adverse social media reaction, rather than saying "Hold on. Back up. We don't think this is offensive, and our argument is x/y/z".

Rolling over as soon as the twat-o-sphere starts to twitch strikes me as a quick way to set yourself up as an easy target.

Ok I see your point which I think is that it doesn't matter if the big organisation thinks it's offensive or not, they have to react to the social media reaction or it will effect thier business. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but I take you point about rolling over too easily and making yourself and easy target.

The secondary question is do you think the reaction of people is correct to be "outraged" about this? I find the marketing offensive (but as I said not the costume) but I do have first hand expierence of mental health issues. If you don't agree with and I'd quite like to understand your argument why you don't think the marketing was offensive?

rjsterry

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I always think it odd that people get outraged about supposed fake outrage.

If you don't feel strongly about mental health issues, then I have no clue how this story can affect you at all.

Well, I see it as an example of two large organisations rolling over in response to adverse social media reaction, rather than saying "Hold on. Back up. We don't think this is offensive, and our argument is x/y/z".

Rolling over as soon as the twat-o-sphere starts to twitch strikes me as a quick way to set yourself up as an easy target.

I'm not so sure. Tesco particularly has a reputation for getting what it wants. I'd guess they saw this as an easy way to be seen to be doing 'the right thing'; I doubt either costume appeared in the top 100 most profitable products for the respective supermarkets. Personally, I think they'd have a hard time explaining how the marketing of those costumes doesn't at the very least trivialise mental health issues, but that something is offensive or insensitive to some people is not a reason in itself to 'ban' it.

notsoblue

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

I always think it odd that people get outraged about supposed fake outrage.

If you don't feel strongly about mental health issues, then I have no clue how this story can affect you at all.

Well, I see it as an example of two large organisations rolling over in response to adverse social media reaction, rather than saying "Hold on. Back up. We don't think this is offensive, and our argument is x/y/z".

Rolling over as soon as the twat-o-sphere starts to twitch strikes me as a quick way to set yourself up as an easy target.

I understand the point. But to be honest, organisations often react in response to social trends. Look at the costumes themselves, they're a reaction to the popularity of certain types of horror movie.

The charities that are making a fuss about this exist to raise awareness and combat social stigma associated with mental health issues. Its really no surprise that they're taking this position. Even less so that the media is simplifying their position to create an easy narrative for the day's news.

Personally, I think any steps towards changing public attitudes to mental health can only be a good thing. Though to be fair, this isn't the best way of doing this.

notsoblue

I'd also make the point that Tesco's decision to sell these or not is totally amoral. They just sell stuff that sells.

cje

The dangerous psychopath locked up in a mental hospital is a horror movie staple. That's where the idea for these Halloween costumes originated.

Taking personal offence because you've suffered depression is as logical as a baseball player getting upset about a Jason Voorhees outfit.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sketchley wrote:

The secondary question is do you think the reaction of people is correct to be "outraged" about this? I find the marketing offensive (but as I said not the costume) but I do have first hand expierence of mental health issues. If you don't agree with and I'd quite like to understand your argument why you don't think the marketing was offensive?

As someone has said since this post (and as I hinted in the OP), I don't see how this can be offensive and yet (eg) Hallowe'en and Silence of the Lambs not be. Both were films about psychopathic and violent killers who were mentally ill and at one point or another in hospitals for mentally ill. Both films positively rejoiced in the carnage that such people can leave behind them when rampaging, violently, in the community.

The marketing to me isn't "here's a costume that will make you look like an person who is a mental hospital inpatient", and let's face it, no one would buy it if that were the case. It's "here's a costume that will make you look like Jason/Hannibal Lecter/The Joker". Obviously the makers can't use those names because they're trade marked up the kazoo and they'd be shut down faster than you can slaughter a group of college kids in an unlocked suburban house. But really, how can anyone understand these costumes to be anything other than "dress up like a scary film character". I just don't see how they are either intended, or sensibly could be understood to be "dress up like that slightly odd bloke round the corner in number 37 who has clinical depression and by the way he has a secret desire to go on a axe-wielding killing spree. Just like everyone else who's ever had any form of mental illness".

stu-bim

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I just don't see how they are either intended, or sensibly could be understood to be "dress up like that slightly odd bloke round the corner in number 37 who has clinical depression and by the way he has a secret desire to go on a axe-wielding killing spree. Just like everyone else who's ever had any form of mental illness".

Children don't see that. They just see 'mental patient' equals 'murderer'. I personally can't stand any sort of political correctness and probably come across as ignorant most of the time but sometimes you do have to be correct.

sketchley

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

The secondary question is do you think the reaction of people is correct to be "outraged" about this? I find the marketing offensive (but as I said not the costume) but I do have first hand expierence of mental health issues. If you don't agree with and I'd quite like to understand your argument why you don't think the marketing was offensive?

As someone has said since this post (and as I hinted in the OP), I don't see how this can be offensive and yet (eg) Hallowe'en and Silence of the Lambs not be. Both were films about psychopathic and violent killers who were mentally ill and at one point or another in hospitals for mentally ill. Both films positively rejoiced in the carnage that such people can leave behind them when rampaging, violently, in the community.

The marketing to me isn't "here's a costume that will make you look like an person who is a mental hospital inpatient", and let's face it, no one would buy it if that were the case. It's "here's a costume that will make you look like Jason/Hannibal Lecter/The Joker". Obviously the makers can't use those names because they're trade marked up the kazoo and they'd be shut down faster than you can slaughter a group of college kids in an unlocked suburban house. But really, how can anyone understand these costumes to be anything other than "dress up like a scary film character". I just don't see how they are either intended, or sensibly could be understood to be "dress up like that slightly odd bloke round the corner in number 37 who has clinical depression and by the way he has a secret desire to go on a axe-wielding killing spree. Just like everyone else who's ever had any form of mental illness".

Interesting. I wouldn't find them offensive if labeled as a Jason/Hannibal Lecter/The Joker costume as it's about that specific character and I do have an issue with them being generic "mental health patient" and "pyscho ward" costumes as it implies all people in them are like this. The argument that an intelligent person knows the difference doesn't wash with me they could have labelled these "Serial Killer Costume" or "Blood Stained Axe Murderer" and the intellegent people would still know they are based on film character there wouldn't be causing any offence in doing so and would stll sell them. At best it's insensative and lazy on the part of the stores / manufacturers.

My last point if someone created Huggy Bear outfit but didn't want to use the name due to copyright, would it be acceptable to call it a "blackman fancy dress costume"?

cje

Sketchley wrote:

My last point if someone created Huggy Bear outfit but didn't want to use the name due to copyright, would it be acceptable to call it a "blackman fancy dress costume"?

Well, quite.

But they'd call it a pimp costume, wouldn't they?