• Replies 5 replies
  • Subscribers 83 subscribers
  • Views 2505 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

BBC Breakfast and Paul Whitehouse on ADHD

Mr T

Although this segment on the show was primarily about ADHD and the success of a podcast regarding ADHD hosted by Paul Whitehouse and his wife.

I found some of the things that Paul was replying in relation to the BBC presenters questions to be the total opposite of inclusivity. He frequently uttered there is 'nothing wrong me' compared to his wife who is ADHD and was talking about how it effects her.

Whilst I recognise that Paul is a comedian, I found his utterances to be problematic. Not everyone will get the implied humour he was using to answer some awkward questions regarding him being potentially ADHD and will take the 'nothing wrong with me' as a reinforcement of the ableist view that neurodivergent people have something wrong with them.

If I'm being over picky I am sorry but when he said that I had a feeling of uneasiness.

What do others think or care? 

Parents

  • I've not seen the interview, but after reading your post on Friday evening, I stumbled across the following website:
    https://www.imadhdnoyourenot.com/

    Part-way down the 'Home' page, Paul's wife explains what the podcasts are about. She states:

    Paul typifies the archetypal sceptic, challenging the very concept of ADH‘D’ – partly due to its unfit-for-purpose definition, the recent ‘explosion’ in diagnoses (particularly within the world of comedy) and, the fact that many symptoms present, to a lesser extent, in neurotypical individuals. I provide the theoretical backfill and counter-argument to Paul’s challenges.


    As Paul's role in the podcasts is to be the archetypal sceptic, and the interview was about the success of those podcasts, it makes sense to me that he would continue to play that role in an interview. I would like to think the majority of viewers would have realised Paul's utterances were meant in jest, and also realised that if he really was an archetypal sceptic, it's unlikely that he and his wife would have got together in the first place.

Reply

  • I've not seen the interview, but after reading your post on Friday evening, I stumbled across the following website:
    https://www.imadhdnoyourenot.com/

    Part-way down the 'Home' page, Paul's wife explains what the podcasts are about. She states:

    Paul typifies the archetypal sceptic, challenging the very concept of ADH‘D’ – partly due to its unfit-for-purpose definition, the recent ‘explosion’ in diagnoses (particularly within the world of comedy) and, the fact that many symptoms present, to a lesser extent, in neurotypical individuals. I provide the theoretical backfill and counter-argument to Paul’s challenges.


    As Paul's role in the podcasts is to be the archetypal sceptic, and the interview was about the success of those podcasts, it makes sense to me that he would continue to play that role in an interview. I would like to think the majority of viewers would have realised Paul's utterances were meant in jest, and also realised that if he really was an archetypal sceptic, it's unlikely that he and his wife would have got together in the first place.

Children
No Data