Why does Sky’s comedy series ‘Chickens’ think it’s funny to humiliate men who didn’t fight in WW1?

August 18, 2014 by Inside MAN 24 Comments

Picture this opening scene from a series currently being shown on Sky.

A furious woman smashes a milk bottle on the doorstep of a small cottage, before storming off in disgust. The camera pauses for a moment to show the front wall of the house. It’s covered with scrawled and abusive graffiti: “Evil parasites.” “House of shame.” “Just die.” “Sad little wankers.” “Cowards.” “We will never forgive you.” “Stinking Judas rats.” “You are cancer.”

This must be the hard-hitting opening shot for a gritty drama, right? Perhaps it’s exploring the treatment of men who crossed the picket lines during the miners’ strike? Or maybe it’s about a community’s reaction to finding out a convicted paedophile has been resettled in their town?

But you’d be wrong. This is a scene from a Sky 1 comedy series about how a village of women treat the only three men from their town who have not gone to fight during WW1. The series is called “Chickens”. I am not making this up. You can watch it online right now.

Image: Sky

The show is essentially a series of set pieces in which the three men — a conscientious objector, a man who is medically unfit to fight and man who is simply afraid – are shamed, laughed at and humiliated by scores of women.

At first I assumed I must have been missing something. Surely, somewhere, there would self-reflection or criticism of the humiliation being milked for laughs? But there wasn’t. The men are the butt of the joke and their weakness and cowardice is the punchline.

In one scene, after a woman demands that Cecil — who incidentally is the one discharged as medically unfit — justifies why he hasn’t enlisted, he says: “I really believe in this war and I’m really keen to help.” She replies: “Rubbish, if you were really keen to help you would have killed yourself to raise morale.”

‘Most-hated man in the village’

In another, the three men encounter a group of women standing around the village green notice board, posted with three sheets of paper with their names at the top.

One of the men asks enthusiastically: “What’s going on here then?” One of the women replies: “We’re voting to decide who should be the Guy we burn on bonfire night.” “Oh, look how well I’m doing!” says one of the men. Another of the three men cuts in: “Don’t get too excited Burt, they’re essentially voting for the most-hated man in the village.”

Just in case you might be thinking the contempt of the female characters is really about reflecting badly on the women of the time, this is what one of the lead actresses has to say in a behind-the-scenes interview for the series, also available online:

“What’s great is to see a village full of women who are just really getting on with it, just couldn’t give a toss that the men have gone, really, except for basic plumbing issues and the occasional need for someone to shag them,” she trills happily.

The men receive daily hate-mail from the village’s women (Image: Sky)

And according to the writers of the series — the same men who are responsible for The Inbetweeners — the series is actually intended to celebrate women’s roles during WW1.

In an interview with the Guardian, one of the writers said: “Our hope, and the thought behind it, is for it to be a quasi-feminist sit-com. When we originally came up with the idea, there was a worry that it could be a bit misogynistic – this idea of us as the only men left and isn’t it horrible living in England now it’s full of women. But you see, actually, that the women cope very well. It’s the men who don’t.”

“They are three pathetic men in a village full of people who hate them,” agrees another one of the writers. “Hopefully, you’ll end up empathising with them, because their social prospects are impossible, really. People throw things at them in the street.”

We have truly gone through the Looking Glass here into some kind of Orwellian understanding of justice and compassion.

A hidden history

Perhaps you think I’m being po-faced and humourless about a series that’s just meant as a bit of fun. But the ugly and rarely acknowledged truth is that women really did shame men and boys into going to their deaths.

According to historian Nicoletta Gullace, in addition to the relatively well-known white feather movement, one female-led campaign enrolled 20,000 women “to persuade their men to enlist and to scorn those who refused”. The women were said to have encouraged hundreds of thousands of men to sign up. According to Gullace, this was “merely one of a multitude” of such campaigns.

You can also hear what those men went through in their own words. Their stories, recorded before the last of the First World War veterans died, are held on tapes in the archives of the Imperial War Museum in London.

One man recalls walking across a bridge in London when four girls surrounded him and gave him white feathers – the symbols of cowardice given by women to men who were out of uniform.

‘The look in his eye has haunted me ever since’

A lifetime after the event, you can still hear the pain in his voice as he says: “I explained to them that I had been in the Army and been discharged and I was only sixteen. Several people had collected around the girls and there was giggling and I felt most uncomfortable… I felt very humiliated. I finished the walk over the bridge and there on the other side was the Thirty-seventh London Territorial Association of the Royal Field Artillery. I walked straight in and re-joined the Army.”

Another man quietly describes the morning his brother, a miner, received a feather in the post. “He opened the letter at the breakfast table and a white feather dropped out, there was nothing else in it than that. Just a white feather. He got up off that table, white faced, and he went out of that house. That was the last time I ever saw him alive.”

Another recalls how his under-age cousin was “blew to pieces” after women’s taunts led him to enlist, and how insults drove an over-aged friend to insanity and eventually death. “The look in his eye has haunted me ever since… The cruelty of that white feather business needs exposing.”

This is all but deleted from our collective memory of WW1. Now this comedy series, one of the few occasions when the vicious practice of shaming men for cowardice is remembered at all, chooses to humiliate and mock those men once again. I’m sorry, but I don’t find that very funny.

By Dan Bell

If you liked this article and want to read more, follow us on Twitter @insideMANmag and Facebook

Also on insideMAN:

Nigel

I think the simple judgement on this would be to consider a reverse scenario, three women vilified for not producing offspring perhaps? Misandry seems to be a new term but I can’t help by think this is a case in point. WW1 brings into sharp relief the deeply embedded attitudes of society at that time. In making such a comedy it also reflects the values of those now . The writers clearly subscribe to males as “losers” if they don’t conform to stereotypes.
As a separate point I think it also highlights the way in which women “enforce” the stereotypes. I have long thought that many of the ideals of feminism would be simply reproduced in society if women themselves acted as if they believed in them. Yet my observation(in a mainly female workforce) is that it appears that although more progressive ideas are common currency the actual behaviours in personal life are very socially conservative. Put simply if women want men to behave differently then its a powerful tool to simply show that expectation in the way they behave towards men. Of course its not the only part but I think the power of “shaming” in WW1 is a good lesson in this regard. Indeed the comedy appears to come from the notion that this same social attitude is now “feminist”.
I think one of the most fundamental fault lines today is that for men ,despite all the rhetoric, the social conventions and expectations have remained much the same. “The measure of a man” as expressed in the behaviours of people and social institutions remains little different (though the words differ).
- Inside MAN
  
  Yeah, I thought about offering an inverted or “flipped” example of the equivalent societal shame imposed on women of the time, to illustrate how offensive it would be to make a comedy series about it, with the female victims of that shame used as the target of contemporary humour. But frankly the equivalent is so appalling that I felt spelling this out would make it too hard for many readers to even hear the point of the article.
  - Nigel
    
    And I think that is the point really. As a society it appears we have a deeply held belief that males are “fair game” as though males are somehow completely devoid of any human feeling. It strikes me there may not be a widespread “misandry” but there is a widespread disregard for the humanity of males. The answer to the “cut me do I not bleed?” question appears to often be “not so we’d notice”. I WW1 commemorations highlight the utilitarian useage of men and the socialisation that supported this carnage. In amongst this I can’t help but note that then, and actually more so now, the early socialisation of boys and young men is very much in women’s hands both at home and in social institutions.
    It may well be that powerful men were behind the ideals of masculinity that so successfully drew in vast numbers of men to do their bidding, but numerically the primary agents of transmission of socialisation were (and still are) female. White feathers were only the tip of a very very big iceberg.
    - Paul
      
      “It strikes me there may not be a widespread “misandry” but there is a widespread disregard for the humanity of males.”
      
      That’s misandry.
      - Nigel
        
        Point taken. I was thinking that misandry meant hatred. Which implies an active thing. Frankly I feel most often its simply that adult males don’t figure at all, sort of non people ,useful but invisible rather like the ELC piece that follows this.
        Last night yet another story last night “people” dead “including women and children”. Sort of sums up men’s general existence as a background thing “taking care of business” and occasionally giving colour to the human drama by being bad or heroic.
  - http://apollohaan.wordpress.com Apollo
    
    Its hard for me to think of a suitable analogy that would “flip” it because there is nothing that even comes close to war that is expected of women.
Jenny

Why the hell is this considered acceptable?

Fucking disgusting…
Jenny

> “And according to the writers of the series – the same men who are responsible for The Inbetweeners — the series is actually intended to celebrate women’s roles during WW1.”

As professional shamers, maybe?

> “In an interview with the Guardian, one of the writers said: “Our hope, and the thought behind it, is for it to be a quasi-feminist sit-com. When we originally came up with the idea, there was a worry that it could be a bit misogynistic – this idea of us as the only men left and isn’t it horrible living in England now it’s full of women. But you see, actually, that the women cope very well. It’s the men who don’t.””

Misogynistic? shaming males who have moral qualms about going to a war or were declared unfit for medical reasons is misogynistic? Richard Feynman, wherever you are, be glad to have escaped this world of madness.

> ““They are three pathetic men in a village full of people who hate them,” agrees another one of the writers. “Hopefully, you’ll end up empathising with them, because their social prospects are impossible, really. People throw things at them in the street.””

Congratulations, they are pathetic because circumstances. There is nothing that redeems them and there is no wrath more righteous than that of a shaming woman. I wonder where that perception of man-haters come from…
- Inside MAN
  
  Thanks Jenny. Mind bending really. Truly through the Looking Glass..
David Lavery

Why should men want to fight so that the very people who treat them like rubbish can live there life in Peace, Why does no one point out that this sexist series is about misandry and sexism against men. feminists say they want equality but as soon as it comes to being regarded as dispensable same as men they don’t want to know, they are hypocrites. I always say the first people to be sent to a battle field should be women. They want equality that’s what they should get. The Women who handed out feathers are the real cowards, they have a lifetimes excuse to hide behind and they are in fact guilty of encouraging murder.
Those women were Cowards and that’s how I have always viewed them.
Fidelbogen

The humor in this “comedy” might simply be written off as tasteless, were it not for the present-day political contexts. Considering the treatment which men, as a political sex-class, are now recieving, this comes across as appallingly unfunny irony. One is surprised that the show’s creators even had the gall to let it see the light of day,

However, if there is a silver lining in all of this, it would be that a shameful period of history is getting disinterred and set before the collective memory again. So this might have a political fallout which the show’s creator’s never anticipated.
- Inside MAN
  
  That is an interesting point — in a way the programme has unwittingly provided an opportunity to have a critical discussion about the issue, that would have been more difficult had it not been made. Thanks.
Man Alive

I’m glad to see this sickening piece of insensitivity towards men treated as disposable has been described thus in an interview with the Guardian, where one of the writers said:
“Our hope, and the thought behind it, is for it to be a quasi-feminist sit-com”.
That’s just yet another reason for the ranks of sensible women involved in #womenagainstfeminism to grow.
http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/
https://www.facebook.com/WomenAgainstFeminism
http://www.eventoddlersneedfathers.com/ Kingsley (Kip)

All, I have not seen the program but is not the point of the script to use comedy to mock those who made fun of conscientious objectors with the use of irony and pathos. Isn’t using the ‘fool’ to tell the king he has no clothes one of the oldest comic devices in history? Has anybody seen the new Inbetweeners film? Turns out to be a cutting critique of the Australian ‘beach’ culture and thereby also of modern society. I have not seen the program but the question I would pose is who has the sympathy of the audience? kip
- Inside MAN
  
  Hi Kip, that’s a valid question and one a few people have raised in response to the article, well worth responding to.
  
  It’s a question I asked myself as I was writing it — could the depiction of the female characters behaving in such a condescending manner in fact be a way of questioning and critiquing the practice of shaming men?
  
  Often, a dramatic depiction of an aggressor is intended to inspire sympathy and awareness from the audience for the circumstances of the victim, and to cast the aggressor in a poor light.
  
  However, it is equally the case that depicting a character who embodies traits deemed to be shameful or unacceptable by society, as being on the receiving end of righteous opprobrium, is a well-worn technique to play out social mores in the court of public opinion.
  
  Or to put this another way, a BBC drama depicting a racist attack will (correctly) send the message that it is the victim the viewer should sympathise with and the attacker is to be held in contempt.
  
  If the same drama then depicts the racist attacker being shouted at by passersby, it will be his/her “attackers” that the viewers are invited to sympathise with.
  
  In ‘Chickens’, although the women may not be particularly pleasant, at no point are we invited to hold them in contempt for their behaviour.
  
  In each interaction, the women effectively have the “last word”, with the common response from the men to be left dumbly disempowered – this is the coded way which dramas/adverts etc. signal the hierarchy of power within interactions.
  
  In addition, these male-female interactions follow the well-worn clichés in TV and advertising of the “empowered” woman putting the feckless / inadequate (select negative adjective) man in his place.
  
  The idea that the men are to be looked down upon, rather than sympathised with, is also reinforced by the lines they are given to say. One character in particular, the man who hasn’t gone to war because he is simply afraid, repeatedly makes lascivious remarks about the women in the village.
  
  In one instance, he is shown considering whether to try and seduce the widow of a man who has been killed in the trenches. This is a character who we are emphatically not meant to sympathise with.
  
  This analysis is, I grant you, subjective. But it is thoroughly backed up by the quotes of the lead actress and the comments of the writers – both effectively applaud the women’s behaviour, neither criticise it.
  
  These sentiments were repeated in all the surrounding commentary I came across in relation to the series – in short, even if the writers did intend us to criticise the women’s behaviour, no-one seemed to get the message, which tells us a lot about prevailing attitudes anyway.
  
  There is also a deeper contextual / historical issue at play. As I point put at the end of the article, the practice of shaming of men in WW1 has not yet been properly acknowledged, questioned or condemned by society.
  
  There is a strong argument that any comedic approach to historical injustices – especially ones as grave as this — can only ensue after a proper period of acknowledgement and recognition that they happened in the first place.
  
  This hasn’t happened yet. ‘Chickens’ isn’t an acknowledgement, it’s a perpetuation.
  
  A very good example of how WW1 comedy can be done properly, respectfully and very funnily, is the Blackadder series set in the trenches – brilliant for its ability to flicker between hilarity and heartbreaking poignancy. (Thanks to tamlin69 for reminding me.)
  
  There is never any question as to where the writers’ sympathies lie.
  
  Dan
Tony

The great irony is that due to the high rate of death, maiming as well as psychological trauma among the returning troops . Theses men ended up no longer social outcasts but highly sought after by women. Many of whom where to be condemned to a life without marriage or family life.
KiraKrumpet

I strongly suggest everyone share this article with every veterans, mens rights, anti-sexism, liberal and right wing political forum/blog/Facebook (especially Facebook) and Twitter account available.

You might not think one or two shares means anything but educating the public about how misandrist and sexist the Feminist movement is does truly help men and equality.
- DCM
  
  They’re all dead and so are all but a few of their children so it’s safe to ridicule them.
http://redpilluk.co.uk/ William Collins

Re: “Is it acceptable for the BBC to say this about men” (Alex Polizzi on The Fixer, 1/9/14). I complained to the BBC on 3/9 and received a reply today (18/9). They were unapologetic. Details here http://redpilluk.co.uk/AlexPolizzi.pdf
- Inside MAN
  
  William, thanks so much for taking time to complain and or sharing that response, best wishes, Glen
Pingback: Why ‘The Hobbit’ Shows We Still Think It’s Okay to Humiliate Men for Being Afraid – Prizefinderonline()
Pingback: Why ‘The Hobbit’ Shows We Still Think It’s Okay to Humiliate Men for Being Afraid – LadsFadsLadsFads()
Alex

I didn’t see any problem with it. They portrayed two out of the three men as sympathetic and most of the women as unjustifiably sexist. It helps fight the myth that women were an “Oppressed Class” and everything was perfect for each and every man in traditional societies.
I’m assuming he descrided it as Quasi-Feminist to preempt the tumblr hate mobs.
Pingback: Another Week In The Matrix | mra-uk()

Share article