EE - Ian and Phil - feud, bullying or outright abuse?
Am I the only one who is becoming increasingly disturbed by the presentation of Ian and Phil's so-called 'feud' in EastEnders, especially the slightly indifferent attitude of the story team to Ian's plight?
What we are seeing, and have been seeing for over a decade now, is actually a disturbing bullying story arc akin to Esther in Hollyoaks but with none of the ethical responsibility that comes with it, such as punishment or condemnation of the bully and widespread empathy for the victim. There is a lingering sense that Ian 'deserves' his abuse because he is an unsympathetic character who is being chastised, but is this the case? Ian seems to have very similar traits to Bianca, to pick a random example - socially aggressive, selfish, prone to adultery, ambiguous parenting skills. However, if Bianca was subjected to bog washing (actually waterboarding), ABH, GBH, extreme verbal abuse, false kidnapping, intimidation of family members, financial theft, damage to property and any other number of incidents, this would be Mo and Trevor, not a faux-comic knockabout by Phil and 'squeal' Beale.
Why on earth are the writers so ambivalent to Ian's genuinely horrific situation? To take an example, remember when Ian was coerced into playing 'slapsies' with Phil in the Vic? If you watch it again, look at the expressions of glee on the faces of the regulars as Ian is about to get be assaulted. It is very creepy indeed.
The situation is deeply irresponsible when you think of the young viewers who watch EastEnders, some of whom are secondary school age and may well be going through some of the same things as Ian. Why the hell are the story team content to suggest that a) the bully will never, ever be punished, so matter how vicious the humiliation or physical assault and b) the victim might actually deserve it? I know that recently we have been seeing some signs that the abuse is taking its toll on Ian, but can you really see him getting any substantial justice or closure? Introducing the Mo and Trevor analogy again, Phil should definitely be punished for what he has done, but it is never going to happen.
Am I alone on this? Maybe I don't get what the writers are trying to do. It seems that Ian's abuse is used periodically to re-assert Phil's status as a dominant character, but the form it takes is utterly indifferent to the real-life experiences felt by bullying victims, some of whom maybe very young indeed.
What we are seeing, and have been seeing for over a decade now, is actually a disturbing bullying story arc akin to Esther in Hollyoaks but with none of the ethical responsibility that comes with it, such as punishment or condemnation of the bully and widespread empathy for the victim. There is a lingering sense that Ian 'deserves' his abuse because he is an unsympathetic character who is being chastised, but is this the case? Ian seems to have very similar traits to Bianca, to pick a random example - socially aggressive, selfish, prone to adultery, ambiguous parenting skills. However, if Bianca was subjected to bog washing (actually waterboarding), ABH, GBH, extreme verbal abuse, false kidnapping, intimidation of family members, financial theft, damage to property and any other number of incidents, this would be Mo and Trevor, not a faux-comic knockabout by Phil and 'squeal' Beale.
Why on earth are the writers so ambivalent to Ian's genuinely horrific situation? To take an example, remember when Ian was coerced into playing 'slapsies' with Phil in the Vic? If you watch it again, look at the expressions of glee on the faces of the regulars as Ian is about to get be assaulted. It is very creepy indeed.
The situation is deeply irresponsible when you think of the young viewers who watch EastEnders, some of whom are secondary school age and may well be going through some of the same things as Ian. Why the hell are the story team content to suggest that a) the bully will never, ever be punished, so matter how vicious the humiliation or physical assault and b) the victim might actually deserve it? I know that recently we have been seeing some signs that the abuse is taking its toll on Ian, but can you really see him getting any substantial justice or closure? Introducing the Mo and Trevor analogy again, Phil should definitely be punished for what he has done, but it is never going to happen.
Am I alone on this? Maybe I don't get what the writers are trying to do. It seems that Ian's abuse is used periodically to re-assert Phil's status as a dominant character, but the form it takes is utterly indifferent to the real-life experiences felt by bullying victims, some of whom maybe very young indeed.
0
Comments
That's why they need to make Peter Beale a strong character who sticks up for his dad. Instead he is scared of Phil as well
bib: EE law, sadly.
No Ian needs to stand up for himself instead of letting everyone walk over him. I mean of Phil bullies him then you may as well say most of the square does from time to time.
Well that's the problem. I don't think Phil is that popular.
I'm glad you bought this up. The bullying of Ian as a character has always sat very heavy with me, I've never understood why it is supposed to be funny? Ian can be a bit annoying, but has always been an essentially decent man who works hard to make something of himself and provide for his kids. Yet he is constantly derided, humiliated and even physically assaulted again and again, apparently for shits and giggles by Philth and the other losers on the square, most of whom wouldn't even know the meaning of ambition.
Ben should have been raised by Ian, not Phil.
But considering Ian's fragile mental state I just find the scenes horrible to watch. For a him to always have Phil towering over him, making threats - must be an awful life.
Sadly, the people who find it funny are generally closet bullies themselves.
I too would like the writing team to have the courage to show Phil on a charge of ABH for this. But, for some reason the more twisted viewers like to see a man bulliud to the point of a nervous breakdown, so Phil is a popular character. To them, it's great tea-time entertainment.>:(
>:(
That's as stupid as saying those of us who loved watching Silas 'do his work' are potential serial killers.
Completely agree. It is bullying pure and simple and always has been. So Ian was a bit of a prick when Phil started dating Kathy, he didn't deserve the response he got (the first toilet dunking) and it has got progressively worse since then. Phil is the most obvious example but loads of people have bullied Ian over the years, Tom, Connor (was it - the Irish cousin), Bianca, Max and I think we are just supposed to find it funny and think he 'deserves' it because why, he can be a bit of a smug prat sometimes?
Which doesn't excuse it and you could argie that some of them take their lead from Phil. I mean, if his own stepfather (for that's when it started) treats him like shit, why shouldn't we?
I don't think it is scared of Phil, he just doesn't know how to deal with the situation in a way that wouldn't place him in a position above his old man. If my dad was getting bullied, I'd find it pretty hard to deal with because I wouldn't want to a job my Dad was incapable of doing.
That being said, I find it hard to feel sorry for Ian because he hasn't shown himself to be a good person. If he had strength he would be the bully, as he has shown when he's had the underhand.
Not really Shirley calling him a weasel etc had nothing to do with Phil its because she don't respect him.
Problem with Ian he don't know how to treat people. People in this thread make it seem like Phil just goes up to Ian and picks on him. There have been reasons Phil flashed his head down the bog and other stuff Phil has done.
If were going to get Phil on ABH, GBH, charges then we might as charge the whole square.
I agree something's that Phil does are uncomfortable to watch but Phil treats everyone the same way.
I love it when Phil bullies Ian I hope for more bog washes.
I said you could argue it, not that it was certainly the case. However, I think the attitude of the 'King' of the Square will have some bearing on things. A kid at School is much more likely to be bullied by the majority of the kids if the most popular kid or the one they are scared of, want to be in their gang is already doing it. It is pack mentality qnd doesn't really change from childhood to adulthood.
Put it another way, would people be as likely to bully and belittle him if they thought they were going to have to deal with Phil sticking up for him because he is 'family'?
I do agree with you that Ian does have an unfortunate manner and I think that he just isn't very likeable. People take a dislike to him and then try and justify it by saying he has behaved badly so 'deserves' to be belittled when really he hasn't. He just, unfortunately, has the aura of a victim which people pick up on and hone in on - especially bullies like phil and Shirley.
And can someone please tell me what prompted each flushing? First time was in a restaurant because Ian was being an arse at Kathy dating Ian which I agree he needed pulling up on but not like that. What did he do to 'deserve' each other attack?
Also, what did Ian do to deserve Phil making him get down on his knees to beg for the cash to stop his bankruptcy (wasting time when he might have got it from someone else) only to be told 'no' and then have Phil laugh as he was led away by the Bailiffs?