50 signs I'm still a unique human being not defined solely by the fact I happen to be a parent...

So Asda commissioned a survey and came up with the "Top 50 Signs of Being a Mum" and now I'm worried I may be hallucinating the small boy sat next to me on the sofa eating crisps...

1. They long for a lie in. I've had to get up ridiculously early almost every day since I was eleven. It comes from attending a school nine miles away from my house. It has become habit. That, and, the amount of stuff I can achieve in private when I'm up and everyone else is still asleep....

2. Have a photo of their children as a screensaver. Nope. Mine is a picture of the moon.

3. They rush everywhere. "Rushing" gets me there faster and burns more calories. "Rushing" to Boots at lunchtime then "rushing" back to my office means I get to spend the majority of my lunch break sitting down eating my lunch rather than out amongst a thousand suited idiots who lumber around the city centre slower than the average zombie...

4. They know all the words to popular kids TV theme tunes. From the 1980s, yes.

5. They are permanently knackered or 'wired'. Only according to the amount of coffee I've drunk.

6. They always have a pack of wet wipes to be found. Where are the fucking wet wipes???

7. They can function on very little sleep. I was an insomniac many years before I became a parent.

8. Can't leave the house without asking everyone if they've been to the toilet. I make sure I pee before leaving the house. Everyone else who lives here is capable of doing the same if they wish to do so and I make a point of not making a point of it.

9. Always carry a massive bag or multiple bags. Invariably - purse, diary, gadgets, deodorant, body spray, hand cream, hand sanitiser, chewing gum, lip balm, make-up bag, sunglasses, book or magazine, packed lunch, umbrella... no baby/child related shit.

10. Always have tissue in their handbag. My husband would be the first to tell you I rarely have tissue in my handbag. That's why our son almost always has a snotty nose....

11. They know the name of characters from kids TV. From the 80s....

12. They appreciate their own mum more. If anything, I appreciate her less. I'm trying not to fuck my kid up the same way she did me.

13. They go out shopping for the day and only return with stuff for the children. There's no way I'm spending an entire day shopping and not come back with anything for myself.

14. Thinks nothing of sharing stories of difficult births, miscarriages, breast feeding etc. Only if asked.

15. They have a cupboard dedicated to medicines. The 'medicine cabinet' came with the house. I suppose we could have used it for something else but I to tend to find that Preparation H is more useful in the bathroom than anywhere else in the house....

16. Never go anywhere without a phone 'just in case'. Find me someone - anyone - who doesn't take their phone everywhere.

17. Super organised.

18. They don't get queasy at the thought of poo, wee or sick.

19. They buy gallons of milk. Four pints a week. And it usually ends up going off before it has all been used....

20. Always watch TV through catch-up of Sky+ - never live. I prefer to watch live and savour those 'water cooler moments' at work the next day.

21. Go to bed at 9pm every night. The Walking Dead starts at 9pm. Are you fucking joking?

22. They own lots of comfy shoes. I own lots of shoes. Some are comfy. Some are not. Am I supposed to wear high-heeled walking boots when I go hiking?

23. Total inability to watch sad things about children on the telly. If they mean it's a sign you're a mother because you cry at such things... what sort of heartless fucktard doesn't cry at sad things on the telly?

24. Going for comfort over style when choosing what to wear. I'll admit there was a stage when my clothing choices were chiefly based on how easy it was to access my tits. Then a further stage where my choices were chiefly based on whether things fit my fat ass. No longer... but my sense of 'style' isn't necessarily what is dictated to me by 'fashion' and never has been.

25. The kids TV channels are always on when they have visitors. Only if 'the kid' is also present, because I'm not sure 'the visitors' would approve of us putting Hostel on instead....

26. They'd rather get an early night than have a night out when the kids are at a sleepover. Pub?

27. They go to the toilet just to get a few minutes peace. How the hell do they manage to go alone? I get followed by the cat, never mind the kid!

28. They know the words to 'Let it Go'. Thanks to www.azlyrics.com....

29. They have a massive family organiser on the wall. I have a Cat's Protection League calendar - an annual Christmas gift from my mother - and I forget to write forthcoming appointments and events on it all the time.

30. Bigger pants are more comfortable. Not when they disappear up your ass crack.

31. They get drunk quicker on one glass of wine. No, that's because I weigh three stone less than the last time it took me more than one bottle to get pissed....

32. They realise other work colleagues seem so young. This probably says a lot about the organisation I work for but most of the people who behave even more childishly than I do at times are older than me....

33. They can fall asleep anywhere. I wish!

34. Have a strong opinion on schooling and education. I always have done.

35. They cry really easily when watching TV or films. Or the news, or a soap powder advert. I cry at the most ridiculous things sometimes.

36. Social media posts are suddenly all baby pictures. Some. Not all. He was kind of a fugly baby....

37. Always have a box of raisins or snacks in their handbags. This is one of those things that probably makes people think of me as a 'bad mother' - I never have that kind of stuff in my handbag.

38. They swear under their breath. Er.. FUCK OFF. Don't say that word, son. Please don't say that word!

39. Instinctively grab someone's hand when crossing the road - regardless of the age of their company. No... but I do feel like a complete and utter twat standing at a crossing, waiting for the green man when there's no fucking traffic anywhere when I'm alone out of habit....

40. They panic about a late night. *raises eyebrow* seriously? People do that?

41. They are more likely to have seen the newest kids release at the cinema than the latest blockbuster. I saw one film at the cinema last year: Interstellar. If I only get chance to see one per year I'm fucked if it's going to be a fucking kids film!

42. Nappies are always in their handbag. Nappies were rarely in my nappy bag... 'bad mother'....

43. They have 'mum' nights out. I have to say... I don't know what this means? Are they nights out where only mothers are allowed to go? Seriously, I don't get it.

44, They say 'sugar' and 'fudge' instead of swearing. Fuck that shit. Don't say those words either son....

45. They learn to sleep on the edge of the bed because their child is asleep horizontally next to them. I'll concede this one, but it's way funnier than it sounds:

46. Suddenly a people carrier is a good idea. I don't drive. My husband still has the same car he had when we met.

47. Accidentally cut sandwiches into triangles. People who 'accidentally cut' sandwiches ought not to be allowed to use knives/ be out in public. If I do this, it's carefully and deliberately.

48. Jiggling the shopping trolley as if it was a buggy when they're in the supermarket. Maybe it's because I preferred babywearing, but eh??

49. They can spot a high temperature at ten paces. My eyesight isn't that great. I need to hold the thermometer much closer than that to be able to read it properly.

50. They know all the words to irritating pop songs. From the 80s. For example:

Now, for all my cynicism, I know this survey had good intentions behind it. It's about reminding us that it's OK to be fallible, to make mistakes as a mother and that it's not just you. But it doesn't mean giving up who you were - be that swearing, late nights, uncomfortable shoes or your taste in music. There's only one sign I need to know I'm a mum... and that's the small boy sat next to me on the sofa (he finished the crisps ages ago. We're now watching the local news...).

RIP Page 3... or not

EDITED: 13:45 13/02/2015

Although The Sun decided to bring back Page 3 for a one-off 'fuck you, feminists!' two days after they first stopped printing it, there haven't been any more since. The 'No More Page 3' campaign is taking a (temporary) break from Twitter - presumably to get off their tits on celebratory champers, 'scuse the pun! There's still a lot to be done in the quest to secure equality of representation for women across the media though, so I continue to support them. These were my feelings when Page 3 first disappeared from this particular family newspaper...


RIP: Rest In Peace? Or did I deliberately leave caps lock on? Page 3 is no more - at least in print form - so maybe I should say Rest In Pieces, Page 3....

For those outside the UK, or who haven't been paying attention to the news over the past couple of days, The Sun - a daily tabloid newspaper with a readership of around 2 million - has ceased publishing pictures of topless women on its third page. Page 3 first came about back in the 1970s. It is simply a photograph of a young, topless woman that covers almost the entire third page of the paper. The picture is often captioned by some (often vacuous) comments on current affairs attributed to the model featured. I don't honestly believe they are always a direct quote. The purpose of Page 3 is simple: titillation. It is (or rather, was) socially acceptable pornography. Pornography that could be viewed at the breakfast, lunch and dinner table, on the bus or train, in the waiting room. If people (alright, MEN) had tried reading 'Big Jugs' on the train, for example, I'm sure they would have been met with disapproval, even if that only amounted to their fellow commuters tutting at them in that delightfully passive-aggressive way British people tend to in order to voice their disapproval without inviting confrontation. If there were children on the train then they might say something, and rightly so.

The irony here is that it's likely millions of children have been seeing Page 3 almost every day - unlike 'normal' pornography it isn't age restricted, it's available anywhere that sells papers,  it's frequently left on buses and trains by those who have finished reading it, it's kept on a low shelf. Anyone could just open the cover and see breasts, prominently displayed alongside some of the day's most important news.

I must point out here that there's nothing wrong with breasts, or people seeing them. Breasts are amazing. My own helped me attract a mate and then nourished and comforted my son in a way nothing else could for the first three years of his life. Feeding babies is their primary reason for existence. So, seeing a breast in the presence of a feeding baby is perfectly fine. Because public breastfeeding is OK. It's also OK that men find breasts sexually appealing. It's OK for women to choose as their career one in which they expose their breasts so men who feel this way can enjoy them. Such pictures just don't belong in a newspaper. Breasts aren't news. Except when the 'news' is that a woman has been mistreated by some ignorant arse who doesn't understand the laws in relation to public breastfeeding but I imagine that, had it not been for Page 3's daily depiction of breasts as solely sexual objects, people wouldn't react so negatively when they see them being used for their intended purpose and public breastfeeding wouldn't be such a big deal. It's not solely Page 3's fault - the sexualization of breasts is endemic across the media - but I can't think of many other ways in which children could be exposed to a sexualized image of a topless woman so easily, ensuring they grow up thinking it's somehow wrong to use them to feed babies....

Page 3 hasn't been consigned to history completely - The Sun have been quick to point readers to the Page 3 section of their website (1). People seem to be complaining about this. Curiously, both proponents of Page 3 and those who believe it doesn't need to have an online presence either. I believe that the seedy connotations of Internet pornography explain why its fans aren't happy - it's not as socially acceptable to look at images of topless women on the Internet as it was in the paper. This may now make it easier for the campaigners to get people to see why Page 3 wasn't acceptable content for a newspaper in the first place and, hopefully, get it removed from the newspaper's website as well.

I suspect some 'No More Page 3' campaigners took issue with Jeremy Renner's casual remark about Jennifer Lopez's breasts at the Golden Globe Awards but, as I explained (2), it's all about context -  if he'd said it at the Children's Television Golden Globes (3) and she'd been wearing a turtleneck, that would've been wrong. But this was an evening show, aimed primarily at adults, and she was wearing a revealing dress. Like I said earlier, there's nothing wrong with a woman wanting to show off her breasts, either in a sexual way by wearing revealing clothing or by posing topless, or when she needs to feed her baby  - although I'd argue women who breastfeed aren't doing it to 'show off' their breasts. Most try to expose as little of themselves as possible, certainly not their whole breast. Accidents happen though - just as women risk a 'wardrobe malfunction' and exposing more than originally planned when they wear something revealing, a 'breastfeeding malfunction' is also a risk. Usually, even if the mother's whole breast is exposed, the baby's head hides most of it whilst they are actively feeding but, if she is distracted and doesn't notice when the baby drops off... whoops! A friend of mine told me she once answered the door to the postman and it was only then she realised she had forgotten to put her boob away after the last feed.

Several current and former (I suppose, technically, they're all former now) Page 3 'girls' have spoken out against The Sun's decision to drop the feature from their print edition. The main focus for their criticism seems to be the campaigners, many of whom are feminists. Here are a couple of quotes:

"It's only a matter of time before everything we do is dictated by comfy shoe wearing... No bra wearing... man haters" - Rhian Sugden (4)

Jodie Marsh signed off one tweet with "Women who slag off other women are just jealous & insecure..." (5) not long before posting one which read "Dear pretend feminists, I have reached a compromise re Page 3: If I stop shaving my armpits and don't wear any make up can I still do it?" (6) Jodie Marsh says she is a feminist (5). I don't dispute that. I'm sure plenty of feminists would say my lack of disapproval for Jeremy Renner's comments mean I can't possibly be one. Jodie's idea of feminism seems to be about women being empowered to do what they want with their bodies and I completely agree - there's absolutely nothing wrong if a woman wishes to pose naked for a living, I've already said that! I'm not sure these women understand the point of 'No More Page 3' - the official campaign page states quite clearly that they "love breasts! And have nothing against women who choose to show them," it's just the context of them appearing in a daily newspaper that irks them (7). 

What irks me is this lumping of those feminists who are against the concept of Page 3 into an homogenous group of unattractive, unfeminine man-haters. One can be against the objectification of women and support their right to choose to appear in pornography, or enjoy flirtatious 'banter' with a man whilst not wishing to be cat-called whilst out jogging. These things aren't mutually exclusive - it's all about context.

Finally, Nicola McLean complained that the success of the campaign had "put so many young women out of jobs" (8). To me, that's like complaining that a campaign to close down a brothel next to a school puts women out of jobs - I'm not trying to draw comparisons between prostitutes and Page 3 models but surely she'd agree a brothel doesn't belong next to a school? Context! I can't remember where I saw it, but I saw one complaint that said something like 'feminists should be allowed to tell women they can't pose topless in a newspaper' - we aren't. We're telling a newspaper they shouldn't print pictures of topless women and very little else besides (7). These models can and will find work elsewhere - if they don't wish to work for top shelf magazines or Internet porn (I refuse to call it 'glamour', it's porn. Might be very, very soft porn to just pose topless in a miniskirt but still porn. Be proud that you work in porn. There's nothing wrong with porn (9)) The Daily Star (10) still has a Page 3. Obviously, the campaign will continue until that is also withdrawn. And I shall support it. Like underwiring supports my boobs. This feminist wears a bra. And she loves men (11). I do like a comfy shoe though....

Footnotes:

(1) N.B. Other pornographic websites are available.

(2) http://tinygert.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/feminist-frustrations-how-am-i-meant-to.html 

(3) Yes, I know they aren't a thing but trying to make a point here and off the top of my head I can't think of any well-known children's award ceremonies....

(4) https://twitter.com/Rhianmarie/status/557455199695298560

(5) https://twitter.com/JodieMarsh/status/557462525391171584

(6) https://twitter.com/JodieMarsh/status/558011955529932800

(7) http://nomorepage3.org/

(8) http://i100.io/ClCJxKK

(9) http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/mcelroy_17_4.html

(10) A somewhat less popular tabloid newspaper than The Sun. It's circulation was 476,448 in March 2014; it'll be interesting to see whether that increases - or whether The Sun's goes down - as a result of this campaign success.

(11) http://tinygert.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/fangirling.html

Fangirling

'Fangirling' wasn't a word back when every available flat surface or my bedroom was covered in posters (yes, even the ceiling - until a particularly large one fell down on me in the middle of the night, then it was only every available flat vertical surface), but I think that fits the definition. The primary objects of my teenage desires tended to be actors or musicians with any combination of shaggy hair/ sexy eyes (usually blue)/ fuzzy chin/ muscular arms/ tattoos and they remain so to this day.

Whenever I come across an actor I like (irrespective of whether I have a crush on them) I like to view their back catalogue. Thanks to the Internet, you can have an actor's complete filmography in front of you in a matter of seconds and, thanks to streaming services like Netflix, be watching something from it in under a minute. As someone who tends to remember faces but is terrible with names it's a godsend - no more "where have I seen him before?" and having to trawl through my entire video library before eventually finding the one he'd been in like I had to as a teenager. This has, unfortunately, resulted in me watching some fucking awful films. It's a good job I have a fondness for bad horror films (1) because an alarmingly high number of these films have belonged to the horror genre - it seems a lot of actors start out in horror (2). It has also mean I've happened across some really good films I might not otherwise have watched were it not for the fact the actor I like is featured in them - sometimes only very briefly (3).

I've had a crush on David Tennant since I was fifteen, when he played Campbell in Takin' Over the Asylum, although I didn't watch much of the television he did after that until he appeared in the first episode of the 2000 remake of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) that starred Vic Reeves and Bob Mortimer. He then dropped off my radar again until five years later, when I have a very clear memory of seeing a trailer for Casanova and, wide-eyed, heart a-flutter, exclaiming "Campbell!" at the television and, quite literally, swooning. It wasn't long after this that he became the ninth actor to play The Doctor.

Doctor Who was one of my favourite television programmes as a child. When I started watching it, the Doctor was played by Tom Baker but, perhaps due to my tender age at the time, the one I remember most vividly is Sylvester McCoy - I was just ten when the series ended. It was a huge part of my childhood, forming the basis for many a lively conversation on the bus to the pool for swimming lessons (it aired the night before) and playground game. It also terrified me - I have a very clear recollection of being too scared to walk alone down our long, narrow hallway so I could go upstairs to use the loo after watching an episode of the 1987 story 'Paradise Towers', about a futuristic tower block with corridors patrolled by robotic killing machines called 'Cleaners' (4). When the BBC first announced they were making a new series, I instantly thought of that awful 1996 film that starred Paul McGann, which I'd hated because it was far too slick and polished - my Doctor Who was all about the wobbly sets, bad guys in rubber suits and bad visual effects. I was very wary. But I watched it anyway - I don't feel qualified to criticise things I haven't seen. And I thought it was fucking awesome. And then it was announced that David Tennant would be taking over as the Ninth Doctor.

David was an amazing Doctor. He was a huge fan of Doctor Who when he was growing up and it's so obvious from his performance that he thoroughly enjoyed making it. He brought such incredible energy and enthusiasm to the role and was simply a joy to watch. I was devastated when he left and I really couldn't see how that "funny-looking kid" (for that's what I called him then) Matt Smith would ever be able to fill his Converse. Some of my female friends stopped watching it. The doubts I had about Matt proved to be completely wrong. He was brilliant. Still funny-looking in my eyes but he made the role his own and I loved his Doctor to bit. One of my female friends didn't think he was funny-looking, she thought his was flippin' gorgeous. When Peter Capaldi was named as his replacement I remember her complaining that the Doctor shouldn't be played by "some old ugly bloke!" Women like her give fangirls a bad name - she doesn't watch Doctor Who any more since Matt left. Me? I was just as excited about this casting as I was about David Tennant's. Mainly because of this:

There's something about these Doctor Who fanboys that makes them excellent Doctors.

When I told my husband I'd been watching The Walking Dead he recalled how much I'd hated before. I really can't explain why I disliked it so much the first time I watched it. It completely baffles me, given just how much I love it now (5). Second time around it hooked me right from the start. It's so raw and visceral, action-packed, exciting edge-of-your-seat stuff and the characters are so well written and portrayed - you really do care about what happens to them so, when it's something bad, it's emotionally affecting too. Oh and...it isn't exactly short on eye candy (6).

Norman Reedus plays Daryl Dixon in The Walking Dead. Daryl doesn't appear in the first episode at all and Reedus is only a supporting cast member throughout the first season (7). Season One Daryl isn't particularly likable. He's stubborn, selfish, immature and quick-tempered. During Season Two he is angry, emotionally closed and isolates himself from the others. Although he shows kindness towards Carol when her daughter first disappears, he rebuffs her efforts to bring him back to the group later on and, although he demonstrates loyalty to the group, he shows he is willing to take extreme, violent measures to protect them. In Season Three he is much calmer and has reintegrated with the rest of the group, but his loyalties are tested with the unexpected return of his brother. The Season Three episode 'Home' marks a significant turning point for Daryl, and it is the events of this episode that saw him become my favourite character. It was also the point at which I realised I had a massive crush on Norman Reedus. It was that scene on the bridge that did it, and what follows immediately after - Daryl saves a Mexican family with a baby by taking out a bunch of walkers almost single-handedly (fangirling - oh my God does he look hot in that sequence!), then he stands up to his brother for the first time in his life before being forced to reveal some truly heartbreaking information about his past:

During an argument with his brother, Daryl's shirt is ripped, revealing scars on his back from the abuse he suffered (8) at the hands of their father. This also reveals a large tattoo on his right shoulder. I Googled to see whether it was real or just make-up for the character: it's real, he has several. So... referring back to the beginning of this post we have: shaggy hair - check, sexy eyes - check, fuzzy chin - check, muscular arms - check, and tattoos - check. Hence my massive crush on Norman Reedus. I am now thirty-six years old though, and my husband won't let me cover our bedroom walls with posters - spoilsport (9). So I have this on my desk instead.

It's not just me. When I mentioned this to one of my co-workers she got quite excited, started breathing heavily and said, and I quote, "Daryl... I'm in love!" It does seem that Daryl's fans are a rather, ahem, passionate bunch...

YES pic.twitter.com/j1SbbiOGGY
— norman reedus (@wwwbigbaldhead) November 8, 2014

"If Daryl dies, we riot" is their catchphrase, apparently. Therefore I don't feel I can class myself as one of "Dixon's Vixens". Because I know that if/ when that happens; I will just bawl my fucking eyes out. I will probably swear at the TV. I will definitely tweet that I am bawling my fucking eyes out and swearing at the TV... lol. But I'll carry on watching next episode or next Season, as I have carried on watching Doctor Who, and enjoy watching him do other stuff.

I am a little embarrassed that I deliberately sought out the films Norman had worked on before The Walking Dead that I had already seen and only half-remembered him from. I even put myself through Pandorum (2009) again - only up until his character's death, which happens pretty early on, because by then I'd remembered just how fucking bad that film is (10). My husband instantly recognised Norman as 'Scud' from Blade II (2002). Watching that one back was funny because it quickly dawned on me that I had rather fancied him at the time... how did I seemingly forget this? And why did I not notice it before then? That's probably something I can't answer, I'm just sorry I didn't. I might have had more chance of catching him in some of the more obscure things he's done that aren't so easy to come by.

When I watch a film I've already seen I like to read the trivia and goofs sections on the IMDb. In the trivia section for Gossip (2000) it says that Norman Reedus created his artist character's artwork himself. That's interesting. I have a tendency to browse the Internet in a 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' sort of way, this piece of trivia led me to Norman's IMDb profile, then to his Wikipedia page, then to his official website, then to his Twitter (obviously, I followed), which led me to his Instagram. I don't follow people on Instagram unless I like the pictures they post. I really like his. His feed is a fascinating mix of incredibly beautiful scenic shots, selfies, cat-ography, behind-the-scenes snaps from the set of the The Walking Dead, photos of his son (11), fan art and random pictures of some seriously. weird. shit. Weird shit his fans have sent to him. He seems to get sent a lot of weird shit. He's only got himself to blame: It seems Norman likes collecting souvenirs from the projects he's worked on and the places he's visited and his taste in souvenirs is... unusual. I mean, what could be more unusual than keeping a bag full of your co-star's beard clippings in your fridge (12)? Although I get the distinct impression from his social media that he is sometimes embarrassed and overwhelmed by the level of attention he receives, he is thankful and humble and there are times when he clearly revels in it and shamelessly baits his fangirls. Last year, Norman published a book of some of the fan art he's received and called it 'thanksforalltheniceness'. He sent signed copies to the fans whose artwork was featured. Sweet, right? But he was also asked in an interview "How do you fight off all the groupies?" and responded, "I try not to." Shameless fangirl baiting. He also posted this picture on his Instagram. There is no way he did not notice. There was also this. Utterly shameless fangirl baiting. I love it. And I'm happy to take the bait ;)




Footnotes:

(1) There are exceptions. Like Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009), which is just a terrible, terrible film.

(2) http://bloody-disgusting.com/editorials/3328512/11-famous-actors-got-start-horror/

(3) The Notorious Bettie Page (2005), Cadillac Records (2008), Pawn Shop Chronicles (2013), and Stretch (2014) all feature Norman Reedus in roles of increasing brevity, the latter consisting of a tiny cameo as "himself". I confess I only watched them because they came up when I searched for him on my streaming service (sadly, so did Messengers 2...) but it turned out there were many more reasons for me to enjoy them, and I enjoyed them all immensely.

(4) I know. But, at the time, they were fucking terrifying:

(5) I can only assume I wasn't thinking straight at the time - I was suffering with a horrible combination of post-traumatic stress and post-natal depression following the birth of my son.

(6) Don't misinterpret this statement. Though I can appreciate the visual appeal of most of the male case members, Norman Reedus is the only one who really does it for me.

(7) He has gone from being a supporting cast member to second billed in the opening credits. Now that's an exponential increase in popularity!

(8) With this shocking revelation, Daryl suddenly made sense to me. A lot of his personality traits - even the negative ones - are ones I recognise in myself. I know a lot of them come from having being abused as a child myself. Like Daryl, my abuser was someone who should have been responsible for my care (although not a relative), and it was never dealt with at the time. It's something I've never really tried to deal with since, something I hid - I suppose in a way I'm lucky that, unlike Daryl, I bear no physical scars. When I realised what was being revealed in that scene it brought it all back to me. It sounds corny, but watching Daryl start to come to terms with his past abuse has helped me start to come to terms with what happened to me. This probably explains why I feel such a strong connection to this particular character, and why I bawl like a frightened child whenever I see Daryl cry.

(9) I even offered to let him put up posters of the famous ladies he likes on his wall - and he's got more wall space that I have given mine has a fucking great window in it - and he still refused. He did buy me a poster of David Tennant as the Doctor which I hung on the door to the cupboard under the stairs though (the only reason it's not there any more is because it kept falling down - fucking Blu Tack - and got ripped) so there's hope yet.

(10) See also, Mimic (1997), although I did at least manage to make it to the end of that one and, to be fair, it was better than I had remembered. But still not great.

(11) I've never seen a picture of Norman Reedus as a child but the pictures he's shared of his son make me think that if he ever did I would probably think that he, like Adele, has actually cloned himself. Mind you, people look at my son and say it looks like I've cloned myself....

(12) I know famous people have some ridiculous stuff written about them, and you would be forgiven for thinking this is one of those things, because it's so weird, but it's true. I'm sitting here writing that that's weird but I also have a bag of someone else's hair - the clippings from my son's first haircut. I know a lot of parents keep a lock of their child's hair from their first haircut but not all of the hair like I have. And definitely not in a bag. I don't keep it in the fridge though....

Don't Read - Spoilers Inside!*

*Unless you are fully up-to-date with The Walking Dead on TV.

This is a post in which I try to explain why I love The Walking Dead so much, and why I agonised for such a long time over whether to read the comic book its based on.

Let me start by saying I love horror films. Even the really bad, horribly cliched, terribly acted ones. It's my favourite film genre. If a film has vampires, zombies or a dozen increasingly more gory death scenes, chances are I'm going to like it. I don't tend to be scared by horror films; I find the odd one unsettling, some might make me feel a bit queasy and there's the odd one that gets me with a good jump scare (1). I've been watching horror films from quite a young age, thanks to my mother allowing me to watch such things as Alien (1979) when they were shown on TV. One of the reasons that film has never really scared me is because I'd already seen Spaceballs (1987) (2). It was watching horror films that got me interested in special effects, in particular, special effects make-up. My mum bought me a children's encyclopedia that came as a part-work and one entry was all about this stuff. It described how the special effects in The Exorcist (1973) had been done and it sounded like incredible stuff. Due to the 1984 Video Recordings Act, I didn't actually get to see them until the film was re-released in cinemas in 1998....

One of my favourite 'zombie' films is 28 Days Later. The opening scenes are simply incredible: The film's protagonist, Jim, wakes up from a coma in a London hospital. He finds the place - and the city - completely deserted, and it's evident something has gone very, very wrong. He stumbles across and is attacked by a group of what appear to be zombies - ones that can run very fucking fast - but is rescued. His rescuers explain to a confused Jim what's happened whilst he was in his coma, and that the group were "infected" with a virus called "Rage".

When I sat down to watch the pilot episode of The Walking Dead back in 2010, I knew very little about it other than it was about zombies. I expected I'd like it just for that reason though. I didn't get very far in. Rick wakes up from a coma - just like Jim, in a hospital - just like Jim, starts stumbling around - just like Jim, and find the world has apparently gone to shit - just like Jim. I turned that rip-off off. When Sophia's fate was revealed in Season Two, I remember my friends who have been fans of The Walking Dead since the beginning, were surprised to learn that I wasn't watching it. I never planned to, based on how I'd felt watching that pilot episode. Things changed.


Towards the end of last year, we got TiVo. Home alone and bored one day, with nothing I felt like watching showing on any channel I decided to look for something to watch 'On Demand'. When I brought up the menu the suggestion in the bottom left-hand corner was The Walking Dead. This was completely random, because the box was brand new - we hadn't given anything the 'thumbs up' yet so it wasn't based on what we liked to watch. I was vaguely aware that the fifth series was due to start soon, and given there were only four to catch up on if I liked it this time, I figured I'd give it another go. Whilst the similarity of those opening scenes in the pilot episode to those of 28 Days Later still struck me, for some inexplicable reason, it didn't anger me the way it had before; I saw it as an homage. I kept watching. By the end of that pilot episode I was hooked, and I just had to find out what was going to happen next.

When I say "I was hooked," I mean I was literally glued to the screen - I couldn't take my eyes off it. Usually when I'm watching TV I've got one eye on something else - Twitter, Candy Crush, a book or magazine... this blog. With The Walking Dead, I couldn't bring myself to look away. I didn't want to. I still don't. It's the only TV programme I've ever watched that has consistently managed to keep my undivided attention. Even now I'm watching old episodes back with my husband so he can get caught up, I find it difficult to focus on anything else. Since I've been watching Season Five, I've had to deal with ad-breaks, which seem to occur far too frequently and at the most inconvenient moments - that's when I do my live-tweeting of the show.


I didn't realise The Walking Dead was based on a comic book at first. Ordinarily, I like to read the book before I watch something because, if I do it the other way around, I tend to find that not only do I not enjoy the book but I end up liking the film a little less. This happened with Jackie Brown, The Shining and LA Confidential, although the latter still remains one of my all-time favourite non-horror films. A notable exception to this is Sin City. Seeing that film prompted me to read the graphic novel and I absolutely fell in love with it. It was obvious the book had been used as a ready-made storyboard and I think the way every single frame had been so faithfully recreated for the film is what made me adore them both. 

I was wary about reading The Walking Dead comic book because I knew some significant changes had been made and I was concerned this might affect my enjoyment of them both - I didn't want to end up hating a programme I loved. So I decided I wouldn't read it.

Two of the things I like the most about The Walking Dead are Greg Nicotero's incredible special effects make-up and the character Daryl Dixon. He doesn't appear in the comics. I read that Norman Reedus originally auditioned for the part of Merle and didn't get it, but they liked him that much they actually wrote the character of Daryl for him. That's awesome - but the absence of my favourite character was another thing that put me off reading the comic book.

I didn't actually like Daryl to begin with - I felt he acted like a petulant child in the first series, like a grumpy teenager in the second. He started to change towards the end of Season Two and, by the mid-way point of Season Three, he'd matured a lot and I started to like him a lot more. The turning point was when it was revealed he had been a victim of child abuse - so was I. This aspect of Daryl's past is something he'd never come to terms with, and it's only in Season Five that it looks like he's finally ready to confront it. This is something I identify with, having never really come to terms with my own abuse, and watching him go through it has been cathartic. I do feel a very strong connection to the character. It could be this, or it could be something about Norman Reedus' face, or just because it's somehow more upsetting to see a man cry, but I always burst into tears every time Daryl cries!


I came across an article online which was asking fans of The Walking Dead who they thought would make the best new villain following the demise of The Governor. There seemed to be a lot of comments from people who thought it should be Negan, and a lot saying it shouldn't because they wouldn't be able to do the character justice on TV. Because I had decided I wouldn't ever read the comic book, and because I knew that anything I read that was a potential spoiler wasn't necessarily one due to the fact some huge changes had already been made (3), and especially given there were major characters in the TV programme that weren't in the comic book, I decided to read up on Negan: he's a foul-mouthed sociopath who, in the comics, beats Glen to death with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire whilst cracking jokes. Hmm... maybe it's not possible to bring him to life on TV! A trivia note at the end of the article I read noted that the character was based on a particular actor but that Robert Kirkman refused to say who in case that actor wasn't able to play him if they ever did include him in the show. I thought of Henry Rollins for some reason - I'm assuming it's because of how bad-ass he was in Wrong Turn 2 (2007), and because some of the artwork I'd seen of the character reminded me vaguely of him.

Season Five contains some of the most shocking violence I've ever seen on TV. The opening episode, 'No Sanctuary', contains some horrifying, graphic scenes reminiscent of Hostel (2005). Episode two, 'Strangers', ends with one of the most disturbing scenes I've ever seen on television. The third episode, 'Four Walls and a Roof' includes an execution so shocking and violent it makes some horror films look tame! Bringing Negan in didn't seem quite so impossible. I started contemplating reading the comic book.

I thought about other adaptations I've seen where I loved both book and film equally. Perhaps the best example is The Shawshank Redemption (1994). The Stephen King novella upon which it is based is one of the best things I've ever read. I was hugely excited about seeing the film. There are some fairly significant differences between book and film, but they didn't bother me whilst I was watching it at all - I found it simply captivating. Even the ending is slightly different - and I didn't care. There's a fade to black right at the point where the book ends and I'd already started to get up to leave, but that scene continues and I ended up sitting back down again, in floods of tears: it was beautiful. The Shawshank Redemption was adapted for the screen by Frank Darabont... who is responsible for developing The Walking Dead for television.

Another book to film adaptation where I like both versions equally is Harry Potter. What's notable about this series is how heavily involved JK Rowling was with the process. The same could be said about the writer of The Walking Dead: Robert Kirkman acts as Executive Producer and has written several episodes.

When I re-read the Negan article recently, I noticed the trivia at the end has been updated to note that Charlie Adlard has confirmed the character is based on Henry Rollins. I'm maybe reading too much into it, but I think that either means he doesn't want to or can't do it, or that the producers have decided they can't make the character work on screen, or it means he's going to play Negan when they introduce his character to the show... that latter possibility got me a little bit excited. It made me want to know more about Negan. It made me want to read about Negan.

I've read that the producers of The Walking Dead have said the comic book has provided them with enough material for twelve seasons and, unlike the writers of Lost, I do get the sense they know exactly where they're going with it. Nothing feels like 'filler' for me - even the slower-paced episodes that focus more on character development keep me just as much on the edge of my seat as the relentless, action-packed ones do. Something tells me Robert Kirkman won't let them mess with his baby too much - he's said he's got an ending in mind, but that it will take time to get there. JK Rowling came up with the idea for Harry Potter in 1990 and said the final chapter of the final book was written that same year. When the first film adaptation was made she hadn't yet written the final books, but her involvement was such to ensure both series ended up in the same place.

I'd already leafed through a couple of issues of The Walking Dead in the comic book shop - yes, I was that person [insert "ashamed" emoji here], I'd seen the incredibly detailed, beautiful artwork and spotted a few frames that had evidently been lifted straight from the page and recreated on the screen, just as they had been in Sin City, but it was the possibility of Negan actually happening that really clinched it for me - what is it about bad guys?

I am still slightly wary of spoilers, but I try to remember how I felt when I was watching The Shawshank Redemption. I completely understood why Darabont had made the changes he had to the book; I hope to understand why The Walking Dead comic book has been changed for its adaptation for television. I will be avoiding Twitter on Sunday nights and throughout Monday as of February though - I don't want to have to go through crap like #RIPBeth again before I've seen the latest episode!

I thought I'd have to start saving up to buy The Walking Dead, but then we rearranged the furniture in the living room:

My birthday is three days after Christmas so people tend to send my birthday cards at the same time they send the Christmas cards and presents. I'd put the cards on a shelf, on top of some DVDs, and had forgotten they were there. We found them when we were moving the shelf. Some contained money from family members who had had no idea what to buy me - I spent it on the first few volumes of the comics. I'm really enjoying them. I'm spotting little things that I suspect were put into the show specifically to keep fans of the comic book happy. Seeing them in the comic book having seen them in the show makes me happy. And I don't miss Daryl.


I'm try not to be too concerned about seeing flaws in the TV version of The Walking Dead the further I get reading the comic book, because of this:

When the comedian Bill Hicks died in 1994, several of his contemporaries and people who knew him took part in a documentary about him entitled 'Just A Ride'. One of those featured was another 'Southern' comedian, Brett Butler. Something she said about Bill has always stuck with me. I'm probably paraphrasing, but she was talking about him being criticised for some of the things he said about the South and she said it didn't mean he didn't love the South. She said, "whenever you love something that much, you see all of its flaws, ten fold." I think that's true - you spend a lot of time focusing on the things you love and when you focus on something its flaws are magnified. It doesn't necessarily change the way you feel about it. I love The Walking Dead. Perhaps that explains why I also love this:

Footnotes:

(1) The Descent (2005) actually made me scream out loud. First time ever that had happened.

(2) http://youtu.be/aVZUVeMtYXc

(3) Sophia is one of the longest-surviving characters in the comic book; she dies part-way through Season Two.




This post was published in its original form on 16/01/2015. I chose to edit it because, well... I thought it was shit. Note to self: write, read, re-write, then publish blog post!

Feminist Frustrations: How am I meant to feel when a gorgeous guy makes a gaffe at the Golden Globes?

I know I'm probably rather late to the party on this one but it's bothering me so I feel the need to blog about it.

At the Golden Globe Awards on Sunday, the presenters of the award for Best Actor in A Drama Series were Jennifer Lopez and Jeremy Renner. Now, I have to confess I have a wee crush on the latter. It's significant.

Now, I know that there's a script they have to follow and everything but it seems there's a moment of their pre-envelope opening spiel that wasn't on the autocue and it's gotten Mr Renner into a bit of hot water. And I'm not sure he deserves it.

Remember a few months back when that 'catcall' video was doing the rounds? If you didn't see it, here it is:

I've experienced this, and it's creepy. When I'm just walking around, just going about my day, just dressed in jeans and a t-shirt - nothing that tight, nothing that low cut, nothing that noteworthy, it fucking creeps me out when men comment at me. I say "at" because that's what it is - they're not saying it to you. It's a comment about your ass or your boobs as you walk past them. Even a "hey" or "hello" is a bit creepy when it's not said to your face but your rear as you pass by. Especially when it's accompanied by a "baby" or a "girl" - I'm thirty-six for fucks sake. I've HAD a baby and I haven't been a girl for a looong time. When you're getting comments like this all the fucking time it becomes harassment - it's not a compliment, we don't feel better for you saying it, it's NOT OK.

But what if I'm walking around in a dress with a low-cut neckline that shows off my boobs? What if I'm out at night, just walking to the bar or club? STILL NOT OK. What if I pass by you in a bar or club? STILL NOT OK. If you come up to me and say to my face what you find attractive about me? That's OK. Because you're telling me. You're not announcing it to everyone within earshot, you're not calling after me, you've told me, to my face, that you find me attractive. And I'm going to like that.

So I'm Jennifer Lopez. I'm wearing a dress that's so low cut you could see my c-section scar if it were any lower. And my boobs look fucking awesome. I'm a confident woman and I know I look good in this. I'm proud of my body. I know men find me attractive. I don't mind showing that off.

In case you haven't seen the clip, let me describe what happens next: Jennifer and Jeremy take to the stage and start to read the script from the autocue and list the nominees. She offers to open the envelope because she's "got the nails". Jeremy can't stop himself staring at her impressive cleavage and quips "you've got the globes too." And apparently, it was at this point that Twitter did a collective "ooh, NOOOOO! That's NOT OK!" and proceeded to say stuff like "and the award for Best Supporting Creep goes to Jeremy Renner" and call him a sexist misogynist pig and suchlike.

Now, I'm sure some women who think they're better feminists than me will tell me I'm wrong here but, if I'm wearing a dress that shows off that much of my body, I kinda want people to tell me I look good! If I was just walking down the street, minding my business then, yes, a comment like that would be creepy but I've chosen to wear this on a global stage. I'm not sure it's right to expect nobody to comment on it, and I'd sure as hell prefer to hear positive comments rather than negative ones. The man standing next to me might not have intended to say it out loud - I definitely get that impression. I've watched this clip a few times now and there's a hint of a rabbit caught in the headlights about his expression to camera immediately afterwards. It's a "Shit! Did I just say that out loud?!" sort of face - but he did, and I laugh. I laughed when I saw this clip. I was thinking the exact same thing...

What we have to remember is that this happened at the Golden Globe Awards. I'd bet that every year since their inception there's been a boob-related quip about some actresses choice of dress in relation to how revealing it is. Perhaps this explains why I'm not so bothered by Jeremy's comment as the rest of Twitter seems to be - have I been desensitised? Do I expect it? Usually such comments are seen in the press the following day, I'm not sure anyone has ever said it at the actual ceremony before.

I have to accept that my opinion of this has perhaps been coloured by my opinion of the man who made the comment. I have a crush on him. Though I can't honestly say that's automatically going to make me more forgiving - after all, I call out my husband for making inappropriate comments! I do have to admit, however, that there's a part of me that wishes this man was standing next to me, telling me my boobs look good (aside: what bra is she wearing, I need one of those!) so I know I'm not being totally impartial here. But then I might as well say I can't be impartial because I'm a woman. But then I'd also say no man could be impartial because he's a man...

A lot of people who've already commented on this have mentioned 'the objectification of women'. I know this is part of a much bigger picture. I know that if it's seen as OK to pass comments like this about women wearing dresses like that it eventually results in a situation where men feel free to pass comments about women regardless of what they are wearing. It results in situations like that depicted in the video above. But the key difference here is that the comment was kind of said to the woman in question. And she appears to have appreciated it. If that's the case, they why the fuck is anyone else getting so upset about it? Even between us women we don't seem to be able to decide where the line is, what is and isn't acceptable for men to say, or under what circumstances. I've already explained what I think isn't OK. This is OK by me. Even if it wasn't, I certainly wouldn't approve of the vilification Jeremy Renner has since been subjected to by the Twitterati. Say you don't think it was OK. Say why you don't think it was OK. But don't be abusive - that's not OK.

There's even more to this, I've found. It seems he's recently split up with his wife and the divorce papers she's filed... basically the rumour is that he's in the closet. I really couldn't give a shit and I'm not going to post any links to any articles about this because a) I don't have any, b) I don't want to search for any because c) I believe I've already said I couldn't give a shit? It has no relevance. It's gossip. I will still have a crush on him. Besides, I know a number of gay men who love boobs. When my gay male friends have told me I look good I've felt every bit as complimented as when straight men I had a crush on did. We can't deny it's feels really good when we hear a compliment. Especially when its about a part of ourselves we've chosen to flaunt. If you flaunt yourself and people say nasty things about you, or to you, that's disheartening. Even confident, strong people will get disheartened if they hear bad things about the few things they like about themselves.

Jeremy hit back at his critics by saying they should "lighten up". And I agree. I think his comment came from an innocent place, it wasn't meant with malice. He wouldn't have said this to a woman walking down the street in a t-shirt... at least I hope not. If he thinks that's OK then I'd gladly... let someone else explain why it's not. I'd try but I'd seriously struggle. I have a crush on the guy, remember! I suppose that a lot of men who do make such comments would say then don't mean it maliciously either, but then... why not say them to us? Why at us as we walk past you? Whilst I would admittedly be a little shocked if a random man came up to me on the street and said "excuse me, but I just had to tell you I think you're beautiful/ have a really nice ass/ have fantastic boobs" I'd appreciate it a whole lot more than him yelling "nice tits, love" as I walk past.

So... if I ever become famous, and I get to present a Golden Globe award with Jeremy Renner, I hope he tells me I've got the globes too.