Wednesday, 11 February 2015

Feminist Frustrations: "Sexism vs Chivalry vs Manners" and "Why 'Compliments' - (Consent + Context) = Harassment"

A couple of things on Twitter sparked my interest in the past week or so. The first was this excerpt from a conversation Glamour magazine had with Gillian Anderson:

Glamour: What do you get riled up about in a feminist context? 
Gillian: A lot. I have feminist bones and when I hear things or see people react to women in certain ways I have very little tolerance. 
Glamour: But don't you feel sorry for modern men? Not knowing whether they should help us with our bags and open doors for us or whether we'll see it as an affront? 
Gillian: No. I don't feel sorry for men.

I don't feel sorry for them either. Helping someone who is clearly struggling is merely being nice, holding a door open for someone is just basic manners. I could rant at great length about how fucked off I get with people who don't bother to hold the door when someone is coming through immediately behind them, or who don't acknowledge someone who has. It's got nothing to do with gender. And I'll give you a tip: a lot of people are too shy, or sometimes too proud, to ask for help when they need it. It's okay - it's actually quite nice - to offer them help. If a man sees a woman struggling, it's not sexist to offer her help. It is sexist to see a woman not struggling with her bags and take them from her with the assumption that she might and you're actually doing her a favour. Things like this aren't that difficult to work out, surely?

It strikes me as odd that men might be struggling to know whether or not they should hold a door open for women for fear of being considered sexist when they seem very willing to yell sexual comments towards women in the street. This is sexual harassment, not 'freedom of speech' as some have tried to claim. When I wrote about this issue, I stressed the importance of context - essentially, if a man yells 'nice tits!' at me when I'm walking down the street wearing a polo neck, that's harassment; if he tells me 'nice tits!' when we're stood at a bar when I'm wearing a low cut dress and a push-up bra, that's a compliment I'm actually glad to receive. You can read the full post here.

Another way to look at this is to consider the comment in terms of consent. It could certainly be argued that my choice to wear a revealing outfit gives consent for people to comment on the part of my body it enhances and/ or exposes. When I've deliberately chosen an outfit that aims to disguise or hide them though, and I'm just trying to go about my daily business, I struggle to see how the same consent could be inferred by anyone.

Abi Wilkinson wrote an interesting examination of the consent issue, referencing the feelings of a rape survivor who experiences traumatic flashbacks when she receives unwanted attention and those of Paris Lees, who revels in it. Her point is that the man making the unsolicited comment towards a woman in the street doesn't know which one she is, whether she will feel flattered by it or fearful. The rape survivor told Wilkinson that she used to enjoy "burlesque pin-up style" but now worries she might be perceived as "having 'asked for it'" if she wears certain clothes. There's an implication here that rape completely destroys a woman's sexual confidence but I don't think that's what Wilkinson is trying to say - she's merely illustrating that it's possible to experience both angles. She describes her own position:
"I've received uninvited sexual attention that I've found incredibly upsetting and intimidating. Other times - I'm slightly ashamed to admit - crude, sexualised comments from strangers have given me a bit of an ego boost. Often, it's a weird combination of the two."
If you read my first post, you'll know that's pretty much my position on it too.

Wilkinson isn't critical of Lees' enjoyment of receiving such attention - she is critical of those who have told Lees that she isn't "a 'real' feminist" and is "betraying other women" by doing so. What she does criticise is the stance that, because some women do enjoy this attention, those who do not "should 'loosen up' and stop complaining." What? Like a rape survivor who is too afraid to leave her home because such attention causes her to have flashbacks? This is where the 'freedom of speech' issue comes into play - is the right for everyone to make uninvited sexual comments more important than the right of some people who are affected by them to be protected from them? The first thought that entered my head when Wilkinson posed this question was 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' (1) - sometimes I am unconscionably nerdy - but I cannot possibly argue that there's a need for people to be able to make sexual comments towards anyone, whereas there is certainly a need for people to feel able to go out in public without jeopardising their mental stability. So I agree with Wilkinson's conclusions. Spock's claim is illogical anyway. And he contradicts himself later on (2).

Naturally I then went on to read Paris Lees' original article, where she asks "I Love Wolf Whistles and Catcalls; Am I a Bad Feminist?" As Wilkinson pointed out, the answer is no, and it's wrong for anyone to suggest so. Lees' article is an interesting read and I found myself agreeing with the vast majority of it because she too recognises that it's the context a sexual comment is made in that distinguishes an ego-boosting compliment from harassment. She quotes The Independent's social media editor Felicity Morse:
"If I'm dressed up in a sexy little something... sashaying down the street... I find a catcall rather appreciative. But if I'm out jogging or running to the bus stop, huddling past a building site in the rain, I find it intrusive."
Lees describes how she loves "catcalls... car toots... random men shouting 'Hello, beautiful!'" but makes a clear statement to men to stop doing things like saying "'I'd like to fuck you up the ass' as you drive past her in the street," because the latter is clearly harassment. Whilst some women - not necessarily only rape survivors - might sometimes feel that what Lees considers "harmless fun" is frightening, I wouldn't call to ban catcalling. Lees poses the question:
"If I smile next time a man wolf-whistles at me, does that make me a bad person? What if the next person he wolf-whistles at is a woman who's been raped? What if he ruins her day?"
Lees spoke to Ellie Mae O'Hagen of The Guardian about where catcalling fits in to the broader picture of sexual violence against women in a patriarchal society. Lees struggles with the idea that there's a connection between catcalling and rape and although I'd agree it's a terrible misnomer to postulate that 'street hecklers' or the 'readers of lads' mags' I do acknowledge it as a piece of that bigger picture that we shouldn't ignore.

Lees' conclusion is that catcalling and harassment are different things but says "I don't want to make other women feel pathetic if they don't enjoy street attention." She states she is a feminist because she doesn't like "men telling me how to think or behave or experience the world, and I don't like women doing it, either." There's a suggestion in her article - from another person, I must add - that how women feel when they are catcalled is a choice. It's a suggestion I have difficulty with. Whilst I'm all for owning your feelings and not seeking to blame others when you've fucked up and feel bad about it, the line between being controversial - which might be seen as offensive by some - and being downright deliberately offensive is often a very fine one indeed.

My own conclusion is this: some women - like Paris Lees - consistently revel in this sort of attention. Others - like Abi Wilkinson, Felicity Morse and me - like it sometimes and not others. Some detest it. Even that which the rest of us might consider relatively harmless might ruin their day. Ruin their life. I think it's important to remember that that's OK. However you feel about - I like Lees' term - "street attention", that's OK. As long as you remember that not everyone feels the same. I think that men who like to catcall need to look at the women they target more closely (yes, I am actually suggesting this). They'd soon see the difference between a woman who is "sashaying", who will probably not mind and might even enjoy such attention and one who is "huddling" and will not.

That said, there is a limit. Whilst a woman might choose to wear a revealing outfit with the purpose of (or not minding) inviting attention. It doesn't give people permission to do anything more than pay her a compliment, even if that comes in the form of a catcall she enjoys. You can look, but you may not touch without permission, not without consent. Women who dress provocatively might be asking for attention but they are not asking for 'it' - that's sexual assault at best, at worst it's rape.


One thing that pisses me off whenever women start talking about things like this is those men (and women) who bring up the 'not all men' issue (3). Yes, WE KNOW. It's often difficult to tell whether those who #notallmen are men who really just mean 'not me' and support feminism or whether they're men who think you're one of 'those feminists' and are the cause of the problem. It's like when anyone brings up domestic abuse - the victims of which are overwhelmingly women - and reminds us that it happens to men too. Yes it does, but the focus on female victims doesn't mean those of us who campaign on the issue are ignorant or dismissive of its male victims... fuck. I'm about to quote Spock again and then remind you that it's not actually a logical argument and comes entirely down to fucking context again....

I have a great deal of respect for the men who do 'get it'. Those who are aware of their male privilege and support feminism. I remember the emotional response I had when I first saw Daniel Craig - who then represented the ultimate symbol of male privilege and misogyny: James Bond - appear in drag in a video created to mark International Women's Day as Judi Dench's voice over reminded us that, even after decades of feminism, women are still very much second-class citizens. That two of them die every every week at the hands of a current or former partner. That's why Domestic Abuse campaigns focus on women; because two women die every week. It is still a very powerful piece:



I like to think that Daniel Craig's participated in this because he's one of those men, as I like to think the men who tweeted the link to that catcalling video are too. In the above film, Judi Dench says to Bond "I wonder if you've ever considered what it might be like to be [a woman]?" Here's another video that shows a man being given the same (albeit uninvited) opportunity and, given that the latter part of this post is about sexual harassment, it seems particularly appropriate to share it here:



I came across this quite by accident when I was doing background research for another post and I find it quite uncomfortable to watch. I mean, I love those arms too but shit, ladies - you ask first (4)! If this were a man grabbing a woman there'd be an outcry, but this sort of thing goes unchallenged. There might well be a twelve-foot high picture of the arms the women admire so in the background but this guy has turned up wearing a long-sleeved shirt. He's not inviting that attention. Arguably, the circumstances of this being an interview which will inevitably raise the subject (although... would it, if they hadn't put that picture in the background?) means I feel it's OK to ask the question. Hell, I'd even accept one of the women seeking permission to dispute his claim that that muscle definition is the result of "a lot of make-up" but they don't. Instead, two of them decide to cut him off mid-sentence and pounce on him like a couple of rabid dogs. Women who behave like this make it really difficult for women like me to speak out against street harassment. There are men who perpetrate it who use this sort of behaviour as justification for what they do - frequently under the #notallmen banner.

At this point, it sort of feels like I'm derailing my own argument by bringing this up, but the point I'm trying to make is that it's not just women who need to speak out about such things. Men do too - and not just to point out that they aren't all perpetrators of harassment or are also victims of it. Those men with good old-fashioned manners - those kind, generous men who are willing to offer help to an evidently needy stranger who might be too shy or too proud to ask for it when they want it - need to remind other men not to worry about how they're going to be perceived. Just as Paris Lees has never come across a woman who appreciated a man describing what sexual acts he'd like to do to her from his moving car, I've never come across anyone who appreciated someone leaving a door to swing back and smack them in the face. Those Men who recognise the difference between a sexually confident woman who actively chooses to display her ample bosom to all and might like you to tell her that you appreciate it, and a woman who dresses and moves in such a way as to draw as little attention as possible to hers, who spends every moment she's out in public praying that you won't say anything. Even - or perhaps especially - if she's the same woman. Those men need to remind other men that they do need to think about how a woman might perceive those actions. It's all about context. I appreciate perhaps this isn't that straightforward, given women's differing attitudes towards and experiences of street attention, or the outdated concept of chivalry becoming confused with what amount to basic manners, but many men do seem to understand this and many of the other issues important to feminism. Does that mean I feel sorry for the men who struggle with it? Hell no!




Footnotes:

(1) Is there seriously anyone reading this who doesn't know that's from Star Trek??

(2) https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2013/09/spocks-illogic-the-needs-of-the-many-outweigh-the-needs-of-the-few/

(3) Here is an excellent explanation of 'not all men' and what it actually means which explains why it's appearance in online dialogue is often confusing for feminists: http://time.com/79357/not-all-men-a-brief-history-of-every-dudes-favorite-argument/

(4) What happens here reminds me a bit of the uninvited bump-touching that pregnant women face. Their growing bump is the equivalent of that twelve-foot high picture, it's presence means it will be noticed, commented on, but touching a woman's bump without permission is also assault. You can buy maternity t-shirts bearing the slogan 'hands off the bump' as a means of preventing this unwanted touching. Maybe someone should start making 'hands off the biceps' t-shirts....

Tuesday, 10 February 2015

Review: 'Hello Herman' (2012)

When I take a liking to an actor who already has an established body of work, I like to go back and watch it. This used to be extremely difficult - not only were you reliant on magazines to find an actor's filmography, the local video shop probably wouldn't have anything older than a couple of years and you would either have to shell out and buy a copy, not knowing whether the film was any good or not, or trawl the Radio Times each week as I did, hoping one of the four (later five) main terrestrial channels would be showing it. These days, you can have an actor's entire filmography in front of you in a matter of seconds and be watching something from it moments later, thanks to "on demand" and streaming services like Netflix. Or you can ask your mate "Nigel (1)". In addition, there's YouTube and other video sharing sites. Sometimes you have to put up with appalling quality, or sound, or watch a film in ten or so separate instalments. Occasionally you come across a good quality one - in full... and have to put up with Spanish subtitles. It was in this latter capacity that I watched 'Hello Herman'.

'Hello Herman' stars The Walking Dead's Norman Reedus. And, I confess, that was my primary motivation for watching it. There's a few things of his I would like to watch, but the vast majority of his back catalogue isn't available through any of the legitimate streaming services I subscribe to. Perhaps due to the fact they are mainly independent films which had a limited enough release when they were new. His appearances in the more mainstream films which are available through those services tend to be brief - sometimes limited to one scene - although I haven't regretted watching any of those films because of that (2).

In 'Hello Herman' he takes a leading role. He plays a journalist, Lax, who is invited by the titular Herman to tell his side of the story: in which he burst into his high school and shot a number of his fellow students. As Lax interviews Herman through his video camera, we are shown a series of flashbacks depicting the events in Herman's life that led up to the shooting and the lengths that it appears Lax is willing to go to for a good story. These little insights raise a lot of questions... and we are given very few answers.

'Hello Herman' garnered some terrible reviews. It's a rotten tomato (3). Most of the bad reviews seem to focus on the fact the film doesn't offer answers to the difficult questions it poses, although even these tend to praise both Reedus' performance and that of Garrett Backstrom, who plays Herman. This is not a negative review. I loved it.

Vanity Fair's Sam Kashner called it "a powerful and important work, a darkly brilliant tone poem about America's tango with violence and fame." Danny Miller of MSN movies described it as "a powerful film that should be required viewing for adolescents everywhere". 'Hello Herman' reminded me of two other equally controversial films - albeit ones with significantly better ratings on the tomato-ometer - which addressed similar subject matters, namely 'We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011) and American History X (1998). I've spent a little time trawling through the reviews for all three and it has struck me that much of the criticism levied at 'Hello Herman' was hurled at these two films as well - that they're just controversial, that they don't really explain the characters' motivations, that they fail to reach any sort of satisfactory conclusion. I think the reviewers who say this have missed the point. The point of films like this, isn't to offer answers - fuck, if a film could offer us the answers to problems like this we'd be laughing! That's not the role of films like this, their job is merely to get us to think about the problem, to ask the questions that we don't dare to, not to provide the answers.

The director of 'Hello Herman', Michelle Danner, responded to its critics on the film's official website, explaining that her motivation for making the film was "to start the conversation". She noted that, after each school shooting that America endures, "nothing changes."

Another film 'Hello Herman' reminded me of was 'Bowling for Columbine' (2002), Michael Moore's compelling documentary about the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. The thing which has stuck with me the most about that film is simple numbers: America has the highest level of gun violence in the world, but likes to blame anything but the prevalence of guns for this. Some recent stories that have resulted in me agreeing with Piers Morgan (4) include:






And in the midst of all this, Donald Trump suggested that the victims of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in France - which has strict gun control - might "have had a fighting chance" if they'd had guns... twat (5).

'Hello Herman' doesn't take an anti-gun stance. It doesn't seek to blame bullying, video games, the Internet or any of the other things that seem to have led up to Herman's violent, fatal outburst. It presents them as pieces of the bigger picture that so many who have seen it and spoken so negatively about it seem to have missed. But, as I said, even they recognised that incredible performance by Norman Reedus.

'Hello Herman' was shot in 2011 whilst Reedus was on a break from filming The Walking Dead. He said that the film's subject matter "struck a chord" with him as the father of a then ten-year-old son. His performance is beautifully understated and naturalistic. Now, I've read an interview in which Reedus implies he took acting lessons before starting work on this film - Michelle Danner is also an acting coach (6). If I hadn't already watched his debut. 'Floating' (1997) earlier in the day, I might have just believed that he did perhaps need them given that, prior to seeing these two films, the only film I'd watched where he'd had anything like that substantial a role was the lamentable 'Messengers 2' (2009) (7). I did have to laugh at one review though. It said "he's given many opportunities to squint and look troubled," which reminded me of something Reedus said himself: "when I first started acting, I was really insecure. I glared at a lot of people... somehow that scowl has turned into an acting career." Start as you mean to go on, they say. If it ain't broke don't fix it, they say. His performance - debut performance - in 'Floating' is similarly understated. It's a lovely little film and, whilst it doesn't have anything new to say about teenage angst that wasn't said in every film about teenage angst that preceded it, it handles the (unsurprising) revelation of one character's homosexuality particularly deftly, with a subtlety that very few of those other films did.

I digress. 'Hello Herman' struck a chord with me. One review I read said it's the sort of film that stays with you and I have been thinking about it pretty much constantly since I saw it. It's not just the subject matter, it's not Norman Reedus' performance - Garrett Backstrom as Herman is simply mesmerising and Michelle Danner's turn as his mother is also very good. The film is set "in the not too distant future" and the interview footage and flashbacks are interspersed with satirical news footage, which reminded me of 'Starship Troopers' (1997), which is also severely misunderstood and lambasted as a result (8). The soundtrack is also rather fabulous, with Olivia Faye's 'You Didn't See Me' and Adam Whittington's 'Make the World Love Again' catchy exit music earworms both conveying the film's anti-bullying message in a sweet, positive way that - perhaps surprisingly - doesn't feel at odds with the otherwise dark tone of the film they close out.

In doing the little bit of background research that I did for this post, I discovered the film was a total box office bomb. That's a shame. I hope it develops a cult following. It might take years for people to properly 'get' it, like it did 'Starship Troopers', but it deserves to. Despite the lack of answers, the anti-bullying message is clear. It's the sort of film that should be shown in schools to make kids think about the potential impact of their behaviour on their peers, but I have a sneaking suspicion the people in charge of deciding such things will decide that it's too violent, too controversial, that our children aren't capable of seeing it as a thinkpiece and will just go out and copy it. Those are probably the same people who blamed Marilyn Manson for Columbine. Manson was asked by Michael Moore what he would say to the Columbine shooters if he had the chance. He said "I wouldn't... I would listen to what they have to say, and that's what no-one did." There's a wonderful sequence in 'Hello Herman' where Herman is describing his favourite film, 'Kids' (1995), to Lax. It was an equally controversial film featuring a group of young people doing the sort of thing parents don't want (or, as Herman points out, don't want to know) their kids do, like have unprotected sex and do drugs. He comments that that's "really what it's like". Lax reminds him the film was set in the 1990s and Herman says that "kids are like that all over... we always do what you think we're incapable of doing until you notice us" - the film's other obvious message is that parent's need to connect with their children. For me, that's not about telling kids what to do, or what not to do. It's about listening to what they have to say. 'Hello Herman' is a film that has something to say and it's definitely worth listening to.




Note:

I don't do star ratings or marks out of ten. I have tried to rate films in this way in the past. I found myself having to go back and change them all the fucking time as I watched ones that eclipsed all those I'd seen previously either in terms of brilliance or sheer fucking awfulness. It now feels wrong to me to compare things that are completely different in terms of tone and content on the same arbitrary sliding scale. Whilst I may draw comparisons to other films I have seen it's solely to point out similarities, not to judge quality.


Footnotes:

(1) Unless you are Nigel... naughty Nigel....

(2) With the exception of Pandorum. It's fucking shit.





(7) I don't mean to be overly critical of Norman Reedus' performance in this film - I'd slap anyone who tried suggest he must've used Cuprinol instead of aftershave - but it's nevertheless an utter turd of a film and his best efforts in its better moments can't stop him being dragged back into the shitty abyss by the next ridiculous scene. It somehow feels horribly disloyal to say that but the other four films I've seen since (including the two I've mentioned above) have proved to me that this was an inexplicable blip on an otherwise impressive CV, which includes his brief turn in '8MM' (1999) where he owns the screen whilst Nicolas Cage just stands there like part of the scenery.

Pontificating Papal Pronouncements

You might well wonder why an atheist like me gives any fucks what the head of the Catholic Church has to say about anything but I actually rather like Pope Francis. Considering he's more-or-less duty bound to adhere to the Churches stance on abortion and gay marriage, he has said that gay people shouldn't be marginalised, that we need to respect the environment, that slavery still exists and needs to be eliminated, he's baptised babies born to unwed mothers and he's supportive of breastfeeding. Most of what he's said or done that I disagree with is in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church and, as much as I do disagree with them (1), I can't really criticise the head of it for following them. However, it really got to me when the news broke that Pope Francis had advocated smacking children - as long as it is done in a "dignified" way.

The story goes that the Pope had heard a father say he "sometimes had to smack [his] children a bit, but never in the face so as not to humiliate them". Reading that, my blood started to boil.

I can't sit here and write that I've never hit my kid. I have. But when I did it was always in anger, unthinking, and immediately regretted. It's the most UNdignified thing I've ever done - and I had at least three complete strangers stick their hands in my vagina when I was giving birth to that kid! Hitting kids is never dignified. It is humiliation.

It's here I turn to those who have helped me learn ways of dealing with my son's "challenging" behaviour without resorting to such methods. Rather than try to re-hash their words, I urge you to read these articles, to read the wealth of research that shows that not only does smacking not work, but that it leads to a whole host of problems further down the line:

Dr. Laura Markham of AHA Parenting - this link takes you to the page that answers the question 'Should I Spank My Child?' (clue: the answer is 'no') but also links you to pages upon on pages of information offering alternatives.

Attachment Parenting International - this page is all about 'Positive' discipline, which is one of the eight principles of 'Attachment' parenting. I try to follow these principles. It isn't always easy, particularly given it's not how either I or my husband were raised, but it works. The "traditional" methods might appear to but, speaking as a very damaged adult who was subjected to them, one who works with other very damaged adults, I can tell you the long-term effects aren't worth it.

Dr William Sears coined the term 'Attachment Parenting', which is based on a theory in developmental psychology which states that the emotional bonds a child forms with its caregivers have long-lasting effects. This link has many articles offering advice on how to deal with children's behaviour and parental anger.

I'll quite happily stand on my soapbox and shower my critics with studies that repeatedly show I, and every proponent of this type of parenting/ discipline is right. Or you can Google it for yourself if you're not a lazy fuckwit.

Many people who advocate for physical punishment as discipline like to quote the Bible - maybe that's why the Pontiff decided to. I hope not. People who use Bible quotes to back up this argument have completely misunderstood what they've read. Crystal Lutton has written an excellent article explaining why the passage they love to cite doesn't mean what they think it means. This is another good article, which reminds us that the English-language Bible has been translated from Hebrew and probably not very well....

The Pope has rightly faced much criticism for his comments. Much of it has come from Catholics - including the Vatican (2). I'll leave you with the words of Peter Saunders, taken from that article. He was abused by a Catholic priest as a teenager. They answer every possible argument for smacking:


"It might start as a light tap, but actually the whole idea about hitting children is about inflicting pain. That's what it's about and there is no place in this day and age for having physical punishment, for inflicting pain, in terms of how you discipline your children."
Amen.




Footnotes:

(1) My feelings on abortion, for example, could form a post on their own. Although it's not something I think I could ever do unless my unborn child proved to be completely non-viable, I believe in bodily autonomy for women and that they are not mere vessels to carry and birth children. Yeah... I might do a post about this.

(2) http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/vaticans-new-abuse-group-says-pope-francis-is-wrong-to-condone-smacking-10031356.html

Thursday, 29 January 2015

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...).

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

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

Tuesday, 20 January 2015

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...


"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 trueI'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....