The Dregs

I'm going to spare a few minutes this morning - while I am coldridden and in a particularly hostile sort of mood - to air some considerations about "Lad Culture".

It worries me somewhat that it is so well known now that it requires its own capitalisation, like a religion or a political party. It is now such a (dare I say it) "popular" "trend" that many lost and intellectually challenged young men seem to have fallen into that I feel it does require its own proper noun.

From what I can tell, the word Lad and the word Lout are interchangeable. In fact it would far more accurately be named Lout Culture if it weren't for the negative undertones the word carries. A Lad is of course a word to indicate a young man - and traditionally was always found in sentences uttered by older people EG "when I was a lad" and "he's only a lad" - a way of indicating ones youth and innocence. I don't honestly believe that the word Lad was ever meant to reference "drunken idiot behaving in traditionally loutish and misogynistic manner".

Of course you don't have to be drunk to be a Lad - indeed the persons in my own office who fall into this woeful category are not always drunks but they do seem to take pride in being always Lads. Lad behaviour may include - though is sadly not limited to - making lascivious comments at young women (and then giggling), singing well known songs from the 80s or 90s, occasionally going to the gym, but for the most part; talking about getting fucked up, actually getting fucked up and (ideally) getting fucked.

It's difficult to see how a culture so devoid of - well - substance became so popular but then I suppose you could ask the same about girls who meet up to discuss their most recent diets and what they intend to wear out tonight. I suppose the only thing that it has going for it - over Lad-Dom - is that it's not quite so fundamentally insulting to men. Lads do seem to spend a disproportionate amount of time working out how to put their bits and pieces inside lady bits and pieces and then (after failing due to being so utterly objectionable as people) talking about what a slut/prude she is (depending on what their success was) with their mates.

That's another worrying factor in itself - their categorisation of women. I'm never sure whether its just the anticipated backlash of men needing to accept women as their equals, but my my they do seem so fond of bringing her down to a selection of body parts that its fit for them to comment upon as if they somehow (as men) have some kind of expertise or qualification in this area. I suppose from their perspective it makes her easier to deal with. If she's a bundle of pleasing (if they like her) or saggy (if they don't) inny and outty bits that surely means that they can continue as the master gender. Also I think it's a little too naive to imagine that something like men's tendency to make known to their mates their opinion about bums and boobies is going to go away, or is even confined to Lad behaviour.

I know on the surface this seems much like a man hating article but it genuinely is not. I do hate Lads though I have to say. I hate people who behave like Lads but more than that I hate people who have adopted the title of Lad because it indicates a desire to be part of this group. I dislike it because the word Lad indicates something so much younger and more innocent and their choosing to use it - to me - seems like they're telling the world "oh but it's just a bit of fun isn't it? Just a few young chaps getting up to mischief". But you're not young - most of you are in your mid-20s and your cloying desire to hang on to your teens is just very unattractive. When I look at a group of these Lads I can genuinely still imagine them all dressed in their school shorts and tie, hanging around the school gate and insulting the girls who walk by - and that all might have been acceptable when you were 14 but now it's just wearing a little thin.

The fact that websites exist (ultimatelad.com, xxx and so forth) which are based around the idea of celebrating Lad behaviour is an equally worrying concern. Perhaps even more concerning is that there genuinely does seem to be a hierarchy of Lads which is entirely dependant on what extremes you're prepared to go you in the traditional lad activities of "drinking", "womanising" and "general idiocy".

I just feel like its all the things about men that I like the least rolled up into a little bundle and given a title - and it seemed like it used to be that guys were not quite so keen to tumble into this category - like they might at least like to maintain appearances, even if their private lives were very different. The fact that it is practically fashionable to behave this way and even considered effeminate or just plain boring not to is rather sad.

In my own personal experience, what's saddest of all is that I genuinely used to believe that all people were individuals and capable of rising to higher things - and this descent of young men into Lad behaviour seems totally contradictory to that ideal. The more I try and get to know them the more I realise what a thankless task that is - as if I show any level of respect or interest in their lives I know that I cannot expect to receive the same in return - and the best I can hope to receive is some kind of listing in their "Top 5".

Anyway I'm done now. Really must try to stop being so angry about everything.

Revival

Ok - so it seems it's been a long time since I've had something to say about anything. I say "seems like" because it's not actually true, it's just sometimes I bury myself so deep in thought that I literally get a form of brain constipation. Others might call it writer's block - but I think I don't write because sometimes the threads run a little too far beneath the surface.

What I've decided to try and do is just to write anyway, in the understanding that - naturally - not everything that comes out is going to be gold, not everything that comes out will be interesting - but at least it will be out. This post is a good example. It's not a work of genius but all of it probably does need to be said.

The biggest problem with public blogging is the "public" element. I've reinvigorated my private diary as well - which gives me space where I can air my views about my nearest and dearest without fear of reprisals. I've also thought about having a completely public candid blog and just not telling anyone about it, but there's always some danger there that one day you'll be caught out, then the fact that you've been bonking the hot Spanish cleaner over the boss's desk suddenly comes out and you're in big, big trouble.

Therefore this blog is more of a thoughts and insights blog rather than a full display of my innermost. To be honest - for a full display of my innermost a couple of glasses of pinot grigio down the pub on a Friday night and it's basically up for grabs in any case. I am not a particularly private person when all's said and done - and what I keep private I do because of the discomfort that oversharing causes others, and not because of the discomfort it causes me personally. Most of what I've learned in my life has been through conversations with equally candid people, and though I haven't always walked away from them feeling like I've learned something positive, I always feel like I know something about the human condition.

Oversharing is a menace - and I've seen it undo the very best of us. Prime example - when I met an ex boyfriend's work friends at a Christmas party I found out how much they knew about my sex life through conversations they had had with said ex boyfriend. I couldn't be mad at him though - I had always been equally candid, but when I realised that activities I had engaged in were not so much a matter for people to consider in an "isn't the nature of human sexuality fascinating" way, as in an "OMG, you did WHAT? That's fucking DISGUSTING" kind of way.

I'm not about to write a list here of all the things I've done with boys, but suffice to say I don't regret any of it. In fact I enjoyed most of it - and the rest of it was at the very least interesting.

So anyway, after that (and a couple of similar sorts of misadventures) I finally stopped being candid about that sort of thing and reserved it just for my private diary which I think perhaps 3 other humans worldwide can see. Clearly, the world is not yet ready to discuss the ins and outs of sex in a frank and honest way. I think the majority of people literally just don't want to know - which I suppose is fair - I don't watch horror movies because I have no desire to see intestines all over the place, and I think some people avoid sexuality for the same reason - out of a sense of discomfort, and a general overall feeling that some things were meant to be kept private.

I honestly don't know when this post became a rant about sexuality - but apparently it has.

I might wait a little longer before going back to putting this blog on Facebook. I haven't updated it since May 2011 so I'd be surprised if anyone looks at it, but I have felt a little better since I started to clear things out a bit. I guess there's a reason that therapists tell patients to keep a diary.

Not that I'm crazy, or anything.

J
xx

Don't Go There Girlfriend

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/06/slutwalking-policeman-talk-clothing

Poor old Police Officer Michael Sanguinitti. One minute a mild mannered policeman giving a talk about personal safety that he’s probably given 100 times before, the next thing he’s a hate figure for women in provocative clothing all across the other side of the pond.

I have to admit when I first saw this article I was really quite angry – but surprisingly not at Sanguinitti. I was angry at the women in these pictures who claim to speak for women in provocative clothing everywhere. The fact that we called it “provocative” clothing at all is a misnomer in itself as it suggests that provocation is the chief aim of wearing it at all. I had to sit and read the article a couple of times to digest it all and start understanding the cause, and while I am not exactly jumping through hoops that women in fishnets are taking to the street to talk about women’s rights when it comes to rape cases, there are several points to take away from this.

Firstly it’s to not get this cause confused with the reasons why women wear this type of clothing. Getting into that subject opens a whole can of worms and though I may touch upon it, as it is in some ways relevant, it’s important to be aware that women are not going on SlutWalks to complain about men leaning out of white vans, honking on horns or yelling salacious remarks at them. Women are going on SlutWalks because of prevailing attitudes that wearing short skirts and having cleavage on show increases the level of blame that can be ascribed a woman in a rape case.

"You know, I think we're beating around the bush here. I've been told I'm not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised."

This is what Sanguinitti said.

The thing is that rape doesn’t happen because a girl walks about the house in a small amount of clothing – rape happens because of opportunity. Women could waltz around naked all day if there were robot guards on every street corner to prevent them from being attacked – but there aren’t and consequently women need to be careful and not take unnecessary risks. This doesn’t just apply to women in short skirts, this applies to women everywhere, and a woman alone in a dangerous place, especially at night, is a very likely target for a rape incident, whatever she was wearing.

One of the main problems in rape cases seems to be this confusion in several areas – firstly that small clothing means you are looking for a sexual encounter, secondly that if a sexual encounter were to present itself, a woman in small clothing would be more likely to go along with it. Rape is and always will be non consensual – it’s a demonstration of power and violation over a weaker entity – and the chief reason why it happens is because the weaker entity was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If blame is to be given to a woman over a rape incident then it should be because she was in an area that she knew was dangerous, unchaperoned and vulnerable as a result of actions that she took. Whether this was drinking, or the refusal to get a taxi which would have taken her to own door. And even then – even after taking these factors into account – the chief responsibility for the attack lies with the perpetrator and not with the victim. Reducing the responsibility of the attacker due to a short skirt is surely – as the SlutWalkers have pointed out – a sign that we continue to live in a patriarchal society with laws that are written and then enforced by men.

There’s more to this than meets the eye though.

One of my initial reactions was that I was really surprised that the women themselves were calling these “Slutwalks”. I mean – why? By doing so they were labelling themselves by an extremely derogatory term which is normally thrown at them by men. I didn’t feel that calling themselves sluts they were doing anything at all to help their cause. If anything, they were enforcing the view that the marchers – many of whom have dressed in small clothes to emphasise their point – were sluts, and that in fact all women who wear small clothes are sluts by extension.

As a side note, I’m a staunch advocate of the view that what you wear should not be held as a statement of who you are. Fashions come, fashions go, different shapes of figure require different styles to best emphasise them, and wearing a short skirt doesn’t make you a slut. It’s our behaviour that dictates who we are – not even the things that we say or think – but the things that we do. Politicians the world over perpetrate lies on a daily basis, they make promises that they don’t keep, they tell us that they will fight the triplication of student fees, they say that there are WMDs floating around Arab countries when actually there aren’t. Never judge a leader, a government, a manager, friend, colleague or loved one by the things they say and the promises they make, judge them by the things they do and the actions that they take. My point is – wearing small clothes does not make you a slut. Furthermore, before women can ask for the right for men to stop calling them sluts, they need to change their own gender views and stop calling each other sluts.

I did wonder whether the SlutWalks could really be the beginning of something, but something other than the fight to change opinions about rape. I wonder whether it’s the beginning of women finally taking possession of the word “slut”. If women could stop attacking each other for their sexual attitudes, stop the use terms like “frigid” and “loose”, all of which are words women are just as inclined to use to describe each other as they are to have slung at them in a drunken drawl in a bar on a Friday night.

Then again I do wonder at the efficacy of any campaign where the focus could very easily be mistaken as “I’m going to dress in small clothes and march through the middle of a city so that everyone can see,” and also, “I’m a young women with a sign saying “Sluts say Yes!” Please take my cause seriously!” If the women of the world are going to make a stand about their right to wear what they want without fear of judgement or recrimination, I don’t think this is the best way of doing it. While the majority of women won’t like being associated with something called a slutwalk, I can’t imagine that the men either are going to be focussed enough on the message as much as the choices of apparel some of these girls are wearing.

Sad, really.

Dude, Where's My Car?

I didn't realise before I sat down to watch Dude, Where's My Car? all of the similarities I would be able to draw between it and old 90s movies such as Bill and Ted and Wayne's World.

Part of me can't believe how long it's taken for me to see this movie. It's one of those where you've probably heard all of the major quotes from it if you've never seen it before. The fact that it's got "dude" in the title sort of gives away the theme - so if you sit down to watch the movie and complain afterwards that you had no idea that it was going to be an hour and a half of pointless jokes about blow jobs and weed - then you really can't say you didn't have fair warning.

Featuring Ashton Kutcher (That 70s Show, The Butterfly Effect) as Jesse and Sean William Scott (American Pie, Role Models) as Chester, Dude tells an extremely bizarre tale of two stoners trying to remember what they did the night before. There are parallels, plot wise, between this film and the more recent The Hangover - though the latter of these was better written and executed. Then again, Dude doesn't try very hard - most of the gags are very simple, their targeted audience is predominantly males twixt the ages of 12 and 25 - and it doesn't try too hard to be clever. Problem is, this means that unlike The Hangover, which could appeal to a much wider audience, Dude only works on one level - and unlike Waynes World and Bill and Ted, doesn't win any prizes for originality or glean any bonuses for nostalgia.

In essence, the plot circles around two young men, unsurprisingly, looking for a lost car with no memory of how they lost it in the first place. After run ins with some surprising characters and the plot taking a seemingly pointless turn into light science fiction - you get to the end of the movie really wondering what on earth the point was. There are only a couple of really good quotables - and though Scott and Kutcher do a valiant job in maintaining the good natured idiocy that Keanu Reeves and Mike Myers brought to their similar characters, these good points are not enough to make up for the weaknesses in the script and the fact that the movie doesn't quite work as either a sci fi comedy like Bill & Ted, or as a gross out comedy such as American Pie.

A fairly poor 2 stars out of 5, I'm afraid.
Bogus.
**

Film Frolics

I've seen a lot of films lately. Here are some of the highlights and lowlights.

1) Fantastic Mr. Fox

Let's start at the top. I wasn't quite sure what to expect from a movie based around one of Roald Dahl's books. Nothing I've seen to date can compare remotely with the humour and rather dark overtones of Dahl's books. There was always something of the fairytale in them - and when I say fairytale I mean those of the Grimm variety where the baddies got their comeuppance in the end and no ending involved a Disney cliche where the characters solved their differences and the evil witch lived out the rest of her days as a fluffy bunny rabbit.

Let's review; George's Marvellous Medicine? Evil granny gets so small that she disappears. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? The other children end up stretched and distorted out of proportion for their bad behaviour. The BFG? The giants are thrown into a pit and forced to eat the most disgusting vegetable imaginable for the rest of their lives. Quite a few of Dahl's villains met grizzly ends, and while he wrote the books for children, quite a few of them, such as Matilda and James and the Giant Peach, actually had some quite mature ideas in them that only an adult could understand. The man was, let's be fair to him, quite the literary genius in some areas.

Therefore when I realised that Fantastic Mr Fox wasn't simply going to be a rehash of the plot told by puppets, I as really pleasantly surprised. The dialogue is excellent and flows incredibly naturally. The characters are strangely realistic, despite the fact that you're constantly aware that the animation isn't by any means smooth. George Clooney and Meryl Streep do themselves credit with their renditions, breathing life into the puppets and making them strangely believable to the point that some moments in the movie are peculiarly moving. Fantastic Mr Fox doesn't, perhaps, capture the kind of darkness that Dahl sewed into his work, but is instead mature in an entirely different but no less appealing way. The supporting cast are very good, and the way that the puppets move is endearing, made even more so by the jangly banjo music that makes up most of the soundtrack.

I will say that the plot does err on the side of Hollywood once it runs out of story from Dahl's book. It was, after all, not a long novel, and doesn't an especially climactic ending. Any negativity I might have felt towards moving away from the original story was utterly eclipsed by the remarkable realness of the relationship between Mr and Mrs Fox, brought to life through their respective voice actors and a clearly competent writer. It's quite remarkable the depth of the relationship created between these two little puppets in just a few short scenes.

Go. Go go go.

2) Up

I first heard about this film when Gareth reported to me that he would "never get back" the two hours he spent watching it. Having heard better reviews from other friends, I saw it last weekend, and can appreciate a little of the sentiment from both sides.

The introduction to this movie is both surprising and moving. I won't spoil it, but I will say it was my personal highlight from the movie, despite the fact that it did make me smudge my eye make up a little bit. This movie is underpinned by a sad event that never really allows you to forget it. Which I think is actually the point, which is why it's so clever. The lead character - a bitter and woe begotten senior called Carl - carries his sorrows around with him, both physically and mentally. The symbolism here is apparent from the word go - you'll see what I mean if you see the film. Everything else that goes on - and I do mean everything - seems utterly superlative in comparison to the level of sympathy that you feel towards this otherwise fairly unlikeable character.

As with all Disney films, the thing is rife with moral philosophy and it's impossible to avoid. Other than this though, what frustrated me most was the real lack of thought given to the film's other characters. With the exception of Russel - who is largely there to, in his youthful naivity, teach the most important lesson of all - the bad guy and his rag tag "henchmen" who are supposed to act as the comedy relief (though I was by no means relieved) were not thought out thoroughly and therefore not truly realised. This is sad because over the years Disney has produced some amazing villains - Scar, Jafar, Ursula to name some of my personal favourites - and this is far below their usual standard.

It's a shame because if these side elements had been better it would have created a far more rounded experience, instead of the film having highs and lows. Profoundly moving in places, but feels somehow unfinished, like something that should have been a short, but was filled in with fluff to make it last 1 and a half hours.

3) Changeling

This one I watched on Sky Movies on my XBox - I've seen quite a few movies of late this way - it's marvellous.

This is heavy material. I already knew the twist to this movie before I started watching it, and it surprised me how long it was. Angelina gives a strong performance - in fact - the whole cast was not found wanting - the plot was believable in an occasionally surreal way, but the storyline was so harrowing in places as to almost make it difficult to watch.

It's interesting that I'm having trouble writing this review. I don't know whether that's because the movie left a bad taste in my mouth, or because I didn't relate to the characters. The whole thing was good - it was well made, it was well put together, but somehow everything was a little over the top. The number of disturbing events that occur in this movie are high - things have this way of going from bad to worse and there never seems to be a moment in the film when somebody isn't crying or shouting at someone else.

It was like being on an evening out with a couple you've known for a long time who are coming to the natural end of their relationship but don't really know it yet.

There's all this arguing; crossed words and asides where they subtly undermine each other, then they argue, then one of them walks off and has to calm down, then they spend the rest of the evening not talking to each other... I've taken this image far too far, but the point I'm trying to make is that it is that level of discomfort I felt sitting through this movie. It gave you a thorough sense of hopelessness that never really abated until the end credits finally rolled.

4) The Duchess

A good though not excellent bodice-ripper. I've wanted to see this movie for ages, as I like Keira Knightley as an actress, even if there is a small part of me that wants to pin her down and forcefeed her McDonalds cheeseburgers. Keira somehow always gives a bit more believability to characters in formal attire as she's remarkably natural even if the dialogue is wooden.

Ralph Fiennes plays an excellent bastard in this movie, and the fact that it ends without you thinking he's still an enormous tool is credit to an already highly decorated actor. The costumes and general feel of the movie are well put-together - indeed - even when a film is let down by it's dialogue or poor chemistry, the costumes are usually well put together, as though the designers have more passion for the period than the director does for his own movie.

What it lacked, however, was believability. It's interesting that I bring that word up both in this review and the one for Changeling as both of these movies are based around real events, but for some reason that doesn't make them more real. The people in it don't feel as human as they should, they feel too assembled, painted pulled and plucked. Maybe these directors have simply tried to squeeze too much drama into these movies. In one sense the plot was excellent - the ball was constantly rolling, events were consistently moving, the scenes were interesting and diverse, and yet I found something wanting because for all of this, the events felt too much like a creative writing piece written for GCSE english. Too much action, too much drama, too many tears and too much screaming. Are they really trying to tell us that every meaningful female protagonist in history dealt with her problems by stomping her foot, shouting and slamming her bedroom door?

Too much melodrama, not enough reality. I enjoyed it for it's over the top dramatic side, but I didn't find it believable. I just wanted to see some real people.

Maybe, baby

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5201695/First-TV-commercial-for-morning-after-pill-will-increase-teenage-promiscuity.html

Assuming that statistics aren't the enormous lie that most people perpetrate them to be, we have to summise that underage pregnancy in the UK is a big problem. You've heard the most of my views before regarding this; but summed up, I have come to the uncomfortable conclusion based on abortion statistics that too many women are using them as a form of contraception. People become careless, they forget their pill, they neglect to use a condom, but instead of worrying about the consequences, they say; "Nevermind".

It therefore surprises me to some extent that Ann Widdecombe is taking such issue with these advertisements for the morning after pill. We have to take it as read that drunken mishaps and carelessness will unfortunately occur from time to time, and it is much wiser to have a safety net that can be applied the following day, before any serious damage has been done. What I think the problem with Widdecombe's argument is, is that she is confusing the issue of lowering teenage pregnancy with lowering the number indulging in underage sex.

"Overage sex" as I suppose it might be called, or more specifically, "sexual intercourse over and above and age of consent" is not illegal, and it's not something Widdecombe has the right to badger young people about. According to UK law, once we are 16 and above it is the individual's choice whether they engage in sex. Widdecombe's chief objection appears to be that young people will see the advertisements, and conclude that it is now ok for them to have sex. This seems an illogical standpoint - after all, we advertise condoms after the watershed - does that encourage underage sex? Furthermore, there are multiple "ads" regarding the danger of STIs, which surely affect the more sensible of us. The advert for the morning after pill is not suggesting that individuals shouldn't use a condom, but is informing them that they can buy the pill over the counter and save themselves a lot of grief and embarrassment. If people are still determined to have unprotected sex despite the numerous warnings of STIs, then I think it will be difficult to find another way to get through to them, and at least this way we can stop people who are evidently too irresponsible to protect themselves from bringing another life into the world that they are ill-prepared to care for.

J
xx

I whine, You whine, Everybody whines

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/30/beauty-pageant-women

First, read this link.

When I originally read the title, I felt elated; finally someone who agreed with me that mysogyny is still rife in almost all forms of media, finally a discussion where someone else complains that they're tired of hearing gag after gag insulting women on baseless stereotypes for cheap laughs.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed when I found out Ms Gold was actually referring to Beauty Pageants. I wasn't even aware that these are ironic, to be honest. Not only that I was under the impression that they are voluntary and not actually that widely publicised. In fact, I can't seem to recall ever in living memory knowing when the Miss Great Britain competition was held.

I can't help but wonder why Tanya gives a damn why a collection of beanpole girls want to strut up and down a stage in front of an ugly and insulting man. No one's asking her to take her clothes off (thank God) and while I'm sure her answers to the pageant questions would ultimately be more inciteful and grammatically correct, her being not-terribly-attractive and weighing twice as much as the other contestants might rather stand in the way of her prevailing in a beauty pageant.

Maybe this all sounds a little cruel but I just don't really understand what part it is about this antiquated ritual that bothers her enough to write a column about it. It's tabloid fluff, like Big Brother, like Posh and Becks, like celebrity pregnancies. The only people who care about who wins are the women as stupid as those competing. Let's be honest, if these girls are having a hard time speaking their "brians" and they're happy miserably counting calories and starving themselves then I figure a beauty pageant is the best place for them.

Firstly; it gives our footballers someone to invite to the FIFA Christmas party.
Secondly; we know where they all are so we can avoid their retarded antics.
Thirdly; if we ever get sick of the whole affair we know when and where to drop the napalm.

I hate to say it, but I think this article is just proof again that women's worst enemies are themselves. It's not okay according to Tanya Gold to be just judged for your beauty, even if it's the only thing you've got going for you, no, you have to be judged on your intellect instead because that's an altogether fairer system. It's easy to see why Tanya would prefer the smarts test over the looks test, though currently I'd say her chances aren't looking good in either category.