The Paradox of Problems

Because My Life is Obviously So Difficult

"A pastor I know, who gets a more privileged vista of human suffering than I do, told me she was sick of the phrase “first-world problems” — not just because it delegitimizes the perfectly real problems of those of us lucky enough to have enough to eat and Internet access, but because it denies the same stupid trivial human worries to people who aren’t. Are you not entitled to existential angst or tedium vitae if you live in Chad — must you always nobly suffer traditional third-world problems like malaria and coups d’état? If we’re lucky, we graduate to increasingly complex and better problems, and once all our material needs are satisfied we get to confront the insoluble problem of being a person in the world." Tim Kreider, The Feast of Pain

And isn't he absolutely right?

Let us consider, for a moment, an example completely other to that that Kreider suggests. Consider, perhaps, being an adult looking down on a teenager. I've spoken before on how adults have a tendency to dismiss perfectly legitimate actions on a younger persons behalf because they know that in the grand scheme of things, these actions will be short lived - despite the fact that those things mean a great deal to the person at that time. It's exactly the same with problems.

Whenever a teenager mentions that they feel overburdened with their workload, or that they are struggling to befriend their peers, they do not like their teachers, they have money issues, none of their clothes fit, none of their clothes are deemed "cool"...whatever the problem and whatever the severity is - either to the person in their world, or to the rest of the world - grown ups find it very easy to dismiss this.

And yes, perhaps in the grander scale of life, the problems grown ups have are more difficult. If you're overburdened with your load of homework - well, an adult likely has the twice the amount you have due for a deadline which cannot be compromised. Maybe your peers look down on you - but an adult's life is more difficult because their boss not only treats them like muck, but also has the power to get them fired if they so much as speak out of line.

But, does that make the problems they have any less? If a baby is hungry and crying because of that, we feed it ourselves - we do not leave it and expect it to get its own food. Not so for an adult. If an adult is hungry, then they can either wait, or they are expected to make or pay for their own meal. We do not apply the same rules adults abide to, to babies, and just like that we should not do so to teenagers.

A teenager's problems may seems small in comparison to an adults, but in comparison to their world - a shorter timeframe, a smaller scope - their problems might not only seem bigger, but be much more difficult for them to conquer. It's easy for adults to assume your problems are easy to solve because with their plethora of life experience they have probably faced your problems before, and worked them out. But you are solving them for the first time, and you don't know the ins and outs that you will need to walk to reach the summit.

And just like the way adults assume that a teenager's life is ignorant bliss, so too can life be difficult for those who live in relative comfort. That doesn't mean she shouldn't feel a thousand times grateful for everything we have that most do not - but it does mean that the next time someone tells you that what you feel and the problems you have don't matter - because theirs or someone else's are greater...then you have my permission to read them this blog post aloud (and do a sassy "Z" clicky thing that I don't know the name of.)

Bella

Why Selfies are Great!

From a Nerdy Girl

Selfies are insanely big at the moment (they're in the OED!), and are almost exclusively critiscised for being narcissistic and egotistical. I want to explain why I think that is wrong, why that isn't necessarily a bad thing, and a few other reasons why you should definitely be taking selfies.

Let's start at the heart of what a selfie is. It's essentially a way to capture who you are, an impression of yourself in a particular moment to preserve that moment for more time. And it's nothing new. People have made impressions of themselves in this way since the dawn of time - we've drawn ourselves on cave walls, we've painted portraits of ourselves. The difference now, with the modern day selfies, is that it is available to pretty much everybody. Whilst once, you had to be insanely rich (think of Kings and Queens through history) to get a portrait painted of you, nowadays many people own mobile phones with cameras installed inside of them. Whilst once, the only recognised artists who painted themselves were male, selfies are indiscriminate of gender, with boys, girls and trans* people able to take them and get themselves represented. And whilst once, not so very long ago, the only photos in media were of a certain body type which the majority of the population had no chance in attaining, selfies are taken by people of every kind of body type and this allows us to recognise a million and one different types of beauty. And recognising that other types of beauty other than what the media portrays exist in other people, could potentially allow people to realise that they too have beauty of their own kind.

Unflattering Selfies

We can also take unflattering selfies, selfies of ourselves in our big hoodies and pyjama bottoms, pictures of ourselves doing boring things or very unsexy things - because beauty does not define us and we are under no obligation to always look flattering when we post a picture of ourselves. We - us, the person - should be enough, although obviously posting pictures when we feel fabulous can also be great!

Grumpy Selfie

Pictures essentially, show people who we are. Instead of letting other people take pictures of you, the selfie allows you control the way in which the world views you by taking your own picture. In this way, you can decide what angle to take the photo at, the lighting, the scenery, the filters and anyone else in the picture. It is a powerful way of defining yourself as a person, instead of letting other people define you. It must be said that in no way, how you defines you completely as a person. But selfies allow us to define ourselves a little more than we might otherwise be able to. Selfies can be taken while you do things that you love, you can take selfies where instead of smiling you show a facial expression and can share how you are feeling.

But are they narcissistic? Arguably, they are more narcissistic than society would like us to be. Society pressures people to constantly hate themselves, how they look - and even if they don't, they should pretend to. It is perfectly acceptable to comment on how pretty someone else is - but the second we admit that we have even the tiniest amount of beauty, it becomes self-centred and vain.

And society has done a pretty good job of ensuring people feel uncomfortable with how they look. 91% of women dislike their bodies, with 97% of women having an "I hate my body moment" daily. 43% of men have body insecurities, and 38% of men would exchange a year of their life for the ideal body. If that isn't a society in need of a little body loving, and narcissism and essentially recognizing their own beauty, well, then, I don't know what is.

And today, just for once, I'm signing off with a selfie. Technically it's a selfie of me taking a selfie. Selfie-fucking-ception. Lots of love, little peeps
Bella

Feminist or Humanist?

Dear Carrie Hope Fletcher

You said that you were not a feminist, and at first I was very upset, because usually I think you are a great role model and I didn't understand why you wouldn't want to be. Why would anyone not want to support the social, political and economic equality of the genders? And then I realised that, despite that being the most common definition, most people tend to think feminism is something worse - the media portrays feminists as gangs of hooligans who throw burning bras at men, or something equally as insane. You also essentially defined yourself as equalist, or humanist, and I was wondering if this conversation I had a few days ago, might help explain where I think the difference is?

Two days ago I commented on a Laci Green video about why I was a feminist.

"I'm a feminist for a million and one reasons, but it all boils down to the fact I know that women are people."

And immediately somebody responded:

" you dont have to be a feminist to think Girls or womens are people. and allot of feminist got this dubel standard how Girls are victims and men are the oppressors"

I decided to continue talking to this person, because I thought that debate is always good, right? I quite strongly disagreed, but like with you, I understand the cause for confusion. Many people do seem to believe that feminists are "man hating" which is where I think this person was coming from. I explain briefly how the patriarchy has negative effects on men, here, if you are interested.

"I completely disagree. All feminism really is, is moving towards the social, political and economic equality of the genders. It's not about labelling women as victims - although to be honest, they often are the ones being oppressed - and if you believe that women deserve the same rights as men, then you're a feminist. Otherwise, you're sexist."

I do realise now that the last part of that comment comes across as very bigoted, but what I was trying to convey was that if you believe in feminism, which I had already defined as the "social, political and economic equality of the genders" you aren't sexist, but if you do not believe that the genders should be socially, politically and economically equal then you are. And I stand by the point I tried to make if not the original post. The person replied as such:

"here we go again you are pulling the victim card .: im not a feminist and im not a sexist but fore you to say i have to be a feminist to believe in equality is bullshit i'm a humanist not a feminist get your facts straight"

At first I was a little thrown by the other person defining themselves as humanist as whilst I knew quite a bit about equalist and feminist, I needed to check my facts about humanism. So I did, and this is what I found out. I think, as you seem to have ideas similar to humanism and equalism, that it might be worth reading into this as well, but I briefly summarise it here.

"Firstly, where did I "pull the victim card"? I did mention that women are often oppressed, and I stand by that. It's not pulling a victim card to say that about one in four women will be sexually assaulted, that one in three women will be abused in a relationship, et cetera. I too, identify as a humanist. It is perfectly possible to identify as both. Most feminists do, and it is very difficult to be humanist and believe in equality, and to not be feminist and include women in that equality. Feminism is only different as, because of the fact that society is mostly patriarchal feminism has to have a clear agenda - unless misogyny is directly addressed an acted against then equalist and humanist activism will not be enough."

The other person commenting did not seem to take my point well - and seemed to believe that I insinuated that only women are victimised. And I agree, yes, horrible things happen to other people, but it does not take a lot of study of statistics, of stories, of looking at the world around; to realise that the patriarchy does exist and that life is often made more difficult for you as a woman. You can be humanist and say you want equal rights for all, certainly, but to do that you need to support those who are oppressed and that is where feminism comes in, supporting women so we can reach equality.

if you wanna take up oppressed so will i. girls get 50% less in jail for the same crime.              one of four men get false rape accused who can ruin a Life.    in child support the favor the woman over the man 100%.              all this things i said now feminist don't give a shit about ..           so dont tell me the got a angel agenda when they ignore this

This person helpfully provided me with some examples of how other people are oppressed, but as I said, that doesn't show that women are not oppressed. And he said that "feminist don't give a shit about" these issues - a) actually, feminism reaches far further than many would expect. For instance, male rape is a big issue for activism by feminists, and things like that. Feminism is about equality of the genders, and about not letting the patriarchy hurt people - including men and trans* people. b) there are issues that feminists don't necessarily actively campaign for as a group, which is why many feminists are equalists and humanists also, they just recognise that to be a feminist you support the equality of the genders and to be humanist you support other forms of equality. Subscribing to one does not stop you from being the other. I finally replied with this and decided to leave the conversation before it descended into hate.

When since did saying that some women are oppressed, imply that no one else is oppressed at all? And actually, approximately 2% of rape accusations transpire to be false.

I'm not accusing you of being a bad person, but perhaps this post might have informed you into why you should reconsider not being a feminist? All being a feminist means is supporting the social, economic and political equality of the genders, and well - I'm pretty sure that is something we should all support.

Bella

On Trichotillomania

And Why I Currently Have No Eyebrows

I have trichotollomania, or "trich" for short. It's an obsessive condition, which varies greatly in intensity - but no one really seems to know what it is. So, I'm going to talk about what it is, why people have it, my personal coping mechanisms, what it's like to live with "trich" and beg that somebody explain how to fill in eyebrows while I grow mine back.

First off, you're going to be nice and ignore the rubbish and pretentious picture (it turns out that being attractive or sexy really isn't my thing) and also not mock me for experimenting with black lipstick. It makes me happy, okay.

And now we discuss what "trich" really is. Trichotillomania also goes by trichotillosis and hair pulling disorder, and is the compulsive urge to pull out (and sometimes eat) your own hair, leading to noticeable hair loss, distress, social or functional impairment. My personally "pulling patches" are the crown of my head, my eyebrows, my nasal hair and occasionally my pubic hair and eyelashes. Other common areas for other sufferers include legs, arms and hands. It is an impulse control disorder and is very difficult to treat. Although anyone can be a trichotillomaniac, most people develop it between the ages of nine and thirteen. I personally started pulling at my eyelashes when I was around eleven, and I began pulling at my hair when I was in year eight, after I lost some hair due to a head wound. Only recently have I begun to obsessively pull my eyebrows (which used to be really full) and my pubic hair. It may be triggered by depression or stress, and due to social implications mostly goes unreported. It is more common in women than men. Some people with trich pull large handfuls at a time, whilst others pull strand by strand. Some inspect the strand, and about half the people with the condition put the strand in their mouths. Some people are aware of their pulling, others have virtually no idea that they are doing it until it is too late.

One of the hardest things about living with trich is the reactions you get. If a character in a book or film is pulling out their own hair, chances are that they are in a rage, and they are probably not a very nice character, either. From my own experience, people can't understand why you might pull out your own hair, and they wonder why you don't just stop. They don't understand how overwhelming the urge to pull is. If I'm on my laptop and I'm not typing quickly (like I'm doing now) then I'm pulling at my hair. Even if my hands are occupied - say I'm holding a pencil - I subconsciously run it through my hair and over my scalp. I have other compulsive habits, such as nail biting and chewing the little lumps inside my lips. When forced to stop, my hands run anxiously around each other and I often begin pinching knuckles, I fight so hard to not pull.

Why don't I just stop? It's obsessive. It can be linked to depression, anxiety or obsessive compulsive disorder - but the fact remains that it is actually a part of my brain chemistry. It's like turning a straight person to turn gay, or vice versa.

The stigma attached to hair pulling is often more difficult than the trichotillomania itself. It's embarrassing to have no eyebrows, I feel ashamed at my lack of self control. Mostly, though, it's concern over what others will think that causes these emotions. And it's so hurtful to assume that I have a choice in the matter. I look in a mirror and I examine my patchy eyebrows, in the fashion shots I took here I had to edit my parting because it got significantly wider where I pulled. I'm scared to upload this post, because I'm scared you'll think I'm insane and never read again. I'm scared. Why don't I stop? I can't. As if I could. As if I want this.

I personally don't pull enough from my scalp to wear a wig, but I do have other ways to hide things. For instance, after I pulled out my eyebrows pretty badly, I used my fringe to cover one and because I couldn't hide both, I wore a massive bow in my hair to distract attention. I'm considering cutting in a full fringe, just so that I can hide both eyebrows at once, but to be that feels like giving in. I also have coping mechanisms.

I didn't start this blog to combat trichotillomania (I don't think I knew what it was when I started blogging) but typing long posts very quickly in between work has been helpful because unlike writing, typing uses both hands. I also doodle. I have always been a doodler, but now I make sure I carry a sketch pad to class so that I can utilise paper immediately, without mucking up my Geography notes or whatever. I've moved the tweezers from by my bed, because I've found that I absent mindedly use them to pull at my eyebrows, but it's more difficult to stop head hair pulling because you use your fingers for that one. Sometimes, if it is really bad, I paint my nails. This not only takes up both of my hands to do, but also, I have to sit while they dry so that I don't get nail paint in my hair. If it's really bad, do another coat, or some nail art. It helps me, a little.

I don't think this post is very coherent. It probably isn't easy to read. It was horrific to write, and I don't have it in me to go back and ensure what I said make sense.

Goodbye for now, please don't leave me. I try not to be crazy.

Bella xx
(oh god, you have no idea how scared I am now)

Rape Culture and Films

Some Startling Examples

I've spoken about rape culture before, and I've also touched on victim blaming - but I haven't really spoken all that much about how enforced rape culture is into our society. I thought, because there are so many places this occurs, I would split this up into films and books, also potentially songs as a separate post too.

I remembered just how rape-ey, lots of films are when I watched this video; and although it quickly descends into a piss-take and uses lots of made up lines that could endorse rape culture in Grease  after the beginning, it also shows just how messed up a genuine line from the film Grease is - "Did she put up a fight?" - you can watch the original song here, with the line still in.

Grease was released in 1978, and so, granted, it isn't the most modern example. But - Grease is a time honoured favourite - almost everybody I know, at least, has watched Grease. Most of them grew up watching Grease. And it's only when we're older that we realise things like this. It's like when you rewatch your favourite childhood show and realise all of the dirty jokes that were embedded in it. You only notice after you've been exposed.

So, let's all take a minute, and vow to ourselves that we will be on the look out for rape culture in films, and will seize the opportunity to expose it - because just because we've been exposed to it all doesn't mean other people can't experience things for the first time and work out how screwed up some of these things are.

It's no secret that I love the film "The Breakfast Club", and for a while I completely idolised John Hughes. It's only now when I watch "Sixteen Candles" by the same guy, that I realise the amount of messages that promote rape culture, and other, fucked up stuff. Remember when Jake Ryan gives his car, but more importantly - his girlfriend - to the Geek. She's passed out when Jake gives the Geek his exceedingly drunk girlfriend, with the now chilling words "have fun". The delivery makes it pretty certain that Jake is not implying that the Geek lie the girl down with a blanket, check she doesn't choke on her own vomit and in the morning offer her alka seltzer, to be honest. I mean, what a heart warming message. Not only does the movie protagonists' heartthrob endorse sex with unconscious girls, he treats his girlfriend as a possession he can pass to other people. *shudders*

Let's look at how rape culture does not only affect women. For instance the film "While You Were Sleeping", shows a woman, Lucy, who chooses a random but attractive man, Peter, off the street, rides with him to the hospital and, whilst he is comatose, pretends to be his fiancee to his family and friends, which completely disrespects them in a difficult time, whilst she is purely on a journey to get some. When he wakes up with wild amnesia, she continues the charade and they almost end up married. Because everything the man knows about her is false, it is difficult to say whether you would call any sexual activity entire consensual as she was taking advantage of a man going through a difficult time who was not informed about his situation. Either way, it's a little bit weird and is not a message that should be endorsed. There is also a scene in this film, when Peter's brother, Jack, is playing cards and says "high card gets to keep Lucy" even though all he knows at this point is that she is his brother's fiancee and he things she is sweet. It's more than a little fucked up that he things he can decide who gets to "possess" a woman without her opinion and using a completely arbitrary method to decide - again giving the idea that women are possessions to be owned. The film "Overboard" takes this amnesia idea again, with a man literally having sex with a woman under the pretense that they are married and have children. In "Revenge of the Nerds" the same thing happens, except the girl is fooled because the boy is wearing a mask.

A film that endorses rape culture does not have to contain actual sex. For example, in "This Means War", "Sleepless in Seattle" and "There's Something Wrong With Mary" to name a few all endorse stalking, and especially in the last two, because the protagonists are "nice" or "doofuses" it's acceptable. This not only endorses stalking, it gives an unrealistic view as to who rapists are, by implying it's okay if the person is nice. Considering most rapes are committed by people the victim knows this is an especially harmful message to give out. In "This Means War" the stalkers literally go so far as to film the protagonist having sex, which crosses a million boundaries.

Rape culture is rife within children's movies, especially Disney films. Granted, the original fairy tales were often worse - but then why would Disney choose tales like Sleeping Beauty in which the protagonist is literally raped to adapt for children. Sebastian endorses Eric making a move on Ariel with the words "it don't take a word" - Ariel is mute! Not incapable of understanding speech, and asking people who might struggle to give nonverbal forms of consent due to not being able to make any noises and not understanding the culture is a great time to ask someone. She can nod, you know. Sleeping Beauty is asleep. Snow White is dead. Neither can give any kind of consent and even though activities like kissing do not necessarily involve a question every time, it is pretty crucial the first few times, and is essential if the recipient is completely incapable of giving other forms of consent, such as reciprocating. In "The Little Mermaid", we know that the character literally has to kiss Eric or she will essentially die, and the fact that she passively waits for him to kiss her shows children that girls have to wait for boys to "do things to them" instead of being an active member in a sexual or romantic relationship - which teaches boys to objectify girls as things to kiss, things to have sex with, instead of people who can reciprocate.

"(500) Days of Summer" is meant to be a deconstruction of romantic comedies, but it falls into the same pitfalls that many of them do. Tom, for instance, is completely creepily crossing Summer's boundaries, despite the fact she has told him she does not want a romantic relationship with him or anyone else. When Summer literally says "We're just friends", Tom yells "Well, you're not the only one that gets a say in this! I say we're a couple, goddammit!". When they dance at a wedding, he assumes that to be them getting better, assuming that they are entitled to a relationship even when she is engaged to someone else. This film had the potential to be a massive "fuck you!" to rapey romantic comedies, but because the movie's focus is so much on Tom (there is not a single scene which involves Summer, when Tom is not also present), we obviously are expected to root for him. In fact, he finishes the movie with a new girl, Autumn, so we do not see a deconstruction and we never see it acknowledged that what he did was wrong, because he is ultimately rewarded. If you still believe it was a good deconstruction then do a little research and you discover that actor Zooey Deschannel received hatemail from people about how Summer treated Tom, despite the fact that Tom was obviously (in hindsight) in the wrong.

These films are not the only ones, by any means. In fact, many films seem to have at least one misogynistic reference. Scenes that involve rape do not necessarily endorse rape culture. Scenes that dismiss rape or show that rape is okay, scenes that make rape jokes with no one calling them out on it, where the good guys especially perform rape or sexual assault and are still considered good guys and girls. That endorses rape culture. If a film wants to talk about or show rape, it needs to show what a fucked up thing it is to do, how awful it is, why it is wrong. It should not gloss over it, because rape is too important to be glossed over.

How Music Affects Film

And Television...And Real-Life

I only really noticed this when I was sitting doing homework and Spotify was dying on my computer. The lack of the music that I have normally throughout most of my life was disconcerting at best. Thoughts of exam halls, of silent work in classrooms, or scarier things like being in an empty house after dark filled my mind, and I couldn't quell the feeling, until I had made a slap-dash playlist on Youtube and I could resume to annotating my Art GCSE work.

But it got me thinking, about why it is that I now feel that music is the soundtrack to my life. It doesn't really matter what type it is. Of course I have preferences. When I write my novel (80802 words and counting!) I like having relatively plain music, such as film scores. Right now I like the "How to Train Your Dragon" playlist by John Powell, but when I started the book, I found the fast paced guitar chords of Blue Skies songs a good way of making myself writing quicker. When I play Tetris, I listen to heavy metal, or occasionally Falling in Reverse. When I am just browsing, I put my entire playlist on shuffle. When I walk across the heath, often on my way to acting I like listening to the Blink-182 album "Take Off Your Pants and Jacket", because I feel like I'm in the opening credits of a teenage coming of age film. Think Breakfast Club. But even without the music I prefer, I always want there to be music. I'd rather have anything, from deathmetal, to bubblegum pop, to baroque (and I hate baroque music) than silence.

In fact, I often use music to write entire film scripts. I used to do it with playlists. I would take characters and make playlists of songs that would play while their story evolved. Then I would sit and listen, editing and watching the characters like my own personal movie. Now I am more likely to direct music videos. I have the most in depth ideas for the songs "Bulletproof Heart" and "The Only Hope for Me is You" by My Chemical Romance, with ideas blooming for "S/C/A/R/E/C/R/O/W". The nerdiest part is that the plotlines are entirely original with both canon and alternative characters, but also work as a canon prequel to both the music videos and the comic books. So far, they also do a pretty good job of explaining things.

My question is why I feel the need to fill my life with music in this way, to the extent that it feels eerie without it. Whilst it probably has something to do with my undying unhealthy love for music, it's probably been influenced by the media that I surround myself by. The majority of this is film and television, and if you notice, everything shown on the television is wrapped in swathes of music.

Whether it be a film with a majorly hyped up soundtrack - "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist", a musical - "Miss Saigon", or just clever use of music in the background - "The Amazing Spider-Man" practically everything shown to us on screen uses music of some kind.

I think it was knocked home to me the most when I watched the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode "The Body". This episode used no music at all, to attempt to weird the audience out. "Music comforts an audience," proclaimed writer Joss Whedon, and he was right. The lack of music made the episode chilling, stilted and awkward - which perfectly summed up the emotions that the plotline evoked. However, it also proves that essentially music is necessary, if we do not want our films to come across as jarring and strange.

Most of us assume that film is mostly visual, but this could not be further from the truth! We do get a visual experience, yes, but much of the emotion is communicated via music. Films are our fantasies, and fantasies defy logic and reality. Even if a film is not "fantasy", the dialogue is polished, the events more extraordinary than your average day. They conspire with your imagination, working with the unconcious mind to give you an entire experience of illusion, which alters our emotions. Because so much of the experience does not happen in our concious mind - instead we receive a feeling in our concious mind - we often do not notice the soundtrack to a film unless it is a breakaway hit, such as Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" from Titanic. If I were to say to you - hum the background music from your favourite film - no matter how familiar you were with it, you would probably struggle to recall more than a few phrases.

Nino Rota wrote the score for The Godfather, and used a lack of music to heighten intensity in the scene when Michael Corleone shoots his father's enemy. Instead we heighten panic by using the device of hearing a train screech to a halt outside. But whilst we have already established that a lack of music can be jarring, so too can cleverly composed scores. Hitchcock originally decided that his iconic shower scene in Psycho would have no music. However, a, Bernard Herrmann wrote a composition of jabbing, jarring notes which reminded listeners of dying animals. Hitchcock used the score to great success.

Sometimes, we use science to ensure music really has the effect we want it to. Films such as Irreversible used infrasound, which has been demonstrated to cause anxiety, extreme sorrow, heart palpitations and uncontrollable shivering. Infrasound has been noticed naturally occuring around areas of "supernatural activity", and is also produced prior to major storms and earthquakes. The infrasound caused the audience to feel "disorientated and physically ill", and was used in parts of the film prior to the main shocking visual sequence.

Aside from soundtracks, some movies use songs to promote a certain era, setting or clique. For instance, in the film "The Perks of Being a Wallflower", music such as "Asleep" by The Smiths shows Charlie's depression and mental health issues, whereas songs such as "Heroes" by David Bowie show how he is happier with his friends, and has ultimately grown as a person.

If you still do not believe that music affects how we view cinema, then watch this ingenious clip in which a scene from Pirates of the Caribbean which has no speech has different styles of music played over it, inducing very different emotions and feelings to the film in each one.

I hope this has been interesting or enlightening. What do you think? Can you name songs from your favourite film? I'd love to know.

Bella
@ThatBellaFern

Why You Don't Want Your Dream Job

The Silver Linings

Hola! Guten tag! Salut! [insert greeting of your choice!]

I'm one of the girls in life that never really wanted a job that was a) practical b) easy to get into c) easy to make a living off. I've gone through phases of wanting to be an author, a formula one driver, an actor, a set designer, an artistic photographer, a singer and currently a comic book artist. The only one that looks feasible at the moment is my brief seven year old dreams of being a firefighter (and then I remember that I am five foot two and a bit, female and relatively weak. We're not doing well here.)

The sad fact of the matter is that chances are, I will never achieve any one of these things. Or I might get part of the way and then settle. Who knows. But for all of you out there with dreams as unfeasible as mine, a quite streak of consolation for all of the cool people jobs that I'm pretty sure most people out there have dreamed about at least once.

Formula 1 Driver: My dad is a little bit of a fanatic, so it stood to reason that I really wanted to learn, until I realised that it would be incredibly expensive and also pretty unfeasible for me to do even if I could afford it. And the fact that there are currently no women racing (and there have only been five women entered ever, only two of which have ever raced - because the more you know!) doesn't bode well for me vis-a-vis my gender. But I rest assured knowing that there would have been horrific downsides. For one, sure the races take you all the way across the globe...but with that you get near permanent jet lag. And then there are the excruciating sponsor stunts - Lewis Hamilton in particular has been involved in some pretty weird stuff with Santander. Press assassination that comes with any kind of celebrity is a given. With the long training hours and the probability of being involved in crashes sky high - be them deadly or not - it's safe to say that I can sometimes console myself over these dreams. Occasionally.

Astronaut: I spent about a day wanting to be an astronaut (read: visit the moon) before realising how difficult it would be and writing off that idea pretty damn quick. But apparently it was voted the most popular dream job of kids, and I thought I would debunk the possible glory. For a start, there is lots of maths involved. Ick. The work is not only hard but potentially incredibly dangerous (has any seen Apollo 13?), the hours are long, you are separated from family, friends and other people you love nearly all the time. And they do highly scary and invasive tests.

Musician: I'm not going to lie when I say that being in a band is quite easily the biggest dream of my life. I would love to get any kind of job in the music industry, even if not in performance (I'm pretty damn good at lighting equipment) but it seems that the revered musicianhood is not all it is cut out to be. It can be a very long time before you make any money - just as you get to have a hand in every part of a release, you often have to pay for most of those part, so juggling cashflow is a challenge - you have to remain self motivated and organised. You will be rejected near constantly. So perhaps, it would be different in orchestral music? Not so. Whilst it is more reliable as job if you end up in a reputable orchestra, many musicians in orchestras or choirs become cynical as you will seldom if ever be recognised individually for your considerable talent. Either type of music, you will have to spend hours daily practising and warming up for concerts and gigs.

Actor: This one hits particularly close to home. I've wanted to be in theatre for most of my life, and I've only just re-convinced that that one will probably not happen. But I still dream of a career in film or theatre or television...There is obviously the financial instability in between parts, but there is also the constant competition and stress. Hark! The next audition! The next callback! The next screening! The hours are weird and long; with sudden-death auditions and callbacks on surprise weekends. If you land a theatre part might not be free on any evening for months or even years. Film shoots can happen at any strange time of day, and if you have to film on location then you will be uprooted from your home for large periods of time. The constant rejection and public scrutiny is liable to lead to insecurity and lack of self-worth. And most actors have a "sell-by" date - it become far more difficult to land parts of any sort after a sort of age.

Firefighter: This appealed to me, but it also seems to be the go-to "I wanna be" for little boys in primary school. However, there are also some of the most major cons to being a firefighter that might console you when you realise that dream might not be realised. There is constant stress on your job - once you have the chance to save lives you also have to potential to inadvertently let people die. In the place of a fireman, seconds can make that difference. There is also that your personal safety is nearly permanently at risk. Smoke inhalation, burns, falls from ladders or floors, as well as falling parts from above can all injure and kill firefighters. It's not a nine till five job - instead it is eclectic, with some firemen working for 24 hour shifts - making it nearly impossible to interact with friends and family regularly. Even if the thrill draws you to the flames, be warned that the majority of firefighting is spent cooking, keeping the station clean, and organising equipment.

Authors: There is no way to learn how to be a writer, and just like our individual singing voice, your style will either be popular or not - although you can learn. But there is no rule book, you will have very few resources, and NO rules. If you don't or can't work on a day because you are lazy, stressed, sick or busy, nobody can cover your work. The work simply remains undone. Because of the sporadic nature of the job, you have to have incredible self discipline. If you have a family or friends, you are often routinely interrupted, especially if you work at home, simply because it is frequently difficult for people who are not authors to grasp the fact that writing actually is work, that you actually do have a real job - and contractual deadlines to meet. The industry is nearly impossible to break into. And although your work is your own, you lose most control over it once you have finished editing it and have sent it away, if it is accepted by a publishing company.

Pilot: As a girl who's considering joining the air cadets, this is pretty high on my list of things I want to do. You have to be of a certain build (not weigh too much, between 5"2 and 6"3), and you also have to be physically fit, English speaking, with a clear and mostly unaccented voice. You will spend a lot of time at home, so whilst you'll see the world it will be difficult to maintain contact with people. Because of this, there is a majorly high divorce rate. There are very few employers for pilot work, so if you burn a bridge you may never find another one. In terms of being a fighter pilot, there are obviously the added concerns of a higher crash rate.

Veterinarian: Apparently one of the highest choices children make for their ultimate jobs. After secondary school, you will need to take another eight years of schooling to become a vet, at the very least. You have to deal with aggressive and agitated animals, running high risks for injuries such as bites and scratches. The pet owners you are likely to encounter will be upset, scared and may lash out and be unfriendly. The hours are sporadic, you may have to work weekends and constantly be on call.

I know that none of these make it any better that these dreams are largely unattainable, but they may provide some consolation. On the flipside, remember that you can totally achieve anything with a bit of luck and a lot of perseverance. 

Bella

Stupid Cliches and Idioms

What do I do with the cake?

Idioms are pretty much a day to day part of our idiolect, but so many of them are more than tired cliches - they're downright nonsensical!

"To Have Your Cake and Eat it Too"

I have never understood this one, no matter how many people use it to imply I'm being selfish and the like. Frankly, if I have a cake, what do you expect me to do with it? Bathe in it? Throw it away? Anything except eating the cake is a completely rubbish phrase!

Better Alternative: She wants to have her cake, and eat mine as well!

"I Want Doesn't Get"

My god, have I heard a million parents using this one. I know that there may be nicer ways to phrase things, but getting something that you don't want is a thousand times more useless than getting something you want. Wanting something does not imply that you do not deserve it!

Better Alternative: Asking rudely for something is rude and makes me inclined not to buy it for you, tiny child.

"No News is Good News"

Generally, it isn't. In fact, it's more likely to be bad news, because it's much harder to break bad news, isn't it! But the saying is right in implying that it can be nice to be ignorant - it can also be difficult, agitating, stressful, worrying, saddening and scary to wait as your mind conjures up every possible outcome. I had a cancer scare this year, and honestly, the amount of people that told me that the fact that nobody knew quite what my body was doing was a good thing, really made it more scary as I realised how ignorant most people were as to whatever was wrong with me.

Better Alternative: No news means absolutely nothing, you have no way of knowing what has happened. Eat some chocolate.

"Keep Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer"

I hate this one. I understand what it is trying to say, but unless you are an incredibly powerful person with information to glean from your enemies, on a day to day basis it is a hundred times healthier to distance yourself from toxic relationships and to surround yourself with the people that make you happy.

Better Alternative: Keep your friends close and throw your enemies away with the bathwater.

"Don't Spit in Another Man's Face Unless His Moustache is On Fire"

I'm pretty sure this one is about being nice to people but knowing when things are for the greater good, but quite frankly it's a stupid metaphor. You spitting in his face is not likely to quench the flames, and is more likely to literally add insult to injury. Consider "stop drop and roll" or maybe finding a bucket of water.

Better Alternative: Don't spit in people's face. It's rude. And remember to learn what to do in case of fire.

"You'd Whine if You Were Hung with a New Rope"

Does this one even need much explanation? It's stupid.

Better Alternative: You'd whine if you were hanged* with any kind of rope at all.

"A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned"

This one is a little obvious. Not not saving money - i.e. not spending thus not losing - does not equate to earning money, as in gaining money. One penny, minus nothing, will never equal one plus one, by any stretch of the imagination. Whilst this one does seem to make sense, it's not very well phrased.

Better Alternative: A penny saved is a penny not lost.

And then there are the ones that make sense occasionally; think "dirt poor" until you hear their equivalent - i.e. "filthy rich". And the bloody obvious ones. "It's either one thing or the other." Well duh. What were we thinking when we came up with this language!

Bella

*In terms of the punishment, hanged is the correct term. You "hung" clothing up this morning, but Bob "hanged" himself.

5 Reasons Why Swearing is Good

Bloody amazing, isn't it!

I recently had to write an essay for my GCSE English controlled assessment, about language, power and how we altered it. It's probably an entire blog post - or several - of its own, because actually, from what may be the most boring assignment ever, I found some pretty cool stuff out.

Swearing is pretty taboo, but I suppose that's the point. So much so that people are prepared to use words like "frick" or "sugar-honey-ice-tea" or loudly exclaiming "mother hubbard!" (see The Amazing Spiderman) which hold exactly the same meaning - but are a slight twist on the words we hold so taboo. I have a friend that sometimes says a sentence, and asks me to fill in her swear words, which is so stupid, because she gets the same meaning across and is essentially swearing whether or not she does the speaking. Fear of a word increases...fear of a word.

But actually, it looks like swearing might be good for you. So here are a few reasons why swearing might be a great thing.

Pain/ Shock Relief
When you're little and you fall over, you might scream really loudly, or maybe even start crying. But as adults, if you scream or start crying, that is taken to mean that something is wrong. Ultra wrong. I'm dying, wrong. It's just not socially accepted that adolescents and adults show pain or vast shock in this way. But a sharp pain, or a nasty shock actually releases adrenaline, which leads to the body trying to find an outlet. Using words that are generally taboo are useful in releasing this, as it feels ever so slightly daring, subconsciously, to the people who have hurt themselves. And the stronger the swear word, the more effective. Yelling "darn" probably won't have the same effect, unless your pain threshold is incredibly high, or your language is so demure that saying "darn" to you is equivalent to most people yelling "fuck!"

Coming across as Trustworthy
It has been suggested via scientific studies, although never proven, that people who swear are more honest and trustworthy, and it's pretty certain that they come across that way. It makes a kind of sense - people who use swear words tend to be pretty unreserved when it comes to language - so it stands to reason that people would make the assumption that they are also pretty unreserved when it comes to the subject matter.

Intensifies your Language
If you're not a chain swearer, who uses the word "fuck" when asking your nephew to pass the salt, swearing can be a really useful intensifier. Yes, "really" works, but because the word "really" is more commonplace it does not have the same shocking effect."I am fucking serious!" vs "I am really serious!" It can be a really powerful way of convincing someone that you mean what you are saying.

Non-Violent Comebacks
I'm pretty sure that even the person who thinks swearing is one of the worst things a person can do, would admit that it's probably better than punching someone in the face. If someone is being physically aggressive or even violent, then calling them a "cunt" and walking away has the same kind of shock factor, with none of the assault-eyness. By swearing we prove that we are not passive victims but empowered to react and fight back. As Mark Twain said, "When angry, count to four. When very angry, swear."

Group Identity
Swearing and profanity comes across much the same as slang within cliques. A group identity can be created by chain swearers, or just by the occasional cuss word that shocks your peers, a tolerance to profanity can be pretty good at setting you apart. Studies actually show that swearing in the workplace "enhances group solidarity" and serves as a way to "relieve stress", bringing the workforce closer together.

[Bonus Jonas: Reclamation can be Powerful
Some swear words are offensive because they target and dehumanise certain groups of people. Words like "whore", "cunt" and "faggot", when used by the individuals that the words are aimed at can be incredibly powerful. However, when used by people not in the context of reclamation, it is just offensive.]

But before you bare all and enter the world, curses streaming from your lips, you may want to consider that actually, some people, no matter how nonsensically considering we invented the words in the first place, find swearing really offensive. One study shows as many as 87 percent bothers them when others swear, including 36 percent who said it bothers them a lot. Just something to keep in mind.

Toodle pip, Bella Fern

Victim Blaming

And Supporting the Rapist/ Abuser

I did a post on rape culture reasonably recently, but to be honest, I barely scraped the surface of rape culture after rape. I touched on the objectification of women, and how that puts the blame of the victim, but I never really got into the nitty gritty of the subject of victim blaming.

I have been lucky enough as of yet, to be part of the two thirds of women who have not been sexually assaulted. However, I have also had the pleasure of men in vans, builders, and once a random guy on the other side of the road whistling, or beeping the horns as I walk by.

The one experience I had when I was around eleven or twelve which freaked me out the most was this, to get home from school, I catch a train, and then a bus, and to walk home from the bus stop I can either take a short cut through the woods or I can take the long walk around a narrow footpath and road (surrounded by woods on both sides anyway). And once, in broad daylight, before I even got to the woods, as I walked past the bus stop, a passenger in a car leaned out of his window and hollered at me "If you go into the woods, I'll rape you."

Gee, thanks sir. Needless to say, I took the road.

But I've spoken about rape culture, and it is not from these experiences that I wish to draw. It was instead the aftermath, when, the next day at school I told a few friends what had happened. Two out of the three I told were massively supportive, as the third appeared to be, until:

"What were you wearing?"

And she didn't mean it in a massively aggressive way. She wasn't outright telling me that being threatened with rape was my own fault. But in that careless sentence, she immediately pulled the blame away from the person at fault to the victim.

Often victim blaming after rape is not said in an aggressive way. It might be like the comment that the otherwise lovely Carrie Hope Fletcher tweeted:

"I'm trying to encourage people to love and respect themselves enough to know they're worth more than being treated like crap..."

This said in the concept of healthy relationships originally sounds okay, before you realise that in fact, by implying that the victims of abuse do not love and respect themselves, they are at fault. Victim blaming is not necessarily done by bad people, it is done by careless people who do not think through their words.

But sometimes it is done vindictively, when a person has access to all of the evidence and is well educated on a subject, and they still decide to blame the victim. This can be understandable in the sense that often, as rape and abuse is so often commited by people the victim (and so often teh victim's friends, aquaintances, family, workmates) it is difficult to fathom that a person you know and love could be guilty of this heinous crime. People often go into denial, and begin to defend the rapist/ abuser.

"He wouldn't do something like that."

Perhaps he didn't; perhaps you're right. But in standing by an alleged victim, you lose no moral ground if they are wrong. By standing by a rapist or abuser, you make the situation a million times more difficult if the victim is real - and the victims are so often real, that if the statistics were an experiment and women that lied about rape were results also - the women that lied about rape would be completely disregarded as rare anomalies.

Sometimes the media jump on the bandwagon - see what happened in Steubenville - and this leads to the general public deciding to jump on aforesaid bandwagon, leading large proportions of the world to begin victim blaming on the women and men abused in high profile cases. "Slut, whore, deserved it". 

There are even cases when taking a neutral stance can become victim blaming. If there is significant evidence, or if the abuser has admitted to doing the crime, then by saying things like "I'm not going to take an opinion because there isn't enough fact" casts so much doubt onto the victims story, making you an enabler for further abuse. Again, by rallying around the victim, you have nothing to lose. By rallying around the abuser, the victim has everything to lose and will lose it.

Victim blaming is what leads to so few women even coming forward to report crimes, with only 7% getting a conviction - and many of those do not end with the victim receiving any time of jail. And people wonder why so many women and men do not report rape.

Bella Fern xx

It's Just a Phase

(It's Just Everything I Feel Right Now)

Being a teenager, the oh-so-condescending phrase "It's Just a Phase" is commonplace. Whatever a teenager does, and however they do it, it is open to being called a phase, as if that somehow demerits its value. I've heard a lot - everything from my most hardcore political beliefs to my sexuality to my choice in haircut has been deemed a phase by adults who give you that smile that proclaims "I know better."

It's difficult to say that people are wrong to say this, because, guess what? Chances are they're right! Being a teenager is a time for transitions, a time for wrong decisions, a time for wearing massive rainbow faux fur jackets and a time for phases. The phrase? That's totally accurate.

It's not the actual words, "It's just a phase" that are so hurtful, it's the condescending manner in which they are invariably delivered. The manner makes the otherwise truthful words turn evil, choking you inside. Because that "phase"? It's everything you are, right now.

If a person is defined by their experiences, then you become a different person every millisecond, because every millisecond you have been exposed to something new - even if that is just looking at your computer screen from a slightly different angle. You have never felt the same things, both emotionally and physically in conjunction with each other as you do right now, and you never will again. But no one denies that humans are people, despite the fact that we are only that person for the shortest period of time.

And so to deny the feelings you feel right now, the pastimes you engage in now, the people you are attracted to now, purely on the basis that in a month's time, a year's time you might not feel the same way is complete and utter bullshit.

If I were an evil axe wielding murderer (I'm not, it was like, totally just a phase I went through), and I took a man and murdered the people he loved before his eyes, and then killed him, nobody would deny that he felt grief before he died. The fact that that emotion was short lived does not lessen it's potency.

So, what now? Instead of dismissing someone's feelings because chances are, it is only a phase, instead of focusing your attentions on a person who does not exist yet and who may never exist - instead of that, focus on the person in front of you. The person who likes doing the things he or she like now. Who she has been, who he will become do not matter.

Live in the moment, baby. And don't be condescending assholes.

Nature vs Nurture

And How I Because Awkward Emo Teenage Blogger Girl

Apparently, French people have been debating this one since the 13th Century, which is a long time. They were way ahead of me, Bella, who had bloggers block followed by a small idea at 9:42 GMT, this morning. It's pretty obvious that there is a line somewhere - we're probably not all born programmed to live a certain way and make certain decisions, and there is definitely something genetic there also - but where do we draw it.

I'm in the group that would really rather lean towards Nurture - I don't like the idea that the decisions I make and the way that I act were predetermined by the strands of DNA that were randomly selected during my development. If were to place all of the weight on Nature theorems, we could face issues such as -

• "behavioral genes" being used to excuse crimes, et cetera. "I didn't want to rape her, but considering I am entirely made up of my genes, I had no choice!"

However, it is quite clear that genetics play a part, and a large one at that. Studies done on fraternal twins, reared under the same contiditions would be alike, regardless of genes. However, they also show the same striking similarities when raised separately. Similar studies have been done with identical twins, with pretty much the same results.

James Arthur Springer and James Edward Lewis (depicted left), had just been reunited at age 39 after being given up by their mother and adopted out as 1-month-olds. Springer and Lewis, both Ohioans, found they had each married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty. They both had interests and careers in mechanical drawing and carpentry, at school they had both like maths the best and had both hated spelling the most. They smoked and drank the same amount and got headaches at the same time of day.

Another compelling case study was that of Oskar Stohr and Jack Yufe. Whilst when I originally read the files, they seemed to support the nurture theory, they later proved just the opposite. They were separated six months after their birth, Oskar was raised a Catholic in Germany and joined the Hitler Youth. Jack stayed behind in the Caribbean, his birthplace and was brought up Jewish, living for a while in Israel. The polar opposite qualities of their lives, however, were proved not to have altered them so - when they were reunited at the age of 9, they had similar speech and though patterns, similar gaits, a taste for spicy food and the same peculiar habits, such as flushing the toilet before they used it.

However, nurture also seems to play apart. The case study above did highlight some interesting similarities, but it also missed some key differences. Oskar was a part of the Hitler Youth, and had been indoctrinated into Nazi ideals - he feared and disliked Judaism, whereas to Jack, Judaism was a large part of his believe system and a large part of who he was. 

Whilst few nurture believers complete discount genetic tendencies and similarities, they generally believe that they do no ultimately matter.Studies on infant and child temperament have revealed the most crucial evidence for nurture theories.

The contraversial "Little Albert" experiments performed by John Watson, showed that phobias could be explained by classical conditioning. "A strong proponent of environmental learning, he said: Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select...regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors."

One of the most clear "nurture affected factors" appears to be sense of humour. Sense of humour is ultimately decided by familial, platonic and cultural influences, and is not genetically determined. This is why many children pick up a sense of humour at school, especially dark humour and sarcasm, which their parents have never displayed and find distasteful.

Whilst twin studies appear to be one of the most compelling arguments for nature, they also give some of the most compelling evidence for nurture. If our traits were entirely predetermined, then identical twins would not only have similar tendencies - they would be exactly the same person.

Which side of the fence are you on?

Bella xx

How We Look

And Why Pretty is the Be All and End All

Before you read this post, you should probably watch this beautiful video, made by Youtuber candysomething. To summarise, she articulates and shows how we care more about how we look, than pretty much any other values - our intellect, our sense of humour.

The sad thing is, she's right. So many of us would prefer to be complimented on the way we look, than we might on our ability to solve quadratic equations. Whilst we all have small niches we are very proud of, and would love to be complimented on, the desire to be complimented on our looks is damn near universal.

One of the creepy things is, beauty is almost entirely a social construct. Whilst we are genetically programmed to find symmetrical faces attractive, our faces well proportioned; beauty has expanded further than this into a completely arbitrary system based on consumerism.

Consider makeup, not as an art form, but as, how the majority of women wear it, corrective. We use highlighters and bronzers to change the way our bone structure looks, giving the illusion of a higher bridged nose, and prominent cheek bones. However, as children, we are not aware that we do not have high cheek bones, or that our nose is wide. We do not gravitate towards those who naturally have those features. Companies create problems with our faces, and then market the solution to us, cashing in on our insecurities.

The fact that the media creating issues with our bodies is so constant that it is most often our appearance that we are concerned about. It isn't just our face - despite the fact that the majority of women do not have the bone structure capable of achieving the thigh gap, it is desired amongst millions - they cash in on any insecurity we have, from toes to waists to breasts to hair.

No other aspect of our personhood is criticized in this way - constantly and harshly - and so it stands to a kind of sick reason that to be complimented on our appearance is something that we relish.

However, compliments about the way we look are some of the most common. Look down many a Facebook profile picture, and you will find sometimes literally hundreds of people praising people's appearance. Yes, the media constantly puts us down, but we constantly build ourselves up (provided of course, we have followed the rules that the media dictates). Because a throw-away comment on our sense of humour is so much rarer than a throw-away comment on our appearance, surely it should be considered more valuable just because it is harder to come by.

Not so. Just as though many are more uncomfortable singing or public speaking than they would be playing the piano in front of an audience, we care the most about the compliments that we have no control over. Singing, although it can be improved upon, is very much a part of who you are. It is your singing voice - whereas your ability to play the piano is a skill that could be mastered.

The fact that we set more store by beauty, and not by say, intelligence, musicality, humour, is largely due to the fact that we have no control over beauty - it is something inherent. That's sad. That's really, really sad. As people, we have been socially programmed not to value people for their skills, for their hard work, for their perseverance, but instead for their unwitting excellation in something that we dictated to them without them realising.

It's sad.

But we can surpass it. Because it isn't just prettiness - so many people place people's achievements down to natural gifts. Instead of relishing people's natural gifts, we should instead place more focus on the hours that they spent to attain the level they are now at. The next time you want to compliment someone, do not focus on their looks.

Whilst a compliment on their looks is generally considered highly ranking, as mentioned earlier, most people have a niche that they are massively proud of, probably more so than their looks. For me, that would be the work I am doing on my graphic novel. It is not my greatest achievement, in places the illustration is shoddy and the storyline is poor, but it is something I am immensely proud of.

Instead of complimenting someone on the way they look, find something that they would be even gladder to here you talk about, and praise that instead.

Hair or Flair

Which One Comes First?

In the past half year or so, I've changed up my hair quite a lot. I did fuck all with it for the majority of 2013 - before we hit late June or early July and completely unplanned, I cut in a full fringe and lopped a lot of my hair off with it. Before, it easily fell to my elbows. Then I dyed it blue, from around my shoulders downward. As I swam a lot over the summer holidays, the blue dye faded to green. I grew out the fringe and the rest of my hair, which was a painful process pretty much entirely involving a lot of flowery alice bands to drag the scraggles of hair away from my face. And then, once again, without a lot of planning, I had a side fringe cut in and choppy layers all of the way around.

My hair has been this way now for about two or three months, and once again, I feel ready to change. I'm kind of easing my way shorter, because I get sick of a hairstyle really frequently as of late.

But there is another trend I have noticed. The second I change my hair, my style changes with it. And whilst it would make a million times more sense if your style dictated how your hair was, I reckon it's the other way around.

For instance, I wore my hair like this (see left) ever since around Year Eight at secondary. It was long (usually longer than this) parted straight down my head or occasionally pulled back with a bandana. Wearing hair as long as it would go and with a bandana was relatively similar to hippie fashion (all I needed were the gold streaks) and it was true. This was the period of my life when I stopped eating meat, despite the fact that my diet is already pretty difficult to cope with, and I wore mostly brightly coloured shirts with swirly pattens, and jeans. I also (rather embarrassingly, now) had a hideous kaftan which I thought was fabulous.

This, however, changed when one day, on a whim, I cut in a box fringe. This photo was of me and some friends on the french exchange last summer, and I'm pretty sure I cut my hair this way and over night became Mitchie from Camp Rock. Ironically, I was then cast as Mitchie in a school musical of Camp Rock 2, but we don't talk about that. Previously to being cast, however, I had never seen Camp Rock and didn't really know who Demi Lovato was. But hey! I donned the summer dresses, which I still love now, but I also stole my mother's odd denim jacket, which has a cut so that it kind of flares out over the hips. Considering that I had no experience of the culture I was emulating without know it, this kind of does suggest that your hair has some kind of weird power over your attire and the way you act - I got into lots of ukulele playing, happy guitar-ey music. As I discovered became more and more a part of Camp Rock 2, I began to dislike the fringe (and the musical) more and more, (especially as it kept growing into my eyes) and I eventually began to grow it out.

When I dyed my hair blue (it later faded to green) I kept the summery dresses, but also became...more mermaid-ey? The fabrics were more likely to be floaty, occasionally sheer with a much cooler colour spectrum. For rugby over the summer, I plaited it tightly at the sides, which may have sparked my next miniature transformation.

At this stage, I started wearing glasses because I discovered I had very slight astigmatism. The nerdy glasses, coupled with the fact that I started wearing ribbons to pull back the weird fringey bits of my hair and plaiting it to play sports inspired a St Trinians-esque transformation. I began to dress like a school girl outside of school, with pleated skirts and plaid shorts over white shirts with the sleeves cut off. This was also when I began wearing my ballet tights as a fashion accessory.

Finally, I decided to follow my own roots - the music I was listening to was punk and grunge and post hardcore - and I had a side fringe cut in. I didn't really think about the emo connotations until after I had completely altered the way I dressed. I began making DIY band merchandise, pairing my tartan instead of with shirts with tshirts. I returned to my Year 7 and 8 grunge traditions of sticking safety pins through my ears. I began wanting a lip ring more than anything else.

Now, I kind of want to keep the same vibes, but go a little shorter and a lot choppier. But that's irrelevant.

Which comes first, hair or flair? Logic would say flair - you change the way you look and so you change your hair to fit your style. But completely nonsensically, it appears to be the other way around!

Maybe, because your hair is more permanent than the clothes you wear, it is easier to dictate our fashion choices around our haircut. Maybe I'm reading wayyy too much into this. What say'st thou?

Bella Fern xx

Teen Culture is (un)Dead!

Teen Culture is (un)Dead!

Cast your mind back to any decade in recent history, and we think about trends and fashions worn by the younger generations. Sometimes there were many, but they were always iconic. The '60s conjure up images such as mods and rockers and hippies, the '90s conjour much more grungy and preppy fashion ideas.

But now consider the past decade, and try to place what the fashion of that was. Remember when wearing a necktie as a belt was in? Beaded wire chokers? UGG boots? Whilst we can all remember a few trends, there is no definitive "fashion era" that we can use to define what teenagers were wearing.

And just like with pastimes, the '50s made the hula hoop majorly popular, and in the early '60s the skateboard became a huge thing, we have no definitive pastime for the last decade.

Instead, we watch year after year of fashion trends bringing back older fashion trends - I mean is there anything that hasn't been "brought back" yet from the past century, and teenagers championing the same brands that their parents did before them.

And that is because teenage culture is dead.

Imagine a clique, an underground niche where some teenagers were acting a certain way - inventing dubstep, for example (I am not suggesting that there are no trends, I'm saying that nothing continues to be definitive of a generation). Instead of those people doing that, by the time they've been going for any long term period of time, someone will have taken a picture of it, posted it on twitter and boom! It's out there and by the end of the month it is scrawled out over the Daily Mail.

The mass sharing of information via the internet has changed the days when something grassroots could grow up to be popular; it grabs the grass, handfuls at a time and one by one it explodes it onto the media, one trend at a time.

We choked teenage culture to death using a computer lead.

Trends pass too quickly to be definitive, each year we see a different set of clothes, a different set of music artists, a different set of toys, a different set of teenagers, and so nothing is memorable. And all because of the internet.

But is hope lost? No. Because it is within the very thing that we used to kill teenage culture, that we have nursed back to life via the internet. Think about it this way - if everyone is using the internet to expose their own culture trends, then eventually due to sheer mass of people, some begin to drown. The internet is becoming the platform that once the real world was - secluded and difficult to get your voice heard immediately. And from that, an entirely new generation of teenage culture is spawning.

Vloggers and Youtubers document their lives via cameras to audiences of potentially millions, bloggers jabber their opinions into the void until they gain an audience. And slowly, over the past few years, this has grown into a massive underground culture. They sport "random" tshirts with nonsensical designs, they write music on ukuleles and accordions and they sing songs about everything from loving yourself to internet trolls.

Then there are the fangirls of Tumblr. who talk about the things and people they love and write slightly scary fanfiction, create Photoshop fan art and mostly create interesting and insightful content.

And overlying that, there is the far more mainstream internet culture, that of internet memes and viral videos, so that you get an entire hierarchy of people.

When adults call us "the internet generation", it is usually meant to put us down - imply that we were raised, not by people but by Facebook and Twitter. But they couldn't be more right. Just like there have been punks and grunges and hippies and skaters and goths, now we have the internet subculture.

Pretty much the most interesting thing about this, is that despite the fact that mainstream media has picked up on this underground media and have tried to get in on it, this culture has largely rejected the outside world. They don't want their music to emerge with Simon Cowell's dirty fingerprints all over it, and they don't want their vlogging to be picked up and broadcast over a prime time show. And that is what sets this cyberculture up to be the definitive trend of the past decade.

Every other trend has been a media creation, created by adults who analysed products and decided what to flog at teenagers. Internet culture is as grassroots as the punk culture that preceded it.

We are, Buffy the Vampire Slayer style, bringing back teenage culture, using the same weapon we used to kill it. Ironic, huh.

Cardboard Women

Cardboard Women

I've been wanting to make a post about this ever since I watched Tavi Gevinson's TED talk, but I guess after watching Frozen  and not really thinking it was the feminist film that some people have made it out to be, it sort of seemed important to me.

I am not implying that Frozen was a terrible film, but the idea that it was inherently feminist swooped straight over my head. *vagueish spoiler* Not everyone, and more importantly, not every female ended up in a couple, and yes, that is an important message. But the fact that the protagonist (Anna) did end up in a couple and was shown to possess no judgement of her own undermines this somewhat. As discussed by this article we see that a film does not just need to have female characters to be feminist.

Tavi speaks about "cardboard cutouts", arguing that female characters need flaws to be truly feminist, because "people are crazy and women happen to be people". If a female character is perfect - for example, Anna in Frozen is seen to be feminist, then real life feminists have to live up to her which sets us up to fail. We need to judge our fictional role models in the same way we would judge our real life ones - as fallible, imperfect and as good because they attempt. I can't articulate this as well as Tavi Gevinson does in her TED talk, so I highly recommend you watch that. Instead, I thought I might list a few of my fictional female role models and explain why they are so amazing.

Buffy Summers, Willow Rosenburg, Faith Lehane, Tara Maclay, Dawn Summers, Anya Jenkins et cetera, Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Considering they were created by Joss Whedon, notorious for writing strong female characters - "So why do you write these strong female characters?" "Because you're still asking me that question." the list above is barely surprising. Buffy Summers has long been considered an incredibly feminist character but the entire television series is incredibly good at reflecting real women. The opening sequence of the first episode (Welcome to the Hellmouth) immediately reverts the trope of horror movies, as we watch the frightened, petite blonde girl become the villain. Buffy has been criticised for being unrealistic and cardboard, and granted she has many more powers than the average woman - being the Slayer with super strength and majorly fast reflexes.

Real life women cannot live up to these expectations, just like they do not have the Wiccan powers that Willow and Tara posses. What is important about the program is that the characters are fallible like real life women, and that they are fallible in similar ways. Buffy is forced to make sacrifices in terms of her education and potential love life, because of supernatural causes, but the problems that she faced are more universal. The fact that she experiences depression, that Willow experiences what is essentially substance addiction, that Faith becomes addicted to power are all real life problems that real life people face. Tara has both a dysfunctional relationship and family and struggles with involving herself. Dawn worries about her self worth. Anya spends the majority of the show as addendums to other characters - girlfriend, fiance, employee before attempting to break free.

The fact that all of the women face entirely different problems makes them inherently feminist. So many films and television shows and books follow the same problems. The women will struggle with relationships, with other characters, but they all have similar problems. Women all have separate strengths, and separate problems and Buffy the Vampire Slayer encapsulates that incredibly well.

Ruby Redfort, The Ruby Redfort Series by Lauren Child

Despite the author denying that Ruby Redfort is "about being a girl", that is what makes her so real and so feminist. The books are not about Ruby Redfort's love interests - a theme so commonly explored with female characters - but instead about her hanging out with her friends, solving crime Nancy Drew style, playing basketball, eating cookies and figuring out her overbearing parents. Despite this, she is not a perfect character nor is she an entirely masculine character. She has a personal sense of style and cares about the clothing she wears, which is important because so often are "feminist characters" made into fighters, with entirely stereo-typically masculine traits. Ruby reiterates that there is nothing wrong with being feminine, but that is doesn't hinder you from making a difference. She has flaws - she can be tactless, boastful, claustrophobic, a know-it-all, and she can barely see without her glasses.

These books make it so clear - it is only because of the heteropatriarchy that we need "strong female characters". All we need are "strong characters", but of course we have been indoctrinated so far that we need characters to prove to us that women can be strong.

Jo March, Little Women
I must comment that whilst in Little Women and Good Wives Jo came across as strong, I have not read Little Men or Jo's Boys so cannot pass judgement.
I did just say that one of the aspects that makes Ruby Redfort so strong was the fact that she was both feminine and strong. Jo March begins Little Women as a tomboy, and still strong - she finds pursuit in a range of activities both stereo-typically female and incredibly masculine - proving that neither is completely right or more feminist than the other. She is the least preachy of the sisters, and is incredibly quirky and likeable.

However, she is far from perfect. She can be shown to be vindictive, with a fiery temper and occasionally a little cruel. She holds grudges, but is ultimately forgiving, passionate, creative and selfless. Like Tavi, Jo March is figuring it out, with her desires to fight in the war with her father, to become and author.

Selfless, emphasis on the "less" might be a little off. Whilst she is incredibly self sacrificing - cutting off her hair for her father's sake, going without a Christmas present for the sake of her mother - she also has motivation. Unlike many female characters who's main goal in life seems to be to please others, and to go through life without upsetting anyone, she knows where she is going. When Laurie, a boy she doesn't love asks her to marry him, she declines, to his and everyone's chagrin. When her sister ruins her manuscript she does not immediately forgive her like much of the family but instead mourns her own losses, as she truly values her own work. She understands that sometimes she must come first, is her own person and must on occasion make unpopular decisions.

Elle Woods, Legally Blonde: The Musical
Despite the fact that much of this musical is seen to see Elle realise her potential and confront the low expectations that other have of her, she is a strong female character from the start. She is an incredible role model of how you can be a fashion merchandiser, and how being content in that role is completely acceptable.

However, the fact that she uses her intellect to expand her horizons past this, moves on from her obsession to have a husband and goes to law school also gives a powerful message in that if you are not happy where you are then you can always move past that to further places, reinforcing the message that hard work and not looks are more likely to get you to where you want to be. It also uses the powerful message that whilst you may partially conform to a stereotype, that we define the labels and the labels - as well as other's definitions of those labels - do not define us.

The play has been criticised because ultimately, Elle does end up with a man, but the fact that she spends the majority of the play on her own, forming her own self dependence means that this is irrelevant! There is nothing wrong with being in a committed relationship, with getting married, but instead the musical shows that it should not be your only aspiration if you do not want it to be.

There are so many more I could list, maybe I will sometime, but for now, that's it. Toodle pip!
Bella Fern x