Flammable Gendered Smellies

My shower gel has rather a strange warning on the side. Along with the more regular ‘don’t get it in your eyes’ it carries another, more unexpected warning.


It is a picture of a flame, along with the declaration “Extremely Flammable”.


I am uncertain as to whether this is a description of the actual container or the gel itself, but in all honesty, both options carry their own set of worries.


In all honesty I would prefer that it was the container that presented the fire hazard, as at the very least it is located in an area with constant and swift access to water. That’s the bathroom in case you aren’t certain. The container is unusual for a shower gel receptacle, as usually they are a plastic creation, whereas this particular gel is held within a pressurised canister, for a reason unbeknownst to me. Perhaps this choice has it’s roots in environmental concerns, though aluminium is possibly not far better than plastic. Maybe it’s just to be cool dudes.


The other more worrisome possibility as I mentioned earlier is that it is the gel itself which is extremely flammable. Now I do hope that this is not the case as I have made an active decision not to cleanse myself with paraffin. I would be quite irked if some clever sod had managed to sneak this dangerous product into my toiletries and I had unwittingly laminated myself with extremely flammable liquid essentially turning myself into a living firelighter. I have a lot of respect and admiration for the Fantastic Four, but I do not desire to become the Human Torch. Or even a human torch. I think it is particularly sneaky of them to package this product in a rather sensual teal can in order to fool the busy consumer.


It is perhaps notable that I describe the can itself as ‘sensual’, which is perhaps a feminine adjective to allot an item which is being used on my, male, body. Any gender-specific worries I may have had were easily allayed by the notice ‘for men’ splayed on the front of the can. This was particularly useful for me, as I was uncertain as to whether invigorating black mint was a ‘man’ ingredient. Apparently it is.


Imagine my horror then when I returned to my parents’ house, and upon bathing and cleaning myself with what I believed was the same canister, which it was in shape and size, I then discovered that I had in fact used a different one. My eyes scanned the tin feverishly searching for the tag of confirmation which would assuage my guilt and wrongdoing but alas, it was not there. However I am still uncertain if I have done wrong, as there is no corresponding tag which clarifies for all time whether or not this particular product is ‘for women’. I can only use my powers of multimodal analysis to infer that the deep, visceral purple of the flask assigns it as ‘womanly’.


Oddly, if this product is only for women, I have suffered no ill effects from using the product, and it is particularly worth noting that my skin hasn’t melted from my bones as I had previously worried that it would. I just smelled nice for a bit.


My discovery today then is that enriching jojoba and passionflower is NOT FOR MEN.


But you can use it if you want to. You’ll just smell of enriching jojoba and passionflower for a bit.

Cor, Aren't Girls and Boys Different?

Is the underlying assumption in a piece written by Germaine Greer recently, which argues, quite rightly, that women are as funny as men, and provides some possible reasons why women aren’t as numerically prevalent on the stand-up comedy circuit as men.

 

This piece was of interest to me as ‘gender difference’ has comprised a large portion of my academic studies whilst at University, mostly from a sociolinguistic perspective.

 

Putting aside the obvious biological differences, many of the perceived stereotypical differences between ‘men’ and ‘women’ are informed by the language we use to frame these ideas, rather than on an underlying universal truth, as is often assumed.

 

I would agree with some of the points made by GG, inasmuch as I do not think that the pleasure received from making people laugh is linked to the male orgasm or that the microphone is a phallic totem (especially as many comedians are just as funny using earpieces).  I would also agree that making people laugh is not an exercise of power over the people laughing, though I am hesitant to agree fully with the idea put forward by GG that the comic is searching for acceptance.  Surely they are looking first and foremost to make the audience laugh?

 

GG states that “Female performers don’t make it, don’t get the prizes, don’t get the audiences and don’t make the money.”  I’m sure a look at Dawn French’s bank balance and Sarah Millican’s trophy cabinet would disprove this rather ill-informed generalisation (as would a glance at this year’s student competition’s qualifying acts).  It also misses the fact that a huge amount of male acts also do not win awards or earn a huge wage.

 

There are so many statements in the piece that I disagree with at a very basic level, such as: “Men…have been honing their skills ever since they started school.  Girls have nothing similar of their own and are not invited to horn in on the guys’ act.”  The problem with this statement is it sees ‘men’ and ‘women’ as united groups, with all members within them conforming to the same truths.  It does not address the fact that just because two people are either male or female this is no indication that they will be similar to each other, in terms of humour or indeed in any way other than biological.  In my personal experience there is certainly no formality or rules over who can or cannot join in any joke, regardless of what sex you are.

 

Underlying all of these claims is the assumption that “women are less competitive”, which is a standpoint which is generally accepted, though it would be very difficult to actually prove this.  A question I am often asked in seminars on the subject of gender difference is “Which men and women are you talking about?”  This is certainly a valid question to ask of GG’s piece, as I can be fairly confident that there are competitive and uncompetitive people within both the male and female of our species.

 

GG also draws a distinction that “men do the inspired lunacy, women do droll”.  This is intriguing as I am uncertain how to differentiate between the two things.  Though I am a fan of neither I would struggle to describe the styles of Sarah Silverman and Joan Rivers as droll, which is defined as ‘amusingly odd or whimsically comical’, and surely there is no greater inspired lunatic than Josie Long?

 

Despite arguing this I find there is very definitely a numerical disparity between male and female acts.  I have only been attending comedy gigs for a few years, and yet I have likely seen roughly a hundred male comics, whereas I have only seen sets from four female comedians (please note that I have not been avoiding gigs with female comedians).

 

In some ways though this may work in favour of the female comics, as I can name them all (Shappi Khorsandi, Lucy Porter, Helen Keen and Mab Jones), whereas the vast majority of male acts that I have seen have been forgotten.  Equally though I am sure that the acts in question would rather be remembered on the strength of their material, rather than on which toilets they use.  There is also a geographical element to my having seen so few acts, for I have seen many more through the magical mediums of television, radio and the internet, many of whom I intend on seeing live (Josie Long, Sarah Millican, Susan Calman, Bridget Christie and Kirsten Schaal amongst others).

 

I don’t think that having so few female acts suggest that women aren’t funny, for instance I have never seen a double act or a sketch group live either, which would then inform that these aren’t funny, which is certainly not the case.

 

Comedy is such a subjective beast that it is impossible to argue that something ‘isn’t funny’, for there is always an unspoken suffix of ‘in my opinion’ at the end.

 

GG states that: “Every year produces a new crop of women standups who will take the world by storm, and when the froth subsides very few names persist”.  It is worth noting that this statement also holds true if you remove the word ‘women’.

 

I think that stand-up comedy as a male-dominated space is perhaps informed by its socio-historical roots in variety and dancehall, where struggle for equality hasn’t yet balanced the numbers in terms of comedians.

 

As a general rule when I go to see comedy, I hope that I am going to see something that makes me laugh, and this isn’t qualified with a preference of either male or female comedians.  I don’t think I am a radical maverick in saying that it is the content of the brain that is key to comedy, rather than the content of the underwear.

 

In a world where people still differentiate for such ridiculous reasons as colour of skin and sexual preference, it is hardly surprising that some people believe that no woman is funny.  Quite simply, they are wrong.  My perhaps unsatisfying wishy-washy conclusion is thus: some people are funny, some people aren’t.  It depends on what YOU think is funny.  Funny, that.