How To (Really) Pull Off a Pixie Haircut

After I got my hair cut short, one of my (male) colleagues said to me: “When a woman gets her hair cut, it means she is about to do something drastic.”


Well, duh, cut all my hair off. Idiot.


If you also decide to 'go for the chop' (I always hated that expression) there are a few (aesthetic) things that happen that the beauty blogs won't tell you about. And, yes, you can ignore them (and me) and do whatever the fuck you want with your hair. That's fine. But if you're a bit nervous about the prospect of being called 'fella' by a homeless person (true story) it's nice to have some guidance.

1. You have to make sure you go for the 'right' cut.
   

If you've ever looked at someone else's face you'll be aware that faces have different shapes, thanks to that lovely skull of ours. You need to make sure you are picking the right cut to suit it!


If you have a heart shaped face, you can go for the super-short fringe crop. Think Carey Mulligan, Miley Cyrus, and of course, Audrey Hepburn. Translation: you have enough cheekbone and a pointy enough chin that super-short hair flatters you, not flattens you. Well done.


If you have a strong jawline, you will have to go for a slightly longer 'do to balance out your awesome bone structure. Think Frankie Sandford and Keira Knightley. These styles are also better if you have highlights or a streak of colour: it looks edgy rather than like a mid-life crisis.


Longer faces, like Anne Hathaway, Emma Watson and Charlize Theron can pull off the crop: but the visual has to be on the forehead. I'm talking about having it above in a quiff, a (careful) half-fringe or full messy crop, you cannot have any of the hair growing 'outwards'. Sorry. With slender faces, anything that sticks out sideways will make your jawline disappear into your neck, and make you look like a crocodile.


Rounder faces: you can do it, too! Don't let basic bitches tell you it's not gonna happen. Look to deity and awesome human being Kelly Osbourne: think colour, think shaven, think curls, volume, texture, layers: punk, punk, punk!

2. Don't get it cut because you think it will be low maintenance.
   

Yes, it's true, it takes less time to wash and dry in the mornings. But chances are you'll need to wash it more often. Most of your hair is closer to the scalp and will therefore get greasy quicker, and that's if you're not playing with it all the time. Short hair is also much less wash-and-go, because there is much less weight it has more of a mind of it's own and may require some light to heavy styling. If you've got twenty quid lying around then Bumble & Bumble's salt spray is a godsend, but if not, a cheaper version of a salt or texturing spray will do. At this point it's best to throw out any mouses, creams, gels, waxes...anything that isn't hairspray. It'll just be too damn heavy.

3. Help!! I didn't realise my wardrobe would need changing!
   

It's okay!! Neither did I. If your style is naturally girly and floral, this probably isn't a problem. You just look fucking adorable now. However if like me your wardrobe is full of jeans, t-shirts and wool-blend jumpers you might find yourself in a pickle. Don't panic. There are a few simple changes you can make.

• Draw the focus around your neck and shoulders. Off-shoulder tops and jumpers, halternecks, high-neck, turtle neck, asymmetrical, bandeau... the world is your oyster. Necklaces work brilliantly here, too.
  
• Lipstick. If you haven't dabbled yet, now is the time. Make her your best friend, your ally, your soul mate. There are very, very few faces which can't be improved by lipstick. Find your shade, your accomplice, and go take on the world together.
  
• If all else fails and you only have the time (or the budget) for one thing, make it earrings. The main shock you will find when getting your hair cut is that your ears are now visible, so for god sake put something on them. Hoops, studs, plugs, whatever you fancy. I never leave the house without them.
  

4. How do I dress up for a night out if I can't curl/straighten/put up my hair?
   

This won't be a problem, trust me. The fantastic thing about short hair is that you can now wear really slutty gear.... and not look like a slut. It's brilliant. Bodycon dresses? Sexy. Leggings and top? Cute as fuck. Granny jumper? Instant girlfriend material. All black everything? Fucking art student. Stripy t-shirt? Fucking French art student. Tons of make up. Tons of bling. You look fucking peng, all the time. Enjoy it.


It's never something to consider lightly. Once you get it cut, you'll have to wait AT LEAST a year before it grows back into anything resembling even a bob. But it's a lot of fun, and isn't that everything that Cindy Lauper wanted us to have?

The life of a Sherlock Superfan: Devoted or Deluded?

In our media-saturated generation, it’s hard to avoid people telling you to watch the newest TV show, or tweeting about their Netflix binge of True Detective. So what happens when someone loves a TV show so much, they get national news coverage because of it?

I had this experience when my friend from college, the shy yet chirpy Irene-Elisabeth Ellis tweeted an image of herself in a national newspaper, and then in a BBC program, and then when she revealed to me that she’d gained over four thousand followers on Tumblr who were eager to watch her spend thousands of pounds on trains, coaches and cosplay.

Compared to other internet personas, this may not seem impressive. But Irene is famous amongst a very specific set of people: the mostly-online fandom for one of the BBC’s most popular shows: Sherlock. Played by cheekbone-enthusiast Benedict Cumberbatch and the jaw-clenchingly inoffensive Martin Freeman, the series, which draws in on average eight million views per episode and is the UK’s most watched drama series since 2001, tells the classic tale of stroppy detective Sherlock Holmes and even stroppier sidekick Dr John Watson set in 21^st Century London. It has won multiple awards and has gained recent media coverage because of fans turning up in their hundreds to watch the new series being filmed, in London and other parts of the UK. Dubbed as ‘Setlock’, a quick search of the word on Twitter brings up hundreds of images of cold yet optimistic fans standing behind barriers, eager to catch a glimpse of their favourite actors recording scenes which won’t be on TV for another six months.

For Irene, this became a regular excursion for her and a few other die-hard Sherlock enthusiasts. She told me over the phone about her first ‘Setlock’ experience.

“We got there about seven in the morning, there was about five or six girls there. We waited around with the crew who were setting up.” Eight hours later, the cast arrive. “By then there was a good six hundred of us.” She had been lucky enough to meet cast member and co-creator Mark Gatiss after the filming had finished. “He asked us what we were doing, in school and stuff. He was lovely.” Irene visited so many sets, the cast and crew began to recognise her. “By the third or fourth time they started to recognise me, and then they looked at me and kind of nodded, or gave me a knowing smile.”

 

For many other fans, like Irene, it’s not just the experience of seeing the actors in the flesh that draws them into fandom culture. “It felt like a little family at first, about two, three years ago, just creative people, making fan art. When I moved to university, if I didn’t make any friends I knew I had this whole online community who would back me up.”

So is this phenomenon exclusive to the Sherlock fandom? I spoke to Dr Lynn Zubernis, Associate Professor at West Chester University and co-author of Fangasm: Supernatural Fangirls. She referred to her own experiences meeting Supernatural fans across the US.

“The dynamics of fandom and the reasons people become fans generalizes across other similar media properties that draw a significant fan following. I’ve had some discussions with researchers who study sports fandom, and we agree that even those fan dynamics are similar.” As a fangirl herself, she sees first-hand the benefits of being involved in the fan community. “I’ve talked to fans who ‘gave up’ drawing or writing or photography a decade ago, and then rediscovered that ability and passion through fandom. I doubt I would have published five books over the past five years if I hadn’t boosted my confidence with fanfiction.”

Those of you who are members – or ex-members – of fandom will know that it’s not always so peachy. The Sherlock fandom, alongside many others, has a tense undercurrent which can be rocked by even the smallest tweet, image or sentence in an article. “You realise that there is a hierarchy within your fandom and you can put yourself in that hierarchy if you take enough pictures, if you become involved enough. I became as involved as I could be and I had a little bit of online fame - it was nice. It’s a fraction of what [the actors] are feeling, I’m sure.” She would still have people at Sherlock-themed events coming up and asking for pictures. “It’s quite overwhelming, and one of the reasons why I took a step back from the fandom.” 

“This is a part of the ‘Setlock’ phenomenon, but also a part of social media in general.” Lynn explains. “The pull to be ‘seen’ by so many ‘followers’ is a strong one, and some people will go to great lengths to be ‘popular’. This isn’t a new idea, it’s just playing out on a new arena. It’s far from limited to fandom, but is related since it’s a substantial part of the celebrity worship that is so widespread in our culture. The time spent on social media can itself have a negative impact on relationships, work or academics – and the psychological impact of constantly being exposed to others’ fictionalized ‘best lives’ can be depressing.”

Inevitably, with any large gathering of young people – be in online, or in real life - the newspapers will report on the less favourable aspects. The Radio Times has written a handful of articles about the disruption that Setlock causes. Most of the cast, including fandom-dividing co-creator Steven Moffatt have been openly appreciative of fans – a wise PR move – but Martin Freeman’s comment that he “didn’t love” fans visiting the set is endlessly quoted by those who are anti-Setlock. “If you look at the photos between last year and this year, you can see they don’t particularly want the fans, but they’re used to it now.” Irene tells me. And that’s not the only negative press they’ve received. 

 

I asked Irene if she thought that the critics picked on Sherlock fans because they are mostly female. “People are quicker to judge young girls because they think, ‘they need something to obsess over, and they’re probably quite troubled as they grow up’. But if you spoke to each and every one of them they were perfectly normal human beings. They just wanted a chance like anyone else to see something that they loved.”

“Football fans, they would go to their matches every week, and they’re never called obsessed. They wear the shirts, they have the scarves, but if I went to go and see my favourite show or went to see people whom I idolised, I was being called obsessed.”

Sadly, Lynn sees this with many female-led fan communities. “‘Female’ fandoms tend to draw more criticism – the first time Twilight came to Comic Con, there were scathing articles about the female fans even in the midst of an entire convention celebrating geek culture. Some of this attitude flows from a misogynistic culture in general, and some perhaps from a discomfort with any expression of female sexuality – hence the articles about the ‘screaming hysterical fans’ of Benedict Cumberbatch or the ‘Twihard moms’.” There are also benefits to being involved in a mostly female fandom amongst a geek culture still dominated by men. “Some media fan communities are largely communities of women, and can be the first places in which women feel free to be themselves. That openness leads to psychological growth, a sense of belonging, and a validation that can be powerful.”

I then asked Irene a question for which I didn’t think I’d get an answer: Was she addicted to fandom?

“I wasn’t sure if I’d be happy with admitting it to too many people, but it became obvious. It became my whole life this Sherlock thing, I loved it. I had to step away from it for a few weeks and I thought, this is hard, this is horrible, who am I? I didn’t really know who I could describe myself as if it wasn’t as a Sherlock fan.” 

“Within fandom, fans joke about being addicted, but it’s an in-group joke that’s understood to be less negative than the mainstream definition.” Dr. Zubernis explains. “On the other hand, being “in fandom” can be an important part of someone’s life, and the thought of giving it up is threatening.” 

It’s not just the external aspects of life that are affected by such involvement. “I became so involved in every aspect, I just couldn’t enjoy the show itself.” Irene tells me.

But are the fans – like the critics would have us believe – ‘unhinged’? “We didn’t run into any more ‘unhinged’ fans in our travels than I run into ‘unhinged’ academics at a conference.” Lynn says. “Are there fans who don’t know what the word ‘boundary’ means? Sure. There are accountants who don’t know either.”

For most fans, the pros of being involved in a worldwide internet TV fandom outweigh the cons.

“Probably our most positive finding was the psychological benefits of the sense of community that people find in fandom. Especially for anyone who has ever felt marginalized, finding a community that is accepting is powerful.” Lynn tells me. “I think we all tend to be a bit uncomfortable around strong passion of any kind, but for the most part, we’ve found that passion and creativity – in fandom and in general -- are a good thing.”

And Irene? “I met a guy through Sherlock which was surprising. I met him at stage door, Martin Freeman was doing a play, and in the end it’s made me a way more sociable person than I’ve ever been.”

Finally, I asked Irene: What advice would you give someone who was planning on visiting Setlock?

“I would think about it a lot, before you decide to go. It’s not necessarily a good way to meet your idols. Oh, and don’t bring giant cardboard cut outs of Benedict’s face and expect him to sign them.”

We Have To Move On From The Bechdel Test

For the last two decades, the Bechdel Test has caused a great deal of discussion amongst feminists and film critics alike. Originating from Alison Bechdel’s Dykes to Watch Out For comics in 1985, the test is easy to use and has been applied to nearly all mainstream films and, somewhat surprisingly, a number of Dr. Who episodes.

To pass the test, the film or episode has to have:

1.      At least two (named) women

2.      Who talk to each other

3.      About something other than a man

It’s a pretty low bar to set, yet most films released today will not pass it.

“The test has been an effective consciousness-raising tool, alerting movie-goers and the general public to the under-representation and misrepresentation of female characters.” Says Dr Martha Lauzen, Executive Director of the Centre for Study of Women in Television and Film. “It is very simple to use and that, I think, is why it has gained such popularity.”

To an extent the results of the test does reflect an ever prevalent gender inequality in the production, writing and casting of films. A the latest Celluloid Ceiling study completed by Dr Lauzen showed that, in the top 250 hundred grossing films in 2014, only 7% of the directors and 11% of the writers were women.

“My research has found again and again that films with at least one woman writer or director feature higher percentages of female characters on screen” Dr Lauzen adds.

Numerous studies have demonstrated gender inequality in the film industry, both in the making of the film and how the public treat male and female cast members. More recently, Amy Poehler’s ‘Ask Her More’ campaign has highlighted an uncomfortable amount of sexism in the questions women are asked on the red carpet.

We’ve got the facts, and we’ve got over one hundred years of anecdotal evidence of female actors, writers and directors being marginalised. So is the Bechdel test now irrelevant?

“It was never intended to be an actual measure of the quality of a film's portrayals of women.” Says Dr Lauzen. “There are films that provide relatively good portrayals of female characters that do not pass the test, and films that provide relatively poor portrayals of females that do pass the test. Thus, any actual application of the test is flawed. The test is remarkably imprecise as a measure.”

As an alternative to the three original Bechdel questions, I asked her if there was perhaps a more effective way of analysing film for genuine gender equality. Here is what she came up with:

1.      Are the female characters central to the story?

2.      Do the female characters have agency?

3.      Are the female characters multi-dimensional?

“While these questions lack the simplicity of the Bechdel test, they would yield more accurate and complete assessments of the quality of film portrayals.” She told me. “The first question asks about the centrality of females to the story. Are they major characters who are integral to the action of the story?”

“The second question is about agency. Do they have the ability to act and influence not only their own outcome but the outcomes of others? The third question asks whether female characters are portrayed in multidimensional ways. Are they defined by a single role or do they inhabit multiple roles interacting with other characters in a variety of settings? Generally speaking, characters who interact with a number of individuals in many settings tend to be more fully drawn.”

Dr Lauzen is not the only person to speak up about the failings of the Bechdel Test. Media critic and founder of Feminist Frequency Anita Sarkeesian used the test back in 2012 on Oscar nominated films. Unsurprisingly, most of the films failed the test. But Sarkeesian finds another flaw in the current test model.

“Women aren’t the only ones marginalised in Hollywood movies” Anita says in her video, The Oscars and the Bechdel Test.

This is where the figures get really depressing. At the 2015 Oscars, only 6% of the nominees were non-white, and, for the first time since 1998, all twenty of the acting nominees (both male and female) were white. In the whole history of the Oscars, no ethnic minorities have ever won the trophy for Best Director.

The Bechdel test is important in identifying patterns of inequality within the film industry, but as a way of tackling it, it does little more than raise awareness in a fairly two-dimensional way.

“The grassroots dialogue about this issue has grown significantly in recent years.” Says Dr Lauzen. “The discussion is much more prevalent now, appearing in the trades, the popular press, on-line, and in social media. Diversity is now a part of our cultural zeitgeist. However, solving the problem will require the leaders in the mainstream film industry to acknowledge the depth and breadth of the problem, and to work together on large-scale solutions to solve the problem.”

The discussion on inequalities, from all marginalised groups, begins with the questions raised by techniques like the Bechdel Test. But the conversation has to move on, it has to change and become something much more challenging.