Punishing Dundalk FC for a fan flying a Palestinian flag is devoid of any logic.

Punishing Dundalk FC for fans waving a Palestinian Flag during a match against Croatian side Hajduk Split is a gross example of selective myopia. The town is reeling, and there are damn good reasons why. 

The size of the fine is maddening and the club can ill afford it. To compare, Villarreal were fined €12k when someone threw a banana at Dani Alves; an action designed to hurt and offend, and it did. The waving of a Palestinian flag by Dundalk FC supporters was designed to do neither, and it didn’t. 

It should be noted that Dundalk FC were fined for two offences, one for an inappropriate flag and the other for standing in the stadium. The latter comes under health and safety which is taken very seriously: In a highly comparable case from earlier this year, Bayern Munich had part of the stadium closed for fans standing. They too were issued with a fine, €10k, for inappropriate flags. How the fine is proportioned between the two offences will be interesting to see. 

But I’m struggling to see the logic behind issuing the fine at all. I am no UEFA, LOI, FA, ETC... aficionado; but it doesn’t take one to see the myriad of comparable situations that have not incurred the wrath of footballing authorities.

The road between Dundalk and Glasgow is a well worn track. A small army makes the regular pilgrimage to matches of varying importance and follow them across Europe. I’d dare say, if there were as many committed Dundalk FC supporters in Dundalk as there are Celtic supporters, club finances wouldn’t be taking so hard a hit. And in the bags of every platoon that travel to Celtic games are the tricolours that those of us watching at home use to spot the Irish in the crowd. And if Celtic were fined for every tricolour...well you can start to see the argument that this was a politically motivated fine. 

And it’s not just a Dundalk or Celtic thing; from what I can see flying a national flag as a signal of solidarity is part of the fabric of football support. Since the news broke about the fine social media users have been quick to point to many other instances of national flags flying as signs of solidarity with something or other. There are so many it hardly seems an uncommon occurrence. That’s why I’m struggling to understand how UEFA have acted to issue a fine at all.   

There is already a strong belief that the problem is that flying the Palestinian flag was politicised, whether it was the fans that flew the flags in the first place or UEFA’s disproportionate response that really introduced that political question remains to be seen. The weighting of the €18k fine between the two offences could be telling in this regard. 

I don’t view the flying of a national flag as an overtly political act; the national flag does not belong to the government, but to the people. They are visual signifiers for where someone is from and if we know the country represented, we might know something of what that country has experienced. It is not a description of an individual or even a group’s political, religious or any other opinions. 

It is not clear to what degree the conflict in Gaza has played a part in the fine or its scale, if it did at all. But considering the size of the fine and so many other situations when flying a national flag went without comment, it seems likely. But, there is no logic in presuming that the flying of a national flag is an antagonistic act based on recent conflict. If you follow that logic then every tricolour flown would be viewed as an anti-British act, or the flying of a Union Jack and Stars and Stripes would be anti-Iraqi, and so on until presumably, hopefully, someone realises how foolish this line of thinking is.  

There are examples where UEFA have issued fines when a national flag has had a political slogan on it, or when it has been used in a way that is intended to cause offence to the people of that nation.  Celtic were fined €50k last year for a tricolour with Bobby Sands on it being flown at a match against AC Milan. Earlier this year Russian-side Zenit from St Petersberg was fined €15k for fans burning a German Flag. The German Football Association was fined €25k when a neo-nazi flag was flown at their Euro 2012 match against Denmark.

However, it is difficult to find examples of national flags being flown in isolation, without some sort of potentially offensive slogan or action that has incurred a UEFA fine. 

€18k is a considerable sum for the club. There are already calls for the fans to dig deep and help pay the fine. But it would be a stomach churning response for the town raise funds for this fine and not for the countless resource-starved charities and community groups that desperately need money.

So if UEFA do not revoke the fine, in the face of every other national flag that has appeared at a UEFA match, despite issuing lower fines for worse acts and what appears to be their ignorant and illogical presumption that flying a Palestinian flag in Dundalk was designed to inflict harm or offend, then let’s be clear and determine exactly why they are punishing anyone at all.

Masculinity versus Make-Up: In a period of flux, how big an impact will cynical advertising be likely to have ?

When David Beckham’s bulging Armani advert was posted on billboards and busses earlier this year it caused quite a stir. Some complained it was gratuitous while others just delighted in the spectacle of it all. But a quick glance at magazines and TV screen shows that there was really nothing unusual about a toned man displaying muscles to shift a few units for the sponsors. Yes, the male body has been commercialised.   

The advertising of men’s grooming products is on the up and only the finest specimens are chosen to advertise them. Even skin tone, defined muscles, chizzled jaw’s, intense eyes and a heavy brow are the common features that men are seeing every day. And it’s not just in models and movies, news readers, TV presenters, politicians, rock stars and footballers are all do a stint in the make-up chair before making public appearances. With the increase in the quality of our TV screens anyone who stands in front the camera stands to have every imperfection exposed.

If it is true that celebrity trends trickle down to the increasingly primped and pruned masses, then in coming years we are likely to see generations of men incorporate the application of make-up into their daily routine.

By Mimi Haddon Getty Images

The men’s cosmetic industry is thriving; companies like Clinique and L’Oreal have finally struck gold on a hereto untapped market and it’s an easy transition for them to make. To a large degree, the ground-work has been laid. For over 100 years cosmetics companies have employed the finest scientists and experts to brew potions and lotions to suit a wide variety of skin types and individual feature needs. It’s a simple rebrand, repackage, change of marketing strategy and hey presto it’s ready to roll out.

Many men rebut projections for the future of the sex. Some argue that because the male ideal physique is traditionally rugged and burly that these marketers cynical play on male vanity will not work. But they would be missing the point - the aim is to convince that these qualities will be enhanced, making them more striking, more sexually appealing and more affirming of masculinity.

There is an art in applying make-up and its greatest successes are the most subtle. No one is suggesting that men will start utilising the rainbow of eyeshades to match their manbags any time soon. Men’s cosmetics are more tactful; it is about covering up blemishes and the use of shadow to highlight the contours of the face. The product ranges of the most popular men’s lines like Calvin Klein and Clinique are all geared towards shine correction, concealment and enhancement. They have not yet dipped into the more decorative items.

The state of play is changing, but perhaps, not as quickly as cosmetics companies would like. The men’s fashion industry in the UK is now worth more than €25bn a year and rising; men’s cosmetics in the region of €870m.

The main buyers of ‘guy-liner’ and ‘manscara’ are the under 24’s and the market is expanding.  Beauticians are increasingly offering their services to men, there are hundreds of YouTube tutorials of how to achieve the no make-up look and – in short men are plugged into the beauty trade.

As fourth generation feminists continue the battle over unrealistic depiction of perfection having a distorting effect on young women’s body image – the question is what effect are these paradigms of manhood having on young impressionable men? 

The simple answer would be - it’s making them more conscious and concerned about their appearance. Not such a bad thing really, well not yet anyway. The industry has not yet reached the destructive proportions that marketing to women has had but the method of delivery is the same. Convince you that your appearance is inadequate and offer you a quick-fix solution.

The question becomes are men somehow immune to the influence that the exposure to images of perfection that populate the media? How will men fair when their insecurities are turned against them and the pressure to look a certain way becomes the norm?

One of the areas where it will really hit is when it comes to employment.  When men start to lose out on the jobs front because they are not aesthetically up to scratch, how will they react? There are host of recent surveys by recruitment companies that say a clean shaven, well groomed candidates is far more likely to gain employment than one that is not. The pressure increases when you suspect you are suffering personally from societies' ugly side.   

When we talk about pressure that is put on us to look a certain way, it is worth remembering that much of the pressure is self inflicted. While personal hygiene and general grooming are always welcomed and style and self-confidence celebrated, there is no pride in falling prey to astute marketing and succumbing to the pressures of insecurity and vanity that has been assimilated into ‘femininity’.  It is hard to detach, but it is not impossible and the result can be more rewarding.  

Nothing is constant and just as femininity has changed and adapted through generations, so too will masculinity. But this time, what it is to be a man is being reshaped to fit in with our evolving cultural values in a context where most of the major pitfalls of marketing influence are as obvious as the billboards that promote it.  


First published in Seamus Magazine June 2012

Chris Brown: FAME, Fortune and the factions that stand against him.

27/11/2012

Some things can never really be lived down and Chris Brown is slowly learning that beating up your girlfriend is one of them.  In recent weeks the promotional tour for his album Fortune has landed him not so much in the spotlight, but in the cross hairs of a firing line.

Although he has made some efforts to atone, he still reacts sharply to continued criticisms over his 2009 assault on reigning queen of pop, Rihanna. But in the absence of any tangible acts of contrition or credible public remorse, these criticisms are unlikely to go away.      

Four years ago the LA police they found a woman, bloody, bruised and beaten sitting in a car parked in the glamorous neighbourhood of Hancock, LA.  It was Rihanna who identified her then 19-year old boyfriend Chris Brown as her attacker. He was nowhere to be seen.

Although later that night he handed himself in to police, in court he initially claimed he was innocent of the charges of assault. It took him four months to take responsibility for the attack and pled guilty.

Before his Stockholm show pictures of Rihanna’a face taken by police after an assault were plastered over the city.  He cancelled a show in Guyana because of protests over the attack.  Irish rappers The Original Rudeboys turned down the offer to support him at his Dublin’s O2 show this December 3. 

Every stop on his tour, he has been dogged by women’s groups protesting and there has been a constant stream of digs at the rapper on Twitter. It is clear that despite the fact Ri-Ri has forgiven him, as have many of his fans (Team Breezy) there is a large and vocal section of society that does not.  But then, he has given them no good reason to.

The first step towards forgiveness is contrition, and Chris Brown can’t be accused of displaying much humility following the attack. Initially denying it but later accepting a plea deal that incurs a lesser sentence than a guilty verdict in a trail doesn’t indicate heartfelt sorrow. His YouTube apology, that came too long after the assault appears scripted, robotic and insincere. He has made some efforts, meeting the children who have been effected by domestic violence. For many this isn’t enough.    

Since the incident he reacts testily to those who pick at his healing wounds. He periodically lashes out those who criticise him over the attack. He deleted his Twitter account for the second time after bombarding one of these critics, comedy writer Jenny Johnson, with abuse. The first time it was after lambasting family friendly retailers who refused to carry his album Graffiti in response to the assault.

He has also been provokingly smug about the whole episode.  He scoffed at complaints when he got the best album for Fortune - “Hate all you want coz I got a Grammy Now! That's the ultimate F*** OFF” he tweeted, as if the accolade somehow a vindicated him.  

In terms of his career and social standing it doesn’t appear he has had to face many of the repercussions that most would were they so publically exposed as the perpetrator of a violent assault. He has recovered remarkably quickly from this damning episode. While Brown may be truly ashamed of his actions, it’s difficult to see this as he self-promotes and goes from strength to strength.     

At first the wave criticisms following Brown’s arrest looked like they might kill his career and exile him to Hollywood Hall of Infamy. But with the exception of a rocky start to the release of singles from 2009’s Graffiti, it has been all uphill.

By September that year, nine months after assaulting Rihanna, his album was climbing up the US top ten list. His follow up multi-award-winning F.A.M.E and this year’s Fortune both peaking at No 1; He has been busy collaborating with major artists since the attack including former lover punch-bag Rihanna who appears to have unreservedly forgiven him; He counts Nicole Scherzinger and Justin Beiber among his friends; And currently worth an estimated $24 million.

Considering his successes and his devoted Team Breezy behind him it is easy to understand why he views those who take issue with him as little more than cracks. The 23-year old thinks society hasn’t matured enough for him.  "These b****** crazy. Further proved my point of how immature society is. #CarpeDiem. Catch me in traffic," was his farewell to followers before he signed out of Twitter for the last time, again. 

However, as he continues to self-promote and without a display of real penance or humility, for many Brown can’t atone for his crime. He simply hasn’t suffered enough, if at all, and will be subject to all the torments and jibes that society heaps on recreants.

Even the most innocuous of things he does will be jumped upon. “Serious tweet: I THink SKATEBOARDING AND BREAKDANCING should be an Olympic sport,” he wrote. “Or intergender boxing, you’d be in with a chance of a medal there mate” replied comedian Frankie Boyle.

Ike Turner’s recovery from his violent break-up with Tina took nearly 30 years. And in that time he suffered greatly for his loss of reputation. For a long time he was considered a violent erratic character, his career nose dived and his friends deserted him. Whitney Huston’s partner Bobby Brown suffered a similar fate. Charlie Sheen breakdown following accusation of domestic assault resulted in his sacking as the star of hot TV show Two and a Half Men. Few recover as easily as Chris Brown.  

While the pressure from society for men to not be abusive or domineering over women is a good thing, how this is focused on an individual man is important and it does not always going to lead to change. Forgiveness has to be based on a real sense change has happened which is different to being sorry. There must be a certain quality of remorse which is demonstrated through behavioural changes.

For Mr Brown it is a Catch 22. His family may see it, and Rihanna may see it, but society has not yet seen a real change that they need to back-off so he can work on altering his behaviour.

 Back in 2009, Brown, in his public apology professed to being determined to change and to become truly worthy of being a role model. Last week’s tirade of misogynistic abuse toward Jackson indicates that after four years he may not be all that that remorseful, because in public he has not changed all that much. He still lashes-out, he still abuses, verbally, and is demining to women. And so he has not yet earned clemency.

By Niamh Kirk