I just can’t help being amused by the ’sexism’ storm brewing in the twitter tea cup after  Ian Cohen asked Eugenie Bouchard to ‘give us a twirl’ last Wednesday night.

The shockwave’s of an athlete enjoying the limelight after a huge victory which resulted in ‘Twirlgate’ is the most bizarre reaction to sporting achievement that I’ve ever come across.

Personally I’m a football fanatic and I love a good celebration, many of the top footballers in the world have crafted their own signature celebrations, its part of the sporting carnival, the athlete’s brand which is so important to players that seek out celebrity status and lucrative product deals. The media attention that surrounds sporting professionals has turned athletes into sex symbols for as long as I can remember, because we all love the glamour and roguery that comes with the event or the individual.

Sport in itself is a product, sportswear is branded and sponsored in most cases with nearly every single sporting event you can think of being heavily commercialised by big brands and endorsement deals.

Athletes can hardly be expected to fly the flag of gender equality when we all prop up the commercial world in which they’re crowned. Athletes such as Eugenie Bouchard who dedicate their lives to sporting achievement are naturally going to achieve a state of physical eliteness which results in a degree of idolisation, we see this happening across the board with male and female athletes. If you Google search Christiano Ronaldo the first image you’ll see is a picture of the man with his top off, with the only debate being if he is the best or the second best player in the world right now, while contemporaries such as Lionel Messi carry on about their business without the six pack media hounds.

I do acknowledge the suggestion that “It treats female athletes as quaint curiosities rather than serious athletes” (Erin Riley The Guardian), but I think this is boxing off the young tennis player in a negative way, both as an athlete and as an individual.

To assume she is some shy victim of media old men is beyond daft, she may be only 20 years young but I think she’s savvy enough to know how to act in front of the camera which gives her access to the world stage.

“I think it was an in-the-moment thing and it was funny” Eugenie Bouchard

Even a household name and seasoned pro like Serena Williams was quick to comment on this so called act of ‘sexism’ in sport:

"I didn't really want to twirl because I don't need all the extra attention. But, yeah, it was fine... whether I twirl or not, it's not the end of the world”

Perhaps that’s the difference between an athlete looking to build a brand and an athlete with a well established profile, perhaps it’s the difference between someone buzzing in new found media attention and someone who’s lived with camera’s in her life for the last ten years, or perhaps it’s just the difference in personality or humour on the day.

Furthermore some female athletes just love being, well fabulous, sure society has created a socially acceptable niche for girls to bask in a certain brand of femininity, but if Eugenie Bouchard enjoys that mould why are people so quick to dictate how she promotes herself as an individual or as a sports personality/brand. Perhaps the reaction has been so negative because the reporter was male?

Now I don’t mean to suggest that just because you’re wearing a pretty little pink dress automatically means you’re seeking out degrading media attention, just so you can land yourself the next big Adidas deal, but I think we have to be realistic and acknowledge the fact that some athletes enjoy the camera and some athlete’s enjoy being both celebrities and the face of big brands.

Footballers like David Beckham have made good if not better careers as brand celebrities than they have in their chosen profession, and if Eugenie Bouchard was to exploit this position she wouldn’t be the first female tennis player or female athlete to do so, and she may very well become the biggest name in tennis over the next few years but one thing is for sure, she’s not going to get there on twirl’s alone, which is why she’s focusing on her game unlike the ‘Twirlgate’ obsesses who are probably already tuned in to the next serve of media hype as we speak. 

Sometimes it’s nice to stop and smell the roses, take a break, breath in some fresh air, forget about all the troubles in the world, but then you make the foolish mistake of switching on the tv and see Joe Biden shit all over your cornflakes, sniggering;

"I may be Irish but I'm not stupid"

Now this may seem trivial, it may be out of context, but it’s beyond excusable to hear a man as influential as the American Vice President endorsing stereotypes. This in effect is a racial attack which prevents Irish people from integrating into the American community. A remark like this prevents us from being afforded the equal opportunities we deserve on the global stage.

For me the irony of all this is that it reinforces my view on America as a country run by a political elite which has little regard for its people, the working class, or the global community.

Thanks America

This post is basically in response to everyone on Twitter who thinks it’s a good idea to write a comedy about The Great Famine.

Advocates of Ch4 distasteful decision have come out with the most bizarre examples to support famine adoration.

Comparing the idea of a comedy about the Irish famine to a film like ‘Life is Beautiful’ is the strangest opinion trending amongst Ch4’s blind faithful.

The film captured the gruesome environment of the concentration camps, some of the vile acts of WWll, and portrays the Nazi foot soldiers as the evil racists we’ve come to associate with a very dark time in European history.

In fact many films such as ‘The Boy in Stripped Pyjamis’, ‘The Great Escape’ & ‘The Book Thief’ have had comic moments within the dark setting of Nazi Germany, we can use comedic effect to take the edge off of serious topics while examining the atrocities and inhumane acts of war in such films, good writers do it very well .

Movies like ‘Inglorious Basterds’, ‘The Great Dictator’ & ‘The Blues Brothers’ all use Nazi characters for comic effect but we know what they represent and this is basically pantomime.

Advocates of the comedy on genocide have tweeted not to worry, Jonathan Swift wrote a comedy about the famine and it didn’t upset anyone! Again to take a satirical comedy written in 1729, prior to the Great Famine of 1845-1852 as justification for tvcom is absurd. Swift’s essay fully titled ‘A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick’ is a satirical view on bad governance similar to Bulgakov’s ‘Heart of a Dog’. The fact that its written before the famine highlights the trauma people felt under a tyrannical government, a government which drove a million people to death through starvation and forced another million people to flee from their native soil.

Comedies such as ‘The Mercy Seat’ set in the backdrop of 9/11 have been used to defend this famine crime, but setting a comedy around a historical event doesn’t use dead bodies to tell jokes, the play is simply about an individual who lived at the same time as 9/11 who contemplates faking his own death. Dark perhaps but you can’t simply expect to use the Irish Famine as the set of the so called ‘New Shameless. There is no humour to be found in slow starvation, crop failure, or the tears of the dying Irish people. How many potato jokes does this show think will be funny? How will this show tackle the poor governance which lead to a century of hatred towards English establishment in Ireland? Why is it now acceptable for the greatest famine in 19th century Europe to be made subject to a comedy? Are we all supposed to learn to laugh at ourselves, as if we just nearly tripped on loose paving in front of everyone?

The fact is we don’t laugh at the victims of tragedy, there is no 9/11 comedy, there is no Haiti on ice, Chernobyl the musical, or Dancing with Ebola. It’s not censorship to ask someone to have some compassion and decency, it’s not censorship to ask Ch4 if they’re doing this to make sure they do it right, it’s not censorship to say ‘Hey, hey CH4, that’s a show about our history and we don’t think it’s a good idea to joke about it’. If the souls of genocide are treated in some sort of visual necrophilia we will be upset. The famine isn’t Fr Ted, we aren’t going to laugh at a starving Black Adder type Baldrick burying his baby, we won’t appreciate ‘Alo Alo’ dragsters coming up with quirky ways to steal potatoes. If you can overcome all this be my guest, make as many shows as you like, but don’t make light of people who are initially upset because they want to protect their heritage.

The following are pictures from the famine in Ethiopia, I don’t see anyone laughing.