LAST weekend seems to have been filled with remarks being made and then taken the wrong way. It all started with the Eurovision Song Contest on Saturday night. It’s an event that is renowned for evoking strong reactions from viewers who feel betrayed when their favourite country doesn’t get the votes that they feel they deserve or when countries that are supposed to be on friendly terms turn around at the last moment and don’t provide the points that they’d been expected to. It’s fast becoming a night that is pivotal in regards to international relations and so it’s not surprising that the social media accounts of various companies and organisations have jumped in on the act.
Innocent Smoothies are one such company. They’re a company known for being a little off kilter and it’s something that their audience have come to love. Their social media manager spent their Saturday night live tweeting reactions to the acts and it seemed that they got a little over excited when it came to what should have been the traditional generosities between the UK and Irish juries. However, it seems that Brexit has caused a few ill feelings in Ireland and the jury decided that the UK act deserved a grand total of zero points.
The poor social media guru clearly choked on their smoothie at that and furiously tweeted: “Ireland, you are DEAD TO US. #EUROVISON”. The majority of people, myself included, saw no malice in this and took it solely as an off-the-cuff reaction. It was clearly meant as a joke but some unfortunately didn’t see it that way and the company later deleted the tweet and posted an apology, continuing to apologise well into the next day. 
I felt quite sorry for them because there was clearly no harm intended and I’m sure that worse things were said in the living rooms of some homes whereas one Conservative councillor in Warwick launched a far more direct and vicious attack.
I’d hoped that would be the end of it for one weekend but it seemed that as the Innocent furore began to die down, there was another drama gaining momentum in Ireland and it wasn’t long before it shouldered all thoughts of smoothies and Eurovision out of the way.
Arlene Foster had given an interview to The Sunday Independent and the closing paragraphs were causing a bit of a stir. 
Within them, we read that she had been asked by the journalist to play something like a word association game and the topic in question was Michelle O’Neill. She seemed to have been reluctant to answer but eventually did use the word “blonde”.
It’s something that again has had quite the mixed reaction. Many were scathing of how much attention it was gathering when we’re in the midst of an election and we’ve been without a functioning local government for half a year. Some felt that the comments were sexist and unduly critical of O’Neill. Others said that there were plenty of other words or phrases that could have been used and happily provided both positive and negative examples.
I read the full article online and hadn’t noted anything that was glaringly awful about it. When I read the word “blonde”, I didn’t see that as a negative, especially when it was followed up with a compliment about how well turned out Michelle O’Neill always is. It’s something that many people have commented on in the past whereas Arlene Foster has for many years now had to bear the brunt of less than flattering commentary on her own appearance. It’s something that is going to hurt no matter how much you try to brush it off and given that there had been a segment in the interview that focused on this, it’s not unreasonable to understand how appearance was the first thing that popped into Arlene’s mind when faced with the question.
I personally see it all as becoming a bit of a storm in a teacup. Despite the medley of colours that have adorned my head, I am a natural blonde: the lackadaisical upkeep of my roots over the years have always been able to attest to that. If I asked someone to describe me and they used the colour of my hair, then I’d do as the journalist did and ask for that to be expanded on. If the person said that they meant that I was the quintessential dumb blonde, then I’d take offence but if they went on to explain how it was meant in a positive light, then I’d be happy.
It would be no different than describing me as having blue eyes, a glasses wearer or of average height for a female. When I was a toddler, I went missing in a shopping centre. Mum of course panicked and went to a security guard, who asked for a description to put out over the tannoy. She couldn’t remember what I was wearing but could remember my hair colour which meant that other shoppers instantly had something to go on while looking for a child sans parent.
Whether we like to admit it or not, we’re all guilty of judging someone on their appearance because it’s the first thing we notice about someone. Many people have a trademark look about them and when you hear their name, that’s the first thing that you think of. Hillary Clinton is practically synonymous with pantsuits now. Think of Donald Trump and the mind thinks of his orange hue, blonde comb-over and apparently smaller than average hands. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made countless headlines based on how attractive he looks. Adele loves her little black dress. Naomi Long embraces her “ginger ninja” nickname.
I wish we weren’t a society that places such an emphasis on looks but unfortunately that’s the way that things are currently. We’re all aware of it even if we try to fight against it and tell ourselves that we don’t care what people think. Deep down I think the majority do care and take the steps they can to manipulate their image for their own protection. When we’re put on the spot, it’s natural for appearance to be the first thing we think of. Take an extra fifteen seconds and we might be able to comment on their personality or strengths. Being under pressure does funny things to you and there’s no getting around it – Michelle O’Neill definitely has blonde hair.