I was standing in line of the local reading emporium, waiting to purchase an overpriced item, when something on the front cover of one of those womens magazines caught my eye. It said "Inside: how to diet like a hot girl." Now this to me exemplified what is wrong with society today, specifically why young girls today have such a shit culture to grow into. To me, the article itself made two key negative statements which I will address in turn. Firstly, that dieting in necessary. Secondly, it implied that the reader was not an attractive girl (I was most offended, I thought I was an attractive girl). But firsts first.
Whilst the title may not have come right out and say it, the idea of dieting has become so prevalent in the culture of not only females but males as well, and in younger and younger generations. What we all should be seeing and should be screaming with rage is that skinny women and tanked guys are becoming the be all and end all of beauty in the media. Let me start off by saying, as I have said hundreds of times, that self imposed anorexic models are in no way attractive. But what we see is a push towards thin body structure being the highest point in the social hierarchy. This is being achieved in several ways.
1. All of the figures in the media are seen to be very skinny (or at least the ones that have been defined as hot)
2. The anorexic agenda is reinforced through music and video media in which direct lyrics or footage states that skinny is hot and fat is not. Furthermore, modelling agents that force models to be underweight to get work add to this negative body image persona.
3. The final social trend contributing to this relates to the opposition of these figures and thought processes in the media. Where is it?? There are no great sweeping movements within our society to promote healthy eating and body image, and as the old saying goes, if you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
This push towards thin beauty is disgusting. Not only is it a health risk, but it is completely false. People have so much beauty within themselves, but they cannot see past the barrier that has been put up against their self confidence. And this leads me to my second point
The magazine title that started this rant directly implied that, not only was dieting hot, but that the person reading it was not hot and should diet to change that. The problem with this is that it has the opportunity to instantly crush the confidence of any teenager that walks past and reads it. And this is a large part of the problem: the media and current social trends capitalize upon peoples (especially teenagers) wavering or minimal self confidence, and offer them a solution that is so difficult to achieve that they end up harming themselves in the process.
I in no way intend any harm to truly anorexic people with these views. It is a serious mental disorder that plagues many individuals. But what we see is a rise in the number of affected people, which seems to be resultant from this trend in common culture I have discussed.
Do we sit by and watch as our society captures our attentions and brain washes us? We do not. Whilst this blog will not enact major changes any time soon, I implore you, the readers, to go out, compliment a friend, any friend, tell them why they are special. Put thought in to it, explain to them why they rock. Write it down, send it to them, email or snail mail is fine. Lets start our own trend. Fuck the media. If we want change we need to take the first step.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
But if they hate, then let them hate...
Deep breath.
I watched roughly 10 minutes of channel V tonight, for it amuses my sleep addled brain with a lot of tunage (with the occasional good song I hang out for). Whilst I didn't pay attention to a lot of the lyrics, I found myself learning more and more about the artists and the songs from the video clips. Whilst a song should be judge on its merits as it is heard on a cd or the radio, the video clip shows more about the artist than the song, in my humble (but entirely correct) opinion. Heres what I learnt:
1) Songs can be divided into two broad categories (or at least, for the purposes of this blog, songs of the current day that would be played on channel V), the first being the 'love song', ie. Into the night by Chaddy boy (Santana = awesomeness), the second being the 'hit that' song, ie. Kiss kiss, by some douchebag.
2) The video clip for the love songs (for the rest of this blog, insert all quotation marks when you feel it is appropriate) seem to compliment the song by giving a face to one or more of the parties involved in the loving relationship, which relates it back to us because we have met everyone in the film clip and are thus involved somehow
3) The video clips for the 'hit that' songs (moar quotation marks) seem to further increase the retarded nature of these songs by flaunting scantily clad men and women all over the screen, serving to put mild porn on our TV's.
It is the third point I wish to address in more depth.
When watching the video clip to the song 'Kiss Kiss' (all 10 seconds that I watched), I found myself understanding the story completely from the few lines that were said, and the fewer actions that were made. Firstly, it seemed as if an attractive female, to be known as Tits McGee forth hence, is dating a nerdy male (who is classified as nerdy as he wears glasses and has an IQ). The nerdy male is played by the singer, who also plays the buff football player (now referred to as Jock Strap), who we assume is closer to his real life persona. All i saw in the video clip was Jock Strap tackle the nerd, with disapproving looks from Tits McGee. The lyrics had several ideas: a) Jock Strap wished to have intercourse with Tits McGee b) The reason Mr Strap wanted to do the do was because Tits McGee was hot (the line, translated roughly into english, said something like 'Cause I know your hot, thats why I like you')
Now, there are many things I wish to expand on
1) What is the fascination with being a Jock Strap these days? Why do these people assume that, just because an attractive girl is going out with an intellectual, they are not happy, and need some illiterate loving?
2) Why is intelligence 'hated upon' in the streamline media? Are the 'tough guys' scared of the power wielded by those with a functional brain?
3) If your friend of the male or female gender is knocked down by some fish monkey, do not stare at them, help them up. Be civil, for Gods sake.
4) What is the global fascination with looks these days? Everyone is concerned about it!! From the renewal of outfits to stay trendy, to the application of makeup, people attack themselves with expensive objects because they do not feel they are adequate. If you are reading this, you are beautiful. When you find someone (or have found someone) who loves you, they will love you for who you are. Relationships are filled with attraction: but via love, not the body. I would never date anyone hot who was dull as a brick.
I think I had more to say. But I need my sleep. I may update this eventually.
Go with Christ, brah
I watched roughly 10 minutes of channel V tonight, for it amuses my sleep addled brain with a lot of tunage (with the occasional good song I hang out for). Whilst I didn't pay attention to a lot of the lyrics, I found myself learning more and more about the artists and the songs from the video clips. Whilst a song should be judge on its merits as it is heard on a cd or the radio, the video clip shows more about the artist than the song, in my humble (but entirely correct) opinion. Heres what I learnt:
1) Songs can be divided into two broad categories (or at least, for the purposes of this blog, songs of the current day that would be played on channel V), the first being the 'love song', ie. Into the night by Chaddy boy (Santana = awesomeness), the second being the 'hit that' song, ie. Kiss kiss, by some douchebag.
2) The video clip for the love songs (for the rest of this blog, insert all quotation marks when you feel it is appropriate) seem to compliment the song by giving a face to one or more of the parties involved in the loving relationship, which relates it back to us because we have met everyone in the film clip and are thus involved somehow
3) The video clips for the 'hit that' songs (moar quotation marks) seem to further increase the retarded nature of these songs by flaunting scantily clad men and women all over the screen, serving to put mild porn on our TV's.
It is the third point I wish to address in more depth.
When watching the video clip to the song 'Kiss Kiss' (all 10 seconds that I watched), I found myself understanding the story completely from the few lines that were said, and the fewer actions that were made. Firstly, it seemed as if an attractive female, to be known as Tits McGee forth hence, is dating a nerdy male (who is classified as nerdy as he wears glasses and has an IQ). The nerdy male is played by the singer, who also plays the buff football player (now referred to as Jock Strap), who we assume is closer to his real life persona. All i saw in the video clip was Jock Strap tackle the nerd, with disapproving looks from Tits McGee. The lyrics had several ideas: a) Jock Strap wished to have intercourse with Tits McGee b) The reason Mr Strap wanted to do the do was because Tits McGee was hot (the line, translated roughly into english, said something like 'Cause I know your hot, thats why I like you')
Now, there are many things I wish to expand on
1) What is the fascination with being a Jock Strap these days? Why do these people assume that, just because an attractive girl is going out with an intellectual, they are not happy, and need some illiterate loving?
2) Why is intelligence 'hated upon' in the streamline media? Are the 'tough guys' scared of the power wielded by those with a functional brain?
3) If your friend of the male or female gender is knocked down by some fish monkey, do not stare at them, help them up. Be civil, for Gods sake.
4) What is the global fascination with looks these days? Everyone is concerned about it!! From the renewal of outfits to stay trendy, to the application of makeup, people attack themselves with expensive objects because they do not feel they are adequate. If you are reading this, you are beautiful. When you find someone (or have found someone) who loves you, they will love you for who you are. Relationships are filled with attraction: but via love, not the body. I would never date anyone hot who was dull as a brick.
I think I had more to say. But I need my sleep. I may update this eventually.
Go with Christ, brah
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Selective Democracy
Good evening ladies and gents. After a hard days work at the slave driver I call Coles, I wish to enthrall you with some aggressive and argumentative prose about an issue involving an Australian citizen: David Hicks.
Now, as we should all be aware, yes, Mr. Hicks was released the other day. Needless to say, the sensationalist media has plastered his picture everywhere, rendering his privacy redundant. "But he hates Australia" I heard an ignorant voice say. "He wants to kill us." Well, if I were in his position right now, so would I.
I recall not long ago have a school discussion with some friends over the David Hicks issue, back when he was still 'safely' behind bars. I was prone to think that the Australian government should have been working harder to protect Hicks. Everyone else I talked to thought differently, that he was a filthy terrorist and should be locked up.
Looking back on that discussion, my beliefs haven't changed a whole lot. I still think the Australian government failed in its duty to care for Hicks. And that is where the title of this rant comes into play.
David Hicks was confined in Guantanamo Bay for an extended period, in which God-knows-what happened to him. There were no laws, no 'rights', just America's controlling arm. The Australian Government did little, or at least, not enough, to attempt to rescue one of of its citizens. We live in a democracy. To me, democracy is not just the political state of this country; it is also an ideal, that is, that each person in the country has the same rights and freedoms. Every man is born equal.
Now, David Hicks was not treated equally. Now, I will not profess to condone terrorism, especially against the country I love. But criminal acts have been, in the past, ignored by the government when they attempted to 'rescue' a citizen from the laws of a foreign country. Take Schapelle Corby, the alleged drug smuggler who was taken into a prison in Bali. The government saw that one of its citizens had received a raw deal, and acted accordingly, guilty or not. David Hicks did not receive the same treatment. He may or may not be guilty. He was not rescued by Australia. He has fallen through the cracks or our 'fair and loving' society.
Why wasn't Mr. Hicks treated fairly? I have a pretty solid idea, which is obvious to many. It was not profitable for the government. And by profit, I do not refer to quantities of money. I refer to profitable image in the eyes of the Australian public. The difference between the Schapelle Corby and David Hicks cases, despite the government actions, was that the people felt sorry (or a large number of them did) for Schapelle Corby, whereas the majority of people hate David Hicks. So the government tried to follow the people's views and pursued Corby's freedom more ruthlessly than Hicks'. "But Corby wasn't trying to kill people" I hear someone say, with an indignant voice. Lets imagine for a moment that both Corby and Hicks are guilty of their respective crimes. If Hicks is not stopped, Australian people die. That is worse than fucked up. But if Corby succeeds, which is far more liekly than Hicks succeeding (or it should be, what with all the money going into de-fucking-fence) then numerous people become addicted to drugs, a slow, painful, isolated world, in which you kill to get another fix. I'm not weighing the crimes together in terms of who is more guilty; rather, I am showing that both sides are guilty of a crime (if we stay true to the scenario) that would ruin lives, and yet each had different treatment.
To me, the government failed the people. They fell into the mindset of 'sucking up' to all of the voting citizens within Australia but, more importantly, they failed David Hicks. The man may, for all intents and purposes, be a scumbag terrorists who hates Australia. Regardless, he should still serve out his jail time in Australia, and be treated like a citizen, just like Corby was.
Now, as we should all be aware, yes, Mr. Hicks was released the other day. Needless to say, the sensationalist media has plastered his picture everywhere, rendering his privacy redundant. "But he hates Australia" I heard an ignorant voice say. "He wants to kill us." Well, if I were in his position right now, so would I.
I recall not long ago have a school discussion with some friends over the David Hicks issue, back when he was still 'safely' behind bars. I was prone to think that the Australian government should have been working harder to protect Hicks. Everyone else I talked to thought differently, that he was a filthy terrorist and should be locked up.
Looking back on that discussion, my beliefs haven't changed a whole lot. I still think the Australian government failed in its duty to care for Hicks. And that is where the title of this rant comes into play.
David Hicks was confined in Guantanamo Bay for an extended period, in which God-knows-what happened to him. There were no laws, no 'rights', just America's controlling arm. The Australian Government did little, or at least, not enough, to attempt to rescue one of of its citizens. We live in a democracy. To me, democracy is not just the political state of this country; it is also an ideal, that is, that each person in the country has the same rights and freedoms. Every man is born equal.
Now, David Hicks was not treated equally. Now, I will not profess to condone terrorism, especially against the country I love. But criminal acts have been, in the past, ignored by the government when they attempted to 'rescue' a citizen from the laws of a foreign country. Take Schapelle Corby, the alleged drug smuggler who was taken into a prison in Bali. The government saw that one of its citizens had received a raw deal, and acted accordingly, guilty or not. David Hicks did not receive the same treatment. He may or may not be guilty. He was not rescued by Australia. He has fallen through the cracks or our 'fair and loving' society.
Why wasn't Mr. Hicks treated fairly? I have a pretty solid idea, which is obvious to many. It was not profitable for the government. And by profit, I do not refer to quantities of money. I refer to profitable image in the eyes of the Australian public. The difference between the Schapelle Corby and David Hicks cases, despite the government actions, was that the people felt sorry (or a large number of them did) for Schapelle Corby, whereas the majority of people hate David Hicks. So the government tried to follow the people's views and pursued Corby's freedom more ruthlessly than Hicks'. "But Corby wasn't trying to kill people" I hear someone say, with an indignant voice. Lets imagine for a moment that both Corby and Hicks are guilty of their respective crimes. If Hicks is not stopped, Australian people die. That is worse than fucked up. But if Corby succeeds, which is far more liekly than Hicks succeeding (or it should be, what with all the money going into de-fucking-fence) then numerous people become addicted to drugs, a slow, painful, isolated world, in which you kill to get another fix. I'm not weighing the crimes together in terms of who is more guilty; rather, I am showing that both sides are guilty of a crime (if we stay true to the scenario) that would ruin lives, and yet each had different treatment.
To me, the government failed the people. They fell into the mindset of 'sucking up' to all of the voting citizens within Australia but, more importantly, they failed David Hicks. The man may, for all intents and purposes, be a scumbag terrorists who hates Australia. Regardless, he should still serve out his jail time in Australia, and be treated like a citizen, just like Corby was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)