Health and beauty; conformity?

There have been many issues lately addressing the 'thin' phenomena that has seeped its way into the media all over the world. According to the weekend Today paper, 'France outlaws online thinness' ;a Bill has been passed in France by the National Assembly citing a up to three year jail term is pendable for anyone who tries to 'encourage' anorexia and extremely thin bodies on websites, magazines and even in advertisements. This bill was passed after the French government came across pro-anorexia and bulimia websites on the net from US encouraging girls to purge and even giving tips on how to lose weight unhealthily such as through laxatives and other drugs. Though this can be viewed as an extremely drastic measure, I feel its a step forward in helping crack down on this unhealthy thin trend that has caused so many deaths and misery in young men and women of today. Also, I'd like to see it as a small step forward in helping change ideals of beauty and promoting different shapes and sizes in the future.

The media is one of the main influences in encouraging this unhealthy trend by subtely stating that only 'thin is beautiful' and showing endless advertisements and fashion spreads featuring only stick thin models; this message we are sending the public is contaminating individuality, and telling the public that there is only one beauty when beauty is subjective and opinions are different from person to person. When I was younger I remember models like Cindy Crawford who had voluptous figures being the 'ideal' beauties of the time, and back then did alot of people not say these figures were beautiful? Not to say they were correct in their opinion but this an example of how far the fashion industry has fallen; as well as how trends have changed, and not for the better. Infact, when have they ever been ideal? Healthy or not who gave the media the right to dictate what is beautiful and 'healthy' and what isn't? Health for one is dependent on the indiviual's personal well-being not on their body shape or any of their outward appearances. I for one would like to one day see magazines and advertisements feauturing men and women of all shapes and sizes; and heights, a variety where people can relate to more rather than conforming to just one 'ideal' that some mass-marketing medium tells us is right and that everyone should look like that in order to be 'beautiful'. No matter what some one looks like it should be about personal beauty more than any thing else, not abusing your body in order to fit what some one else tells you is right. Even models who go to lengths such as ankle implants, skin-bleaching, UV tanning and breast implants to fit the requirements of lingerie companies, Playboy or sports magazines, this is still trying to fit into some thing else, and not through healthy means either. Even with the more Maxim-based models, implants, hormone use and excessive surgery is abusing the body to fit some one else's standards, though one can argue at the end of the day it is their choice. But for impressionable younger men and women out there who were not born with the figures fashion industries covet, there are only so many means what can take to achieve these 'ideals' and how often are these means healthy in the long run? Even in terms of clothes and make-up, some like to wear it heavy, some don't, some prefer to look flashier, some prefer the natural look; its what they feel is beautiful and confident in. One has to remember they can't please everyone (no matter how much of the majority you please), as not everyone agrees with the same things. Isn't satisfying yourself important at the end of the day?Yes choice is choice, but let it be their choices, the fashion editors the media moguls, the models, let that be their ideals, and not let them try to influence and suck in those who don't believe in their extremes.

Has bullying reached a whole new level?

Everyone knows what bullying is, for example; the taunts kids yelled at school, extortion, fights, spreading rumours; an extremely horrifying and sad problem that many students face in high school. Now with the use of technology as well as physical violence, bullying has escalated to an even more dangerous and threatening level. Some may have heard recently of another case of internet bullying that has occured in the United States, Lakeland, Florida;

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=42578&cat=14

Victoria Lindsay was unknowingly trapped in a classmate's house (where she had run away from home to) and under went severe beatings, threats, name-calling and humiliation by 6 of her classmates and 2 older teenage boys; all of this was being taped by one of the perpetrators, a 16 year old fellow cheerleader from her high school, their intention? To humiliate Victoria by posting this video on the net for public viewing; Why did they decide to commit such a horrifying act? For alleged 'trash talking' Victoria had done about these girls over the internet; in particular the popular site Myspace.com.

Here there are so many aspects to question; the by-stander effect, the 2 older boys present had no problems with Victoria, but chose to stand by idley and allow this battery to happen to a young girl while they had the power to intervene and stop this assault before it got even worse. Are people become more and more malicious today and formulating new ways of torture, both mental and physical at such a young age? Is myspace to blame as it was an outlet for this 'trash talking' to happen? If this behaviour had occured in school itself, would the situation have been dealt with the same way?

I feel that if Victoria had indeed spread rumours and talked about her friends behind their back at school, a confrontation in school or some where out of school would have occured except on a less malicious level; there would have been no abduction, no filming, no plans for humiliation. The bullies found this evidence of 'trash talking' on the internet, which added more fuel to the fire each time they viewed Victoria's page and kept it in thus they slowly planned what to do, getting angrier and angrier as the 'trash talking' carried on, making their final decision to address this issue so malicious and so violent that they lost sight of how trivial the whole situation actually was. Vengeance and bullying has risen to an all new level, with popular sites like Myspace not having censorship and screening for such videos (myspace only censors gore, nudity, anti-religion propaganda etc) before they are posted, this case of internet bullying and having the victims humiliated with videos online is not the first time. Even Youtube, where any video can be posted regardless of it's content, where even the more graphic videos can be viewed with merely making an over-18 account. Have our youth become so tainted and affected by what goes on on the internet rather than in real life? Globalisation may just have caused people to create the idea to humiliate globally.

The search for rationale; does society determine what individuals feel is right and wrong?

This is an article I came across a few months ago about the horrific shooting of a 15-year old boy in Oxnard, California by a fellow 14-year old student in his school.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/crime/la-me-oxnard14feb14,0,1996108.story

The reason behind this murder? The deceased Lawrence King, was gay and had asked his murderer to be his Valentine. Was this a hate crime? Did the shooter, Brandon McInerney, find this gesture of affection so deeply disturbing and Lawrence's sexual orientation so abnormal that he had to resort to murder? Did Brandon have a deeper psychological problem? Masen Davis, the executive director of the Transgender Law Center stated that Brandon "is just as much a victim as Lawrence, as he’s a victim of homophobia and hate.” Was Mr Davis pointing out the fact of how much external factors had influenced Brandon to think in this hateful, homophobic manner?

This of course is not the first time such violence has occured in schools; the Thurston High School massacres in 1998, the Columbine High School shootings in 1999 and the Virginia Tech Massacre in recent 2007. The public and the media have searched and searched for the reasons behind, what could've possibly driven these young men to commit such crimes? Of course there are many reasons the media has claimed to have found for us; that it must have been the violent video games and movies the shooters were so fond of, it must have been the anti-depressents some of them were taking, it must have been their ties with the 'alternative' subcultures and music which must have so heavily influenced them, because they had no guidance from their family and God, because they were outcasts at school, because they were bullied and had no one there to listen to them; who can really say what the exact reason was? Could it have been aspects of all of them? Could it have been none? Would all these 'reasons' slowly surface in explanation of Brandon McInerney act of murder like they did in past school massacres? Can one really pin-point some ones motives and influences for their actions? Wouldn't it be like trying to read minds?

Here's an extreme example; on the exact day of the Columbine Massacre, April 20th 1999, the US dropped the largest number of NATO missiles on a village in lower central Serbia, NOT Kosovo which is located in southern Serbia where the war was going on. His explanation? The US wanted to “intimidate the Serbians but minimize harm to innocent people.” Were the hospital, the primary school and the aspirin factory bombed not full of innocent people? The US had also stated on Febuary 17th of that same year 1999 that the United States would commit about 4,000 personnel to 'implement peace' in Kosovo-with their goal being to "stop the fighting now, rather than later." With this warfare going on all around the world, for years and years now, how come no one has ever said hmm, maybe the President had an influence on this violent behavior, after all, people would be viewing this violence and destruction of the ongoing war on the news, in the papers, on the radio would they not? The public were of course told he was doing the 'right thing'; in this case of war and the security of civillians in the US and Serbia, this violence was 'necessary'. Do people believe things are right because they're told yes this is the truth free of all biasedness, or because their judgement really is a conclusion of their own thoughts? Which comes to the question: how much does society play into your own opinions and judgements? Case in point, how much do your peers, the media, society and social norms really affect your personal opinions? Does it happen subconsiously? Would you have a different opinion if certain factors were not present?

In the case of Brandon McInerney, for examples; did mere homophobic jokes on television or around him subtlely tell this young boy that homosexuality was some thing to laugh about? Did every day insults used by alot of youth today such as 'fag', 'thats so gay' and 'homo' on others implement to him to be labelled this things was actually a horrible insult? Did organisations or religions tell him that homosexuality was blasphemous and an act against God? Did he overhear people around him discussing how 'wrong' homosexuality is? Despite every sector, be it the media, the church, the human rights groups having their own opinions, and that is of course everyones right, is it really fair to have them implement their ideals on others, let alone youth? Telling them what is right and what is so wrong that they must take action? What is right and what is wrong? Isn't it different with every individual you meet? Either way shouldn't your opinions and actions be free of any harm to others? Shouldn't people should figure things such as these out for themselves in their own time, and determine what is right according to their own opinions, as free as they can be of what external factors tell them.

Maybe society should look all around on what influences people, and it may not always be the most obvious reasons: popular culture cause its so much more accessible than political factors, the scapegoats, the ones who disagree with the 'norms', the pin-ups for violence and hate, or the underdogs that are the ones to blame.

"All we are saying is give peace a chance" ~ John Lennon

Pictures from :

http://myrtus.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/04/imaginepeace.jpg

http://www.anonymousspace.com/albums/userpics/112625/KeepYourCoinsIWantChangeCardboardSign.jpg

Youth Gone Wild?

My post today would be addressing the social stigma of 'youth gone wild' and a reference I will use is an article I chanced upon in March 22cnd's Straits Times SATURDAY paper. The article in question was a 'special report' written by four 22 year old students from Nanyang Technological University's Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information; the title of the report: Wild Girls; a tagline guaranteed to attract public attention. It is said these 4 students, decided to write this 8 page spread on the troubled youth of Singapore after reading articles in the Straits Times on teenage girls getting into trouble, and had spent 8 months talking to a platora of interviewees including these teenage girls, counsellors, police and parents amongst other subjects.

This article left me extremely unsettled and frustrated for a number of reasons. The article addressed a number of issues, girls in gangs, girls who engaged in under age sex, girls who smoked, girls who dealt drugs, contraband cigarettes and engaged in fights and internet bullying. The authors pointed out ways these girls were recognisable, for example some gangs who wore short skirts and heels, or had trademark tattoos. As quoted 'Members of Aisah's gang for example wore short skirts, high heels, thick make-up and brand name bags whenever they went out together.' apparently as a show of sisterhood. Not very accurate descriptions I might say...how many different kinds of short skirts, heels, styles of thick make up and brand name bags are there in the world? Not to mention how many of Singapore's young girls wear these things?? Trademark gang tattoos yes, easily noticeable when exposed..short skirts and heels, not the most obvious tell-tale signs of gang warfare are they? Then about more than 50% of Singapore's young teenage girls must be in a gang, 90% of Singapore ground would be divided into gang territory and every other girl you see in these typical yet apparently blasphemous get-ups must be affiliated one form or another with a gang. Imagine the stigmas and finger-pointing that would occur in the streets once a girl in a mini-skirt and heels is sighted, "GANG WARFARE INCOMING!!! TAKE COVER!!!"

thick make-up??? isn't that what the article warned us about certain girls in gangs???

even worse guys, here comes the full renegade, thick make up, skimpy clothes, smoking?? stay away!!!!

So now girls should be wary wearing certain articles of fashion for certain members of the public might reminisce upon this large-print eight page spread article and be on their look out for 'Wild Girls'? One other thing that stood out in another section of this report is a picture of an arm riddled with scars from a girl who self-mutilated; again an extremely well strategised tag for viewer interest, hasn't tabboo subjects always fascinated the public? One quote from this particular section of this article read: "One of them(the self-mutilators) is Shuling, 15, who tried to emulate her fashionably dysfunctional friends, then got hooked. "It's harmless fun. I like to see the blood flow. When my skin splits open, I feel like a paper being torn," she said.' I will use an example from this above segment, what impression are articles like these giving parents, the public, other youth and adults of so-called troubled teenagers? This article only addressed cutters such as Shuling who self-mutilated in order to 'emulate her fashonably dysfunctional friends' and other cutters who did it because of issues such as peers bad-mouthing them..the authors of this article did not address the countless teenagers out there who have serious problems with self-mutilation which can stem from a series of reasons such as disorders or 'black-outs'; but from the publics point of view reading these lines, any teenager or youth or even adult seen in public with noticeable scars, their parents, teachers, peers, those whom know little about this subject have a higher tendency to label and 'black-mark' these teens for reasons such as those pointed out in the article; that they are merely doing it to be fashionable or as an outlet for every day peer troubles. Is this fair on the general youth? This article has done little to distinguish and explain to the public the many reasons why youth may engage in these dangerous behaviours but done much in terms of generalizing and giving the public what they want to hear, the reasons they know would serve as a warning to adults and other teenagers; further serving false information to feed this false view some have of alienated youth.

For fear of making this post even longer than it should be now, I will wrap this up. I have not addressed all aspects of this article but just highlighted certain points I felt were worth mentioning and were related to social psychology.

Is it any wonder youth who are 'a little different', little rebellious, youth with disorders and with their own ways of coping, have such horrible black labels stuck on them by the un-knowing, partially mis-informed public every where they go? Does one not notice the discerning, some times disgusted and wary looks thrown at youth who dress and act a little differently? Seemingly rebellious behaviour? Or teenagers in school, those who unfairly have labels and stereotypes thrown at them from lack of better judgement by their teachers, counsellors and peers whose opinions can stem from lack of broad knowledge and mis-information such as the lines supplied from this 'special report'? Has one ever stopped to think, are we being entirely fair? The media, is it being entirely fair? Feeding the public incomplete and consumer worthy information about these tabboos many of the general piblic would not know much about? I'll end this post with a quote by Mariyln Manson from the movie 'Bowling For Columbine' in relation to this post on the media and social misinterpretations : '..because that's not the way the media wants to take it and spin it, and turn it into fear, because then you're watching television, you're watching the news, you're being pumped full of fear, there's floods, there's AIDS, there's murder, cut to commercial, buy the Acura, buy the Colgate, if you have bad breath they're not going to talk to you, if you have pimples, the girl's not going to f**k you, and it's just this campaign of fear, and consumption, and that's what I think it's all based on, the whole idea of 'keep everyone afraid, and they'll consume.'

Images taken from:

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/030917/172910__pn_l.jpg

http://www.leavemethewhite.com/caps/thumbnails.php?album=115

http://celebrians.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-14074

'Stand-bys'

This post will be about an incident I witnessed at City Hall mrt station just last week. My friend and I had just alighting from the end carriage of the mrt at city hall, and were walking towards the escalator when suddenly my friend lunged forward and ran for a bit then stopped. I was looking in my bag at this point and was unaware of why he did this, as I caught up with him he let out a deep breath and said 'it's alright that uncle is ok', I was still confused and asked what he meant by this and he pointed to one of the doors of the train further ahead of us; I saw an old man in a wheelchair slowly making his way further inside the train. My friend informed me that man in his wheelchair was attempting to alight the train and his chair had gotten stuck in the crack. My friend continued to angrily point out that no one had helped this poor man while he was stuck and that not only were people were still pushing past him to get onto the train, but that the people around the entrance inside the train were merely standing there watching and it was only when the door lights began to flash a man stepped forward and helped pull him inside. This made me really question how these passerbys could merely sit by while this man was clearly in danger, perhaps not fatal but still in a potentially harmful situation. I for one found this shocking in a sense, that people would take so long to react and help some one in danger. This incident made me think of the Kitty Genovese incident in New York in 1964 where the media reported up to an estimated 38 people had witnessed Kitty being attacked and had done nothing to aid her; of course the situation I witnessed was on a lesser scale but still drew similair charecteristics between the two cases. In situations such as this, were people afraid of drawing attention to themselves if they stepped forward and helped? Were they imagining the embarressment or guilt they would have faced if they were unable to pull this man out? If there was no one or lesser people around, would some one, any one have reacted immediately and helped this man to safety? Were they viewing the other people around them to asses if their peers reactions according to whether intervention was really needed? Were they just standing there with the thought 'aah some one else will do it' or in harsher tones were some of these people so jaded and wrapped up in their own worlds that they did not see this man's situation as a cause for action? Do other reasons exist for this seemingly un-caring behaviour? I'm of course unsure of whether this reasons I have thought about are infact these strangers excuses for their behaviour, but from my view point I think they felt that their own impressions and worries over-wrote the potential danger this man was in; which in turn relates to the expectations and ever present eye of society, did these people react the way they did because of the strangers around them as well as society's ever-present 'pressures'? Or were their reactions based merely on personality and the way their minds worked?

-picture taken from http://nancys.110mb.com/