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:
