Baby and the Bad News
May 12
Kids are pretty adorable. They can also be brats, and do bad things, but we still think of them as innocent, un-corrupted. We project all of our fears onto children, building up bogeymen that are so much worse than anything that could be hiding in the cupboard. Every moral panic that floods our reason and chokes our sanity has one desperate scream at its centre: won’t somebody think of the children?
Canadian photographer Jonathon Hobin has created a wee bit of a frenzy with his series In The Playroom, which uses children to recreate some of the worst headlines from the last century of news. The series in intended as a critique of the way in which the media treats the news, sensationalising it and appealing to our basest interests. Some of the images are disturbing, made more so by the use of children as subjects. Much of the feedback has been typically hysterical, vilifying the parents of the models and panicking about the potential mental trauma for the children involved.
Sometimes, when people are morally offended, it has nothing to do with some kind of boundary being crossed. Offence is caused because on a subconscious level, we say to ourselves there is truth in this, a truth about me, and I don’t like that. Which is not to say all offensive matter is grounded in truth, or that we have to relate to something to be offended, but that in certain cases we react defensively about things we don’t want to admit to.
We gobble up sensationalised news stories like candy-coated painkillers, dumbing ourselves to what they actually mean for the people involved so we can get in a few dramatic gasps at the grisly details before switching over to X-Factor. We have been taught not to analyse or critique, only to watch news like we watch movie trailers – until the people in the stories stop being strange adults we’ll never meet and become children. Children, who we must protect. Children, who we must save from the horrors of the world. Children whom society must protect, not just police or politicians or the armed forces.
Hobin’s series forces us to think again about the news and how we consume it, how we talk about it and how we sympathise. And if that offends you, if you can’t look past the kids doing things you don’t like the idea of kids doing, then you aren’t thinking hard enough.
See a slideshow of some of the photographs and read an interview with the artist here.
What do you think of these photographs? Crass, artistic wankery, an ethical disaster, or a thought-provoking series? Let us know in the comments below.
[Image: vice.com]
You tell ‘em Captain America
May 11So much more respect for Chris Evans (aka Captain America) when seeing his response to Ben Shapiro’s twitter posts. It went something like this:
This week Jason Collins came out as saying he is proud of who he is, a black christian gay basketball player. He also came out in Sport Illustrated, so in print! This is a big moment for him, after all it is hard to be a christian gay man in a field where being ‘a man’ is determined by how many chicks you score, and where locker room bonding is a thing.
So then Ben Shapiro had to be a douche and say these things about him:
The outlined bit is where I have a problem. Society in general make sportsmen and sportwomen out to be heroes, there are many young men and women, as well as adults who look up to these people and have them as their personal heroes. Okay so you may think that he isn’t a good player, well that is your opinion. The fact is however, to some people he is a great player and that he has the courage to stand up for himself and use that status as a rolemodel to do something like this should be applauded, especially in a field of work where people are mostly uncomfortable with playing alongside homosexuals.
But this isn’t even the worst of it! So Mr. Shapiro was getting a lot of hate from that, which I thought was a little unfair as he was trying to say that we should idolise players based on their skill and not on their personal lives (essentially). I felt a little bit of sympathy with him there. But then he had to be a sarcastic ass about it.
Okay, I get it, you are frustrated that people aren’t getting the real message, but don’t antagonise people and don’t make it into a ‘leftist’ statement.I am a leftie, but I know people who are conservative and still have issues with what you have said. Also, by grouping people like that you are doing exactly what you think they are doing – you are turning into the type of person who sees a sample of people and labels everyone who identifies in some way with that sample as being the same as that sample – you become ignorant to individuals and to the truth. It is a darn shame that you can’t see past it, because if you can you might be a happier person.
What’s really ironic is that by having this outburst, he has painted himself as the conservative caricature, or the “stereotypical Right wing man”. This in turn make us ‘lefties’ more unlikely to want to listen to what you are saying.
For everyone that has continued down to here, I would like to say that Ben Shapiro says he isn’t a homophobe – he was making a comment on what should really be valued in sports and what becomes a ‘sports’ star. However, I will disagree and say that what separates a run of the mill sports idol to a great hero isn’t just skill. It’s their strength of character, about doing what you preach even if it isn’t the popular way, trying to improve and better yourself and knowing that because you are in the lime light you have the opportunity to change perceptions and lives that not everyone has, as well as the determination and hard work they bring to their jobs. Not every celebrity has to do this, of course, and I’m not saying that they must. I’m saying that to be a hero worth following, it takes more than being famous and a hard worker. They are called heroes because the path they have chosen isn’t easy.
Ben Shapiro wants to voice his opinion and to have some sort of impact and possibly change some people’s minds. I have to say that you aren’t going to do that by telling people what’s wrong with them and how they need to change. You change people’s lives by modelling your values and becoming an inspiration to others. People aren’t stupid. If what you are doing is a perferable way of life or the ‘right’ way, then people will follow. No one wants to be aggressive and antagonistic.
After all theese tweets Chris Evans, Captain America, took one look and simply said:
Which, after how Ben Shapiro has reacted, I would have to say I agree.
To see more of Ben Shapiros reactions simply go to his twitter here: Ben Shapiro
By the way, let’s not all hate bash him. Don’t sink down to aggressive behaviour because I have a feeling what he has said in the first place was misconstrued (even though I didn’t agree with that statement in the first place) and he acted out of frustration. Let’s not fan the flames, but pour some water.
{Source: Shapiro’s Twitter and Evans’ Twitter}
[I will like to very immaturely say that Ben Shapiro was figging OWNED by Captain America. In that one statement.]
Being gay is more dangerous than smoking? I don’t think so!
May 09
After watching this video (sorry, we can’t seem to embed it so please watch it on Huffpost first!), what you should feel is anger and outrage. Oh and a spot of dark hilarity at the end. I’m refering to the ‘love people’ comment at the end and ‘speak truth’. By doing that you aren’t loving anyone. You are saying ‘this is wrong’, ‘you are wrong’ and ‘I don’t like you or your lifestyle’. How I know this and not think ‘but you are presenting observational facts’ is that you are taking the facts out of context.
Now I don’t believe anger solves anything, and in fact I believe it leads to a darker place, however I want to scream and punch, kick and yell, when I read supposed “facts” that homosexuality is “dangerous”. There seems to be a trend in the world of homophobia that smoking is healthier then being gay. I am ashamed to say that Jim Wallace, the (dick) Head of the Australian Christian Lobby goes to universities and spreads out-of-context facts about how homosexuality is even more dangerous then smoking. And I quote:
“I think we’re going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community’s own statistics for its health — which it presents when it wants more money for health — [include] higher rates of drug-taking, of suicide…it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years…The life of smokers is reduced by something like seven to 10 years and yet we tell all our kids at school they shouldn’t smoke.”
So homosexuals have a higher rate of suicide and drugs you say? But why?! Could it be because the people around them don’t accept them for who they are and they feel overwhelming pressure to be something they aren’t. Or could it be because they are told that they aren’t “right” that what they do is “wrong” and “sinful”? Could it be that LGBT groups want more money to educate people and to teach children and adults about becoming accepting? Could it be that a large percentage of LGBT-related suicides have an underlying issue of acceptance, which directly contradicts your argument? What. A. Shocker.
A part of me is sorry that I am sinking down to a sarcastic level, but it just gets me so mad!! The whole story is: gay males have a higher suicide rate then straight males, this is mostly due to societal pressures and feelings of social exile and inadequency. THEREFORE the correct conclusion is to teach people to accept, not only tolerate, everyone for the way they were born. The incorrect conclusion is, therefore we need to exile them further and teach them how wrong they are and make them feel horrible about how they were born.
You see how that works, Jim Wallace? Also by university-level anyone with a brain can see you are full of bias. Smoking is actively engaging in a lifestyle, taking something into your body and proved to be toxic by its very components, as well as addictive. Being gay is something you are born as, it is being in a consenting relationship and like other ‘straight’ couples is none of your business, there is nothing harmful about being gay or engaging in a gay lifestyle (or any of the LGBTQI letters). Tell me, can I become bodily ill by standing next to a gay person? Can a pregnant woman be harmed by being in the presence of a gay person doing ‘gay activities’. Is there something biologically harmful about JUST being gay? Do they spread disease that a straight person can’t? I don’t think so! So don’t give me poppy cock about AIDS!
This post really isn’t anything new but I do want to say one thing that might be a little out of the box. I don’t believe in crazy Christians, but crazy people. Christianity is a wide spectrum and I feel that there are groups of Christians unfairly represented by those that are advertised as “those crazy Christians”. This isn’t a religion problem, it is a people problem.
Educate people and the problem becomes easier to solve.
{Sources: HuffingtonPost Jim Wallace}
ACL: The Greatest Lobby Group in Australia
Apr 29Yes, I support the ACL. What’s that you say? They don’t support Marriage Equality?! Of course they do – they’re just the Australian Cat Ladies – rubbing bellies isn’t exactly gender specific.
If you haven’t gotten it yet, the Australian Christian Lobby forgot to renew their domain. The Australian Cat Ladies fully pounced on the opportunity to spread joy, laughter and much amusement at australianchristianlobby.org
Lots of fun. I guess that’s what you get for trying to keep the world in the stone age.
Should everyone have labels?
Apr 23
I have a fantastic female friend, who I’m going to call Miss Cool. What’s so great about her is that she dresses like a guy, has dude hair, gets mistaken for a guy, has the ‘vibe’ of a guy, she has the ‘cool silent type’ guy things going for her and she is completely okay with it. She is completely happy and never questions herself at all. And I mean literally.
I’ve known this girl for 9 years now and she has never once given a thought to why she is the way she is. Well only when everyone else has. Growing up, all of our friends (including myself) have asked things like ‘Why doesn’t she like skirts?’ or ‘Did she have a crush on anyone?’ and each time she shrugs and says something like ‘I don’t know, I haven’t thought about it!’
To this day people still ask about her style/if she likes anyone, thinking that in 9 years she would have had an answer to those questions but the answer has remained the same.
My question to this anecdote is, should she even feel the need to define herself?
Our world, is full of labels and boxes to tick. It’s how we define ourselves in relation to others and it is also how we define others in comparison to us. There wouldn’t be the word ‘big’ if we weren’t exposed to anything small. But just because I’m filled with personally and societally defined labels: (straight Eurasion female, subculture: Nerds and Geeks) doesn’t mean she has to subscribe to it (intetionally or unintentionally).
She has never had a boyfriend or girlfriend or even a crush. The easiest label to put on her would be ‘asexual’ but when asked, she will reply ‘I don’t know.’ And can you really be a societal construct if you don’t know? That and she has a massive porn collection* (I walked into her room one time and saw her unpacked DVD’s- I was waking her up for class as instructed I swear!).
She has never been bullied about it and the question she gets asked are harmless, but now I wish it would stop. Can’t she be whoever she wants to be without people asking questions? Does she have to fit in tidy sexuality and gender boxes? If I was Miss Cool, I would get so fed up with people asking questions.
So what do you, our lovely viewers, think? Should we go in the search for a label that fits, or just accept she is out of the box.
{Image Source: Etsy}
*From what I have read on the Internet/wikipedia Asexuality is when one has low or no romantc interest in either sex and an absent interest in sex.
To Love a Villain
Apr 21
[Trigger warning: discussion of abusive relationships]
Over the weekend, Liz and I attended Supanova Pop Culture Expo (post on that coming) (also why there’s no comic this week, my sincerest apologies). On the Saturday, I went in costume as 80′s prom date Joker. It’s the second time I’ve done a Joker costume, and it’s always a lot of fun. It also speaks to one of my lady-parts’ greatest weaknesses: villains.
A brief list of some of my evil crushes: Loki, The Joker, Catwoman, pre-reform Zuko from Avatar: the Last Airbender (post-reform is fine, too), Poison Ivy, the Phantom of the Opera, Bane, Spike, Drusilla, Jareth, Alan Rickman in most things, bleedy-eye guy in Casino Royale.
So aside from my fetish for facial scarring, what is it about villains that I’m so into? And, most importantly, why is it that my lady-boner for bad doesn’t translate into the real world?
Most of the guys on that list have huge female fanbases. The heroes of their films do as well, but frequently fans of villains can seem to eclipse those of the heroes in passion and numbers. I imagine this is somewhat perplexing for casting agents and the like, but first, let’s analyse why heroes and villains are cast and characterised the way they are.
Male heroes in films occupy a certain role, and that role is male wish fulfillment (as do the women, but that’s a whole other article). He is muscular, traditionally handsome and intensely masculine, solving his problems through the twin strategies of punching and shooting (I am a huge fan of Bruce Willis, so don’t assume I’m knocking this as a method). The women love these heroes with their rippling, virile manliness. Villains are, generally speaking, the antithesis of this – they are what men are taught to push against, the opposite of what they should aspire to. Villains are smaller, thinner and generally physically weaker than the heroes of their films, and gain the upper hand not through physical combat but through their vast intellects and cunning use of traps. Heroes are usually blonde and tan, villains pale with long, raven locks – long(er) black hair and/ or some kind of facial scar is a sure-fire sign of villainous tendencies. Villains are not supposed to be sexually desirable to women on a physical level, though they are frequently extremely charismatic, and thus attract a single (usually crazy) female hanger-on, who they order about and are generally massive butts towards (this is often shown as a sign of their evil tendencies, despite male heroes treating their female admirers in remarkably similar fashions – but again, I am digressing into an entirely different argument). Villains are delicate male Snow Whites, consistently geniuses, sly and effeminate, while the heroes are great, hulking Fabio’s, frequently battle-smart but school-dumb, brave and hyper-masculine. There are some very obvious exceptions to this rule, but these are the models on which most heroes/ villains are based. It’s the jock/ nerd dynamic, only with death rays.
The main reason I can see for the appeal of these villains over their heroic counterparts is that the heroes are, quite frequently, boring. Even if they do manage to spend reasonable portions of their films shirtless, a glorious set of abs is generally not enough to base a relationship around. Liz will likely take me to task for this but Thor is, in essence, a loghead. He’s pretty, certainly, but ‘roguish charm’ and ‘bravery’ tend to translate into ‘frightfully dull’ when I imagine what Thor would be like in a long-term relationship. Your typical hero is certainly eye-candy, but they’re generally written with about as much depth as a Petri dish. That’s why, for the discerning person of intellect, the jock-y hero seems a pretty bland option.
The villain represents an extremely enticing long-term possibility: stimulating conversation. Aside from being able to talk about something other than truth, justice and the American Way (I assume that is a diner), they are also frequently much more complex characters than the heroes, with many layers of moral ambiguity. Characters like (movie) Loki and Two-Face struggle with their good sides. Catwoman frequently oscillates between good and evil (my usual answer to when people ask me of her villain status is that it depends on whether or not she’s boning Batman at the time). Their actions are not inherent in their characters, but fluid and dependent on intervening circumstances. In this way they are much more human. Villains also, importantly, have that sexy, sexy ‘danger’ thing going for them. Plus, they typically wear more leather, which is always good.
Heroes do good stuff because they’re good; their motivations are always very simple and approvable. Sometimes they struggle with what is right and what is wrong, but they always make the right choice in the end. Villains always believe they’re doing the right thing, even when they’re committing acts of terrible evil. Often, they’re trying to ‘save’ the world, or reform it. Heroes can be rebels, working outside the system for the right cause, but villains try to crush the system completely. They are intellectual anarchists trying to fix the world, not afraid to tarnish themselves for the Greater Good. Heroes seek to preserve the established order, one which we in the real world know is flawed. In the fangirl mind, just about every villain is secretly an anti-hero in disguise.
So why is this complexity so important as to turn murderers into heartthrobs?
This next thought should always, always result in alarm bells for anyone: they’re bad, but I could be the one to fix them.
I don’t like admitting it, but it’s important and I have to: the subconscious appeal of villains is the appeal of the abuser. It’s an easy trap to fall into, and a very hard one to get out of. The romanticised appeal of the ‘bad boy’ is an extremely dangerous one. We are taught that if we just show them a little love, or help them be more secure, they will be revealed as romantic and emotionally deep, the dude in the motorcycle jacket capable of far more sensitivity than the dunderhead on the football team. Unfortunately reality is much harsher. Reality has fists, and it will use them on you, not to protect you.
To demonstrate with pop music, please watch the following video:
Realistically, no person really wants to be with someone who goes around murdering people in cold blood a whole lot. We might want to be able to show them forgiveness, and for them to move on, to grow and change, like in Beauty and the Beast, but given the option it would be a rare person indeed who’d be willing to shack up with Pol Pot or Gaddafi. The fictional villain, on the other hand, allows for the wishes of a darker part of ourselves.
To look past the abuser dynamic that is the reality of falling for a ‘bad’ person, we with a hankering for evil must focus on the fictional nature of these characters. The distinct line between fiction and reality is extremely significant in the appeal of the villain. We know exactly the kind of person a villain is, so we cannot be deceived the way we can deceived by real people. We can pretend they wouldn’t kill us or maim us in an instant because we can imagine ourselves as the one thing they cherish, and it doesn’t have to be a lie. Kidding ourselves about the behaviours of a fictional character is safe, because they can’t actually hurt us if we get it wrong.
Even those who fundamentally ignore all the murder going on will agree on a central point: evil is sexy. We pinpoint the appeal of these characters in the fact that they are bad. This is really obvious in the case of classic femme fatales, whose source of evil is their sex appeal. Villains aren’t a Project on the same level as the problem person may frequently be in real-world abusive relationships. Rather than wanting to root out the evil in the villain we allow ourselves to give in to it, to fall through the rabbit-hole of temptation and into a world where we sit beside these characters, laughing maniacally along with them. By imagining ourselves as a villain’s squeeze we can give in entirely to our subconscious fantasies, the ones we can’t actually ask for but which we know our villains are smart, sympathetic and plain ol’ messed up enough to understand – and be into. In our minds, we can always make it stop while it’s still fun. It never has to be real, with all the consequences that would bring. It’s all very Freudian, really.
We can’t really help who we’re attracted to, and my ‘thing’ for evil has led to more stigma, ridicule and disgust than my thing for being into dudes and ladies at the same time. Still, as with everything in our lives, it’s important to know what it means, to analyse, question, and dissect. And, for all you out there wondering if your crush on Loki could get you in real-world trouble, it is so, so important to know where to draw the line.
