So here we are- the Howard government has stipulated that immigrants are to become as Australian as possible before they're allowed in. Congratulations. The shithead strata of Australian society has struck a blow for its own arrogant nationalistic regime. I'm actually surprised Pauline Hanson was so hated for a long time- our culture seems to have embraced her philosophy in full. Never before in my life have I been more ashamed of being a member of the Western World.

 

It seems to me that we can only tolerate people if they do what we do and behave like we behave. Otherwise, things get a bit disconcerting. Well, here's the thing: this is the twenty-first century, and things aren't always going to be comforting. I don't care if Muslims are blowing up buildings left right and centre in the USA- if men, women, and children want asylum in Australia, it may cause the public minimal discomfort, but that only outlines how narrow-minded terrorism has driven us to be. Guess what- Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world, is one of the richest in terms of resources, and has one of the most rapidly growing economies. WE HAVE ROOM FOR THESE PEOPLE.

 

Having said that, why do we feel the need to make these people 'Australian?' I know shit all about Australian history, and I bet if you pulled the first Caucasian you see off the street, they'll know shit all too! Of course, making them have an understanding of English is crucial, but that's because its to THEIR advantage rather than ours. Who wouldn't want to speak the language of a country that they plan to live the rest of their lives in? Furthermore, I am aware of the particular (and small) group of immigrants that refuse to assimilate, and yes, there is a need for them to acknowledge that they need to abide by our laws.

The real reason Australian's want these people to become Australian is because, at the end of the day, difference is culturally frightening. Nationalistic propaganda has taught us that because ten fanatics from Saudi Arabia flew a plane into an American building, EVERYONE IN IRAQ, A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COUNTRY, NOW WANTS TO BOMB US. Then, there was the Bali Bombing, and Madrid, and London. Actions undertaken by extremists- people so gullible that you could tell them anything and they'd shit their pants and strap a bomb to their chest and run into a nearby primary school. And yet, the people of Iraq, and other countries, who are terrified by the actions of these people, try to come to countries like Australia, which has a reputation for fantastic standards of living, and get the response by the Australians: "Er, sorry, but we've spent 105 years now building up what we've got here, we'd really like to keep it to ourselves, and we'll just roll around in our superfluous wealth like pigs in shit. FUCK OFF, WE'RE FULL."

 

Australia, the land of the fair go.

Advertisements- iconic of corporate propaganda or symbols of cultural attitudes? Case in point: How is gender portrayed in the following ads?

 

 

BOYFRIEND (goes to eat, sees look on girlfriend's face, hesitates): Napkins. (leaves to kitchen)

FEMALE GUEST: Hm! He's well trained. (tries pizza, immediately turns into quintessential image of bloky male, lounging lazily over couch, arm over shoulder of woman, sniffing, basically emanating masculinity)

GIRLFRIEND: ...What are you doing?

FEMALE GUEST (in gruff, manly voice): Haw, you've gotta try this.

 

So we have, basically, the emasculation of the man, followed by the comedic masculation of the woman. What is this advertisement trying to say? That a woman should be allowed to emasculate her partner in an environment that is averse to male attributes? Yet this ad does more than just this: not only does it reinforce the preconception of men as scruffy, lazy, and messy, it simultaneously deprecates it. 

 

How can the suppression of gender attributes be justified in any way? For centuries female movements made the world understand that a woman could succeed in this world without having to be a man, or in other words, to purposefully embody male atrributes in order to move forward in a system that favoured those attributes. As a result of these movements, women were allowed to embody female attributes and men were allowed to embody male attributes, and both had near equal opportunities (at least, in an ideal situation).

 

Now, however, it seems that emasculation has become the new ploy adopted by advertisements, something that reflects a prominent cultural trend- society, particularly women, favour the idea of emasculation (working on the theory that these advertisements are seen everywhere, and are thus being marketed towards a particular public sensitivity). What this means is that progress between the genders is actually moving backwards, but along a different track- if female attributes were once suppressed in a patriarchal system, as was the case for many years, nowadays, the general public seems to be favouring the suppression of male attributes to make room for womens'.

 

There is no way I can deny that there are things wrong with some 'male' attributes (whatever society dictates them to be), but I can not deny, at the same time, that there are things wrong with 'female' attributes just as much. Above all, I don't support a society that aims to suppress the attributes of a particular gender at the advantage of the other. It also seems slightly hypocritical that after centuries of the oppression of female attributes, we would do the same to the other sex now.

 

I'm going to end this entry now, but there's another ad which is really aggravating me (It's me or the dog, where they've twisted the trainer's words to make it sound as though she's going to train MEN, not dogs. It's not even the point of the show!).

Contentious, contentious. Jill Greenberg recently made public a portfolio of photos featuring children crying. To make them cry, she handed them lollipops and then snatched them away. Some say that its child abuse, and others say that its art.

 

Personally, I'm not completely divided over the issue. I'm aware that its a horrible thing to provoke an extreme emotional reaction in any human being, regardless of their age, and even worse, to take a photo of their grief. However, I feel that the reaction caused by the publication of these photos is a very interesting thing to observe- it has certainly outlined a fascinating public ideology. Here are some excerpts from the Weekend Australian Magazine:

 

"What on earth was the matter with the parents of the children to allow such unnecessary cruelty? It is certainly not art." Christine Saunders, Binalong, NSW

 

"Jill Greenberg says she wants people to feel something when they see her photos. Well, I felt something- pain for the little children she made cry and disgust for the parents who I assume got paid for this experiment. Why should these children be duped into giving false expressions to Greenberg's opinions and indulgences?" Amelia Turnet, South Perth, WA

 

"What a great idea. Taking lollies away from children to make them cry, then photographing them. What's next? Sticking pins in them?" Wal Dickson, Tarragindi, Qld

 

"As a mother of seven and a grandmother of 10, my heart breaks whenever I see tear-stained faces. No child should have the distressed, red eyes that Jill Greenberg's photos depict. She and the mothers have no right to hurt these little ones even if it only lasts a minute. How much nicer would the photos have been with these little ones smiling or laughing. Treasure every smile and kiss away every tear." Patricia M. Farmilo, Cairns, Qld

 

Now, I suppose all of these are valid points, and its perfectly true that people are going to be upset when they observe people in extreme distress, as in these photos. But what I really wanted to point out, something that has made me feel really, really glad that these photos have been published, is the reaction of some intelligent people TOWARDS the reaction to the photos themselves. It is these people who are interpreting exactly what the public outrage really represents. Here are some of the best excerpts:

 

"The only reason we have a reaction to the crying toddlers is because they're 'our' kids- they're not black and malnourished." Camille Favier, Coogee, NSW

 

"The cover story of your magazine was a dramatic scream of irony. We are a country that puts children behind razor wire in detention centres, yet we express outrage at artwork that depicts manipulated images of crying children. The political nature of the work is what shocks conservative America. Yes, this is art, as it reaches the conscience and anchors our shame for Americans and Australians as we battle with our values." Dr. Lisa Anderson

 

"If you're 'chucking a tantrum' for a kid who was doing just that, you need a reality check. These toddlers scarred for life? I don't think so. The drama of these kids is the reality of this world. People need this as an eye-opener because they can't look out the window and get the same reaction. Jill Greenberg isn't the issue; she's merely the messenger, changing the perspective so it makes you 'spit the dummy'. Every three seconds a child dies as a result of extreme poverty? Who cares? For 30 seconds a child is deprived of a lollipop? Oh my gosh, call child services." Megan Croft, Shortland, NSW

 

I have to take my hat off to these people- they're the people who are really taking a look at middle-class white Australia. We can kick and scream about children who experienced momentary deprivation of a lolly, but we won't give a shit about the Muslim women, the starving Africans, or the victims of human rights abuse in South America. We sweep everything wrong with humanity under the carpet, and nothing except what immediately threatens us (ie. white, caucasian children having to go without sugar for 30 seconds) ever is able to hit our conscience. And to Patricia M. Farmilo, who believes that the photos would have been "nicer" with "these little ones smiling or laughing"- this is the twenty-first century, and frankly, not everything is going to be about smiles and laughter. Take at look at yourself Australia, don't procrastinate with or ignore the issues that we have to deal with, because you can't just "kiss away every tear."