Hi Aaron,
 
I read your article about the Jennifer Hawkins nude shoot for Marie Claire. A lot of what you say makes sense, but I wonder if you noticed that you're guilty of media propaganda yourself.
 
Much like the evil magazines who will show celebrities in an extreme light (digitally enhanced or digitally degraded) to suit their own agenda, you have churned out a completely negative article that ignores any positive effects that the shoot could possibly have in order to advance your own cause. I cannot say for sure exactly what that cause is, but I can guess (don't think I haven't noticed how the vast majority of responses on these types of issues are by people who are all falling over each other in their haste to try and take the moral high ground and denounce the evil perpetrators as the scum that they apparently are).
 
I for one can see that there are very good reasons why people should aspire to be better than they are. Having so many people out there trying to achieve the ideal by taking extreme shortcuts and ending up hurting themselves does not mean that we should all now take a backwards step and adjust all our goals to the "average". What's that? You want to fly to the moon? Nobody else has done that before so why the hell should we? We wouldn't want to be exceptional now would we? Hmm... I've just read that 55% of all people cheat on their partners - I guess that's the end of monogamy for me then.
 
An untouched, un-anorexic, and (correct me if I'm wrong) un-surgically enhanced Jennifer Hawkins aint a bad ideal as far as I'm concerned. What needs to change is the methods that people are using in their pursuit of the ideal. Unfortunately there's another trend that is even worse than the body image thing - the continued descent of people into laziness, ignorance, blaming somebody or something else for all their problems, and general "I want it, and I want it now" spoilt brat mentality. It's this trend that needs to be reversed in order to conquer the body image problem, not to mention a whole host of other problems out there.
 
-Rowdy
 
 Hi Rowdy,

 

Firstly, I'd like to confess that your letter leaves me lost in the mystery of what you presume my "cause" to be - you allude to being able to "guess", but never actually reveal that guess. I'll answer it myself, however, in noting that this particular news "story" took my interest because it appeals to one of what I suppose you could say is my "causes" - we all have things that appeal to us - perhaps for arguably self-indulgent purposes, perhaps not - for various reasons. I've long been an open mouth against the issues women in our society face. I happily open that mouth of mine, partly because it's a male mouth.

 

Already, in the responses I've seen in both the press and commentboards, the outcry against this nearly entirely comes from women, and the men are all rather predictably pissed that anyone should have a problem with their right to admire a nice piece of ass like our Jen's. What annoys me so much is that (and this is a whole other article - but I've penned many, and there'll be many more to come) this all essentially derives from the patriarchal core of our culture. In the instance of women's magazines, we see women putting forward what women should be, and then generally argued amongst women. On the surface level, at least. This can be a little deceptive, I think, because it ignores that a) behind all these products (which is what every magazine, etc, boils down to - a series of interconnecting advertising relationships) are generally men. Who do you think are the moguls of the fashion industry, for example? Not women. Who "created" the phenomenon of Jennifer Hawkins? Who "owns" her, at the end of the day? A bunch of rich and powerful men. And on the cultural level, what "ideal image" are women trying to achieve and follow? The ideal image for men. At the end of the day, we are wired to get together; and attraction, and the importance of attraction, rules a great many more elements of our lives than we often care to consider. That's okay. But, somewhere, the power struggle between the sexes resulted in something going terribly wrong with this dynamic, something that has a negative - an unequal - impact on women, within this aspect of our world, both personally and socially. The entire story of women in our society (and in others, of course) is the sorting out of this, the righting of what is wrong. It has made great strides in the last century. But it has many strides left to go. This is still a man's world - and that is still bad news for women.

 

Jennifer Hawkins is a male sex symbol, and her role within female culture is to be what women, in order to attain men, want to look like. The problem with all this is that the arguments made by other women can be, in many ways - and I say this, most regretfully - almost incomplete, for they do not connect with male culture's role in this, and, more importantly, that women must live in a male-dictated world (and, therefore, culture as a whole). So I'm glad to offer an opinion from a man that differs to the normative male view. I hope it's healthy for women to hear a man defend this point of view, as well. And I hope it's healthy for other men, too. I don't think it's fair that we have a society full of women who are still victimised by the patriarchal degradation in a variety of ways, at a variety of costs - one of the most dire being something like the modern anorexia epidemic. I'm proud to have that as one of my causes. There's no need to "guess" it.

 

Anyway, as for the business of your views as put forward in response to the article... I suppose the gist is that you think I have ignored the potential of this stunt for positive influence. I don't think I'm ignoring it, because I don't really think there is much room for positive influence, at the end of the day - and because, above all, there is so much room for negative. Even if some women found it positive that Jennifer has a crease in her stomach (I mean, really! Can we all note the absurd reality of it?! She's got make up, she's pouting, she's flawless bar that ridiculous "crease"), it ultimately just perpetuates the negative culture causing the body-image crisis. That outweighs any potential positive influence. An act that hurts 100 people cannot, in my opinion, be justified just because it helps 3, and that's kind of what you're going on, there. 

 

But this could all get complex, so let me wind it back to this...

 

The thing is, at the end of the day, I personally think Jennifer Hawkins is a shocking role model for women, whether she is photoshopped or not. I think everyone has got a bit carried away, and almost fixated on the issue of the photoshopping (which is really just playing into Frank 's hands, when you consider how little difference photoshopping does for someone as naturally flawless as Hawkins). I'm not attacking her on a personal level, as such - I'm looking at her cultural journey and subsequent image (which becomes the message as a "role model"). Hawkins' entire career is based on what? How did that girl become famous in the first place? Or, in other words, what message does she send to young women about making something of yourself, and how to go about it?

 

She was, from the very beginning, a successful sex object for the male gaze. End of story. There's no argument in that. She began life as a Knights cheerleader, flashing her legs and tits for drunk footy fans. She pursued modeling, until she won a spot in the Miss Universe pageant - one of the most vile, archaic patriarchal institutions in our patriarchal world. We all remember that image of Trump, the aging businessman, rich and powerful and in some kind of position where he can judge the value of young women as successful objects to the likes of him - the symbol of male superiority - affirming the meek, accommodating, smiling, scantily dressed, vacant Miss World. You go girl! Once, drunk footy fans used to go home and wank over you - now the most rich, powerful, disgusting men in the world want you in their hot tub! Would you want your daughter to aspire to such heights? I'd rather mine find success on her own basis, for something that didn't involve successfully giving enough men a hard on. She is a glorified prostitute - nothing more, nothing less. She might be the nicest person in the world, for all I know - but the very nature of these women is that we don't need - or want - to know very much about them. What skill does she have, aside from this? None. She hosted some awful TV programme, off the back of this, and was about as compelling as a sheet of cardboard. But hey, she looked pretty. 

 

What brings Jackie Frank's Marie Claire fiasco undone is that she chose a supermodel, in the first place. It doesn't work. Let's put a woman up there who hasn't made her dollars and name of appeasing the male gaze - who is truly smart, and successful, and inspiring, and who has done it without using her beauty and playing the age old game of this world where, not too long ago, the question of a woman's career was down to the secretaries with the perkiest breasts. As long as you hold up a figure of the male gaze to the issue of the body image epidemic, you can't have anything else but the most bizarre, vile hypocrisy. And something that fails in its supposed intention. It's part of the problem, whether she is photoshopped or not. And yes, yes, magazines like that have been using models to lure women by igniting and fueling aspirational psychology for years and years, and will continue to - but why, oh why, oh why have the complete absence of a spine required to be audacious enough to hold one up as the answer to anorexia?! I'm stunned that people can't see what's so wrong with that. I wish people would remember that we're not talking about our everyday right to enjoy everyday images of beauty - we're talking about something that uses one of the most well-known pop culture channels of "fashion" and "beauty", Marie Claire - in other words, one of the bibles for the girls and women who end up in anorexia clinics - to directly and deliberately make a statement to these girls and women that is? "This untouched image of one of the most beautiful women in the world is what you should aspire to." Even untouched, she is beautiful. Yes. Yes, she is. No wonder Bianca Dye is pulling her hair out - it's so fucking obvious, after all. Of course, she is still beautiful - she's Miss Fucking World!!! Let's know where the place is of something like Miss Worlds in the issue of body-image crisis and, of all the things, the most extreme end of that, anorexia. One plus one equals two, you know? If the image was "uglier" (normal!), then you'd have something positive happen because of it - it would send the message, "The women you kill yourselves trying to look like, in order to appease this patriarchal cultural expactations, are illusions anyway." That would help, yes. But it's not the case. So why not have someone up there who isn't one of the most beautiful women in the world, and replace the role of women like Jennifer Hawkins in these magazines with REAL women who have REAL attributes that are NOT connected to the industry of the male gaze in any way?! 

 

I'll tell you why... because it would never have made the storm this did, and would never have sold the copies this issue inevitably will. And Jackie Frank knows it. She even had the audacity to boast about this, today, when she happily told an interviewer that, at the end of the day, Bianca Dye, as a mere average looking comedienne, couldn't have the "cut through" (a marketing term, essentially meaning audience pull) that the supermodel had, and hence, wouldn't have sold as many magazines - which, as Frank at least admitted, is her "job". But if she was seriously understanding or caring about the issue - which is the stunt's very premise, after all - she would be able to see that this level of cut-through is precisely the problem, the symptom - deliberately created by these industries - of the very thing this stunt was supposedly going against. No, it's not her job to save anorexics, no - but then why the fuck did she exploit this issue to do her real job... sell magazines?! It's fucked up.

 

Of course, your letter seems to imply that, at the end of the day, the plight of these young girls and women is inconsequential anyway, because, you know, it's their fault - they're just "lazy". You don't see anything wrong with women aspiring to the ideal you yourself seem somewhat distorted in regards to - that it is actually a normal, everyday possibility. You'd no doubt like it if women all looked a little more like that - why shouldn't they?! Why shouldn't they spend hours in a gym trying to turn you guys on?! How dare wowsers like me give women such negative messages in life like... you shouldn't try to look like Jennifer Hawkins?! I mean, seriously, let's cue the Mariah Carey inspirational ballad - "Miracles happen, women of Australia, when you believe!" I mean, they said we'd never get to the moon, but check it out!!

 

But, in the great plight to attain such a noble quest, if they turn to "easier" options - like, say, starving themselves to death - then, really, that's their own stupid fault, right?

 

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!

 

Rowdy, Rowdy, Rowdy (love the name, by the way), I could write here forever, but I should wrap this up soon. There are more letters, and I dare say this same argument will develop through many of them, anyway. But let me say this... 

 

There are actually many more problems and facets to the body-image crisis and the connection to pop culture and media, than anorexia alone. But, anorexia (and the other eating disorders related to it) is obviously a big problem - it's getting bigger, in fact - and since this was the exact issue Frank exploited, it's important this stunt starts to at least yield something resembling Frank's garbage press release copy, and actually teaches us something about the issue (because has it, so far??!! NO). Anyway, I think it's important for you to consider your - incredibly dangerous, I must say - equating of those who suffer from this disorder with the idea that they have taken a lazy "shortcut" to their goal. 

 

Anorexia (and its related disorders, such as bulimia) is just that - a disorder. It's not a lifestyle choice. It's not a "method" of getting thin. It's important you understand the difference between someone who runs on a treadmill to lose some weight, and someone who ends up starving themselves as a result of anorexia. The healthy person who makes the lifestyle decision of getting thin will end up in a gym as a result of this conscious choice. It's a sane, rational, healthy act. On the other hand, anorexia is not simply about a simple desire to lose weight. It begins here, naturally - but it ends in a very different place, indeed. Sufferers are experiencing intense fear and anxieties to pathological extremes, and have completely distorted perceptions of self. The result of this state is that, among other things, sufferers will literally starve themselves or regurgitate their food. By this time, they are severely unhealthy. They are not having fun - and not in the "no pain, no gain" way your ideal woman on her treadmill is (ugh). Try living in a constant state of fear and anxiety, usually suicidal thoughts and tendencies, and a completely distorted sense of self, as your body slowly starts to die. How you could attribute "laziness" to this is astounding - but you've highlighted, somewhat ironically, what this horrid Marie Claire stunt proclaims to be based on but does nothing to really address - that it's something so misunderstood by the larger population. The irony is that if people really understood eating disorders, they'd understand what is so wrong with this whole thing; it's their naivety that ironically - quite wickedly, when you think about it - facilitates Frank's PR coup.

 

The cultural problem is that it is a disorder that nearly exclusively affects teenagers. We're talking about young girls who do not have the developmental capacity to be handed such a harsh responsibility and sense of autonomy that you flippantly give to them. We still don't really understand the psychological origins completely - the triggers - that exist in their environmental influence, but certainly it doesn't take a genius to see where our society has increasingly headed, and rates of anorexia increase exponentially with the increasing exposure young women have to the industries that have greater access to them (through the modern world of technology, etc) than ever before. We're no longer raising our teens - that's the harsh reality of today - media and pop culture is. So what messages that culture is giving them is important. And when they are inundated with messages that they should look like Jennifer Hawkins, the danger is obvious. Most of all, it clearly mirrors one of the symptoms of anorexia - the distorted perception. If media is creating the unreal idea that most women look like this and that most women can... that's almost like a pseudo-anorexic state in itself. We're trying to stop young women from falling in to the spiral of anorexia - it's made difficult when the media and pop culture industries are actively creating it and pushing them down the thought patterns that so clearly mirror an anorexic's fears and obsessions. And it makes it extremely difficult to treat, when you're telling them one thing they need to start believing, but they can justify it in their minds by what magazines like Marie Claire are showing them (that a successful woman - one with "cut through" - is a thin and ideally attractive woman).

 

Laziness has ZERO to do with it. Anorexia is irrational. And you cant reduce it to being about goals and ideals, not once the sufferer is in the throws of it - it's about an all-consuming need that the individual must be this certain way (that, by the end, they can't perceive properly anyway, because even the girls who are about to die will still look in the mirror and see themselves as fat). The sufferer will become worse and worse, the perception forever shifting, until it almost tricks them into pushing themselves into death. But it starts with a very common - "lower volume", let's say - belief that they "need" to be this ideal image that MEN have decided women must be - a perception increasing in its intrusion on daily life, partly through the rise and rise of media influence and the assault on the senses that advertising now has us all in. It is actually this beginning, where the role of magazines like Marie Claire is so important - because it is at this initial, more rational, point  - the point where young women's beliefs are formed - where it can be most easily stopped from flourishing into full-blown eating disorders. You have to nip it before it grows into anything. Because what it can grow into takes Australian lives - that is not an exaggeration or sensationalist thing to say, by any stretch. It ends very often with their funeral - with the funerals of teenagers who never made it out of high school. It's a horrible, frightening, unbelievably sad path that is complex and difficult to treat.

 

Fuck Jackie Frank for thinking what she did is in any way helping it.

 

Thankyou,

Aaron

 

 

Hi Sophie,

Thanks very much! Unofrtunately, a couple of monts ago we were again hacked into, disabling all forum boards and registration (and pretty much everything else!). We fixed most of it, but there are still a couple of problems - I have to do the visitor counter manually now, for example (it registers the hits, but not doesn't display them). The registration system still shows, yes, but is redundant for the time being. I've left it there because I do want to return forum boards - but unfortunately, these are the reason we keep being hacked (because of their security issues), so I'm not prepared to reinstate them til I work out how to do that safely. At which point, you'll be able to register and blab away! I miss the "community" of this site very much, but there's little I can do. I'm contemplating creating a facebook page (or is that too passe?) which provides that element. Til such a time, the contact page which leads to this one (Your Say) is the only "interaction" I can offer. But glad to have you on board, and I hope you enjoy your reading :)

Cheers,

Aaron

 

Hi Jerry,

Thanks! Come back, anytime! I'm sure there'll be plenty more dead celebrities to come.

Aaron

 

Hi Nat,

No problem! And yes, I completely agree that the sadism and nastiness of modern "entertainment" is a huge problem in terms of the way it normalises and nurtures various mal-adaptive behaviours, particularly with the young people who are the biggest fans of alot of it. The thing is, we can only work in very black and white concepts - we discuss sex and violence, but we can't grasp ethical issues that are deeper. Partly why I spend so much time discussing it here! So I'm glad if it helped at all!

Cheers,

Aaron

 

Please please please tell me you're going to write about the death of Jackson!!!! But I also just wanted to say that I really loved your Chaser article - I wish all the people who tuned in this week and made it rate so well get to read it too!

 

Hi Donna,

Yes, it rated fairly well, their return - but that was always going to be the case, because there was an interest beyond a genuine one in the show, in "how" they would return from the scandal. With most reports being that it was clearly quite soft, it will be more interesting to see how it performs in future. And the Jackson remembrance is now up. Enjoy. 

Aaron 

 

Hi Stacey,

Many thanks :) It's not terribly surprising, I must say, that the boy's father is downplaying it. Men are raised to deal with things very differently - or, more to the point, not raised to deal with some things at all - and this is such a complex incident, emotionally and psycholigically, for many fathers (especially when it's about their sons). I don't know enough to make any conclusion, but I'd also point out that what is really quite sad is that it's often linked to the egocentricity of parenting - hard to live out vicariously through someone who is socially "losing". And getting bullied is not terribly masculine, and fathering is still a cultural conditioning where the father's role is to develop various "masculinities" in their sons. Which is actually really fucked up, and why we have a society full of emotionally retarded men. But still, that's the way it is. So it could strike at the heart of that, too. Perhaps, his denial is self-serving, in some ways. That's a harsh thing to say, but if it's at the expense of recognising the emotional (and perhaps physical, depending on the nature of the bullying) trauma his child is experiencing, then I don't mind if they follow your link and find me saying that. Hello... reality check.

 

Why do we, as a world of adults, not give proper credence to the experiences of adolescence, when we should ourselves know how lasing and formative they are? If an adult was experiencing prolonged, sustianed abuse of any kind, we would mostly be outraged. People in workplaces have rights (as they should, don't get me wrong) to defend themselves against even minor mistreatments and forms of abuse, but teenagers can experience it to severe levels, on an almost daily basis, and we still tend to shrug it off. There couldn't be a worse time (while you're forming much of the basis of your personality and social mechanics), yet because of the time it is (adolescence) it's as if it is ignored or seen as "natural" (how vile, to normalise something like that). There have been many attempts to generate awareness of bullying - even our governments haven't exactly shied away from it - but it requires a social engagement, too, and that has never really happened.  We still have fathers out there who, even when faced with it, often say, "It's good for him, it will toughen him up", as if the bullying is alogical and productive response to their children not being the sort of person they need to be - the sort of person who is too tiugh, etc, yawn, etc, to be bullied in the first place. Well, it doesn't toughen you up, I'm afraid! It breaks you. And what I love about you, Stacey, is that you understand the importance of buffering and prevention, through counter-acting the experience, and I wish more people were like you :) It would make the world of differene. And with teenagers having the highest suicide rate, it would actually save lives. 

 

So thankyou for your kind words, because as I've said before, I write these articles, and discuss it from time to time, because I do think it's something that needs to be discussed, and I hope it helps in any way. I feel an obvious comradeship with any young person who experiences it, and as someone who has largely resolved themselves (as a 33 year old), it's only right that I use my position to be strong enough to open it for the benefit of others. I would hate to think these articles (although, I'm sure my detractors would be opportunistic enough to bview them in this light anyway) are self-indulgent whines. I've no need to whine, but I think people who experience these things have every right to, and don't get to - so I'm here to whine for them! And I will continue to. 

 

Thanks so much,

Aaron

 

Thanks so much, Sally!

 

I did see Marr in the festival. Judging on the timing of your email, I suspect I saw it at the same time as you - televised on ABC2!?

 

I don't know how I feel, to be honest. Not particularly different, I suppose. But the emotion always subsides, and certainly the volume of my response is much less - it's a memory, rather than something I'm engaged with emotionally or intellectually (and I always try to combine the both, here).

 

I did find it interesting to hear him talk of "panic". His revelation (for those that didn't see it) is that all his work - especially this one  - is about "panic". So, perhaps I don't feel so differently about my misgivings, because my reaction to that is basically that he fails to make the distcinction between public panic (and media panic, in relation to this - it largely is responsible, of course) and a system in panic. I don't think panic ever really led the system in the case of Henson. That was always one of my points. I think a lot of people lost sight of that - and the irony there is that they lost sight of it because they, themselves, were in a state of panic. There are two types of panic, after all, in the Henson case, and the side Marr stood for was also, as far as I was concerned, in a panic - alongside the side they were fighting against. Two panics go to war! 

 

And I don't think Marr was, as he said, "explaining" the panic. He was arguably both feeding off it, and fueling it. As was Rudd - who exploited it in another way. Lots of public and high figures jumped in and did that - but, still, the actual system kept its head. He wasn't sent to jail like the right-wing panic wanted, nor was the freedom of culture and the arts thrown into the dark ages, as the left-wing panic predicted.

 

And he maintains that he had no idea that the portion he chose to use as his book's preview piece in the paper - featuring the revelation that Marr scoured playgrounds for models - would create the stir it did. And that's just rubbish! That's the stalemate for me - he'll cling to that for dear life, and it's just not remotely feasible! So, no, his comments didn't bring me to some turn-around!

 

Thanks for your comments, too - they're very kind and I appreciate them. I can't keep up the same level I once did, but I very much enjoy having this space and will certainly not let it go lightly! So, I'll be sticking around for some time yet!

 

Cheers,

Aaron

 

Hi Narissa,

 

It's pretty daunting, I suppose - and especially for you as a parent. The swine flu is one subject I haven't particularly engaged, I suppose. I'm just admitting that, because I don't want to be in a position to give out advice when, realistically, I'm not tapped into this one. It worries me, of course - I've seen the projections of 1 in 5 being infected within two months, it sends a shiver down anyone's spine. But, then again, for most of us, it seems not really as deadly as it was originally seen as. But, you're talking from the viewpoint of a parent, and it's very dangerous (from what little I know) for kids. So I suppose you should be safe rather than sorry.

 

What I would say is that we should be careful, however, if it gets to a level where we really are seeing an epidemic that huge, because I would hate to see a kind of hysteria where people would be looking out for themselves at the expense of the well-being of those who have contracted the virus. I think that will be particularly important for children, who can be easily pushed to outcast others by mimicking and absorbing hysteria (such as we saw in the initial AIDS years). 

 

Aside from that, I'm currently in no better or worse position than you to dissect the situation. Let's all hope we don't look back at this letter, in a couple of months, and cringe at the naivety.

 

Cheers,

Aaron 

 

Hi Mitchell,

Well, I'm glad to... um... disturb. I'm not sure what else to say!

Cheers,

Aaron

Hi Hayley,

I actually didn't review Star Trek, my co-reviewer Evan did. It's really not my style, so I will probably never see it - and after watching Cloverfield, I have no inclination to watch anything with the name JJ Abrahams attached to it! But I'm sure many will enjoy it, and it's harmless, so no problems by me!

 

I did, however, see this video by The Onion that I loved!

 

Thanks for your kind words,

Aaron

 

Thanks so much, Damo!

I love this letter, I'm just going to be honest and say that this really touched me. And yes, that's partly because I've been sucked into the hoo-ha around my "controversial web clinic", etc, etc. As many people know, one of the problems I've always tried to have the guts to speak about - and carefully try to personally follow the observation of, myself - is that so many arguments and crusades, bla, bla, bla - from general leftism, through debates of sexism, racism, all the rest - is that nobody ever really manages to communicate. And so, very little is achieved. It's ironically what my time in marketing taught me, and I've always tried my hardest - maybe not always to great success, sure - to put it to good use and somehow try to cross all those pointless divides. So this letter really made me stop and think, "Cool, I achieve something". And that's just a great feeling - and not in an egocentric sort of way - to have.

 

We all can pretty much guess what I'm going to say about Matty, let's face it!! I'll say it anyway, of course! But it's great to know that my body of work has been able to create some sort of empathetic bridge that means that sometimes predictable position of mine has a purpose. 

 

Eternally grateful,

Aaron

 

PS: And kick ass post! Not to mentiuon brave, considering the context! We can learn a lot from you, too!