|
|
Written by Aaron Darc
|
|
Saturday, 12 April 2008 |
|
This week, two women made headlines for the question of their age, and their right to arouse - one for being too young, the other for being too old. Who decides when you can and cannot be sexy? And why? "It's making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill - I don't think it needs to be made a front-page story, there are other important things going on in the world." Mink Sadowsky (Australian Fashion Week)
"How young is too young?" is a question that's been around for as long as modern Western society (it's the answer that has shifted back and forth, over time). Today, in an increasingly sexualised media world, it's arguably as pertinent as ever. However, this week, we've seen this question juxtaposed with a somewhat newer moral confound- a flipside to the concept largely based around our "daughters"... our "mothers". We now also ask, "How old is too old?" And for the next half an hour, I'm going to ask you both these questions. In the red corner, suffering the media spotlight for the debate around the commercial sexualisation of teenage girls is Russian model, Monika Jagaciak, who, at just 14 years of age, has now been barred from Australian Fashion Week, after the outrage that followed the choice of Monika as the "face" of the coming event. In the blue corner, welcome back Madonna, who has strutted back into the charts (and the history books), wearing knee-high leather boots and corsets, prompting many to scoff, "She's old enough to be my Mother!" So, let's have a look at some elements of this rather complex problem, when gender construct meets the social construct of age. What does it say about women? And, more to the point, what does it say about the male gaze who ultimately judges these young girls and older ladies?
|
|
Click here to continue reading this article ...
|
|
|
Written by Aaron Darc
|
|
Wednesday, 19 March 2008 |
Sydney's Hillsong Church finds itself embroiled in yet another scandal, and we have to finally start to ask ourselves, "At what price, the latte?" "What your outlook is, depends on what you're looking out from." Brian Houston (Hillsong leader) A few years ago, I vowed to never buy a single cup of coffee - not one pastry or slice of cake - from either of Starbucks or Gloria Jean's. Yes, I have a background as a bohemian wanker, and yes, I spent my early adulthood sipping latte, as I discussed everything from the pitfalls of cognitive behavioural theory, to the postmodernity of the latest Madonna video, in the many cafes that once lined the city streets. Once. Along came Starbucks and, soon after, Miss Jean (or, perhaps, being a good Christian, she's Mrs Jean), and that was pretty much the end of the line for one of culture's most valued institutions, The Cafe. It was in The Cafe, that the intellectual banter of Sartre and Simone would form the spine of existentialism; where Dylan discussed his political outrage that would pen so many of those famous landmarks of angry folk; and where David Lynch, on the back of a napkin, drew an imaginary map of a little town called Twin Peaks. I could say, "God bless The Cafe", but the irony would be that this is now part of the problem of where this social institution has arrived. Would you like some Jesus in your Mocachino?
|
|
Click here to continue reading this article ...
|
|
|
Written by Aaron Darc
|
|
Tuesday, 12 February 2008 |
A few days ago, I received an email posing a very interesting moral question, in response to the article on Ashley X. Usually, of course, emails are sectioned in "Your Say", but I must confess, I think it yielded something worth more than this page (that I know from our stats, not everyone visits as frequently as the articles). I think some of you will respond very emotively to the question it poses - but let's calm that the best we can, and have a look at the issues it involves that (while many will disagree with what the question suggests) are worth more than basic reactions of a more black and white nature...
Dear Mr Darc,
Thanks for your article on Ashley X. I've been a bona fide lurker on your site for many months and have found most of your articles informative and well-constructed, if at times a tad contrived albeit in the spirit of equality and empathy.
Having said that I completely agree with the right of Ashley's parents to engage their daughter in the treatments outlined in your article. But I can't help but ask myself are they going far enough? Is it a life worth living? Personally, I would advocate euthanasia as the most humane, ethical and moral course of action. If she is not to develop past a mental age of 3 months then maybe that's the best way to remember her rather than artificially keep her looking young. Besides the practical benefits of the proposed treatments I can't think of any benefit to Ashley in keeping her alive. On the contrary, in death, medical scientists may be able to make advances with other patients by, as grotesque as it may seem, using her organs and in particular, her brain in post mortem research. |
|
Click here to continue reading this article ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|