Recent Posts
Ah, the eagerly anticipated movie about out four favourite gals has finally been released! yes, I do realise that this has happened some time ago, but as a recent viewer, for me, it's still a fresh and wonderful addition to my memory.
Ah, to see Carrie and co. on the big screen, to revel in their wonderful array of clothing, shoes and jewellery...it was NOT a disappointing effort. Patricia Field, as always, has pulled of an amazing look for every single character, managing to perfectly portray their unique personalities through a stylishly cut blouse, kneww high socks and even shoulder pads.
Carrie, per usual, looked fantastic for most of the movie, her hair always perfectly messy and her eclectic style matcthing her toned figure. The standout for me was, of course, the wedding photo shoot for Vogue, my arms erupting into goosbumps at the sight of Vivienne Westwoods absolutely stunning, eggshell white wedding gown , worn by Carrie. In terms of the story line, Carrie's role was hard done by. It was primarily her scenes which made me shed a tear or two, as her adventures and troubles with Mr. Big were not, as we all hoped, over.
Charlotte looked as sweet as girly as we remember, often donning cute little sun dresses, cinched in at the waist and flowing over her hips and thighs, her long, glossy hair pulled back into chic styles. Like her clothes, Charlotte's life was literally perfect. I was a little disappointed, to be honest, with how easily everything came to her character. But then again, why complain about a happy ending?
Samantha, although as crass and fabulous as usual, was impressive with her loyalty. Although she had revealed a hidden depth in the series, it was in the movie that we really saw the softk, wonderfully honest person that lies underneath the sex fiend we have all come to love. In a way, she is the most refreshing character out of the four: her sense of humour, unjudgemental nature and loyal streak make her a fantastic person to watch.
Although I've always known that Miranda was a little cold and very cynical, the extent of her cold nature really surprised me in the movie. After Steve's betrayal, she is simply shown as moving on with her life, not really grieving or hurting. This is made espeically evident when contrasted with Carrie, who pines and mourns her relationship with Big for a good half of the movie.
This is just a very short summery of my thoughts of the movie, byt overall, it was seriously a wonderful experience. I loved the ending; but then again, I'm the and-evryonep-lived-happily-ev er-after kinda person. Asd cliched as it may have seemed to many, it was a great way to finish a series which, really, is based nealry wholly on love.
Shared on
As many of you have no doubt heard, the recent controversy regarding Bill Henson and his art has sparked heaps of heated debates about child pornography, paedophilia and the decline of marality within art as well as society.
The PM has declared the pics 'revolting', whereas Kate Blanchett is fully in support of the artists and free expression.
I can see how it's a very difficicult issue, because it is battling two concepts which are integral to our community. One the one hand, art is being stifled, censored by not only the public, but now by the government. What is the point of artistic expression and pushing the boundaries of society if they're just going to get rejected? And at worst, these actions can even be punished by law.
I can understand how taking nude pictures of young teenagers can offend people. After all, children have always been de-sexualised in our society - and sexuality and nudity somehow are often associated with one another. So, naked pics of kids mean entering a forbidden zone of sexuality which is considered morally wrong.
Or is it the panic over what 'ímmoral' reactions these images may elicit? The people who believe that these images are dangerous to our society should think about WHY they are supposedly so wrong.
I had a look at some of them, and the naked 12 year old girl is covering her genitals, staring modestly at the camera. She does not look scared nor uncomfortable, nor is she placed in a sexual position. Bill Hsencon's goal of this exhibition, to my understanding, was to discover and capture the bare essence of adolescence through photographs: the raw emotion, the feeling of what it means to be transforming from a 12 year old into this young adult.
These children have not been exploited for the artist's dirty purposes: in their photos, they still emit a childlike innocence mixed with a sense of adulthood.
The danger of these images does not lie with Bill Henson, nor with the parents who gave the artist their permission to photoghraph their children. The 'danger' is the reactions that these images can supposedly draw out of individuals who find them sexually arousing, or those who believe that these subjects have somehow lost their childood now that their naked chests have been exposed.
Please, like you don't see naked children running around on the beach, outside on their front gardens, playing innocently in the water. Nobody associates their nudity with a sexuality. So why should these pics be any different?
Shared on
Recently, the government has granted gay couples many about 100 new 'rights', such as being able to see your dying partner, getting your dead partner's superannuation fund or pension, or simply being recoginsed as a ligitmate de-facto couple in our so called forward society.
However, despite the federal government's 'open mindness' to finally acknowledge homosexuals as actual loving people, who simply wish to be accepted into society and not discriminated against on the bases of their sexuality, I find it interesting that marriage, even civil, still remains out of the question.
It has been Australian Capital Territory Government's aim for some time now to ensure that gay unions become a reality. This Australian state government is the first in the nation to recognise that gay people also have the wish to be a part of a committed, nationally recognised relationship, and actively do something about it. However, despite the recent change of government, it appears that on a federal level, Australia is still reluctant to give every single one of its citizens a 'fair go'.
Honestly, what is so WRONG about a gay couple entering into a legal, civil union? This should not be a matter of law, but a matter of personal choice and perference.
The strongest argument against gay unions is that they will dirty the sanctity of marriage, and pervert the high status of 'the family'. To me, that's not really reason enough to have the government ban two people who love each other as much as any straight couple from marriage.
Regarding religon, I believe that it is each religion's right to refuse to marry any individual in society. Marriage in a church, under Christan/Catholic or any other traditonal religion is the perogative of the church and should not be interfered with by the law. However, this concept can also be applied to the opposite: marriage in the eyes of the law, removed from any religious influence and ceremony, should not be discriminated against on the basis of so-called 'morality' and emotion. Christian beliefs ishould not influence legislation: after all, we can's exactly call ourselves a secular state when gay marriage is outlawed for no other reason than 'perverting the traditional concept of marriage', can we?
I also don't understand how gay marriages will negatively influence society. First of all, the fact that it is assumed that it will have a 'negative' influence is problematic in itself, as it implies that homosexuality is a social disease we must avoid and prevent at all costs. This concept of 'infecting' the straight people is ludicrus, as any intelligent individual knows that you cannot simply 'turn' gay just by knowing someone else who is gay.
If gay marriage is legalised, it will not mean that a union between two heterosexual people will mean anything less: it'll still remain that same kind of ceremony which celebrates two people's love and commitment to each other.
Shared on
In the 21st Century, many believe that we have reached an era of ‘post feminism’, where both sexes have equal opportunities in terms of their careers, sexualities and personal lifestyles. There is talk of women becoming ‘freemales’, who are basically females strongly opposed to commitment and settling down with a husband, the two kids and a white picket fence. We also often hear about the metro-sexual man, who is savvy, fashionable yet masculine, or the sensitive, arty boys who are rebelling against the stereotypical macho- alpha male prototype. Yet it is the rising trend of the stay-at- home dad, a pioneer of equality between men and women who is happy with the role reversal which so many have scorned before him that is propagating public debate.
The concept of a traditional household has always relied on the man as the breadwinner and the woman as the stay-at-home partner and domestic/ child carer. Even with the increasing number of women entering the workforce in the mid 20th Century to our modern time, women are still the ones who usually give up their jobs either temporarily, or change to a part-time working environment. A recent article cited that for every 12,000 men who stay at home to look after the kids, about 230,000 women do the same: that comes down to 1 men for every 20 women. Now, that does not sound like equal division of gender roles to me
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
Shared on
For my current assignments in Gender studies, one of the sources I'm analysing is Zoo magazine. Now, I don't know about you other gals, but to me, that magazine is one of the most stupid and pathetic excuse for a modern publication of all time
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
Is it really that much of a scary concept? In Western society, yes.
In every single issue of every single women's/ health magazine, there is some article written that is a direct link to fat, and how to either lose it or accept it. Or rather lose just a 'little' bit of it so that you can remain 'healthy' and 'fit' (and 'attractive', but of course, that is no allowed to be said loud anymore, so shhhhhhhhhhhhhh
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
To those of you who have been watching and/or reading the news lately, you'll know what sparked this topic.
The recent coverage of a women and her father living in a sexual relationships has sparked a lot of controversy in terms of morality, boundaries and power within both sexual and familial relationships
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
I know this topic is constantly being debated, with programs and web sites and academic essays being dedicated to its causes and existance. But I just finished reading an essay about the impact of Barbie, and the way her body proportions have not changed for the last 50 years, despite the growth of food disorders like anorexia and bulemia.
I know Barbie isn't solely reponsible for the way we, as girls and women, think about our bodies and clothes today. But as a toy, Barbie and all of her friends and products can have a significant role in influencing children, espeically young girls, on how they should look and behave like as they grow up
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
Both.
I have thought about this a bit, and based from my experience, women tend to want to impress both men AND women with their style of dressing
[ Click here to read more ]
Shared on
|
|
|
Add Comments
Comments (12)
Read More
, you too.
Comment by Caroline Zielinski
on Are the recent gay reforms enough?