Yasmin

799 Vote(s)

16 Comment(s)

5 Post(s)

Blogs I Follow

Friends

I have no friends :(

[ View All My Friends ] [ Be My Friend ]

Reality tv – the next best thing?

February 12th 2007 08:22

American/Australian etc Idol.
The Biggest Loser
Big Brother
The Bachelor
So you think you can dance?
The Amazing Race
Wifeswap
Survivor
Bondi Rescue

I could go on…When I say these names what reaction do you have? Are you voyeuristic at heart, and love the peek these shows give you into the lives of “average citizens”? Do you secretly wish you were there, experiencing those highs and lows instead of sitting on your couch watching them? Do you do what I do and scream loudly, run away and hide at the mere suggestion of another (as of there weren’t already enough!) reality tv show?

Yes:
We live in the multimedia age. It’s a fact of life that technology continues to develop and enrich our lives. In a society driven by consumerism and globalization, tv is the obvious medium to push products and make money.

Reality tv shows offer a major advantage over any other show and that is that the “cast” don’t need to be paid (although most offer some sort of prize – I’ll get to that). Cheap tv shows means more variety of tv shows for the ever more discerning viewer at home (see the list above). Globalisation also means we take more of an interest in what happens outside our home, outside our country, and we want to try these new things, either in person or by watching others do it – so we have Survivor, The Amazing Race etc.

Sick of the same old stereotypical storylines played over and over on every channel? I think we watch reality tv to feel justified in our own lives. We pretend to be better than those on tv but at the same time the obvious human foibles, clearly displayed in The Biggest Loser or Big Brother, are what both fascinates and disgusts us.

Reality tv shows are simply the next generation of game shows, offering contestants to show off their skills and have the chance to make a quick buck. Do we decry Wheel of Fortune? No. Tv is simply about entertainment, and whether it’s participating or watching, reality tv is the way of the future.

No:
Tv is entertainment. We watch it to escape from our daily life. We want to be transported to worlds filled with people who are larger than life, who are frustrating, endearing, passionate – the doctors on All Saints, ER or Grey’s Anatomy, the heroes on Heroes. Let’s face it, the average person is pretty boring. Even with the stress and excitement of being on tv. I think it brings out the worst qualities in people (just look at the complaints of racism in the UK Big Brother). You have to deal with real people everyday in life, why choose to go home and watch them?

The fact that reality tv shows are cheaper to make increases their proliferation but not their value. Other shows have to compete for money and screen-time, and the caliber of every show decreases.

For that matter, the “reality” they purport to show is engineered, faked, the result of production and clever editing. They rely on shock value rather than a story – how many reality tv shows advertise a new series by saying “An unexpected twist”, “You’ll never guess what happens”. Does it ever live up to expectation? At the end of the day reality tv leaves you unsatisfied.

What do you think?

101

[ Link ]

Posted By: Yasmin - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Is it ok for girls to have short hair?

February 11th 2007 10:27

[Long hair] is considered bohemian, which may be why I grew it, but I keep it long because I love the way it feels, part cloak, part fan, part mane, part security blanket.
- Marge Piercy

Ever since primary school I’ve had fairly short hair most of the time. Not always a boyish cut, but once or twice it has got pretty short, Missy Higgins style (not that I looked as good as her!).

But this has occasionally led to comments, mostly by persons of the male sex, that girls should have long hair, or that girls look better/are more attractive with long hair. Is this necessarily the case?

Yes:
In general, men are attracted to women and women to men. I think the saying “opposites attract” has its roots in the differences between the genders. Women admire men who display characteristically masculine traits, such as strength. Similarly, men lust after women who display so-called feminine characteristics. Hence the attraction to long hair, which has been the traditional domain of women since ancient times (depending on the culture) and especially since World War 1.

So, my theory goes that the longer a girl’s hair, the more “womanly” and therefore more attractive she is (subconsciously at least). This is backed up by the consensus of most men I know. Incidently long and lustrous hair is a symbol of good health, hygiene and probably fertility, which would only add to the attraction. I know I’m always jealous of those women in the Pantene ads!

No:
However, some women just do not suit long hair. For whatever reason. They might have a job in which long hair would be in the way. They might not want to spend the time and energy needed to take care of long hair – especially for those who have unusually thick and/or curly hair. They might have petite facial features which get hidden behind long hair but look gorgeous with cropped hair.

Examples of women who definitely pull off short hair include Missy Higgins, as stated above, Jamie Lee Curtis, Sharon Stone, Halle Berry. Not only are these women attractive despite their short hair, they are attractive all the more because of it. Probably in part due to the lesbian/dyke stereotype, short-haired women tend to exude confidence, independence, capability. These are alluring qualities in any person.

In short (pun intended) shouldn’t it be up to the individual woman to decide what style of haircut makes her feel the most beautiful?

What do you think?

This article is licensed under the Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article “Hair”.

114

Comments (1)

[ Link ]

Posted By: Yasmin - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Should we support “sweatshops”?

February 9th 2007 00:45

Sweatshops – we all know they exist. Every so often someone like Today Tonight or Women’s Weekly does another exposé on their horrible conditions.

Wikipedia defines a sweatshop as a manufacturing facility that is physically or mentally abusive, or that crowds, confines, or compels workers, or forces them to work long and unreasonable hours. Usually the term is used to describe factories in third world countries (mostly Asian) that produce clothes for designer Western brands for a tiny fraction of the retail price, hence ensuring the maximum profit for the company.

No:
A sweatshop has only negative connotations in the developed world. Mentioning the word conjures up images of elderly Asian women forced to sew for 14 hours a day with poor light and crowded conditions. Or children as young as eight working seven days a week to support their families, because the pay rate is so low that working less will mean starvation.

Most sweatshop abolitionists see parallels between sweatshops and slavery. They argue that outsourcing work to developing countries will encourage sweatshops to compete for revenue by offering the lowest costs, at the expense of their workers health, safety and income. These factories would not stand up against our human rights and industrial relations laws in the Western world. The workers do not even get paid enough to buy the clothes they are making.

Shouldn’t all human citizens have access to the same rights? By taking a stand against the companies that outsource to sweatshops, we stand up for the rights of the factory workers and can force a rise in working conditions and pay rates.

Yes:
There are a growing number of economists who agree with Jeffrey Sachs in saying “My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops, but that there are too few”. This comment is based on an economic theory that international trade will make all participants better off as they will each be able to specialize in what they do best (in this case, make clothes very cheaply).

Those that argue for the existence of sweatshops refute the human rights claims by saying that the workers are actually better off. Jobs in sweatshops replace jobs which require hard labour, or no job at all. In countries where sweatshops have been forced to close (by other countries banning imports from sweatshops) workers are forced to turn to prostitution, crime, or face starvation.

You cannot compare pay rates and working conditions between developed and developing countries – let sweatshops provide workers with jobs, and countries with goods to export so that they can grow and develop into global participants.

What do you think?

135

Comments (3)

[ Link ]

Posted By: Yasmin - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Should there be “junk food” in school canteens?

February 8th 2007 02:22

In New South Wales (I’m not sure of the other states in Australia) recently the education department has forced public schools to remove all forms of junk food from their canteens. This means no more chocolate, soft drinks, pies, etc. Most private schools are also stepping up and providing a large variety of healthy options including fruit, sandwiches, juice, etc.

No:
[ Click here to read more ]

327

Comments (10)

[ Link ]

Posted By: Yasmin - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

For and Against

February 8th 2007 00:03

There’s an article in Spectrum in the Sydney Morning Herald that I like to read. It’s called For and Against and it consists of two reviewers each giving their opinion about a particular book – one who enjoyed it and one who didn’t.

I like this because, while its nice and easy to act like the world is black and white, it is so obvious to me that this just isn’t the case. Everything comes in various shades of grey, and may change over time, or between countries. An opinion on anything is just that – one’s opinion – and who is to say what is right or wrong for another

[ Click here to read more ]

Comments (2)

[ Link ]

Posted By: Yasmin - Category: No Category

Email this Post to a Friend

Comment by Yasmin
on P C POLICE

February 8th 2007 02:19

Totally. The problem with the litigation thing is that judges are so bound by results of old trials (whats the word I'm looking for?) that they have hardly any chance to come to a common sense judgment. Once one stupid decision gets passed, everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Like that woman who sued Maccas when she poured hot coffee on herself because the cup didn't say "caution: hot"!

(PS I made my first proper post about the junk food in canteens thing. Take a look)

[ Delete ] [ Ignore ]

Comment by Yasmin
on For and Against

February 8th 2007 01:50

So true...stick around, I might do some movies too

[ Delete ] [ Ignore ]

Comment by Yasmin
on P C POLICE

February 8th 2007 01:04

Hear, hear.
My latest complaint is the education system in Australia which has banned any kind of junk food from school canteens. I don't know about you but going to the canteen used to be a treat for me. What could I treat myself to now...an apple? Ridiculous. Kids can learn to eat properly themselves or suffer the consequences.

[ Delete ] [ Ignore ]

Comment by Yasmin
on How To Discover Who Really Loves You

February 8th 2007 00:59