Blog I Karen Brooks

OK. Confession time. I haven’t been writing blogs lately because I have been working to a very tight deadline – namely, the submission of Book 2 of Curse of the Bond Riders: Votive. My days are spent lost in the Tallow’s world – which is really rather nice at times and I will blog about what’s been going on there separately (without giving anything away). Thanks to those of you who have emailed asking when Book 2 is coming out. I have had rather a lot, which is very gratifying!

I decided that I would, to make up for not writing on my website much recently, post a link to my latest Courier Mail column. Hopefully, it will generate some discussion and demonstrate that my mind isn’t atrophying and neither have I disappeared. It takes the recent fuss over the Lady GaGa concerts as a starting point for discussing censorship and classifications. I wonder if I am the only one feeling that when it comes to taking personal responsibility, so many people seem reluctant to do that? I am talking about adults, of course, but it’s something that has to be instilled in kids from a young age. And don’t get me started on the number of teachers I have spoken to who lament the rising phenomena of ‘Helicopter’ parents – those who hover protectively over their kids but to the detriment of the child’s social and emotional development, the parents who refuse to believe their child is capable of bad behaviour, poor grades or average performance… Oh dear, that’s going to have to be another blog – I can tell already!

I will start blogging regularly very soon, so please come back! In the meantime, love to hear what you think of this:
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/its-a-stupid-blame-game/story-e6frerfo-1225844454022

The fracas over the candid picture of Lara Bingle – allegedly circulated by footballer, Brendan Fevola and, according to sources, now on the phones of many a footballer and cricketer, has attracted public censure. Certainly, Fevola has revealed himself to be a prat of the highest order who has no respect for boundaries or others’ dignity. A great deal has been said about him and the type of person who would circulate a picture of a naked ex (whether it was during an affair or not), never mind the people who accepted the photo, kept it and/or passed it on. He’s not the first – and probably won’t be the last.

While I would never condone Fevola’s actions, they’re not, sadly, that surprising. The specific and narrow notion of masculinity that dominates too many of our football codes is shown to be alive and well. Fortunately, not all players follow this, but when something like the photo ‘scandal’ erupts, it tarnishes the men, casting aspersions on all players and putting their behaviour in the spotlight. What we see is not pretty. One can’t help but feel for Michael Clarke, Bingle’s fiance – where’s mateship in all this? While Clarke is oblivious (one hopes) to what is being passed behind his back, his sporting peers are having a perve at his lady – a perve courtesy of a sleazy ex. There’s something really unsvaoury about this.  I feel for Bingle and Clarke. It’s a betrayal at so many levels.

Speaking of betrayals, not enough has been said about the women’s magazine who saw fit to publish the photo that Bingle is now suing Fevola for releasing. One of our prominent magazines not only published a story about Bingle’s recent public ‘meltdown’ at a 20/20 match, but published the photo at the centre of Bingle’s distress. A magazine that also prides itself on being for and about women. A magazine that offers pages of advice, diet, fashion and medical tips and, of course, the ubiquitous celebrity gossip. A magazine that will put aside ethics for the sake of profit, but dress up what they’ve done in psychobabble and excuses.

When challenged as to why she saw fit to publish the photo of Bingle, in light of the angst she knew it was causing the subject, the editor, in a radio interview with Neil Mitchell of 3AW, cited as her reason the fact it was already being circulated and had been for years. Yes, that’s right. Years ago – in 2005 or some such. Yes, it was – she’s right – among a group of men – not a readership of over 400,000 in 2010. She also defended the decision by saying ‘others had published it’ (the Herald Sun) and it was ‘newsworthy’. When asked if she felt it might not be an ‘unreasonable intrusion’ the same reasons were given. By that logic, if others have done ‘it’, then it’s OK if we do ‘it’ too.

Oh please. Let’s call it what it is and say it’s nothing but a tacky strategy to sell magzines and beat others at the profit game.  Scandal and naked photos – particularly ones from a murky past, involving a pretty, popular woman, never mind the blessing of her partner being a cricketer, sell. Usually very well.

This reveals so many women’s magazines for what they are – little more than over-priced publications that feed on women’s insecurities and angst – they pretend to be your friend when they’re your femeny – a female enemy. BUt they weren’t always like this.

In her book, The Beauty Myth, Naaomi Wolf notes that ‘women’s magazines… have been one of the most powerful agents for changing women’s roles…’ for the last century. They function like a social barometer. Initially preoccupied with the home and the ‘housewife, where women were persuaded, through advertising, to become ‘insecure consumers of household goods,’ they slowly shifted focus.

With changing social forces and the rise of feminism, the female body became the object of scrutiny. The ‘natural’ state of women, the naked form, which had never been the locus of these magazines before, suddenly became a’problem.’ Magazines and marketers starting providing a range of ever-changing solutions – from diet, to hair-removal, to how achieve soft skin, to these days, anti-ageing products as well. Arguably, they have taught women to ‘hate’ their natural state and seek radical solutions.

It’s easy to accuse mags with such a focus as being trivial – and it’s a criticism that’s been levelled at them for some time. Focussing on the body, men, celebrities, diet, gossip, sexiness and fashion, these same magazines also reflect the mass culture from which they arise. They are contradictory (publishing photos of Bingle while at the same time decrying the man who initiated them). Wolf believes that ‘Women react so strongly to these inconsistencies since they probably realise the that the magazine’s contradictions are their own.’

In their book, The Great Feminist Denial, Monica Dux and Zora Simic argue that (citing Cyndi Tebbel, the former editor of New Woman magazine), feminism is the single most taboo subject in women’s magazines. This rejection of any type of feminist discourse is based on a fear that it will alienate the readership who it’s believed are only interested in men, clothes, gossip etc. While some magazines are the exception (and there are some good ones), almost all of the others dedicate over 3/4 if not their entire publication to so-called women’s pursuits. Even magazines for teens and tweens do this. They are trivia incarnate.

This persistent focus on beauty, gossip and the darker side of the feminine mystique (which is no longer so mysterious anymore), and other women’s ‘concerns’ both brings women together and drives us apart. We recognise it for what it is and indulge, believing that it’s entertaining, short-term and light. It’s escapism. But is it really? Surely, this kind of narrative, the stereotypes presented and the self-hatred it promotes,  eats away at any notion of sisterhood and support. These magazines teach us to compete, to stare, compare and despair – at ourselves and each other. They feed on our insecurities and teach us to kick ourselves when we’re down and seek succour in shopping and bitching. It also teaches us that its OK to kick others when they’re down.

This has now been blatantly exposed, arguably, by the Bingle bungle. An Australian woman’s mag kicks one of their own – someone who has graced their pages and, when called to account, they have no legitimate excuse. That’s not to let Fevola and co off the hook, but it just goes to show to what levels even a peddlar of the ‘sisterhood’ will stoop.

Sadly, it’s pretty low.

What do you think?

The news that a 13 year old boy fatally stabbed a 12 year old boy, Elliott Fletcher, in the toilet blocks of St Patrick’s, Shorncliffe, has shocked not just the families and community, but the entire nation. As the news broke and, later, the story was pieced together and assumptions made about the reasons for this tragedy, the immediate effect on the families involved, the school community and short-term consequences, people struggled to make sense of how two young people could have their lives ended through such a senseless act of extreme violence. For it’s not just Elliot’s life that finished that day – the young perpetrator’s has, to all intents and purposes, ended as well. A child himself, he now faces the most serious of criminal charges.

It is just so unbelievably tragic, and our hearts and sympathy go out to everyone involved. At the same time, however, many people, and the media especially, are looking to make sense of the senseless, understand what led to this act, and also to apportion blame. That’s what we tend to do during these crises – look for accountability. It helps us reach understanding and, eventually, closure. What’s clear is that this is not a ‘school’ problem as one parent stated, this is a ‘social problem’ and he’s right. So far, the media, popular culture, parents generally, the rise of violence, and lack of discipline have all been touted as responsible.

But in a case like this, no one person or situation can be blamed. On the contrary, the answer is complex – all of the above have, arguably, contributed to the events in the playground that resulted in one young life lost, another ruined. That’s why it’s important that, as a society, we start talking about what led to this from every angle if, for no other reason, than to try and ensure it doesn’t happen again.

For what it’s worth, I am going to try and do that now. I feel so saddened by this, so shocked and yet, sadly, not surprised.

It’s easy to blame the media for the rise in violence amongst young people. Every day, kids are bombarded with violent imagery from a plethora of sources. One study revealed that by the time a person turns 18, they would have witnessed 200,000 murders and that’s from TV alone. A combination of news broadcasts, even if they’re not actively watched, but passively run in the background, movies and TV shows all portray violence – sometimes in gruesome detail. Does this make our kids violent? Maybe. It certainly exposes them to it and makes the world appear a very scary place.

Just as young girls will look to various female idols and emulate the way they dress and behave, so too will boys. Carrying a weapon, whether it’s through fear, aggression or to assert a particular masculinity, is seen as a way of impressing and subduing peers and would-be foes – or it’s a way of turning someone into a victim and asserting power. Knives and other weapons are being used and reported as being used at an seemingly alarming rate in the media. In February, another Brisbane school boy was knifed. Every weekend, stabbings, glassings and shootings are occurring. Often alcohol fueled, but sometimes it’s just braggadocio getting out of hand. Just last week, a 45 year old Professor opened fire in a staff room, killing three colleagues and wounding three others, allegedly because she didn’t get permanency in her job. If adults can resort to violence to solve their problems, then why can’t young people? There’s the many shootings at schools in the USA and even Europe to contend with and process as well. As shocked as we are about these outcomes, they’re still reported ad nauseam and young minds absorb this.

There’s a strong argument to be made that we’re role-modeling this kind of behaviour in all sorts of overt and invidious ways – through news, music, cyberspace, popular culture and even our own responses to various situations. Think of the rise in ‘rage’ related incidents: there’s ‘road-rage’; ‘trolley rage’; ‘queue rage’ and so forth. If we can’t behave in a civil and respectful manner towards each other, how can we expect our kids to? The thing about ‘rage’ or repressed anger of any kind, is that it’s usually a signifier of fear. Angry people are often afraid. And these days we seem so angry – but perhaps that’s because, deep down, we’re really very afraid. That’s not surprising.

The media has constructed a world, society and local community where terrorists loom large, paedophiles are in the neighbourhood and every stranger is a potential danger. We are afraid of our own shadows – so are our children. Parents are anxious about letting their children leave the house; they worry about leaving them alone. Anxious people turn into scared people, turn into angry people – at any age – only the way these fears and anger are acted out changes and escalates.

But let me return to the media for a moment. What about video/internet games? Many people are holding them accountable for the rise in violence, saying that in these games not only is the violence and death graphic (which it is), but it’s rewarded and at the press of a button, the dead can rise and fight again. ‘Game over’ does not mean ‘life ended’ in these virtual worlds. There are very real concerns that kids can’t distinguish between the real world and the fantasy violence that’s portrayed on the screen.

Experts will tell you that at around the age of seven or eight, kids can distinguish between reality and fantasy. Other experts will tell you that it’s real world violence that a child is exposed to – eg. in the home and from the adults around him or her that will influence their own behaviours far more than anything they interact with on a screen. But there is a problem with this argument… what if a child only interacts with violence every time they turn to a ‘screen’ to entertain themselves? What if the time they spend with these screens is disproportionate to the time they spend interacting with other pursuits? What if the only popular culture and media they’re consuming is violent in nature? Surely, that must skew a child’s perception of the world and understanding of how people resolve problems, whether it’s real or imagined ones.

Then there’s the issue of kids accessing age-inappropriate material. So many young kids are playing games designed for the 15 plus market. Rated MA, their parents either buy them for their children or allow their kids to play them, after all, they’re harmless. For a 15 year old, maybe, but an eight year old? They are not harmless. They are yet another piece of a puzzle that paints a specific and scary picture of a world where violence not only reigns but is fun, is the only solution to problems and is rewarded. Parents need to wrest control of what their kids are accessing back from their children, their kids friends and even other parents. They need to set boundaries and stick to them, making sure that their age-appropriate and able to change as the children grow older and demonstrate responsibility.

There are very valid reasons that age recommendations are set around these kinds of violent games, but there’s evidence they’re being ignored. We have to ask, at what cost? Having said that, other experts argue that these types of games, when accessed at an age-appropriate level and when balanced with other activities, can be beneficial – not just for the fantasy violence, but cognitively as well.

And what about the issue of discipline? Well, I am sure when we discuss ‘discipline’, no-one is endorsing beatings and other corporal measures. Rather, it’s about ensuring that if a child does something wrong, there are appropriate consequences. Yet, talk to frustrated school teachers, parents and adults generally and what you find is that kids are not only being protected from consequences when they do something wrong (often by parents who swoop in and refuse to allow their child to be disciplined and/or are in denial that he or she has even done anything wrong) , they don’t even understand that there should be any. We’re raising a generation that don’t know how to take responsibility for their actions. This is what experts also mean when they talk about ‘cotton-wooling’ or kids.

But we’re a confusing old world. On the one hand, we have stringent policies about bullying, we’ve stripped sport of much of its healthy combativeness, we don’t even let little kids play super heroes at day care centres any more and we try to pretend that we all live together peacefully in a great big vat of vanilla yoghurt. But, on the other, we exhort violence as a solution, celebrate it in films, TV and video games. Fights between parents break out at sporting venues; some kids witness their parents engaged in physically and/or verbally very toxic battles. They’re not silly – they also sense emotional and psychological tension – not ‘fighting’ around the children does not work! Much better that children see the adults in their world argue and resolve it in amicable if not loving ways. But it’s no wonder kids are confused. Not allowed to use ‘harsh words’ for fear of upsetting someone or being accused of bullying, they resort to psychological warfare on the internet or mobile phone or extreme violence to express themselves and their frustrations and angst. Healthy expressions of anger, emotional and physical are natural and beneficial in certain contexts – please note, I said ‘healthy.’ I am not talking about abuse. But the ability to vent, to ‘let it out’ is important. I believe we are stifling this in society and it’s NOT healthy.

So, did any of the above cause this shocking tragedy? I don’t know. But it’s hard not to believe that they all didn’t contribute in some way.

We need to be talking to our kids about all this and to each other and seeking solutions to the growing violence in our community. We need to come together, work as one, not let ourselves be torn apart by fear, rage and suspicion. We have to do this now, for the sake of the future, for the sake of our children.

And for the sake of the families at the heart of this tragedy.