The low down on Trump and women’s rights

Many think that Trump isn’t great, but many also aren’t exactly aware of the legislation he has passed since inauguration and what promises he has broken. What has Trump actually done that is negative in the fight for equality?

This podcast is a brief summary of how Trump has portrayed himself and the legislation that he has since passed that effects Americans and the future for women everywhere. With the president often thought of as the most powerful person in the world, it’s no wonder there’s a huge focus on America in the media. Trump is making the decisions and his got the world watching; will America go backwards, or will there be progress in our future?



Feminism in the Trump Era

Check out my video here

Who is fighting against Trump for women’s rights? Who are the feminist icons in our society that are pushing to move forward with America’s legislation rather than backwards?

With older feminist icons such as Camille Paglia supporting Trump, it’s a wave of new feminists, not so much “icons” as everyday activists, fighting against legislations in the public sphere. This video takes examples of Trump’s sexism and contrasts it with speeches from the Women’s March in Washington after the 2016 election, with speeches from celebrities who are standing up for women’s rights.

The march was attended by Scarlett Johansson, America Ferrera, Madonna, Emma Watson and Alicia Keys to name a few, and was larger than the inauguration. Goes to show that there are a huge amount of people who are fighting for change and resisting the fall backwards in order to move forward with the political system.



Where’s the humanity?

If you have not yet watched ‘Blackfish’ (2013), please go to your nearest available Netflix and spend the next hour doing so. The documentary was premiered at Sundance Film Festival in January of that year and is a prime example of a well executed and emotive project to make audiences aware of a specific issue.

Documenting the capture and following life of killer whale Tilikum as a performer at USA’s Seaworld, ‘Blackfish’ gives insight into the mistreatment of orca’s in Seaworld, the tragic deaths of several Seaworld trainers during shows and how Seaworld withheld information from their own employees. Not for anyone seeking some lighthearted entertainment, ‘Blackfish’ was one of those pieces that make you lose faith in humanity. In cases of animals killing humans, human life is constantly placed at a higher value over animal life, and we solve cases of animals causing harm to humans my terminating the animal’s life.

The fact of the ‘Blackfish’ matter is, had Tilikum never been captured and taken from the wild, he would never have been responsible for deaths in the first place. Affirming the argument for nurture over nature, the mistreatment and poor environment that Tilikum was kept in for his life was the reason he felt the need to kill; there was no other way that he could communicate his frustration. For Tilikum, the trainers were his source of food and companionship and therefore integral to his survival. At the same time, however, to him they would have been the ones responsible for his extremely diminished quality of life and separation from his community and natural environment.

Seaworld displayed a total disregard to life, both human and animal, all in the name of profit, along with an ignorance of the ramifications of interfering with the natural order. Not only did they heartlessly tear these whales away from their communities, there was a huge OH&S issue when they covered up deaths as “drownings” and did not make their employees aware of the risks involved in their jobs or the deaths of trainers at other Seaworld locations. On top of this, Seaworld was giving false information to their employees about the orca’s, who then communicated this information to Seaworld visitors. Employees believed that killer whales lives around 30-40 years, when in the wild they had life spans similar to that of a human and lived to about 100 years. Their lives in captivity were so poor that the whale’s health would extremely deteriorate and they would only live out less than half of their expected life span.

What would make anyone think that they are entitled to interfere with the life of another and change their natural course? It’s the widely held belief that humans are separate from animals and hold a much higher value. In historic examples such as the Stolen Generation, it is completely unjust for humans to be forcefully taken from their homes and communities and spend their lives away from their families. This is constantly done in the wild, for our food and entertainment, but we largely turn a blind eye.

Some would argue that that is the way of the world; we have to eat, therefore killing is necessary. In the case of ‘Blackfish’, however, this argument is completely redundant. Humans can certainly go without the whale shows, and with today’s technology there are numerous other ways of bringing simulations of a live underwater experience to crowds. We’ve all been to the zoo and the aquarium, but our lives would not be in any way diminished if those experiences didn’t exist in the first place. Human greed was the only reason that Tilikum was captured and taken from his environment.

What’s interesting to examine is the relationship between humans, animals and the environment. We were all put here to survive together yet humans have established themselves as superior. Without us, however, the world would keep spinning. In terms of the mistreatment to animals, where do we draw the line? Under capturing killer whales but over the poor treatment and slaughter of animals for our food? How have we figured out this hierarchy – in survival of the fittest, how would humans compare?

A different kind of porn

When it comes to porn, our minds immediately jump to dodgy websites and Playboy magazines. We picture an industry of explicit content that exploits its subjects.

Bring this exploitation to the advertising industry for developing countries and you get poverty porn, defined by Matt Collin as:

“Any type of media, be it written, photographed or filmed, which exploits the poor’s condition in order to generate the necessary sympathy for selling newspapers or increasing charitable donations or support for a given cause.” (Aid Thoughts, 2009)

The situation in developing countries is dire and not-for-profit organisations have an extremely difficult and meaningful job in front of them. The richer are getting richer and the poorer are becoming poorer, and no one can really know what it is like in a third world country until they go and experience it for themselves. Desperate times call for desperate measures, however do foundations and campaigns to raise funds for projects to assist those in developing countries go too far when it comes to their advertising?

Poverty porn is, in a nutshell, the exploitation of a subject in the media. Of course, the more powerful the campaign the more likely an organisation is to gain funds from people. Hence media campaigns have spurted containing confronting images, videos and stories with the goal to move audiences enough that they donate. In this process, however, we find that campaigns are exploiting subjects in third world countries to gain these powerful and highly emotive stories.

The video ‘Jack Black meets homeless boy’ was published as part of the Red Nose movements campaign, sending the Hollywood star to Uganda to, as they subtly titled the video, meet a homeless boy. The goal was for us as an audience to be particularly touched when one of the rich and famous realise how material their western life is and feel sympathy for the subject of the video, Felix, as he barely survives in extreme poverty.

There was nothing shocking when Jack Black states at the beginning of the video that “he isn’t going to cry” and then concludes with crying about how unfair the world is – we all are too. On a most likely all-expenses paid with reimbursement for his time trip, the celebrity donates a precious 24 hours of his time to spend it following a little boy, Felix, as he shows him his life on the streets of the city and talks about life without a family. At the end of the day, Felix shows Jack where he sleeps outside at night on the dirt and, as any little homeless boy would, asks if Jack Black can take him home with him. The company has used Felix for his story and gotten his hopes up only to crush them on camera and advertise it to thousands back in our privileged world.

Somehow, a celebrity who can afford to pay $3000 for his son’s app bill but isn’t donating anything to this little boy is supposed to convince the average income earner to donate their money to Red Nose’s cause. Hence, we have porn; a poorly executed video exploiting a subject to get the audience’s money.

With good intentions, there’s a fine line between making an impact through media and campaigning and going too far in a swamp of donation-focused charity. Huffington Post’s article article articulates quite well that advertising doesn’t empower the poor, instead makes them be seen as helpless cases that westerners can swoop in and save with a careless monetary donation without creating a deeper understanding of the epidemic.

You’ve also got the outright fake, with Sunshine Cambodia being accused of faux advertising.

poverty porn

The children did agree to be models for the advertisement, however their stories and captions are embellished by the organisation. In their attempt to help children like these, they have exploited them in the process of doing so.

It’s a difficult advertising pitch to nail – how do you make people sympathise strongly enough without including the stories of suffering? Global media does exist to inform, however really only the authentic experience of developing countries allows for a deeper understanding of poverty. In the mean time, there needs to be a shift from throwing money at people to helping them sustain their own communities that doesn’t use poverty porn to do so.


Keeping Up With Kim K’s Selfies

Personally, I’m not one for taking selfies regularly. It’s good enough that I make it out of bed every day, let alone be photo ready with the right lighting. The topic of selfies has previously not really held that much importance to me. I certainly don’t feel confident enough to post any solo ones (you might wake up like this but I mostly wake up looking like I’ve been dragged along tarmac), but am partial to a snapchat selfie with friends at social gatherings for the memories. I’ve always held the attitude that if you feel confident enough to post a selfie, good on you.

Apparently not an attitude held by everyone, however, when Kim K’s nude selfie entered our Instagram feeds. Some people did not feel that a bangin’, post pregnancy bod was a good enough excuse to be posting a nude. Not even when, thanks to the sexism of Instagram’s hidden terms and conditions, she covered her breasts and vag with black bars in case, heaven forbid, the world should see a female nipple and die of shock.

Kim K Selfie

But hey, let’s not talk about the fact that Instagram will take down anything that reveals a female nipple while it’s totally fine for male nips to be spread far and wide throughout the IG world. Instead we’ll trash talk the celebrity for one of the thousands of selfies she’ll post in her lifetime and bag out her confidence when, based on her IG feed, photo shoots, television show and paparazzi photos, it’s really nothing we haven’t all seen before.

Quite a remark on society that one singular photo should spark such a response online. People are quick to criticise the Kardashian’s fame and fortune but more than happy to follow their movements across various social media platforms and partake in gossiping about the going-ons of their lives.

The general argument against this selfie is the appropriateness of it – did she really need to post that? The photo got such a response, obviously, because she is a celebrity and is exposing her life digitally to millions. No, she did not really need to post that. No one really needs to post a lot of things. However we choose to and Kim, like everyone else, can decide what she wants to do because it’s her body. It’s also her personal brand she’s promoting and, always being body confident and prone to showing off her best assets, it’s quite in line with her persona.

Other facets of the reaction to this image should also be considered, even more important than the selfie itself. People have hounded Kim for displaying her “naked” body in such a sexual pose, adding to the problem of body image in society, obviously seeking appraisal and sexualising herself for attention.

Chloe Moretz tweet

That as it may be, Kim K has built her whole brand on sexualisation by beginning with a sex tape and society has endorsed her all the while. We have all been quick to pass judgement on her action of uploading a sensual photo for a woman whose modelling and media career has been based entirely on aesthetics and who society only rewards for her sexuality then chastises her when she’s the one taking control of it.

Another element of the photo staring us right in the face but failing to be addressed is censorship. Going back to Instagram’s regulations, this “nude” selfie of Kim’s is, in fact, not that nude. Boobs covered, vagina covered, we’ve seen magazine covers printed by the thousand posing in about the same. The female nipple has been banished from Instagram’s realms, and any photo they deem as being inappropriate will be taken down. Again, this is society conditioning female nipples to be seen as something completely sexual and offensive while a male’s is not. Not to be unfair, of course you can still display your body on Instagram!  Just cover your girly bits and it’s all sunshine and rainbows.

That’s exactly what Kim did, with two parallel black bars. Good enough for the world? Absolutely not. Her nakedness is still, apparently, too naked.

Remaining in line with Instagram’s standards, Kim posted another “appropriately naked” photo with the hashtag ‘liberated’ as the caption.

Kim K nude selfie 2

While I’m not disregarding her feeling of liberation in that photo, the caption in our current situation is paradoxical. “Liberated” on a platform that makes you cover up your body. “Liberated” with a following that insults the sight of a naked female. “Liberated” in a still largely censored media landscape. No bathroom selfie, this stylised and professionally shot image still received the same flack.

The woman who became famous from a sex tape, was once married for 72 days and received an apparent $200,000 proposal from her celebrity husband will no doubt continue to throw spanners into the media realm with or without intention, but her selfie indeed took on a life of it’s own when it was uploaded.

Males that enjoy appraising her body passed their judgements for giving them exactly what they want to see. Feminists who want to see change in the world judged her because it’s perhaps not the action they personally would have taken. If Kim Kardashian’s nude selfie is such a problem, the world has much larger issues to be addressed than that.



The multiple tabs of attention

In beginning to write this blog post, my attention has wandered about three times in the last five minutes. Right now I can’t even remember what I was thinking about.

Gen Z has been conditioned to a decreased attention span. It’s no wonder with the way we use technology, and our brains’ attention span is now described as something akin to all the tabs that we have open on our devices. The evolvement of humans means that we are constantly adapting to our environments and have hence changed our attention span to match the demands of our technological, information saturated landscape. According to Microsoft’s study of attention spans (2015), the average human attention span has decreased from twelve seconds in 2000 to nine seconds in 2015. Thus, the statement that our attention span is the same as that of a goldfish is actually true. Technology use is decreasing this attention span across the board, however it is particularly prevalent in the younger generation who is using technology much more than older generations.

Of course, this would vary amongst individuals. With our attention spans being that short it’s quite an amazing feat that the population still manages to follow through with huge projects such as thesis’ at universities or large creative projects.

Microsoft’s study broke attention down into three different types, as it’s impossible to assume that we all us the same type of attention for every activity in our lives.

  • Sustained (prolonged focus) – Maintaining prolonged focus during repetitive activities (Microsoft 2015)
  • Selective (avoiding distraction) – Maintaining response in the face of distracting or competing stimuli (Microsoft 2015)
  • Alternating (efficiently switching between tasks) – Shifting attention between tasks demanding different cognitive skills (Microsoft 2015)

The study found the top factors that impact attention to be:

  • Media consumption
  • Social media use
  • Technology adoption rate
  • Multi-screening behaviour

The way that society uses technology and social media is severely affecting our attention spans when it comes to sustained attention and selective attention. The sheer availability of stimuli that is available by just using one screen is enough to distract anyone from sustaining attention for one activity, let alone the factor of bringing other screens into the equation, such as having your phone in front of you on the desk whilst working on a computer.

For alternating attention, however, our technology use has positively impacted this in training and developing our brains to multi-task. Multi-tasking has become the most efficient and used way for people to complete tasks by jumping between a couple of different tasks at the one time. Overcoming boredom and repetitiveness is difficult when attempting to stay on one task for a long period of time, therefore multi-tasking can overcome this by keeping the brain active and stimulated through switching between different activities.

Brain researcher Jean-Philippe Lachaux delivered a talk on attention and the neural processes involved in different cognitive activities related to attention.

Lachaux discusses visual attention, which was the focus of the small task I put together to test attention spans. After talking to someone about the subject material of class whilst their phones were in front of them, I proceeded to read out one of the reading’s posted on Moodle for two minutes and monitored to see how many times  they checked their phone throughout the whole conversation. This test found that they checked their phone, on average, every 7 seconds while I was talking about the subject at first. When I began the reading the participant spent over half the time I was talking concentrated on their phone.

Lachaux also brings up the point of focusing on what’s important to us and what our brains prioritise when it comes to directing our attention. There is so much content on the internet and in magazines about prioritising tasks, with articles attempting to teach us how to most efficiently prioritise  to get everything done.

The problem lies within it seeming that everything in our lives is a priority and we are apparently running out of attention.


Gausby, A 2015, Attention Spans, Consumer Insights Microsoft Canada, pg. 6 – 39

Regulation: The Do’s and Don’ts of media use


We encounter regulation signs everywhere we go. Signs all over the roads telling us what speed to drive, signs on streets and in car parks telling us we can only park here for one hour in the middle of the day, signs in restaurants and bars telling us not to smoke in the area.

Admittedly there are many of signs that we don’t pay a lot of attention to. Obviously road signs are of more importance to us than others, including signs about the use of media in public spaces. The other day I was sitting in a doctor’s waiting room on my phone only to look up and see a ‘No mobile phone use’ sign on the wall opposite me. Looking around the waiting room, there were only one or two people who weren’t on their phones.

Why don’t we pay attention to these signs about phone usage when we’re out in public and abide by regulations? I believe that society pays attention to signs when we know the consequences of not abiding by the rules and are aware of the dangers or threats in certain environments. It is well-known that radio signals from phones can be detrimental at petrol stations and spark flames, therefore there is limited, if any, phone use from customers. Phone use is also not allowed on planes, in cinemas and in hospitals where the signals may interrupt the functioning of medical technology, such as pacemakers. In a doctors waiting room, however, there is unclear reason as to why people can’t use their phones.

In situations where the reason not to use your phone is unclear, it is more of an issue of appropriateness than anything else. Mobile phone etiquette is something that parents will now have to teach their children, being so prevalent, and there are certain environments or times when it is not polite to be on your phone, however this is not conclusively stated. For example,  it’s polite to keep your phone in your purse or pocket during a wedding reception. however it is not completely banned.

Regulations around technology are necessary due to the sheer prevalence of technology in our lives. The majority of signs are negative, telling us what not to do. With signs telling us not to use technology in certain environments without proper enforcement but merely as a prompt it suggests that we are still trying to separate technology and media in some aspects of our lives and preventing it from seeping into everything that we interact with.

The artistic world is one where mobile phone use is frowned upon or simply not allowed. Art galleries discourage the use of phones and don’t allow pictures to be taken for copyright reasons. If attending a talk from someone the same rules in cinemas apply. Interestingly, there is a growing number of musical artists who are addressing mobile phone use at live concerts and performances.

It is commonplace to see the moshpit filled with cellphones raised high up in the air to record the experience. People have now even started bringing iPads, thus these devices are creating a blockage of technology between the audience and the performers. People hold varying views about this increase of technology at concerts. It’ is normal to wish to document an amazing experience or share it with friends, however if you’ve paid that much for a live concert you should soak up the experience and for once enjoy music without the presence of technology.

One of a few celebrities beginning to place locks on phones at concerts, Alicia Keys provided special pouches for her audience to each lock their phone whilst attending her performance.

Matt Corby also made a point against the use of technology when attending a live concert during an interview:

In this case, the artists definitely have a point. Our iPhones should not be preventing connection between audiences and an experience. In a technology obsessed culture, rules and regulations surrounding technology are justified in assisting us to live in the moment and experience something ourselves rather than through a screen.