Here's a tip....

Tipping- Culture Woes

As I sit at the airport awaiting my flight, I watch the different individuals load onto their flights- the different classes, cultures and colours. I find airports very interesting as the class system is explicit in this environment. Physically separating the financially wealthy from the rest of the population, yet forcing the remainder of the travellers for that flight to walk through the area where they do not belong, viewing all that ‘these people’ have to keep them comfortable and entertained for their flight, whilst the remainder of us squish like sardines into our place- stumbling on each others toes, and hitting each other (usually unintentionally) with bags and luggage. As usually one of the last to board, I sit back and observe my surroundings. There are many people being escorted around in wheelchairs, as they are unable or find it difficult to walk to their flight. I notice that the people pushing the wheelchairs are all coloured- that I saw anyway- with all but one person receiving assistance being white.

I can’t help but feel uncomfortable in observing one face of a traveller in particular. The face is of a larger white man, being pushed in a wheel chair by a coloured lady. I’m left feeling extremely uncomfortable. It wasn’t just the race issue, nor the feminist within, but instead was something about the face of the man that plagued my mind… It was the image of his smug and satisfied face. I may have completely taken the image out of context. Maybe he was pleased to be out of the house. Maybe he was pleased to be travelling. Maybe he had just had a lovely holiday. All of these probable, all of these I do not know. But what I do know is this image made me feel uncomfortable and awkward, and led me to question the underlying issues and legitimacy of the tipping culture, and its relationship with the class system dominant in the U.S.

I’m reminded of the Hilary/Barack Democrat election, which was weighed down by debate surrounding what America was more ready for- A black man or a white female as their leader- questioning where the two sit on the cultural hierarchy. And the people have spoken, implying the coloured woman is at the bottom of that hierarchy. The airport image of not only a woman but a coloured woman pushing the man, and also many people of minorities working in face to face services, makes me question a; the link between race and tipping/services provided, and the cohort of employees, and b; the truth behind the tipping and financial gratuity. 

Race and Gratuity

Kanye West recently stated we no longer live in a racist system, but instead a classist system. However, I consider the two to be interchangeable as the class system has historically been divided according to the colour of ones skin, and location in the world of ones’ ancestors. As I watch Australia’s population of refugees from around the globe increase, it is sad to see that many of the lower paid roles are performed by those of minorities- wedging further the cultural divide. When I visited the US prior to this stay I noted all of the lower paid positions were undertaken by either African Americans (with historic links to slavery) or Hispanics. I found this colour-highlighted representation of the class system to be disturbing, and gave me a sense of unease. I hoped that my country would not become this heavily divided. However, I have noted that we are not far off, with Indian, Asian and Afghani migrants becoming Australia’s new underclass- our indigenous Australians sprinkled throughout the cities in various roles and systems. In the similar roles that our migrants undertake due to financial pressure, the U.S has the same situation- however they have a much lower base rate and thus rely heavily on tipping and gratuity payments. The dominance of minimum wage in these fields of employment suggests that such individuals are forced to perpetually present a happy front in order to maximise their payments- somewhat invoking the ‘black face’ comedians/actors of the past, and certainly highlighting strong remnants of the white slave owner and black slave image.  With lacking opportunity and wealth in the migrant communities, such roles perpetuate cycles of underpayment in exchange for both physically and emotionally draining employment.

The Hot Tip

The culture of tipping (to me) appears as an ideology which seems “good in theory, bad in practice”. The entire premise that financial rewards should be promoting good behaviour (comparative to Skinnerian philosophy) is not necessarily a bad thing, however in conjunction with low wages, this creates the basic model of behaviour as standard- instead of raising the bar for good behaviour based on common decency, morality, and a standard of care for your fellow woman/man.  The model of fiscal exchange here, from a socialist’s eye, highlights entrenched roots in slavery, and the relationship between peoples and reasoning behind some forms of interaction.

There seems to be gratifications reached by individuals having another human lavishly feign interest in concerns for their issue/ailment/welfare. This compares on a level to the basic ideological foundation for “prostitution”.  The basis of “prostitution” (in the sexual sense) is the exchange of sex work for monetary return. However, along with the act of sex work comes a feigned intimacy, a listening of woes, a pretend interest in the sexual acts the client requests- a false imagery of an interaction, in exchange for fiscal compensation.  I am extremely pro sex work, and sex workers, yet I get confused as how individuals can utilise these services without questioning the fake interaction, and be satisfied with these interactions.

Michael Sandel references Kantian theory in his book titled Justice, a discussion surrounding morality, philosophy and what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Sandel makes the observation individuals cannot lie profusely, as this diminishes the validity of statements, rendering the art of conversation worthless. He asserts that if we perpetually lied nobody would listen, as our words would not mean anything. This implies we must only lie sporadically to maintain the worth of our dialogue. In regards to tipping and professional services, when we receive a smile and a perceived “care” in professional services, does this not make us question the genuineness of this? In applying the lying theory to tipping, when financial gratuity is regular and required, does this not mean that all are feigning care consistently, thereby minimising the worth of such “nice” acts?

Some may argue that all professions are simply this- feigned interest for reimbursement. However, I would argue that this is necessarily not the case. During my employment with incarcerated at-risk youth, my fiscal payment was simply in return for my maintaining the safety and security of staff and clients, assisting in the daily activities and continued support of the clients and standards of welfare. However, I did care for my clients, in a professional manner, on the basis of Kantian theory that all humans are equal and thereby equally deserving of respect. Not only did I uphold the standards of my paid purposes, but, I extended to offer real and legitimate care where necessary. It is these inconsistencies at times of emotions that make us human. If I presented the same level of care for each issue the client faced (a family member’s death, a drug or health issue, a headache, a sore limb) then the client would be unable to understand which interest was true and which was feigned. It is the ups and downs attributed to differing circumstances which present real and true interactions and human connections- which some may say is all we spend our day trying to achieve, other than survival.

If I were tipped every time I presented a behaviour over and above the required response in my role with the youth, then this would inevitably present some feigned responses. Inevitably. In bringing this back to Sandel’s discussion surrounding lying and validity of the spoken word, I suggest this renders the extended arm of care- pertained to be deserving of higher gratuity- null and void, cancelling each other out as the dangled carrot of financial benefit removes the validity of truth in the interaction, thereby creating a persistent lie.

Pay- With Benefits

Some may say that in my field I am reimbursed financially for those items listed on my position description, and those which I go over and above in doing is my choice, for the reimbursement of an emotional benefit. This argument carries some weight. However when entering this payment domain, the contract is unspoken, and the reward will vary per personality, interaction and client- based on extraneous variables at play with both parties. However as a person who is on a perpetual chase for truth and honesty in this crazy world, I know which rewarding interaction I would prefer to partake in. Yet I am a white Australian female who has been blessed by being born into a middle class family who considered education their number one priority, and had the finances to put their money where their priorities were. Their ancestors were from England, Ireland and Scotland- Instead of Sudan, Iraq, or Vietnam. So I haven’t ever had to undertake roles as a cleaner, food server or taxi driver. I choose to be employed in dangerous but intriguing and rewarding (on many levels) roles.

Act III: Enter The Addict’s Pearl

According to the Department of Health Victoria, from “2009–10, 54,024 courses of treatment (COT) were delivered to 28,508 clients in Victorian specialist alcohol and drug service”

(Department of Health Victoria, 22 May, 2012)

As a person who works in adult and youth drug detoxification and rehabilitation centres, there is a concurrent theme which runs throughout the lives of the individuals who utilise our services. These similarities are particularly evident when observing the youth who enter our doors. I have personally witnessed but one individual who did not conform to these consistent similarities, with individuals suffering from one, two or even the trifecta of issues, which are; mental health concerns, trauma, grief or loss. The one individual of many who did not conform was 15 and may have been suffering from one of these, yet failed to notify the service, but (in my humble opinion) he appeared to be at high extremes of intelligence, apparently using substances to quieten down his brain from the madness of over activity. But then again many of the geniuses of our time have been considered mentally ill at some point in their life (think John Forbes Nash Junior, centre of the acclaimed film ‘A Beautiful Mind’).

When youth come through these services, with little digging, it becomes apparent that they are aware what their issues are. This can be viewed as a positive thing, if the individual is ready to deal with these issues (which they rarely are), or negative if the individual is not emotionally or physically prepared, and are subsequently re-traumatised over and over via dreams or hallucinations. In regards to particular forms of mental illness, well, obviously that is a work in progress, and is most times still related to a capability to deal with such issues that arise from trauma or grief and loss. The best way that I can explain these scenarios is with the notion of a graph, with numbers ranging from 1-10. Each individual’s levels of tolerance are difference. One person may experience the death of a grandparent as a ‘3’ in the category of ‘grief or loss’, but then another may experience the same death as a ‘9’, and not have the appropriate emotional skills necessary to deal with such a traumatic event, resulting in such behaviour as substance use, cutting or burning themselves, or the inability to adequately function on an everyday level.

Now when you observe the adults in the detoxification centres, their issues at first seem to be drug related. They are suffering from the loss of a child to Department of Human Services, dealing with pending legals and ramifications of other sentences from incarcerations of years prior, and the loss of loved ones through overdoses, or loss of contact due to their substance use issues, or loved ones inability to be continually hurt and disappointed by the substance effected individual.  But, if we remove all of this chaos, and all of this distraction, and all of these substance subsequent sagas, what is going on for this individual? Who were they prior to all of ‘this’, prior to all of this ‘stuff’? Who were they when they were the youth, haunted daily by their original demons?

When working at the adult rehabilitation centre, these original demons progressively come to light. They say that when an individual commences substance use, they stop growing emotionally. And when they cease usage they begin growing again. So these centres hold 35 year olds, who are really 12, 13 or 15 years of age emotionally. When in these facilities, we as workers watch their walls slowly retract, the walls they have spent the last 20 years of their life building, so that they can no longer be hurt.

To some, working in these centres sound miserable, listening to sadness and misery on a regular basis. But I don’t see the sadness, I see hope. I don’t see a problem that needs “fixing”. I see people who request an open ear for them to expel their thoughts, and requests for tools to deal with these demons. But if this individual takes these tools on board is their prerogative, not mine. They are not my body, my soul, to “fix”. It is their choice when, where and how they reroute their life.

When watching these walls slowly crumble, I feel lucky that I am of the privileged few able to watch such a phenomenon. Because working in these centres is the greatest prize a person can obtain. To see a person week by week retract their walls, retract what they hide behind, and truly look at themselves, and question what is going on for them, to look their demons in the face and be no longer afraid. And thus, the demon retreats, just like the walls their owner previously hid behind. And like a pearl in an oyster, so shines an amazing person, strong, yet vulnerable; an open novel about to commence their Act III. 

The Dark Truth

My love of hip-hop stems from the theory of (to poach the words of Rage Against The Machine) giving a voice to the voiceless. Hip-hop is an avenue for particular individuals and communities to be heard and, on some level, interject the brains of consumers with the "truth" behind our current political state, particularly within the United States. Lyrics of hip-hop artists are not edited by the Murdoch's and the Fox's of the world, but are on some level by the Interscopes, BMIs and other record labels (but that is a whole different argument).

The whole purpose of hip-hop is synthesis, to synthesise material that, in its current form, is not consumable to the average ear. And yet (as previously highlighted by comedian Dave Chappelle) it is surprising what you can "say" when you rhyme, add a beat, and make people move their body in tune. Such artists as Dead Prez, Talib Kwali, Pharoahe Monch and Lupe Fiasco (pre Lasers) are amongst my favourites. These artists spread the word as to the hypocrisy of race relations within the U.S, the ongoing disparity between conditions administered to the black versus white, low and high socio economic groups, and how this translates to your average hip-hop consumer.

If we analysed the lyrics of such artists, what would become of these individuals should they decide to remove the beat, the rhyme and simply lead with the text and subtext? When ignoring the colour of their skin, would these individuals be considered terrorists of capitalism and white society within the U.S? Or would they be considered freedom fighters? Advocates? Poets?

Such artists spark questioning as to the disparity between black and white communities, in a language that is both accessible and appealing to those often denied a contribution. With the abolition of slavery so came new laws and legislation to further penalise and enslave vis-à-vis incarceration. American activist Angela Davis suggests the history of slavery in the U.S has a strong correlation between punishment and labour, and therefore subsequently labour and race. Davis states punishment was designed to maximise labour, thereby inadvertently connecting labour and race. Taking this concept and applying it to the Australian context, it appears as not much different from us ‘whities’, and our indigenous Australian counterparts. This idea of punishment by race has been systemically applied within the Australian criminal justice system towards those of Aboriginal race. During colonisation, Aboriginal people were viewed as a threat to the use of land by colonisers, and therefore capitalist economy and labour productivity, and were thus removed. This dispossession has continued throughout particular areas of the Australian criminal justice system, resulting in regular contact between Aboriginal communities and behaviour deemed “criminal”, and therefore punishable.

Particular sentencing strategies (such as mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory), lead to incarceration and cycles of poverty, as those who are incarcerated are further dispossessed and extradited from society. Many families reproduce the cycle of wealth through gifts and inheritance, meaning those who are incarcerated are not given this opportunity. Initially incarceration depletes monetary funds. When incarcerated, individuals face trauma, despair and potential death.  Deaths in custody occur through available hanging points, miscommunication or lack of response in regards to medical assessments and related data, lack of education (and therefore preparation) of how to deal with those at risk, such as the mentally ill, and also failures in following instructions or procedures. If you survive all of this, then during post release, employment is difficult to find, let alone well-paying employment. This then further inhibits the ability to build up finances to pass on to family members, creating an ongoing cycle of depravity, and therefore poverty and struggle. As a result of financial stress, post incarceration creates even further exclusion from “normal” mainstream society.

On the whole, incarceration is a destroyer. From colonisation through to today, indigenous communities have been targeted for incarceration, echoing the African American situation in the U.S.  According to Alice Green’s report, from the Center for Law & Justice (February 16, 2012) in New York, black individuals made up 16% of the population, yet 64% have been convicted (and thereby aren’t allowed to vote under U.S legislation).  A Prison Policy Initiative statistics as of June 30, 2004, derived from a U.S Census, highlight this disparity. Per 100,000 of the prison population, “Whites” made up 393, whilst “Blacks” were 2,531. Yet according to the 2010 Census, white Americans comprised 66.2% and Black Americans comprised 8.1% of the population.

These numbers do not add up, and are a testament to what dire circumstances we are living in.

In 1979, with the implementation of the Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program in the U.S, a loophole made prison slave labour possible. Such companies currently utilise this to maximise profit at the expense of others misfortunes. Companies include The Gap clothing, K-Mart, Target and Victoria’s Secret lingerie. One can only presume this inevitable profit making corporate relationship between exploitation and incarceration, is not far from Australia’s shores (if not quietly here already!).

As Dead Prez say,

“Why is it that Black people and everybody like us live in the kind of poverty and misery that we live in? Everywhere I look around me are nothing but poverty and misery, on the one hand. And yet, what I'm seeing is that everywhere there's wealth and riches in the world it's in the white community somewhere, whether it's in Europe or whether it's right cross the street from where I was born”. (Dead Prez- Police State)

How can these levels of exploitation occur in today’s society? Why is this so… I ask myself so frequently. And it seems as simple as the fact that those who have power refuse to relinquish it, gripping so tightly by all means necessary, disabling those without power to ever attain, as a block, such freedoms. Another example of this is evident currently within the demise of the U.S fiscal system. The 1% is in control and creating legislation to continue and uphold their power. And yet, so here has the implosion began…

The main attitude here is such that (as stated by a friend of mine), upon mentioning my distaste for Sydney, as there is too obviously a disparity between the rich and the poor, my lovely friend replied, 'But I’m in the rich, so, who cares'. And isn't this how we got into this mess? When you are born into less opportunity, this perpetuates less opportunity, and if you are born into opportunity, it is certainly much easier to stay afloat or succeed further than it is to fall from grace. 

From “O.G” to “The G Word”

St Kilda is known for its’ "diverse culture". But what exactly does this mean? Walking around St Kilda the disparities between the rich and the poor are becoming more and more evident. We have the Gatwick, where the poor and desperate find themselves. And Mary Street, where the rich (either inherited or self earned) have decided to reside. It is pretty obvious who fiscally has the power to "control" this region. However, do we really want to become one of "those" municipalities?

One of the great things about St K is that the area offers a multitude of services to those in need, from housing to alcohol and other drugs, to mental health. And these services are key services for people in need. As developers take over and build expensive buildings, with expensive rent, those who need these services CAN NOT afford to live in this area. Therefore, the likelihood of said individuals arriving safely to such services (in the off chance that they either scrounge enough money to pay for public transport, or they manage to escape a fine for train/tram evasion) is needless to say, slim to none. As an individual who works with these sectors, I know firsthand the necessity of these services. In fact, they are priceless. So what does it say about our society when we do not take care of those in need? I say, it’s disgusting.

I have had a love affair with Melbourne for a very long time. She is my deepest, greatest, love; Moody, ever changing, and full of surprises. I did at one point consider moving to Sydney, yet the disparity between the rich and the poor is ever present in Sydney's heart, and this disparity is not for me. Yet, I live in St Kilda, and my loathing for Sydney's morals and judgment is becoming apparent in my area, in my St Kilda. I do not want to see the suburb that I love and live in become another example, when Melbournian's refer to that dirty word of gentrification. Don't we move to St Kilda to soak up the culture? To not be able to walk the street without seeing a lady on a corner trying to earn some money, or an individual with a drug habit dragging their feet as they try to source their next hit, and the buskers and beggars asking for some change, the look of desperation and sadness in their eyes, to not see this, under the beautiful background of the beach and the city and the gardens, doesn't this make you sad? Where will "these" people go?  What will happen to these people, when the developers are pleased (yet never entirely satisfied), and the rich get richer by both the ability and being "able" to purchase the nice home of their dreams, close to the city and the water, yet too close to misery and loneliness than what they hoped their exorbitant mortgage would purchase. What will happen is the poor will become further entrenched in poverty, rendering them unable to see a light out, find a way forward, and subsequently the divide between the rich and the poor will continue to expand.

Let's be honest here, St Kilda is rapidly becoming a model of gentrification, (one of the dirtiest of all the words in the English language). In a suburb that is becoming extremely, and disgustingly, gentrified, I'm required to ask, if the upper echelon of fiscal society wish to reside in St K, why do they need to push the "others" out? Is it really all about upping the financial worth of their beautiful heritage houses? And again, I'm required to ask (as I do so often in life) can't we all just get along? If these fiscally savvy individuals would be more comfortable without the disadvantaged within society in view point each day, why don't these people buy in Middle Park, Elwood or the Docklands? And in regards to the Docklands (such a prime example of a cultureless region),  I suppose, all that us peasants can do is just hope and pray that the developers and the rich do not get their wish, and let the beauty of St Kilda die, and become the Docklands (or worse!).

A Love Affair: Media, Ben Cousins and Ice

A Love Affair: Media, Ben Cousins and Ice

Currently Ben Cousins and his drug use are again in the media spotlight. But really, is this of any surprise? Realistically, it was just a matter of time… Again. But on a wider scale what message can be extrapolated from Ben Cousins and media representations of his drug use? When we have characters like Ben Cousins getting around, what hope does the average youth have?

The Ice Age

In response to a rise in ‘ice’ debate in May 2007, the Victorian Government Department of Human Services produced the ‘Ice: It’s a dirty drug’ campaign, targeting those aged between 15-25 years who consume the drug methamphetamine, or commonly termed ‘ice’. The minister for mental health (Ms Lisa Neville) labelled the campaign ‘youth specific media’, which exhibits youth acting out violently, picking at their skin creating scabs, and also experiencing psychotic episodes.

The Victorian Government campaign gave evidence of side effects, showing a non-glorified view of drugs, yet failed to target reasoning behind youth’s drug consumption. The campaign did not speak to youth in their language, that they can understand. The campaign was subsequently a failure, as the key targets were missed entirely.

 

The Real Face Of Ice: Ben Cousins

 Ben Cousins’ drug use initially made headlines when he was arrested in Perth due to suspected possession charges. Images of him shirtless, sporting a new tattoo, low-rise jeans, and over sized sunglasses were broadcasted throughout news media. This powerful image of Cousins was reused by the Herald Sun five months later as an exhibit of celebrity drug problems. The Herald Sun plastered shots of Cousins being paraded around by police, showing off his newly inscribed ‘Such Is Life’ tattoo; his tattoo alone attracts the attention of youth.

As a response to the barrage of media attention, youth, through their own forum, created a discussion board and praise of the football star. The online social network Facebook sports two ‘groups’ entitled ‘I Wanna Party With Ben Cousins’ and ‘Let Ben Cousins Play In Melbourne So We Can Party With Him’. Through the media’s demonisation of Ben Cousins he became a ‘hero’ to today’s youth as an icon of rebellion.

The dichotomy is however, that the news media demonise the very section of society that they should be coaxing to listen to their warnings against drug use. The media accomplish this through their use of narrative. In Cousins’ case, the picture speaks much more than the verbal content can. However, the verbal content of news media speaks to a totally different generation than does the image of Cousins.  Drug consumption is inadvertently promoted by news media, as such a significant portion of programming is dedicated to drug representations. In promoting Ben Cousins as the leader of the ‘ice’ drug subculture (attractive, famous, wealthy and gaining massive publicity), which part of this is supposed to deter youth? The manner in which the media demonise drug use is merely bait for rebellious youth. With one hand the media demonises drugs, in news media, whose audience is older and therefore the dominating force in society. On the other hand, film and television media such as Scarface, The Soprano’s and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Half Baked and How High, exhibit drugs as ‘the party’ and the ‘good times’ in language that speaks directly to youth. Film discourse speaks to young viewers in their language, whereas the deterrence in news media speaks to a different generation. This generation gap is replicated in the Victorian Government’s ‘Ice: It’s a dirty drug’ campaign. 

Conclusion

In contrasting images of the Victorian Government’s campaign, and the depiction of Ben Cousins, it appears that the news media’s representations of Cousins speaks more to youth about ‘ice’ and its’ effects than the acted images in the ‘ice’ campaign could ever tell. 

And after all is said and done, when will we start asking the real questions?

What is really going on with you when you need to consume drugs every day?

What lead to your drug problem?

How can we help you to be happy without drugs?

A Serbian Film, Sex and Screenings: A Societal Statement?

A September Friday night in Melbourne was spent in your average fashion; out with a friend, watching a film, however, in this case the film was A Serbian Film for the opening of MUFF. As a horror genre enthusiast and MUFF supporter, I had been looking forward to the screening, with eager anticipation, intrigued to find what content had made it through the Australian classification sieve onto Melbourne’s streets. The film’s screening was merely days after a raid on an ‘adult’ store in Thomastown, where allegedly $300,000 worth of adult films and magazines were seized[1].

A Serbian Film sparked controversy worldwide, since its first screening at South By Southwest festival last year in Texas[2]. Parallels have been drawn between the similarly explicit sexual depictions in Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible and A Serbian Film, by not only my companion at MUFF in post screening discussions, but also by Refused-Classification.com[3]. With respect to Irreversible, my friend and I take particular issue with one male to female anal rape scene. This scene features regularly during my many rants about the illegality of X 18+ films within the state of Victoria, and the content featured in R 18+ films. How does the Victorian government, in co-operation with the Classification Board, justify the presentations of non-consensual sex when depictions of consensual sex  are prohibited?

Where do Victorian communities and government draw the line between that which is objectionable, and that which is acceptable? The role of the Victorian Government is to balance a reflection of community standards, whilst also providing a presence of governmental control, and yet it appears as though there is no obvious relationship here.

The classification code highlights the necessity to account for community concerns regarding both ‘depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence’ and ‘the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner’[4]. However, exactly what material should be viewed as ‘sexual violence’, and also what constitutes ‘a demeaning manner’ is open to debate; a debate that would reveal varying attitudes depending on what sector of the community is asked, and arguably, how well they are represented in parliament.

Films are classified as per the guidelines presented within the Classification Act 1995[5], which considers what a ‘reasonable adult’ would determine as acceptable in ‘matters of sex’, drugs, crime and ‘abhorrent phenomena’. It is at the intersection of sex and illegal activity that the government draws the line.

What is an adult?

How do we determine what adults should legitimately be “allowed” to view, and who should be categorised as an ‘adult’? The Commonwealth Classification Act 1995’s definition of an adult is ‘a person who is 18 years or older’[6], whilst X rated films are commonly referred to as “adult films”, suggesting that this material is created by adults for adult consumption.

This section contrasts films considered adult by the classification board (R 18+ and X 18+), and what specific traits separate the two forms of adult material, rendering one illicit. Public discussion surrounding adult material suggests parliamentarians consider X-rated films as not only encompassing ‘adult concepts’, and content for the consumption of individuals over the age of eighteen, but this material should also be considered too adult for adults. The Classification Act 1995 draws the legal line up to the category of R 18+, leaving X 18+ as illicit. Key aspects of R 18+ include, violence and drug use are ‘permitted’, implied sexual violence, no language restrictions, ‘virtually no restrictions on the treatment of themes’, and in regards to sex; ‘[s]exual activity may be realistically simulated. The general rule is “simulation, yes – the real thing, no”’[7]. Juxtapose R 18+ with the illicit X 18+ category, which does not permit ‘violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence or coercion’, ‘sexually assaultive language’ or ‘consensual depictions which purposefully demean anyone involved in that activity for the enjoyment of viewers’[8]. This begs the question as to how the classification board determined observing violent depictions to be less harmful than watching penetrative sex. It is unclear as to how two categories for ‘adults’ (18+) exist; one encompassing all six themes determined as those ‘high impact[9]’, including violence against women, simulated rape scenes, and verbally assaultive language, and yet is determined to be legal material in Victoria.

In regards to parliamentary use of the term ‘adult’, both in classification as well as terming X 18+ ‘adult material’, this appears contradictory. The use of the term ‘adult’ suggests that although children may not be suitable to understand, or to view such content, adults are suited to view ‘adult’ material, or that, legally, adults should be “allowed” by law to determine for themselves if said content is “too adult” for their viewing. However, the Victorian Classification (Enforcement) Act 1995 removes this capacity from adults.

The Commonwealth guidelines suggest that viewing violence is ‘adult’, as is viewing drug use, however the making, sale or distribution of films exhibiting sex are determined to be illegal. What does this say about the X 18+ category? Sex is not only necessary to reproduce, and therefore uphold the existence of society, but is also legal behaviour to re-enact.  Such feminists as Nadine Strossen suggest that pornography has at times been utilised to explain social inequalities, raising questions as to why violence is deemed acceptable, in particular violence against women (in film) legal via the R 18+ category, and yet sexual relations are deemed illegitimate. This illegality of X 18+ raises questions as to what patriarchal ideals the Australian government are force feeding viewers, in accepting the representation of (illegal) drug use in film, violent behaviour is also legitimised, including representations of forced sex so long as it is simulated (“simulation, yes – the real thing, no”) and both physical and verbal abuse against or towards women. Does artistic contextualisation justify gratuitous sexual violence, whilst consensual penetrative sex is prohibited? And yet material created by adults (18+) for adults (18+), depicting the mutual enjoyment of adults, is considered too harmful for consumption.

Conclusion

X 18+ films are simply that; films. Therefore, X- rated films should be treated as any other film or re-enactments. The manner in which X 18+ films spark such controversy and anger from particular portions of society suggest such people should take an introspective look, and decipher what exactly alarms them about X 18+ content. Sex is something that must occur to enable propagation of the human species, therefore, recreating these acts on film should not be condemned to the lengths of prohibition in comparison to such content readily available in R 18+ films, which highlight graphic killings and rapes (which are not required for the continuation of the species). 

What does A Serbian Film tell us about particular concepts and issues that we as a society consider as acceptable, with particular regards to women and representations? The film exhibits many rapes, women being beaten, implied necrophilia upon a woman, whilst calling her a ‘whore’. When juxtaposed with the Thomastown raid on material, which depicts consensual sex (in all its forms), and yet this material is considered illegal, resulting in an arrest and seizure of goods. At the end of the day, both women in both genres of films are actresses, yet one is presented as consensual and the other not. The interesting part; the woman presented consensually is the one that is illegal.

A Serbian Film has been artistically contextualised, therefore qualifying for the R 18 category. Sure, it presents the decaying of society, and sparks such questioning as to what we as viewers want to see and why, thereby highlighting its artistic qualities. However, some may ask, what type of sick people want to view infant rape, bestiality, necrophilia, incest, paedophilia, and all related to payment for such services… umm well, presumably the people sitting next to me at Memo. I wonder if more people want to watch this, or shop at the Thomastown store?

---

[1] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/police-raid-suburban-business-and-seize-illegal-porn/story-fn7x8me2-1226116888983

[2] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/a-serbian-film-refused-classification-on-eve-of-dvd-release/story-e6frg8n6-1226117506982

[3] http://www.refused-classification.com/news/2011/04-14-a-serbian-film-censored-for-r

[4] http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2008C00129

[5] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/cfacga1995596/

[6] http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011C00533

[7] http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2008C00126

[8] http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2008C00126

[9] According to the guidelines, ‘Impact may be higher where a scene: contains greater detail, including the use of close-ups and slow motion; uses accentuation techniques, such as lighting, perspective and resolution; uses special effects, such as lighting and sound, resolution, colour, size of image characterisation and tone; is prolonged; is repeated frequently; is realistic, rather than stylised; encourages interactivity’ (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008: 5-6) (original italics)

I like my hiphop like my men, opinionated and with a strong rhythm...

My love of hiphop stems from the theory of (to poach the words of Rage Against The Machine) giving a voice to the voiceless. Hiphop is an avenue for particular individuals and communities to be heard and, on some level, interject the brains of consumers with the "truth" behind our current political state within the US. Lyrics of artists who are not edited by the Murdoch's and the Fox's of the world... But on some level are by the Interscopes, BMIs and other record labels (but that is a whole different arguement).

The whole purpose of hiphop is synthesis, to synthesise material that, in its current form, is not consumable to the average ear. And yet, as previously highlighted by Dave Chappelle, it is surprising what you can "say" when you rhyme, add a beat, and make people move their body in tune. Such artists as Dead Prez, Talib Kwali, Pharaohe Monch and Lupe (before Lasers) are amongst my favourites. These artists spread the word as to the hypocrisy of race relations within the US, the current disparity between conditions administered to the black versus white, low and high socio economic groups, and how this translates to your average hip hop consumer.

If we analysed the lyrics stated by such artists, what would become of these individuals should they decide to remove the beat, the rhyme and simply lead with the text and subtext? When ignoring the colour of the skin of these artists, would these individuals be considered terrorists of capitalism and white society within the US? Or would they be considered freedom fighters? Advocates?

Such artists spark questioning as to the disparity between black and white communtiies. With the abolition of slavery so came new laws and legislation to further penalise and enslave vis-a-vis incarceration. Why is this so, I ask myself so frequently. And it seems as simple as the fact that those who have power refuse to relinquish it, gripping so tightly by all means necessary, disabling those without power to ever attain, as a block, such freedoms. This is highly evident currently within the US demise of their fiscal system. The 1% are in control and creating legislation to continue and uphold their power. And yet, so here has the implosion began..

The main attitude here is such that (as stated by a friend of mine), upon mentioning my distaste for Sydney, as there is too obviously a disparity between the rich and the poor, my lovely friend replied, 'But Im in the rich, so, who cares'. And isn't this how we got into this mess? When you are born into less opportunity, this perpetuates less opportunity, and if you are born into opportunity, it is certainly much easier to stay afloat or succeed further than it is to fall from grace.