Wednesday, March 07, 2007

 

Personal response 2

Personal response
Newspaper article 2
Going skin deep
From: SPH

Who are we to define beauty? Is there a guideline, or perhaps distinction between ugly and beautiful? I shouldn’t think so. The concept of beauty, is very much unique to any individual, and hence it is this social stigma in society that I am here to discuss.
As noted, Singaporean teens, mainly girls, are unhappy with their appearance. They often compare themselves with the much deluding Hollywood stars, which does have its adverse effect on our generation. This means that teens nowadays are so consumed in their idealistic nature of how their appearance “should” be like, which is disturbing. Physical features amount to the term “beautiful” – when beauty is in fact skin deep. This leads to a low self-esteem, which can have a negative impact on a young girl’s character in this delicate process of growing up. It is human nature to be particular of our appearance, but they have taken the quote “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” too seriously, in a sense that peoples’ conceptions on their appearance are far more important than how they perceive themselves. Indeed our portrayal of our appearance is important, but when it sinks into an obsession, that is where the danger begins.
In our daily life, we can make a conscious effort to set aside our deviations into our appearance, such as refraining from taking a look in a mirror. This way, we can focus more on our character and behaviour, rather than our outlook. But perhaps, we should be in their shoes and understand the desire to be beautiful, to understand their situation.
From a grown-up’s point of view, the assumption is made that teenage girls are trying to meet “impossibly high standards in looks”. Perhaps, such a claim can be made according to the survey, where one out of five young Singaporean women would consider surgery. It is reasonable to think that teenage girls are fixated on their physical flaws due to the influence of the media, but more importantly, the apparent drive to be beautiful, even present amongst many of my friends.
It seems that teenage girls lack confidence, of themselves and the world around them. Of course, there is a sense of empathy for what they are going through, the constant turmoil and dread of feeling “ugly”. Perhaps, in order to approach the situation in their aspect, I would have to think like the opposite sex. The authors were practical in conveying that we shouldn’t feel pity for them, but rather to display awareness, in order to reshape the mindset of our society.
Being a boy, I would never completely understand the complexities of the opposite sex, that what I am henceforth shapes the way I think and comprehend. Blinded by the conformation we follow on looks in Singapore, perhaps both boys and girls face the same problem – I should be impartial that boys as well tackle the desire to “look good” in some sense.
In conclusion, I do not think beauty is all that important…
It’s your heart that matters.



# posted by Kris @ 8:13 AM 0 comments
 

Current affairs article #2

Pub Date: 05/03/2007 Pub: ST

Page: 8,9Day: MondayEdition: INHeadline: GOING SKIN DEEPBy: TESSA WONG#ALFRED CHUA#RAJESH MISIR#MARK LIM#ERMA DZALINPage Heading: INSource: SPH

INDEPTHTHE BIG STORY THIS WEEKTEENAGE GIRLS FACE PRESSURE MEETING IMPOSSIBLY HIGH STANDARDS IN LOOKS. TESSAWONG FINDS OUT WHY BEING FIXATED ON PHYSICAL FLAWS IS ANYTHING BUT HEALTHY

Nor Hidayah Zainudin, 15, is planning to have plastic surgery when she isolder.“I don’t like my nose, it’s too big. I wish it was as sharp as that ofHollywood stars,” said the Secondary 4 student at Jurong West Secondary School,who has hated her nose since she was a lot younger.She is not the only one. Too tall, too fat, too big-haired, too flat-nosed –all are worries of teenagers unhappy with their appearance.The girls, that is.A recent survey by skincare and toiletries company Dove found that up to 60 percent of Singapore’s teenage girls are unhappy with the way they look and theirweight.The study also revealed that one in five young Singaporean women would considergetting plastic surgery to alter their appearance.Before she goes under the knife, Hidayah pinches her nose often to make itsharper, a habit she developed when she was 13 after gradually realising that“sharper noses look more beautiful”.While social worker Carol Balhetchet points out that it is natural forteenagers to feel self-conscious, being fixated on flaws is not.“It becomes dangerous when girls get obsessive and start having false ideas ofhow they’re supposed to look,” said Dr Balhetchet, who is the director of theYouth Development Centre at the Singapore Children’s Society.It may be down to the fact that teens are constantly under pressure to conformto an impossibly high standard in looks.“Nowadays the media advertises perfection in looks and fashion, and this doesimpact on a young person’s vulnerable self-esteem and confidence,” DrBalhetchet said.She added: “Many get their benchmark for looks from well-known celebrities andpersonalities and like to compare themselves to them.”But the very celebrity icons featured feel just as insecure.The rail-thin star of TV’s The Simple Life, Nicole Richie, has become thedubious poster child for eating disorders, while pop princess Britney Spearsrecently shaved her head and got tattoos in response to the pressures ofconstant fame.The fashion industry, often blamed for glorifying feather-weight models, isbeginning to wake up.Still, it took a tragedy to make that happen.Last December, Italy and Spain banned too-thin models from fashion catwalksafter several models died from eating disorders.Models now must have a healthy body-mass index and must be certified healthy bya doctor before taking to the catwalks.Here in Singapore, the prevalence of girls with low self-esteem about theirbodies has led to the launch of at least two new campaigns in the past twoyears to combat the problem.Last month, Dove launched its Dove Self-Esteem Fund, whose main programmeBodyTalk teaches girls to deal with negative feelings about their appearance.Professional trainers tour secondary schools islandwide, including many girls’schools, to teach realistic standards of beauty through slideshows, videos andtalks.Meanwhile, Youth Advolution for Health (YAH), a group started in 2005 by theHealth Promotion Board, is a student-run organisation that promotes a healthylifestyle, by encouraging anti-smoking and loving one’s body through variousevents.Said the chairman of YAH, Miss Celeste Phua: “It’s important that avenues existfor teenagers to share their worries about their bodies, and learn more aboutdoing the right things to stay healthy.“What is most important is taking good care of your body, not feeling bad abouthow you look.” Additional reporting by Erma Dzalin, Alfred Chua, Rajesh Misir and Mark Lim What do you love or hate about your body? Is low self-esteem about one’s bodyjust “a girl thing”? Have your say at stinkandspill.stomp.com.sg!


# posted by Kris @ 8:11 AM 0 comments
 

Personal response 1

Personal response
Newspaper article 1
Ethical food = good food?
From: The Economist print edition

The earth is fragile – I understand the delicate balance in which both the survival of mankind and the preservation of our planet could co-exist. However, this article shed light upon a topic we often neglected, or perhaps showed ignorance to, that is the food we eat.
Before I start getting into the details of this article, it would be better if we identified where the author was coming from. Mainly, he urged us to play a greater role in protecting our planet, for it seems that the government are not doing a good enough job. This was a critical viewpoint to be made, in which he adversely quoted from Marion Nestle, showing the stark contrast in his viewpoint. He makes a step to criticize the error in our thinking that organic food may be environmentally friendly, but not necessarily ethical.
I had always thought that organic food had no downside, since it was directly obtained from our environment, which minimizes the straining effect on our planet’s resources.
Farming, as a whole, is inherently bad for the environment since much space must be cleared, which may result in deforestation. Unlike the 1960s, organic farming today relies on crop rotation, manure and compost in place of fertiliser, which is less intensive. In this case, Fairtrade, which applies the organic farming method, aims to raise poor farmers' incomes. However, the direct opposite is achieved. First of all, organic food is sold at a higher price, hence prices of agricultural commodities are low because of overproduction. This way, a very minimal sum is given back to the farmer while a large part of it is given to the retailer, hence defeating its intended purpose. Organic farming may be environmentally friendly, but not ethical in a sense that we do no justice to the farmers. The concept of world trade brings about the author’s claim that a change is absolutely necessary, that we are taking advantage of the farmers. Hence, we should “vote through shopping”, in a sense that what we choose to buy is influential.
The topic of these underpaid farmers might seem distant to my context here in Singapore, however if we look at it in the big picture, it can very well affect the future, a future in which I, my fellow students, my generation would eventually come to terms with one day. It is evident that I myself can never truly understand the grueling process in free trade, nor can I fully establish what grounds make these farmers face. However, I can understand what the article conveys, that we have every bit a role, whether big or small, to play in our environment. The article certainly developed a sense or pity for the farmers, moreover, on ourselves, that did we ever spare a thought for the people responsible of our produce, what we thrive on every day?
I do not think that the author is being overly-critical, but merely taking a stand in what he believes in, which inspired me to write this response. What’s your take?




# posted by Kris @ 8:09 AM 0 comments
 

Current affairs article #1


Ethical food
Good food?
Dec 7th 2006
From The Economist print edition
If you think you can make the planet better by clever shopping, think again. You might make it worse"You don't have to wait for government to move... the really fantastic thing about Fairtrade is that you can go shopping!" So said a representative of the Fairtrade movement in a British newspaper this year. Similarly Marion Nestle, a nutritionist at New York University, argues that "when you choose organics, you are voting for a planet with fewer pesticides, richer soil and cleaner water supplies." The idea that shopping is the new politics is certainly seductive. Never mind the ballot box: vote with your supermarket trolley instead. Elections occur relatively rarely, but you probably go shopping several times a month, providing yourself with lots of opportunities to express your opinions. If you are worried about the environment, you might buy organic food; if you want to help poor farmers, you can do your bit by buying Fairtrade products; or you can express a dislike of evil multinational companies and rampant globalisation by buying only local produce. And the best bit is that shopping, unlike voting, is fun; so you can do good and enjoy yourself at the same time. Sadly, it's not that easy. There are good reasons to doubt the claims made about three of the most popular varieties of "ethical" food: organic food, Fairtrade food and local food (see article). People who want to make the world a better place cannot do so by shifting their shopping habits: transforming the planet requires duller disciplines, like politics. Buy organic, destroy the rainforestOrganic food, which is grown without man-made pesticides and fertilisers, is generally assumed to be more environmentally friendly than conventional intensive farming, which is heavily reliant on chemical inputs. But it all depends what you mean by "environmentally friendly". Farming is inherently bad for the environment: since humans took it up around 11,000 years ago, the result has been deforestation on a massive scale. But following the "green revolution" of the 1960s greater use of chemical fertiliser has tripled grain yields with very little increase in the area of land under cultivation. Organic methods, which rely on crop rotation, manure and compost in place of fertiliser, are far less intensive. So producing the world's current agricultural output organically would require several times as much land as is currently cultivated. There wouldn't be much room left for the rainforest. Fairtrade food is designed to raise poor farmers' incomes. It is sold at a higher price than ordinary food, with a subsidy passed back to the farmer. But prices of agricultural commodities are low because of overproduction. By propping up the price, the Fairtrade system encourages farmers to produce more of these commodities rather than diversifying into other crops and so depresses prices—thus achieving, for most farmers, exactly the opposite of what the initiative is intended to do. And since only a small fraction of the mark-up on Fairtrade foods actually goes to the farmer—most goes to the retailer—the system gives rich consumers an inflated impression of their largesse and makes alleviating poverty seem too easy. Surely the case for local food, produced as close as possible to the consumer in order to minimise "food miles" and, by extension, carbon emissions, is clear? Surprisingly, it is not. A study of Britain's food system found that nearly half of food-vehicle miles (ie, miles travelled by vehicles carrying food) were driven by cars going to and from the shops. Most people live closer to a supermarket than a farmer's market, so more local food could mean more food-vehicle miles. Moving food around in big, carefully packed lorries, as supermarkets do, may in fact be the most efficient way to transport the stuff. What's more, once the energy used in production as well as transport is taken into account, local food may turn out to be even less green. Producing lamb in New Zealand and shipping it to Britain uses less energy than producing British lamb, because farming in New Zealand is less energy-intensive. And the local-food movement's aims, of course, contradict those of the Fairtrade movement, by discouraging rich-country consumers from buying poor-country produce. But since the local-food movement looks suspiciously like old-fashioned protectionism masquerading as concern for the environment, helping poor countries is presumably not the point. Appetite for changeThe aims of much of the ethical-food movement—to protect the environment, to encourage development and to redress the distortions in global trade—are admirable. The problems lie in the means, not the ends. No amount of Fairtrade coffee will eliminate poverty, and all the organic asparagus in the world will not save the planet. Some of the stuff sold under an ethical label may even leave the world in a worse state and its poor farmers poorer than they otherwise would be. So what should the ethically minded consumer do? Things that are less fun than shopping, alas. Real change will require action by governments, in the form of a global carbon tax; reform of the world trade system; and the abolition of agricultural tariffs and subsidies, notably Europe's monstrous common agricultural policy, which coddles rich farmers and prices those in the poor world out of the European market. Proper free trade would be by far the best way to help poor farmers. Taxing carbon would price the cost of emissions into the price of goods, and retailers would then have an incentive to source locally if it saved energy. But these changes will come about only through difficult, international, political deals that the world's governments have so far failed to do. The best thing about the spread of the ethical-food movement is that it offers grounds for hope. It sends a signal that there is an enormous appetite for change and widespread frustration that governments are not doing enough to preserve the environment, reform world trade or encourage development. Which suggests that, if politicians put these options on the political menu, people might support them. The idea of changing the world by voting with your trolley may be beguiling. But if consumers really want to make a difference, it is at the ballot box that they need to vote.

# posted by Kris @ 8:01 AM 0 comments
 
My new current affairs blog (:

# posted by Kris @ 5:10 AM 0 comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?