red and yellow, black and white

The Muslim student was rejected from Burnley College (United Kingdom) for standing firm in her choice of wearing her burkha. Reasons given for forbidding her enrollment was that full face to face communication and contact between the student cohort and the teachers were vital. However, Bliqes feel that the school should be more accepting to different cultural practices since we are all in the 21st century.
However, a controversy will be, should they not discard such traditions since it is in the 21st century.

Usually when one is in a foreign country, especially in another land whereby the cultural clashes are so vast, one will conform to their norms, starting from physical appearances. The way you dress will probably be the easiest to blend into a culture, to prevent you from being so prominent and stick out from the crowd. This in turn helps you to avoid prejudice: negative interpretation, discounting, fundamental attribution bias, exaggeration, polarisation. Especially after the 911 incident, Muslims are viewed very negatively and having extreme prototypes associated with them; moreover, in a schooling environment, one has to deal with polarisation especially.

From that, she has also reflected her country's collectivists' spirit, but not conforming to their cultures by dressing up as a normal British citizen. In Muslim countries, a very strong united spirit can be seen among them (the Muslims), they value their family a great deal, as seen from their color-coded dressings, and also they are very strongly rooted in their religion, traditions and customs. Their social norms are usually defined by the group, rather than for self pleasure; in this case it would be referring to the wear of the burkha, for it was a tradition that they still carry with them and it was a tradition Bliqes stuck to, right till the end. By persisting on with her decision, it also shows that she is proud of her roots and her culture, instead of trying to fit in and conform to another's, is also the trait of a member from a collectivist society.

Likewise in Singapore, was the incident back in 2002, which caused an uproar in the Muslim community, whereby 4 primary schools were being dismissed from school for they insisted on putting on their tudongs daily, despite the rule that they were not allowed to. One big contradiction, however, will be that Sikhs schoolboys are allowed to wear the turban to school? The reason behind is that during the British rule, Sikhs schoolboys were already allowed to do so, yet there were no records about Muslim girls regarding tudongs. It was accrued to the fact that there were hardly any Muslim schoolgirls then. Whatever it is, I personally do not feel that this reason is of any good to explain the differences, unless this is a gender discrimination instead of a racial one. Clearly, this is playing to an extent some sort of bias, obviously going against the government's aims of national integration.

As we know, Singapore is a multi-racial society which takes pride of its socially and racially cohesive society. Even so, another known fact amongst us is that racism still prevails and is almost impossible to be fully eradicated, in the near future at least. Culture is dynamic and has it's influences to the practices and beliefs held by each racial group. In Singapore especially, this is prevalent for everyone is more or less on a common ground. Despite of that, the government can still do something about disallowing Muslim girls to wear tudongs in government schools.

Discrimination is similar to culture as it is being learned or taught, and it also plays a part in molding culture too. In Singapore, racial discrimination is kept very low, as compared to the United States. We all may have our different perception, however we often do not show it and are generally civilized about our mannerisms. Thus, I do not think that Muslim girls wearing the tudong will make any differences to the other children in their (Muslim girls') classes, besides the fact that it might raise questions. Unless the parents of these children start injecting racist notions into their head, would then wearing tudongs be posed as a barrier towards interracial communication. If not, it will simply be of a good measure regarding how efficient and consistent the government is, when it comes to implementing the government's own policies.

So what is it that makes the government so adamant on not allowing Muslims in public schools (not including religious schools) to put on a tudong to school? Is it to minimize possible discrimination for the generations to come? Or?

1984

In George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, the citizens of the province Airstrip One (which actually is Britain) in Oceania (the location of Americas, Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and southern Africa below the River Congo, according to the novel) were under the totalitarian rule of the authoritarian Party , resulting in an oligarchical collectivist society.

Authoritarianism solely refers to a form of government which places a strong emphasis and importance on the authority of the state, monopolizing political power, which at the very least exercises limited pluralism, leaving the people with a greater sense of freedom; whereas totalitarianism, a genre of political system, will be generally known as a more extreme kind of authoritarianism, it limits even the ideologies of the population, molding their morals, ideas and their private lives as well.

Hence, groupthink will be the consequences of a totalitarian state, without a choice. The Party was being led by Big Brother, and posters of him were pasted everywhere, with the caption Big Brother Is Watching You.

Well, they literally meant it. Telescreeens (2-way television) and hidden microphones were being installed in every public corner to monitor the lives and moves of everyone in the city. Through the telescreens, they enforced their propaganda upon the ideologies, behavior and actions of the people. (self censorship)

The protagonist Winston Smith worked at the Ministry of Truth (Minitrue). Smith's job (similar to mind-guards) scope required him to rewrite history, so that they would tally with the Party's party line (According to Wikipedia, in politics, the line or the party line is an idiom for a political party or social movement's canon agenda, as well as specific ideological elements specific to the organization's partisanship.) Through this Smith started having second thoughts about the importance of transparency and began rebelling against it.

Other deviants, who did not conform to the illusion of unanimity had to undergo severe punishment, death included (pressure on dissenters), enforced by the Thought Police. Thought Police has informers to spy potential Thoughtcrime criminals. Deriving from the name itself, though crimes are crimes that are not performed physically, instead they are negative opinions, which might jeopardize the Party, on Big Brother and the Party.

At the end of the day, Smith was apprehended by the Thought Police, who puts him through a series of tortures (pressures on dissenters). Eventually he was being brainwashed and thrown back into the society. This was how they ensure that their shared stereotype does not get challenged.

In 1984, Mac came up with their own video based on Orwell's novel for introducing Macintosh in the same year as the novel, 1984. IBM were deemed as the oppressors, with Big Brother flashing on the telescreen. A girl athelete (representing Mac) then comes in and destroys the screen, signaling an end to their regime.



However, even recently DoubleTwist did a remake on Apple's commercial, and this time on Apple's themselves. Steve Jobs was depicted as Brother Bear, screening a talk to clones of iPod listeners. It is a shot-for-shot remake of the advert, however the female is an animated version. After the hammer was swung and the screen smashes (exactly the same as the original), it flashes on he screen, “On October 6th, doubleTwist brings you.. Choice.”
DoubleTwist has invented a new media player, it is able to sync with a variety of gadgets (as apposed to iTunes which only syncs with iPod). Clearly, this is a smart pun on Apple, simultaneously depicting the end of their dominant rule on iTunes sync function.



Despite being in a democratic society. I feel that symptoms of Groupthink is still prevalent. Unlike the Party, groupthink occurs more often when we are in our own cliques or social circle of peers. It does not matter if share stereotypes are enforced, in lieu of acquiring idiosyncrasy credits, one has to conform to the ideologies and believes of the group, depriving the chance of individualism. This results in an illusion of unanimity. Through this however, the member loses its own independent thinking and creativity. Insteady, his or her mental framework will be subconsciously moulded to simply follow the flow of thoughts of his or her peers, or face the peer pressure of being discriminated and frowned upon. Moreover, opinions changes overtime, one is thought to be wrong in the past can be considered as a norm the next day.
Groups conform to what majority of the society believes in, for fear of being ostracized or being old-fashioned. Individuals in the group then take on these believes as well. Individuals gradually loses their own thinking.

Sad, isn't it.

500 days of seasons

500 Days of Summer (pun intended) transcends your typical romance comedy. It is far from your sentimental, sappy love stories, save one cheesy part towards the end. This film screams indie all over from the soundtrack with The Smiths, covers of The Pixies (all your old school wonders) right up to Zooey Deschanel's argyle prints and mid-calf skirts.



Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zooey Deschanel) was a fine example of the relational formation of Duck's Filtering theory. They were colleagues; Summer was the new secretary (sociological or incidental cues), Tom was attracted to Summer's physical appearance.

At the beginning on the trailer it plays the scene of them having their first conversation. Tom was listening to his music, and Summer strike a conversation up, for she too enjoyed The Smiths. From one's taste in music, one can roughly shape out the other person's preferences as well.

For instance, my friend and I both enjoy The Smiths too and we both fancy plaid shirts and the same movies, we go to the same clubs and so on.

Then Tom uses this trait of similarity to get Summer's attention by blasting The Smiths in the office.

However, they followed through Knapps Model of Relational Development. Throughout, it seems that Summer is slowly letting Tom into her life, through snippets of her pasts that she had never told anyone except him and the walls around his heart starts to crumble. Then Summer drops the bomb on Tom. Throughout the whole relationship, Summer has been in control. She was the one who threw herself to kiss Tom at the photocopying room, she was the one who initiated that they keep the relationship light, she was the one holding the strings to the relationship, subtly but obviously, she was the one to give him the cold shoulder, to pull her hand away when he wants to hold, to give excuses like "I'm tired" to avoid a conflict and lastly to drop the bomb on him.

This has what relationships nowadays are. The roles of genders are reversed. Guys don't have to be the one taking initiative, girls can be the one who is out to seek fun. In this fast paced world, they sometimes prefer a no hassle, no strings attached relationship. Sometimes, physical attraction is enough to spark the beginning of one relationship. Then physical intimacy occurs before the person goes back to the initiation stage. This has how relationships have evolved for our time.

After their break-up, Tom was in the slumps and tried ways to win her back yet was returned with excuses from Summer. Then they bumped into each other at a wedding, where he picked up the wrong signals due to his wishful thinking. He was invited to a party at her place, which contradicted his expectations. It was her engagement party.

Summer was about to get married, to someone else, in the span of less than a year.

Her reason was that she felt like it, and she believes that timing and fate is crucial, which brought her and her husband together. Tom, on the other hand, thanks to Summer, is the one who views romance cynically now. Which is the opposite from the beginning. Tom was
optimistically waiting for the one who will change his life, while Summer did not believe in that, which can be seen her from previous short relationships.

Moreover, Summer seems to be a spontaneous person. Who does things, such as moving into a new place, out of boredom, or for fun. She also repeatedly said that Tom was fun to be with.

We hardly know of her friends. Summer is the one who's frivoulous and carefree and spontaneous, but Tom likes to be assured and in the comfort zone of things.

End of the day, we see Summer settling down instead. But her reason was that she just felt like it.

From




These few shots were played in the starting of the film, which a narration which says,"This is not a love story." However, most of my friends chose to believe otherwise. They thought it would be a happy ending despite the narration, also the photos misleaded their perception. This is because most of us choose to believe that things will work out as we wish the relationship in our lives to be the same.
However, that scene takes place when Summer told Tom that it was him, who helped her view love in a different perspective.

I personally feel that feelings play the most crucial role. With feelings, one can overcome alot of flaws, be it materialistic or superficial ones. Feelings make you more patient and more receptive to the other party. The whole rush of feelings can make a mundane routine feel so out of this world, when two are together. The downside, however, is that.. feelings are so unpredictable. What you used to do together, you detest doing it now. It simply feels like a drag even though it spelled so much fun before. You gain feelings one day, so easily just like that, and the next day you can wake up and realise they're gone. Poof. Vanish. Just like that. I guess that's the beauty of falling in love, its unpredictability.

This is what The Killers sang:
I said my heart, it don’t beat, it don’t beat the way it used to
And my eyes don’t recognize you no more.
And my lips, they don’t kiss, they don’t kiss the way they used to,
And my eyes don’t recognize you no more.
For reasons unknown

Marriage Marred

This is an advertisement, which is worth a good laugh, for Nomad whereby there are selling out their "No commitment, no contract" for mobile plan.
In the ad, the couple has just tied the nuptial knot and are being led by their raging hormones. Bride goes missing for quite awhile and groom peeps into the toilet only to be horrified by seeing his bride standing to pee - you get the picture.

I feel that true marriages are always hard to come by.
By true, I define is as the legal union of two people who stand by their matrimonial vows which stems from the love they have for each other; meaning they abide by each word: "To have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part."

Since time, wedded bliss revolves more around money issues and extending the family line. In the past, daughters are married off to settle debts using their dowry. Men are forced to get married for procreating purposes, Wives are chosen based on their abilities in household chores and the ability to bear children. Relational development might happen after, or not at all.

-------

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/862580/teen-marries-elderly-man-to-settle-debt

Recently, in Bangladesh, a teenage (13-year old) daughter was married off to a 75-year old creditor, in payment of the cow her dad has loaned. Apparently such instances are very common in Bangladesh, a Muslim majority nation, as they are able to alter their ages.

-------
Here are a few excerpts of an interview of a couple who married for materialistic measures and are opened about it:

Guy: "Think of it this way, most men have low self-esteem. He works hard to dress nice, buy hot stuff, etc. He wants a woman to notice. His thinking “If I can do this for myself, baby imagine what I can do for you.” That’s the bait and we fall for it every time. Now, not all guys can live up to this. Once you’re married and start to inquire you may learn he’s in debt, a con man or living off his momma’s insurance money and rents instead of owns his mini-mansion. Do yourself a favor and check all background and financial history prior to saying “I Do”.

Girl: “I’d say 60% money and 40% love. Just the way it should be.”

If a couple came together out of love and feelings for one another and that 50% of marriages ended up a flop, maybe this is why people are marrying for other reasons.

-------
However, should people marry for money, their main aim would be finalizing the divorce settlements instead. Divorce usually happen for 2 main reasons, one of it is communication, and the other, simply when feelings subside. Communication can lead to conflicts or non-communication leads to a stagnant relationship. Either way, it triggers the breakdown of the couples relationship and they find it pointless to continue.
However, now divorce can generate a large sum due to the splitting of assets, this is also why multiple marriages are a norm to some, mostly the ladies.

**While marriage equality for the single-sex is garnering a lot of attention, the media has overlooked the historic transformation in marriages which has consequences in socio-economical equality.

Statistics shown that both men and women whom are college-educated derive a higher sense of marital satisfaction and tend to enjoy a more blissful marriage as compared to those lacking one, who forgo marriage or face divorce at the end of the day.
Men without degrees are more incapable of generating a household wage, thus the tendency for them to settle down is lower. However, the number of non-college man is decreasing, leaving the less educated ladies, with lesser chances of education as compared to men, with fewer prospects.

Besides that, the shift is evident in the matrimony itself. The wedding ceremony, parties and dinners are getting more and more lavishing - they hire wedding organizers, floral designers, choose to hold it in exclusive destinations. In the movie, Bride Wars, the two friends are competing to have a wedding more outstanding than the other. In the past a modest church wedding followed by a dinner at a restaurant or in their backyards would have sufficed.

Marriage has taken a social shift as well. In the past at one point of time, settling down was ushering men and women into the adult life of starting a new family with a new load of responsibilities. Everyone could marry then, the young, the freshly graduated and the poor, Now, the definition has changed, the priorities have switched around. They see marriage as tying one down, not only settling. Only after a career has been stabilized, would marriage then be part of their option.

I guess one way of diminishing this gap between them is to further extend the chances of a college education to everyone, especially those with low income, or to provide them another chance at having an education for the blue-collared,

-------
Next, there are also some who do not believe in the institute of marriage. They feel that as long as both couples have feelings for each other and can cohabit in bliss together, there is not a need for them to legalize their marriage.

So where exactly does marriage stands in our society now?

Pussy in Boots

Twenty120. Twenty creative directors, a hundred and twenty seconds worth of abstract film based on what inspires them, one theme. Keeping in line directors of different fields of expertise, be it television networks, production companies, design or advertising films, and from all over the world. Their diversified backgrounds be it in the fine art, film, television and commercial and their cultural and social differences, put together this collection “In The Age of Opulence”.

There’s this one video caught my attention the most.

Catalog #FG-433-07 from Alexander Tarrant on Vimeo.

Basically it is a crash course on lingoes, jargon and trends in our current millennium (or The Age of Opulence) , depicted by signs, flags and hand signals, educating the era of the 50-60s in the times.

It employs phrases consisting terms such as beware inexperienced barista (a barista is a professional coffee maker), free wi-fi here, i have a moped (motor + pedal; a motorized bicycle). Emphasizing on the technological advancements over time and the flourishing service sector.

The most explicit of the lot, and plays of the pun, "doggy-style". With globalization, people harness technology to access such information via means of the media and the internet, which leads to the proliferation of sexual content and knowledge within the society now. In the past, issues like these were viewed with discretion and comes off as offensive and, at that time, more degrading.

The society has liberalized so much that we frequently use provocative images to promote and advertise products which do not even carry a trace of sexual connotation. Take a seemingly innocent burger for example:

Frankly, it baffles me. What does a naked Alicia Silverstone have any relations to her being a vegetarian? PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) rationale is using a hoard of scantily cladded beauties to proclaim their love for being vegetarian. It eventually was banned. It boils down to this. There isn't any good or bad advertising - as long it is one that garners enough attention, the aim is accomplished. Sex sells, media is increasing adopting such provocative images to market their goods. Apparently, it is delightfully vulgar, ironically.

This has caused quite a hoo-ha and was taken down.
One (who is probably too young or ignorant) might probably find no fault in this advertisement, there is no obscenity nor profanities present. However, we know the reason why - the sexual innuendos are everywhere.
Our interpretations are subjective, and can vary drastically. How we derive meanings begin at the same starting point - we learn what the typical definitions are through past experiences or comprehend the generally accepted meanings within our culture and how to draw inference from non-verbal cues. Ours has coined terms to be sexually charged, for example blow your mind away, seven incher and so is the elongated burger postitioned infront of the gaping mouth.
Even the bun adopts a second meaning to it now.

Tying in with non-verbal communication, images creates meanings (abstract or otherwise) in the minds of the communicators and the impact supersedes smart tag lines. Visuals are effective stimuli in the sense that it can appeal to both the educated and non-educated.

That was how a picture is worth a thousand words was derived from.

The Voices Can Never Be Drowned

a transliteration of Facebook which defines as "doomed to die"

I was checking up on my Twitter feed and I was amazed at the rate my friends tweet. As you scroll down your list, you will be updated on a mix of on-goings, ranging from breakfast-cereal flavours, interesting sights on the way to school, daily musings to good music and video links. Basically harmless day-to-day happenings. Twitter is created for social networking and micro-blogging, as an easier mean as compared to sending emails and instant messages, which is being made available to those who follow up on your feed, hence less hassle for both parties.

Compared to other forms of interactive models of communication such as SMS (short message service), email, MSN or other instant messaging services and a phone call, Twitter is taking the lead in popularity. Not surprising at all. It is an outlet that costs almost nothing and your message or shout-out can be made available to everyone simultaneously.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/07/AR2009070701162.html

However, Twitter seems to be posing as a potential lethal threat as a surge on bans are being placed on recently. Likewise for Facebook. The US Marines has banned Twitter for fear of unintended leak of unnecessary information that could be proved worthy to adversaries and being exposed to viruses or Trojan circulating. Other countries such as, Iran, Syria and China have also banned such social networks for political reasons. As quoted from CNN, “" The mechanisms for social networking were never designed for security and filtering. They make it way too easy for people with bad intentions to push malicious code to unsuspecting users," a Stratcom source told Wired.com”

China has prohibited the use of Twitter a few days before the 20 ^th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre to prevent stirring up of emotions within the netizens and subsequently Facebook was being banned after it was used as a channel to incite strong protests within the Uyghurs around the world as a Facebook group “ Worldwide Protest in Honour and Support of Uighurs Dying for Freedom.”

The potential of Twitter is being undermined initially. It might have seem to pose off a tool of social networking initially and many passed it off as a fad or some fleeting trend. But it is evident that Twitter is here to stay. It has mophed into a media and marketing medium disguised as a social network service (SNS) and is probably a stepping stone for more to come.

Despite China’s constitution claims on freedom of speech, the government engages a "subversion of state power" clause to penalize those who criticize them. But do such bans really prove to be effective in silencing the citizens’ voices? In 2007, a service similar to Twitter called Taotao was being introduced. Chinese users pledge allegiance to their own online mediums and if censorship is implemented whenever sensitive national events were to happen, it would simply spell the means of more SNSes to come. Besides, there are also other outlets which can be used to express disagreement and disgruntlement. I personally feel that prohibiting such SNS can only supress that much. (Which isn't much at all).

So, what say you?

Netizen: A person who is a frequent or habitual user of the Internet

peer communication

(click on title to view article)

Witaya would make a good rhetorician.

Ethos? His peers were impressionable teens who looked up to him as an elder brother and believed his preaching.

Logos? They were almost convinced that they would resurrect as slayers for the coming World War 3 against "demons".

Pathos? They were all passionate about the idea. Till the last minute.

All checked. That's how the suicide pact was made.

All of them were still undergoing secondary school education, the youngest being 12 and the oldest 17 at that time. At this phase of life, a teen undergoes a tremendous transition, both physically and psychologically. They tend to become more susceptible to the influences and pressures from their peers as compared to that from their parents. Despite educating teens about rejecting negative peer influences, it is still very prevalent in our society.

Why so?

Most teens will very much want to be accepted by their peers as they are going through the awkward phase of puberty and are having insecurities about themselves. Hence, by being integrated into a group or a clique, having shared roles, rules and a common identity will make them feel more socially accepted and also gain recognition among their peers will also in turn, help them to come to terms with who they are. However, they might sometimes get too absorbed into the 'role' allocated to them and thus, fail to discern situations for themselves.

They seemed to be ‘brainwashed’ at that moment, whereby they simply believed in anything Witaya said, instead of truly having experiencing it themselves. The youngest boy, Ben, never knew what slayers meant or what signifies the rituals and meditations carried, he was basically going with the flow - they conform to their groups’ cultures and norms, through the social constructive perspective of things.

Suicide isn’t solely just a clinical problem; the surrounding environment plays a huge part in triggering it as well. Apparently, some time before the pact was made, Witaya’s parents underwent a divorce. He had once mentioned suicide. This mentality could possibly have sparked his beliefs of a battle between ‘demons’, in thinking that they would resurrect as a slayer – it depicts that he was seeking an important role in enforcing justice. Also, Witaya’s grandmother used to be a medium, and molded her beliefs, attitudes and cultures into Witaya’s psychological perspective of matters, who then in turn reached out to his friends through his preaching and extending his help with their troubles.

As much as a child should be guilty for his own misdoings, the negligence of a parent will have to be blamed for as well. Shouldn’t the parents be more sensitive towards the signs that might show their engagement in activities that might affect their results and also, pay more attention to their activities outside of school – to prevent such a tragedy from even having to take on a plan to begin with!

Peer influence has integrated so greatly in our current society - we want an identity and image to associate ourselves with. I am sure everyone at a certain point of time has been exposed to a negative influence or pressure and may or may not have fought it off. So what are you guilty of?

via post-its

a picture paint a thousand words and require the same amount of post-its as well..