Turning 30...

Beach bums at the Olympics

Ok I might be sounding old and prudish, but check the double standard here!

Photo Credit: The Associated Press versus…

Photo Credit: The Associated Press

The men’s beach volley ball players are clad in long shorts and shirts, while the women wear the smallest, tightest bikini bottoms and sports-bra bikini tops.

Now the women don’t seem to mind. In this Today Tonight article, Aussie competitor Tamsin Barnett says: “It just feels natural to be wearing a bikini out here; it’s nice to have the feeling of not having clothes all around you actually.”

Well that might be the case, but then why is the men’s regulation apparel considerably more covering? Surely it’s most unfair if they are used to playing in a speedo?

Is their clothing more considerable to be able to accommodate sponsor brands? Or do the men prefer not to be sexualised, but rather seen as professional athletes?

Clearly sex sells and you have to wonder whether female beach volleyball would be so popular if players wore shorts and t-shirts. So it is in the sponsors’ interests to keep it as skimpy as possible.

It’s not really in the players’ interests though. Surely it’s not very comfortable to throw themselves around the courts, diving and skidding in sand and getting in stuck to their sweaty bodies?

At least they don’t need to be self-conscious about their bodies when they are as toned and tanned as they are, but what about wedges, chafing, over-exposure, not to mention the sun burn, sun spots, risk of skin cancer?

And what about the reality that the viewer’s attention is as much on their bums as it is on their game? The truth is, when you put it out there people notice and people comment.

I was at a BBQ last night and a couple of the guys were saying: “I don’t actually like their bodies — they are too ‘trunky’.” Now I feel a bit sorry for them having their bodies scrutinised like this; after all, they are sports people not models.

But maybe it’s time for them to wise up — and perhaps feel a tad exploited. They should be treated with the same respect as any other athlete representing their country. And at the moment, the sport itself isn’t given due respect. Rather it’s an ogle-fest. I think the girls need to get real and professionalise their sport. By even wearing the same as the runners, will go a long way to achieving this.

12am

The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.

6pm

In defense of Gen Y

“Gen Y are a nightmare”, my friends extol. Maybe I can’t see it as I’m borderline X and Y, but as far as I’m concerned they – or should I say ‘we’ — are just the youth of today. And, as we all know, the youth of today is never good news.

Wikipedia defines Gen Y as those born roughly between 1980 and 1994. They are extremely tech savvy, live at home longer than preceding generations, face higher costs of living, are ambitious, and have high expectations of their worth and of their careers.

And this is why they get such a bad rap. I found this article ‘Why bosses hate Gen Y’ , which says they are disloyal, impatient and demanding. But the truth is who isn’t at 21 and fresh out of uni?

I know the disillusionment I felt after spending four years at uni, getting a good class arts degree and solid work experience behind me. And finally I landed my first job off London’s trendy Leicester Square … as a receptionist.

Now I felt that I hadn’t spent four years at uni burning the midnight oil (not just in the pubs), securing a stellar degree and enviable work experience to be spending my days making tea and answering phones!

However, sorry for me, new graduates in London were ten-a-penny and without real workplace experience, I just had to ‘do my time.’

But in today’s Australia the situation is different. There’s a booming economy and a skills shortage. So bosses don’t have a choice but to hire inexperienced Gen Ys and train them up.

And if the youngsters aren’t getting the support, career development and money they want, they have the pick of the jobs and who’d blame them for shopping around for a better deal?

Incredulous, my 33-year-old husband came home from work the other day and said to me: “How’s this; Leroy at work announces that he’s had a big week: he’s started studying, bought a car and left home. That’s great, but HE’S 25! I wanted to say, ‘Mate, c’mon I did all that at 18.”

The truth is though Gen Ys live in a different time and a different environment from when myself and my friends came of age. And we’d do well to remember that times have changed.

Many Gen Xs — like my husband — are in danger of becoming inverted snobs. The sub-text of their comments is we’re better because we did it tougher. But that’s not necessarily true. Who really wants to be living with Mum and Dad well into their twenties? It’s not necessarily a choice, but an economic necessity if they want to keep their heads above water in Sydney.

8am

She always had the feeling that it was very, very dangerous to live even one day.

5am

There's nothing on television

In a typical week I’m flicking television channels trying to find something half decent to watch. Usually the commercial stations present two clear options: a reality TV show or a crime series.

I decided to do a quick audit of this week’s TV guide to prove my point. And here’s what I found ─ no less that eight crime shows running simultaneously! This week, the following went to air:

1. CSI Miami

2. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

3. Law & Order: Criminal Intent

4. Law & Order: SVU

5. Criminal Minds

6. Cold Case

7. NCIS

8. City Homicide

It’s a real shame crime shows aren’t my thing. So what about reality TV? Surely there’s enough variety here to find something worth watching? Oh, that’s if you don’t count Gordon Ramsay…

Now I like him and find him entertaining, but all his shows are variations of the same theme ─ him swearing his head off at hapless amateurs. And perhaps four or so programs on this theme is a bit much.

And what’s more, they all go to air at more or less the same time. Over the past few months all of the following have been broadcast:

1. Boiling Point

2. Ramsay’s Kitchen Nightmares

3. Hell’s Kitchen

4. The F-Word

And when these shows aren’t back to back, they are typically interspersed with crime shows and other reality TV programs, like:

1. Border Patrol

2. Border Security – Australia’s Front Line

3. Missing Person’s Unit

4. The Force – Behind the Line

5. The Farmer Wants a Wife

6. Bondi Rescue

Now to me, this is just getting a bit boring. And what foxes me is where the saturation point is. Surely we have long-since past it? I know I have.

I can only conclude that there is so many reality shows because they are cheap to make and buy, and are therefore profitable to the stations through the advertising revenue they can generate.

But if the stations are making a good profit on them, then why not give the television buyers a bit more budget for some decent programs? After all, quality television means viewers (think Underbelly) and this drives up advertising demand, and costs, and means a more lucrative deal for the stations.

In the meantime, thank goodness for the Olympics, finally there will be something decent on the box.

9pm

Marie Claire's new look

Earlier this week I received my usual monthly subscription to Marie Claire magazine. I ripped open the cellophane with typical gusto anticipating an evening on the couch, and was surprised to find a letter.

“Dear Valued Subscriber”, it read, “Here’s your exclusive preview of the new look Marie Claire – we wanted you to be the first to see it.” Bemused, I flicked through the magazine to try and identify what was different.

The letter continued: “As one of fashion’s greatest chameleons, Coco Chanel, once said: ‘In order to be irreplaceable, one must always be different.’ We’d love your feedback by email…”

Huh? I thought, what’s different? Something must be. So grabbing the previous month’s copy, I did a like for like comparison. And bingo, there it was ─ September’s edition was shorter and fatter than August’s, and the font was slightly different. Now is that radical or what?

Now, I’m not one of those people who doesn’t like change, in fact I’m all for it. But I really couldn’t see the point of firstly making these changes, and secondly soliciting feedback on them.

And this got me thinking, if I really was a ‘Valued Subscriber’, why didn’t Marie Claire ask me for my opinion in the first place? It would have been pretty easy to slip a questionnaire into one month’s mail out, and let the reader have their say on the magazine.

Really it should have been reader feedback driving the refresh. And it should have gone further than a couple of design elements to looking at the mix of stories and assessing what hits the mark.

Establishing a genuine dialogue with readers would be a good way of making the publication ‘irreplaceable’ and ‘different’. And they could do this by developing Marie Claire online a bit more.

For a monthly magazine, the relationship between print and online should be symbiotic. The magazine should direct its readers to the website, and the online dialogue should inform the content and development of the print publication. That way, readers’ opinions would matter and the magazine would differentiate itself on the strength of its offer.

In the meantime, Marie Claire should look after its ‘Valued Subscribers’ who weren’t even granted this month’s free Lancome mascara… Maybe that’s why I’m miffed.

1am

On holiday in Fraser Island

5am

The beaver ad

Television advertising for feminine hygiene is usually a cringe-fest, typically embarrassing and patronising. But the beaver ad is different… you might describe it as shocking or taboo-busting instead.

The basic gist of it is a young woman going about her daily life eating lunch, having her nails done, and sunbaking on the beach with her beaver in tow. This ‘little furry friend’ is a reference to her genitalia, and the ad is for Kotex sanitary products. The ad’s message is: ‘You’ve only got one so you might as well look after it’, i.e. buy Kotex. Check it out on You Tube.

Whilst the ad has caused a bit of a furore and is now rated M and only aired later than 8:30pm, I don’t really see a problem with it. It’s clearly pitched at a young audience and designed to make teenagers less self-conscious about their bodies. It’s taboo-busting and it’s got people talking. Perhaps it shouldn’t be aired before 8:30pm, but it’s probable children wouldn’t understand beaver connotations anyway.

I think it’s harmless, and vaguely amusing. I don’t find it degrading to women or offensive, but nor would it make me go out and buy their products. I would guess anyone older than 24 is not their target market, but it will be interesting to see whether brand awareness translates into sales.

11pm

Looking for a model advertising strategy

I can’t help thinking that Aussie supermodel Miranda Kerr isn’t the right pick for the retailing giant David Jones. Meagan Gale was always going to be a hard act to follow, but the problem with Kerr is that she’s just too darn young.

Now I understand that in modelling terms, at 24 or 25 she’s positively middle aged (while Gale at 32 is just about a geriatric), but DJs need to keep their target audience in mind with their advertising. Kerr is currently adorning bus shelters advertising Veronica Maine dresses and, to my mind, she looks ridiculous. She’s just too fresh-faced to carry them off, and ends up making them look frumpy and herself the daggiest 25-year-old ever!

Given the price tags of Maine’s clothes, I’m pretty sure she’s not going after a 20-something segment, so why use a 20-something model? Gale was so successful as the DJs pin up girl because she looked like a woman - not a girl - so had a mass market appeal. Women of all ages aspired to look like her, and surely that’s the idea. That’s what sells clothes.

9pm