Protesters Filled A Melbourne Tram With Flowers To Highlight Violence Against Women In The Wake Of Another Death
The tram travelled from Bourke Street to Bundoora.
Yesterday evening in Melbourne, more than 1000 mourners gathered on the steps of Parliament House for a vigil in remembrance of Aiia Maasarwe.
They were joined by Aiia’s father, Saeed Maasarwe, who had travelled to Melbourne on Wednesday to identify his daughter’s body. Earlier in the day, he visited the place her body was found, and through tears, told reporters:
“I am sad because this is the last place my daughter was. I have many dreams to be with her but I cannot now. I want to be with her more. But someone decide I cannot be.”
Many of the mourners had brought flowers and cards with messages for Aiia and her family, as well as protest signs that asked questions like, “Am I next?” and “My outrage cannot fit on this page!”
Aiia’s father sat in silence on the steps, surrounded by people who’d never met his daughter but who felt deeply affected by her death nonetheless. Following the silent vigil, he collected some of the cards with messages for Aiia.
In a fittingly Melbourne tribute, the 8.01pm 86 tram from Bourke Street to Bundoora, where Aiia was found on Wednesday morning, was filled with mourners bearing flowers and candles.
People waited at nearly every stop along the route to pay their respects, and many of them handed flowers to those on board the tram, riding it as it travelled through the inner-west towards Bundoora.
After arriving at Bundoora, the flowers were taken to a makeshift memorial that has been established where Aiia was found on Wednesday.
Aiia Maasarwe was a 21-year old Palestinian attending La Trobe University on exchange, where she was studying English. In the caption of one Instagram video, she described her decision to go on exchange as the “best decision I ever made”.
A 20-year-old man was taken into custody on Friday regarding Aiia’s death, but charges have not yet been laid.
Woody Allen’s Secret Teenage Lover Is Exactly Why We Need To Stop Separating The Man From The Art
Can you separate the art from the artist? More importantly, should you?
A former model who claims to have dated Woody Allen when she was 16 has spoken about their relationship for the first time, in an exclusive interview with The Hollywood Reporter.
Babi Christina Engelhardt, who just goes by Christina Engelhardt now, met Allen in 1976, when she was 16 and he was 41. They met at Elaine’s, a popular New York restaurant, when she dropped a note on his table with her phone number. The note read, “Since you’ve signed enough autographs, here’s mine!”
Allen soon invited her to his penthouse, and this kicked off an eight-year long relationship that was consummated before Engelhardt had turned 17, which is the legal age of consent in New York. Allen knew she was still in high school and living at home in rural New Jersey.
According to the interview, Engelhardt is still trying to process the relationship, decades later, particularly in light of #MeToo. She’s proud of herself for enchanting a ‘celebrated genius’, and holds herself primarily responsible for remaining in the relationship as long as she did. Despite this, she feels she had little agency in their relationship, and feels that Allen often regarded her as “little more than a plaything”.
During their relationship, Allen released Manhattan, a film about a 42-year-old divorcee, played by Allen, who dates a 17-year-old, played by Mariel Hemingway. The film is often referenced in criticisms of Allen as an example of his inappropriate relationships with young girls.
Engelhardt’s interview has reignited the debate around ‘separating the art from the artist’, a debate that people have been having about Woody Allen for years. In the case of his relationship with Engelhardt and 1979’s Manhattan, it seems that the artist himself has made no attempt to separate himself from the art.
Allen’s movies are often semi-autobiographical – he often plays a character that is like him in almost every way, requiring very little in the way of acting on his part. If an artist has repeatedly demonstrated that their art is an extension of their self, is it even possible to separate the art from the artist, and divorce the art from the context in which it was created? Possibility aside, is it even ethical to do so?
Much like the way we teach students of history to consider the actions of historical figures within their historical contexts, I’d argue that art should also always be considered in the context it was created in.
‘Separating the art from the artist’ has enabled men like Allen to dodge accusations of impropriety for years and emerge relatively unscathed, while their movies continue to be hailed as classics. If the #MeToo movement is serious about tackling harassment and misogyny in Hollywood, we need to stop letting art exist in a vacuum, and instead look at the people who’ve created it and what messages they might be sending us through their work.
Hannah Gadsby Is Tired Of Good Men, Good White People And Good Straight People And It's A Big Mood
Unsurprisingly, men are offended.
Hannah Gadsby delivered the opening remarks at The Hollywood Reporter‘s Women in Hollywood Gala on Wednesday, and her speech was a searing criticism of good men, and good white people, and good straight people, who criticise bad men/bad white people/bad straight people, but do so while constantly shifting the goalposts of what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
Gadsby started by saying she wanted to talk about good men, which garnered applause from much of the room. She followed that up with “…you’re going to regret that clap.”
In her speech, she mentions the abundance of ‘Jimmys’ on late-night television and in the public arena who are given the space to condemn ‘bad men’ while reminding everyone that they’re one of the good guys.
“But the last thing I need right now in this moment in history is to have to listen to men monologue about misogyny and how other men should just stop being “creepy,” as if that’s the problem.”
Gadsby’s issue with these men and their monologues is that, to them, there are two types of bad men: irredeemable men like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, and the ‘FOJs’: the Friends of Jimmy, like Louis CK, who are otherwise decent men who made a mistake. “These are apparently good men who misread the rules — garden-variety consent dyslexics.”
Gadsby’s issue with this is that men often draw a different line in the sand of acceptable behaviour for different occasions.
“They have a line for the locker room; a line for when their wives, mothers, daughters, and sisters are watching; another line for when they’re drunk and fratting; another line for nondisclosure; a line for friends; and a line for foes.”
Gadsby says that we need to talk about this line, because only good men are the ones allowed to draw it, and all men believe they are good. Good men get to draw the line to suit their own needs – if they make a mistake, and, say, masturbate in front of colleagues without their consent, they can just move the line so that their behaviour isn’t ‘completely unacceptable’ but simply ‘a mistake’. And their friends, the Jimmys, will support them in this. (And sometimes, women can be Jimmys too.)
In Gadsby’s words, “they move the line for their own good”.
She doesn’t just stop at calling out ‘good men’, though.
“Now take everything I have said up until this point and replace “man” with “white person,” and know that if you are a white woman, you have no place drawing lines in the sand between good white people and bad white people. I encourage you to also take the time to replace “man” with “straight” or “cis” or “able-bodied” or “neurotypical,” et cetera, et cetera.”
As Gadsby explains, everyone believes they are fundamentally good. Of course people are going to give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and of course their friends are too. But that’s exactly why it shouldn’t be up to those people, or their friends, to determine what is an isn’t acceptable; to determine where the line is drawn.
Naturally, some men responded poorly to Gadsby’s remarks:
Here’s the thing, men who see themselves as good: if you genuinely are a good person and supporter of women, you won’t worry about what someone who’s never met you, and who isn’t specifically talking about you, has to say about you. You’ll just get on with the job of holding other men accountable and not shifting the goalposts whenever a ‘good man’ you know is accused of something unsavoury.
Or you could just go on Twitter and demand congratulations for not having assaulted anybody, because apparently the bar is that low. That’s another option.
You can watch the speech here, or read a transcript over at Vulture.