REPROACH

REPROACH

YOU CAN KEEP YOUR STEENKING CHOCOLATE RAFFLE

I’ve both seen and been involved with many different fundraisers in my (relatively) short time as a parent. Art auctions, cook books, trivia nights, goods and services auctions, garage sales, Bunnings BBQs, cake stalls and a multitude of drives (bulbs, pasta, pies, cookie dough). But there’s one fundraiser that has always made me particularly CRANKY: the Easter raffle.

The Easter raffle is a raffle where parents are asked to donate some chocolate (Easter-themed or otherwise) that is then divvied up, arranged into a variety of baskets, wrapped in cellophane and raffled off.

Now if you’re anything like the editor of this esteemed publication, you may be saying to yourself 'I can‘t see anything wrong with this picture'.

But ask yourself this: 'what would I contribute to such a raffle?'

If it’s a Haigh’s chocolate hen or a Lindt golden bunny or a packet of Cadbury Easter eggs (they’re just so right for an Easter egg hunt!) then that’s fine, sign me up for one of your $2 raffle tickets—in fact give me 3 for $5! But if your purchase from the shops is anything sub-Cadbury, then there is no way on Earth I want to part with my hard earned lucre for what will only be a travesty to my tastebuds.

There you have it—I’m a chocolate snob. Life’s too short for chalky, flavourless 'chocolate', and this is something I want to teach my children. The Easter 'think of the children' raffle pressures us to put ourselves at the mercy of someone else’s (poor) taste in chocolate. We should not allow it.

@SAIDHANRAHAN, VICTORIA

 We might be persuaded to part with $2 for the chance of winning a giant snail or a giant teaspoon or a giant (Lindt) chocolate egg, or alternately for some miniature children. 'A monster Easter egg' ,  Published 1 May, 1896 in  The illustrated Australian news , Melbourne : David Syme & Co. State Library of Victoria, accession number IAN01/05/96/12.

We might be persuaded to part with $2 for the chance of winning a giant snail or a giant teaspoon or a giant (Lindt) chocolate egg, or alternately for some miniature children. 'A monster Easter egg', Published 1 May, 1896 in The illustrated Australian news, Melbourne : David Syme & Co. State Library of Victoria, accession number IAN01/05/96/12.

REPROACH

ON THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF CRANKVENT... DADS UNFAIRLY MALIGNED

A correspondent to CRANK notes that everyone always refers snidely to the invariably poor jokes in Christmas crackers as "dad jokes". However, he also notes that the instant the blank Christmas list went up on his mother-in-law's fridge, one of his sisters-in-law would always write 'a new bum, my old one’s got a crack in it'. He suggests that people who deride dad jokes are obviously biased and further that it is clearly aunts who write Christmas cracker messages.

 If you needed further evidence that aunts are responsible for Christmas cracker jokes look no further than the numerous illustrations of cats pulling crackers. Aunts = spinsters = crazy cat ladies = case closed. Yes yes alright so Louis Wain who drew this picture was a man what of it? [Picture stolen from someone's Pinterest page who in turn pinned it from someone's eBay listing]

If you needed further evidence that aunts are responsible for Christmas cracker jokes look no further than the numerous illustrations of cats pulling crackers. Aunts = spinsters = crazy cat ladies = case closed. Yes yes alright so Louis Wain who drew this picture was a man what of it? [Picture stolen from someone's Pinterest page who in turn pinned it from someone's eBay listing]

REPROACH

ON THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF CRANKVENT... BEGONE, DO-GOODERS

When I was six the thing I wanted most-in-all-the-world for Christmas was the Bedtime Care Bear. You know the one—the blue bear with a moon and star on his belly and half-closed eyes. At school, when given the opportunity to write a letter to Santa, I told him of my wish. But on Christmas morning there came the greatest disappointment of my childhood [1]: there was no Care Bear. The gut-wrenching let-down still haunts me today.

And hence my complaint. Of those irresponsible adults who encourage children to write letters to Santa in the name of “Festive Fun” and “Christmas Cheer” and send them off, without going through the proper postal channels. And by proper channels I mean the child’s parents. Who else is best suited to proofread their child’s list? Who else will make sure the writing is legible, the address is correct and the envelope appropriately stamped? Who else will make sure that express post will get it where it needs to go—to that one person who makes presents happen? Missing missives? Disappearing dispatches? Not on a parent’s watch.

These letter-writing do-gooders are setting other people’s children up for a disappointment—one that THEY will not have to deal with.

So I am happy to report that my own daughter will not suffer as I did. Her letter to Santa has been (proof)read and sealed and I have no doubt that in the stocking on December 25th, she will find the one thing she’s asked for…her greatest wish. A…unicorn?!

@SAIDHANRAHAN, VICTORIA

  1. Well, if you look at the letter below, perhaps the second greatest disappointment
 Authentic letter from the Easter Bunny to the author, circa 1985, in no way written by the author's elder sibling, nope nuh-uh she would never do anything like that.

Authentic letter from the Easter Bunny to the author, circa 1985, in no way written by the author's elder sibling, nope nuh-uh she would never do anything like that.

REPROACH

ON THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF CRANKVENT... YOU WANT *WHAT* FOR CHRISTMAS?!

I write today of "Christmas gift idea" lists, a veritable plague at this time of year, with every magazine and newspaper and newspaper magazine dripping with elaborate lists of gift ideas for your dearly beloved.

Now, it is well known that the infant Jesus received gold, frankincense and myrrh on the occasion of his birth but the extravagance of this (birthday) gift for our saviour should not be used as a benchmark for all subsequent Christmas gifts from then and into eternity.

There may be the odd person you like to really splurge on at Christmas but I'm guessing most of us are not in the position to give even those very dear few $13,000 bicycles, $5,000 bottles of scotch, $3,000 watches or $1,000 paddle boards. Or even "POA" clutches, $1,100 necklaces, $700-worth of lacy underwear, and $500 dresses and hats. [1] So why do these lists continue to include such items, year after year? [2] Who do they think reads their publications, oil tycoons and internet billionaires? 

The writers and editors of these lists need to take a good, hard look at both themselves and their subscriber base and re-think.

ALICE CANNON, MELBOURNE

  1. Guess which products were sourced from a 'gifts for her' and which from a 'gifts for him' list!
  2. I'm guessing it has something to do with advertisers and conveniently-timed press releases.
 Apropos of nothing, did you know that back issues of CRANK's sister publication  Materiality  are  now available for just $10 each ? (The current issue,  SURFACE , is only a little more at $15). Of interest to all genders!

Apropos of nothing, did you know that back issues of CRANK's sister publication Materiality are now available for just $10 each? (The current issue, SURFACE, is only a little more at $15). Of interest to all genders!