Call Me Old-Fashioned BUT...

Vol #2, Col #6: Let's Make a Date

2011-08-25T20:32:00.000-07:00

There’s a difference in the eyes of men between a “bangable chick” and a “marriageable woman”. The reason I can be so certain of this is because the vast majority of my friends (I moonlight as a professional musician) are of the masculine gender (not to mention I have six older brothers) making me privy to conversations from which the average female is excluded.

Continuing on from last week’s discussion of personal attire and making “respectable” choices, it only seemed logical to remain within the romantic realm offering up to my fellow ladies once again a few additional tidbits; this time, in terms of attitude, expectations, and actions that ‘twill serve to transform you into the latter of the two aforementioned types.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve dated more than my fair share of losers (again I’m a musician, and rocker boys…well they’re bad news), but then I learned “The Rules”, and honest to god no more than a month after this intensive “mind re-tooling” I roped in my very own Mr. Right. How right is he you ask?

Well, from leaving roses on my doorstep in the middle of the night so that my early morning grogginess (and bitchiness) was combated as I ventured on to my day job to creating roadtrip cds containing each and every one of my most obscure favourites to planning a scavenger hunt of gifts for me on my bday timed precisely so that I’d discover a new treat every hour until he returned home from work to never missing a day when it comes to calling me beautiful, I think you get the picture.

But I’m not here to gloat about my own love life (and believe you me this is the first time in my entire existence that it has even been remotely “gloatable”). No, I’m here to tell you how you can have the very same kind of relationship.

While the business world dictates that the successful modern woman is aggressive and assertive, essentially mimicking the attributes traditionally associated with professional men, when it comes to dating, a woman who makes the first move is perceived as either

a) easy

b) desperate; neither designation accords you long-term potential mate status. Let ME let YOU in on a secret: men LOVE a challenge.

On my and my fellow’s first date, I intentionally arrived 15 minutes late. I told him he could only see me again if he were lucky, and I also made certain that I would not be the one texting, calling, or emailing him to make plans. When he did call, I didn’t always pick up the phone, and if he left a message, I didn’t always return it.

Now these actions may scream out to uneducated “Rules” women that I wasn’t putting in my fair share, and consequently, I was going to drive him away because he’d get the wrong impression that I wasn’t into him, but on the contrary my dears, it was all a test. If he wanted me for more than just a little hanky-panky, he had to show it, and the only way I (or any woman) could ascertain his true intentions was/continues to be by being able to evaluate the consistency of his efforts. In layman’s terms, if you get a man on a routine (ie: there’s an expectation that he’s to call nightly at a given hour, for example), any deviation in his pattern will indicate to you there’s a problem in the relationship (barring extraneous circumstances), therefore potentially saving you from seriously devastating heartbreak (which none of us obviously want or deserve).

So why is all of this important? Well, let’s face it ladies, we are naturally more emotional creatures, and we get attached to others much easier. I’ve known a slew of women who have mistaken their “maternal instincts” (their desire to help others through care and nurturance) with their “huntress instincts” (their sex and romantic drives) leading to unfortunate co-dependent relationships wherein they play the roles of mother, housekeeper and bedmate simultaneously (not cool, any healthy relationship is mutual in ALL areas). On the converse, I’ve also known many women who have made excuses for lousy specimens of men, insisting their cheating was only a one-time thing, and that they are perfectly okay with their mates’ addictions to porn and other oh-so-productive drugs of choice.

Don’t kid yourself – we don’t work the same way. Women can’t just fuck and be satisfied. The ones that claim they can are lying to you and themselves, and almost invariably suffer from serious distorted perceptions of their own self worth.

The point is that, “nobody’s gonna wanna buy the cow if you’re giving away the milk for free”. So, just as I suggested to you last week to class it up clothing-wise if you desire to be treated as a person (not a nice set of jugs), I also suggest you re-tool your dating protocol if you’ve found yourself dating anyone similar to my exes. The best place to start? Pick yourself up a copy of Ellen Fein and Sherrie Schneider’s “The Rules”.

The most important thing to get out of all of this is this: don’t sell yourself short. Going to a fast food joint is NOT an acceptable standard for a date, and meeting men at bars or gyms RARELY leads to anything more than you becoming next week’s locker room gossip. Be coy. Be mysterious. Leave him wanting more, instead of giving it all upfront (I mean that from an emotional, dating history, and physical stance).

Think back to the days where marriages actually lasted…the one night stand scene gets old real fast and promoting promiscuity is stupid (not to mention all of the diseases and unnecessary pregnancies it leads to).

Vol #2, Col #5: Destination Unknown

2011-05-26T17:13:00.000-07:00

‘Tis the season NOT to be jolly (well, unless of course you feel so inclined), but rather to hit the road, set up shop in a summertime soiree resort, and/or leave on a jet plane to some exotic destination. The solstice is fast approaching, and so it only seemed natural to write about the typical itinerary that year after year seems to accompany said weather. If you catch my drift, I’m referring to the long pinned for summer vacation.

After a hard go at school and/or full-time work, once the birds start their chirping, and the flowers begin to bloom, we all get that feeling - that feverish desire to construct one’s days entirely around basking in the sunlight. Spring and summer are after all generative times (ie: the seasons of rebirth), so this desire to explore new terrain – a “summer fling” if you will (vacation and otherwise) – is only natural. Wherein lies the problem, however, is how “contemporary tourism” is done.

While I hate to stereotype, there’s something to be said about how our friends from down South, in particular, do the whole “let’s visit a foreign country thing.” Last June while I was on vaca in Athens checking out the one and only Acropolis (undoubtedly one of the most amazing sites one can ever hope to experience in the flesh in terms of witnessing monumental history), is unequivocally where I encountered the worst of the “contemporary tourist” offenses I can imagine.

As I was coming down the peak headed back toward ground level, I heard two Americans behind me quibbling back and forth, stating how they didn’t get the “big deal” associated with this place. It was, according to one of them, and I quote, “just a bunch of rocks.” So here I am, a diehard fanatic of all things Ancient Greek and Roman, experiencing absolute euphoria because I just got the opportunity to view a part of history in person that I only fantasized about every time I read my textbooks, having to overhear blatant ignorance and a lack of appreciation for the history and longstanding impact with which this place was/continues to be associated. Suffice it to say, it was harder than you can imagine for me to keep my mouth shut.

But even in more mundane circumstances, it seems that tourism has gone all wrong. We stay at five star resorts just to sun our buns and get drunk in the hotels’ pools with their built-in bars. We order burgers and fries, instead of daring to give a “taste-test” to the local ethnic cuisine. We go on organized adventure tours with fellow wayfarers, rather than interact with the locals. We relegate ourselves to the upscale “touristy” parts of town, instead of getting in with the “nitty gritty”.

Despite the fact that their impulse to travel was almost exclusively fuelled by imperialistic aspirations (and we all know what went along with those), the globe-trotters of the past KNEW how to truly “discover” somewhere. In fact, gents like Alexander the Great (well, maybe not so great), took to immersing himself into the “strange and new” cultures of the places he travelled to such an extent that he began to adopt their dress, along with some of their customs (something that didn’t fare well with his military, but that’s a whole nother story in itself).

The point my dears is that if you are lucky enough, in the first place, to be able to jet-set around this fine planet of ours, you should embrace every moment for its full potential. It’s rather ethnocentric to desire to lead the same kind of life one does back home in Canada, while stationed in a villa in the midst of the Costa Rican rainforest.

For those of you looking for a form of tourism that’s even more rewarding personally and as a bonus assists in alleviating social issues, consider going on a “volunteer vacation.” From planting trees in areas plagued with environmental degradation, to teaching English as a second language, to assisting with wildlife conservation, not only can you get a taste for the “true” culture of a people and a land (not just the superficial nicely packaged tourist version), but further you can do the world some good. Hats off to ya sailors! Land ho!

Vol #2, Col #4: Perhaps Some “Dressing” for the Occasion?

2011-04-17T00:52:00.000-07:00

I guess in some ways, I’m still really like a little kid. At the tender age of 26, I still jump on any excuse I have to get all “glam-ed” up and spend a night out on the town. But unlike the “modern woman”, to me, putting on my “Sunday’s Best” is NOT equated with finding a napkin-sized piece of fabric to cram my bits and curves (for better or for worse) into. Accordingly, I’m one of the few (it would seem) dames that harkens back to a time when the expression “it’s better to leave something up to the imagination” was abided by.

Now, I suppose you could blame my mother for exposing me to the “finer things” in life as a young child (by way of mandatory etiquette training), but I don’t see anything wrong with taking pride in one’s personal grooming habits; moreover, I don’t claim any issue with the idea of presenting oneself as “classy” or “respectable”. Perhaps if more women went this route (and I’m sorry if I’m being harsh on you ladies, but this is for your own good), the media AND men wouldn’t feel so entitled to constantly objectify us (but that’s a whole nother discussion in itself).

I think it goes without saying that the advent of the micro mini deserves a sizable amount of blame in this whole equation, but where things really went awry was in the late 1970s with the coming of the so-called “Sexual Revolution.”

At one point in its glory days, the Western white women’s fight for equality/liberation – a battle against a discriminating social structure (ie: patriarchy) - was a unified movement known by the now-blacklisted word “feminism”. Somewhere along the lines, extremist parties formed within this movement leading to divisiveness in regards to both the feminist agenda and feminist message.

What started out as a simple request by women to be recognized as persons (oh we’re so demanding!) and therefore entitled to human rights (much the same way African Americans fought for their civil liberties) became a battle largely between two opposing forces:

1) the radicals (ie: those who, in the most extreme cases, insist on lesbian relationships, and the avoidance of marriage as it further entrenches women into the patriarchal social structure) and

2) the liberals (ie: those who are to blame for the enactment of such things as Ontario’s “topless” legislation); it is the latter group that is of interest to this article.

Influenced by the “free-love” ideals of the hippie era, the liberals subscribed to Hugh Hefner and Playboy’s vision of the “new woman”: embracing strip-teasing, flashing, exhibitionism, and self-objectification as an indication of their brand of “empowerment”. Despite buying into and perpetuating the VERY SAME submissive, sexually-available (more importantly, EASY), and unsophisticated image of women that had been DESIGNED BY and FOR men, the liberals somehow rationalized to themselves that because they were now the ones “owning” this image that they were now in charge of it…if we simply look to the unrealistic beauty standards and expectations that continue to be thrust upon women by the media (we should especially note the genders of the CEOs of these media outlets), and the incidence of cosmetic surgery, not to mention eating disorders among the fairer sex, I think it goes without saying that these “libers” were WRONG.

But even taking this bit of complicated social history out of the picture, honestly, as a female AND someone who is very clear in her own heterosexuality, when a woman’s got all her goods on display for the world to see, EVEN I HAVE DIFFICULTY STARING HER IN THE FACE, so how could I expect anything less from straight members of the opposite sex?

The point I’m trying to make is that “dressing up” has become synonymous with “dressing down” or in fact, wearing close to nothing at all… and my friends, what you wear has consequences (ie: unwanted attention for one thing, not to mention the judgments/assumptions that go along with certain wardrobe choices). Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got a few mini-skirts and clingy numbers that accentuate my bodice that I will whip out upon occasion, but there’s a time and place for everything.

While I thought it went without saying, it would seem that some of you need a reminder: if a clothing item is found in the boudoir section of a store, it likely means that’s where it is suppose to be worn. Class it up girlfriends. Lingerie and low-cut shirts = inappropriate for the academic environment, just the same as ripped jeans and Axel Rose bandanas should NEVER (I repeat NEVER) be worn to the theatre (and this is coming from a die hard rock'n'roller!).

Vol #2, Col #3: PC…How’s About We Change it to “Polite Candidness”?

2011-03-12T23:48:00.000-08:00

A few summers ago while on vacation with my mom, I attended a feminist-oriented executive women’s business club meeting. While the evening’s programming, special guest speaker, and food were most agreeable, I couldn’t help but raise a brow to the events that unfolded during the introductory segment.

Like any typical businesspersons’ gathering, after a brief mingling period, the event’s facilitator proceeded to take charge, going around the room asking each and every individual to introduce herself and list her occupation. Now this activity was all well and good, and at first, “business” seemed “as usual”. BUT after several of these brief personal overtures, something started to strike me as very odd: THE APPLAUSE (and NO the vast majority of the attendees were NOT social goodwill ambassadors! Quite the opposite really…real estate agents and bankers).

While I’m all for honouring the rules of decorum, and in fact agree that using euphemisms or the “compliment” then “constructively criticize” technique is often necessary (oh we humans are so so sensitive), when we have to praise people simply for standing up and stating their names/occupation, I gotta say perhaps we’ve taken “political correctedness” a tad too far.

At one point during these “Hello how are yous?” the facilitator actually had to step in, demanding that the applause ceased as it was eating away too much at the time devoted to the guest speaker!

Although Jerry Seinfeld pointed out in one of his most notable 90s monologues that apparently the average American is more afraid of speaking in public than dying (YES dying, you read correctly), I find it hard to believe that anyone could be successful in the business world without such an ability, and therefore beyond the fact that this seemed overly and unnecessarily polite, I question the grounds on which someone (well actually many persons) felt that clapping was necessary in this circumstance?

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like we’ve gotten a little too comfortable with the idea of receiving gratuitous praise for everything, including menial seemingly “idiot-proof” tasks. Like honestly, what’s going to be next? Should I shake your hand because you can successfully make your bed and brush your teeth at the age of 25? Or maybe it’ll be considered an accomplishment to be able to spell one’s own name correctly at 30? I mean it’s getting to the point wherein if you have to confront and/or criticize a co-worker, or peer at school (at least in my experience), you basically have to “baby talk” to them as though you’re a preschool teacher in order to protect their tender egos.

Somewhere along the lines, we either set the bar REALLY low or coddled each other to such an extend that the average person’s self-esteem is entirely contingent on receiving well-regard from others. To the latter statement, I have only one piece of advice: grow a backbone.

I won’t lie, I just as much as the next person don’t like receiving negative feedback on my work as I put my heart and soul into everything I do, and so when I’m criticized it’s hard not to take it personally. However, I’m not so fragile that I consider standing up and merely stating who I am worthy of acclamation.

Perhaps the mixed messages we received in childhood, however, are partly to blame. I mean, which is it: Is honesty truly the best policy OR is it better to say nothing at all if you have nothing nice to say?

While I’m one who tends to (with few exceptions) “walk on the wild side” in support of the former, I tell you in truth, “facing the music has” has been nothing but a lonely road (and yes my overuse of euphemisms was entirely deliberate there – aren’t I clever? Oh wait, I forgot I don’t need my ego constantly stroked to know I’ve got a reasonable amount of intelligence...but flattery from my man? Well, that’s certainly nice upon occasion).

Vol #2, Col #2: Its My Body and I'll Eat What I Want to!

2011-01-31T06:26:00.000-08:00

The human species has long had a nasty habit of condemning the things it does not understand. Any sign of difference or non-conformity seems to lead to the eruption of shit storms largely fuelled by personal attacks, as opposed to factual evidence. And so, it was my public display of pride in relation to my choice to lead a vegan lifestyle that resulted in the wielding of insults in my general direction from me being labelled everything from a member of the gay community, to part of some elitist anti-human vegan society (no joke) to a supporter of the extremist actions undertaken by the animal activist group Peta. For the record, I am NONE of the above. But more importantly, vegetarianism and veganism are actually nothing new, nor are they really as “radical” as one may presume.

Long before humans became a settled species, they survived nomadically by hunting wild animals and gathering berries and other sources of vegetation for food; hence they were known as “hunters and gatherers”. While what I’ve just mentioned is fairly common knowledge, what has attempted to be buried by both anti-feminist groups and the powers that be of the food industry, but has indeed been CONFIRMED through the study of archaeological remains is the fact that a near 80% of the hunting and gathering diet was composed of plant materials.

Now, the rationale behind the argument posed by the proponents of both the meat and dairy industries (ie: that without the ingestion of both of their aforementioned substances, one would not be getting enough protein to survive) is more obvious: it’s simple economics. The meat and dairy industries pull in billions annually and with money comes power (and the ability to buy off political candidates to support one’s products).

As for the anti-feminist groups’ opposition? Well, seeing as the gatherers were the FEMALES in each group, by acknowledging that their contributions meant MORE than those made by the men in terms of the sustainability of early human life, it would throw fact in the face of the longstanding socialized belief that “men are the providers” for their families. With all of that said, the regular consumption of meat and meat products did NOT actually begin until humans became a settled species and domesticated livestock. But enough with the history lesson, let’s get to the facts:

The human body, in its modern form is, believe it or not, BEST tailored to digest plant materials over anything else. For starters, neither our saliva nor stomachs are acidic enough environments to properly break down flesh; hence cramping, constipation and indigestion are common ailments associated with the consumption of meat. Perhaps more obviously, however, if we take a gander at our dental records or the lack of claws extending from our fingertips, we’ll see that our delicate constitutions are very different from those possessed by carnivorous animals.

If that weren’t proof enough, it has been documented that ingesting too much protein, particularly of the animal variety, can lead to kidney impairment, nutritional deficiency, osteoporosis, heart disease, cancer, obesity, tissue, organ and cell damage, not to mention faster aging! As noted in New York Times Bestseller, Skinny Bitch, “people in cultures that consume HALF the amount of protein that North Americans do, tend to live LONGER, HEALTHIER lives”.

When it comes to the dairy side of things, sorry cheese lovers, I’ve got some equally disheartening news: 96% of Asians, 35% of African Americans and 19% of Causcasians are, in fact, lactose intolerant. Another 7% of the human population is allergic to the proteins in cow's milk. As for “milk doing the body good”? According to studies conducted by Harvard, Yale, Penn State, and the National Institutes of Health, dairy products have been linked to acne, anemia, anxiety, arthritis, attention deficit disorder, fibromyalgia, headaches, heartburn, indigestion, irritable bowel syndrome, joint pain, OSTEOPOROSIS, poor immune function, allergies, ear infections, colic, OBESITY, HEART DISEASE, DIABETES, autism, Crohn’s disease, breast, prostate, and ovarian CANCERS. Sound familiar? (See above in our meat discussion!)

Further, there is NO other animal species in all of nature that continues to ingest milk or milk byproducts past infancy, let alone the milk products of another animal that is equipped with four digestive compartments to their stomachs and grows to 2000 pounds on average within its first two years of birth.

None of this, of course, even begins to touch upon the horror that is “factory farming” and all of the hormones, antibiotics, and toxins (including radioactive materials!) you’re ingesting as a consequence of wanting to eat meat and dairy products. True, non-organic plant products are not free of harmful chemical pesticides either. However, as noted in, Diet for a Poisoned Planet, “of all the toxic chemicals found in food, 95 to 99% come from meat, fish, dairy, and eggs.” Moreover, The Journal of Clinical Nutrition and The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that, “meat eaters are much MORE likely to be OVERWEIGHT than vegetarians,” as a consequence of the coupling of the aforementioned toxins with animal fats. Oh but wait, haven’t you been told your whole life that you wouldn’t get enough nutrients from merely eating plants? That it’d lead to lethargy, nutritional deficiencies, and a depressed psyche? WRONG AGAIN!

Nutritional experts outline a healthy diet as one consisting of approximately 60% complex carbs, 20% lean proteins and 20% unsaturated fats. Please note that this goal can MORE than be achieved by BOTH meat and plant eaters. In fact, there are many vegetarian protein substances, such as quinoa, that are not only far more nutrient and protein-rich than meats and dairy products, but further are packed to the teeth with all eight essential amino acids (without all of those added nasty animal fats, hormones and god know what else, mind you)!

Now, I don’t know about you, but I personally believe in living in harmony with my body’s needs and it is for that reason and that reason ALONE that I made the switch to veganism. I don’t drink caffeine if I’m tired and I sure as fuck don’t believe in forcing myself to ingest human-created toxins in order to aid in the digestion of something that my body naturally wishes to reject. Further on the matter, the very thought of another hypothetical creature higher up on the food chain harvesting my eggs for a nice morning breakfast makes my stomach more than turn. It’s weird when you think about it isn’t it? The things that we’re eating…but I digress.

With all that said, I’d like to add one final caveat: let it be known that I’m NO health expert NOR am I in the business of trying to use “scare tactics” on any of you to make the switch to a lifestyle that I have chosen for myself. It’s YOUR body, eat what YOU want to! However, if you care about your health (which you should, without it, you’re really not much good to anyone, especially yourself), I highly recommend you read up or watch some docs on this stuff (those created NOT in association with any of the movers and shakers in the food business, most notably Monsanto). I know for me, it was more than I could stomach.

*Oh yeah, and if you’re on board with everything I’ve just overviewed, and the ONLY excuse you’ve got preventing you from “following your gut” in regard to making wiser food choices is that it’s too expense to go vegan and/or organic, I hate to break it to ya but you’re wrong AGAIN! Because organic vegan foods are so much more nutrient-rich than anything else on the market, you’ll find you’ll get full consuming SMALLER portions necessitating the purchasing of LESS food on a regular basis. I rest my case.*

RCP’s RECOMMENDED VIEWING LIST:
“Food Matters” (on Youtube)
“Food Inc.”
“Fast Food Nation”
“The Corporation”

RCP’s RECOMMENDED READING LIST:
“Skinny Bitch”
“Diet for a Small Planet”
“Politics in Healing”

Vol #2, Col #1: R.E.S.P.E.C.T., Find Out What it Means to Me

2011-01-18T21:16:00.001-08:00

I lived under a certain amount of fear as a child, and you know what? It was good for me. No, my parents weren’t cultists, militant drill-sergeant types, or abusive alcoholics (let me make clear I’m abundantly thankful for that). However, they did instill in me very early on that no transgression was without its consequences and nothing, no nothing, in life ever comes for free.

If I talked back, stayed out too late, or got into any of the typical mischief teenagers do, there were consequences to be paid. As for the ability to compromise/negotiate said punishments enacted against me? Let’s just say that ceased to exist! Further, if I wanted spending money for various recreational pursuits, it sure as shit wasn’t just handed to me on a silver platter. Rather, from the moment I was able to walk and talk, I contributed to the household chores; at the age of seven, I was practically my mom’s full-on secretary.

What I’m trying to express in probably too many words is quite simply this: my parents were AUTHORITY FIGURES and it was through them that I learned not just the difference between right and wrong, but moreover the concept of respect, especially as it pertains to your elders and other persons within our social hierarchy, such as teachers and police officers, who demand the same sort of treatment.

Well, I’m not sure who’s to blame – perhaps it was the upsurge of bad TV talkshows (and their over-the-top degenerate guests) hosted by the likes of Jerry Springer in the early 90s, or the repeated media-hyped moral panics surrounding corporal punishment and its supposed potential for backlash – but since the Babyboomer generation, I’ve observed a marked change in what is being doled out as the “recommended” strategies for effective parenting/ parent-child relationships…and in my view, it ain’t for the better!

I mean, these days, parenting is apparently all about “befriending” your children, and allowing THEM to practically designate THEIR own punishments (if any) as THEY see fit. Parents are being instructed to hear their children out and negotiate with them in terms of what’s fair discipline-wise, even if it’s indisputable their kids made some serious errors in judgment. But, the worst of it is that parents who fail to comply with this laissez-faire attitude and actually try to encourage obedience from their children can be taken to court for “infringing” on their kids’ rights. I’m sorry, but I can’t think of something more ridiculous, and here’s why:

As Piaget noted many moons ago, humans typically do not start to become capable of rational, mature adult-like (ie: “operational”) thought, a prerequisite to the full comprehension AND chosen adherence to society’s norms and mores, until they reach between seven and 11 years of age. Further, according to Kolhberg’s "Theory of Moral Development", the internalization of universal ethics, along with the establishment of a sense of personal responsibility is highly contingent on proper socialization, as well as both the reinforcement and punishment of appropriate and inappropriate actions; respectively. In other words, kids, lacking the complex cognition necessary to understand why things are right or wrong per se, instead base their actions purely on consequences. Therefore, if parents refuse to acknowledge their role as the primary disciplinarians/moral teachers in the lives of their children (primary as in both first and most impactful), how the hell can we expect kids to ever adhere to societal rules and regulations, let alone respect future authority figures who will inevitably enter their lives via school, the workplace, and just life in general?

Despite the current fashion’s insistence that “friending” your offspring is the way to go, it has long been established by development psychologists that the MOST effective of the four parenting styles is the form classified as “authoritative”. The perfect combination of nurturance and boundary-setting, authoritative parents “monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative,” (Baumrind, “The Influence of Parenting Style on Adolescent Competence and Substance Use“, Journal of Early Adolescence, 1991.)

The point I’m trying to get at is that, for one thing, there’s a reason why the Facebook group entitled, “If I Spoke to My Parents How Kids Talk Now a Days I'd Been Knocked Out!,” is so popular. The other point is this: can you name another 26-year-old who cried when issued her very first speeding ticket because she was so disappointed with herself for tainting her record of perfect law-abiding citizenship? Likely not.

I “get” parents wanting to be relatable to their children. Heck, I especially “get” parents wanting to try and minimize the potential for conflicts with their kin. But what I don’t get, and what you shouldn’t accept either is parenting WITHOUT a sense of discipline. There’s a wild epidemic out there spreading among many members of my own generation, along with the one that follows it, and that wild epidemic has been labelled quite concisely as “a sense of entitlement.” To the parents who “befriend” their children, all I’ve gotta say, is what the hell did you expect? As I wrote in my very first paragraph, nothing, indeed, nothing comes for free.

Vol #1, Col #14: Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?

2010-11-01T21:49:00.000-07:00

I was raised Roman Catholic, so trust me, I, of all people understand the true meaning of hypocrisy. But let me clarify: it’s NOT that Catholicism (or any religious/spiritual doctrine) in itself is a flawed belief system. Rather, it’s what people do in the name of religion that has given it a bad rep; akin to that smart expression regarding guns and people and who’s truly responsible for killing. With that said however, I wonder what’s worse? Believing in something so strongly that it causes you to make lapses in judgment and be discriminatory towards others OR not believing in anything at all? To me, it’s the latter.

Coming from someone who was once engaged to a nihilist with sociopathic and anarchist tendencies, trust me when I say it’s scary what you can justify when you subscribe philosophically to nothing at all. After all, without religion, without spirituality, without some sort of moral foundation, what is there to keep you in check? Even Freud, the grandfather of the discipline of psychology, acknowledged that ‘the super-ego’ (our mind’s moral policing device) is derived from the internationalization of societal mores, and norms, of which religion plays a major role in establishing.

But since the Age of the Enlightenment, rationality has ruled supreme. While everyone is so quick to point the finger at God as the downfall of humanity, I’d like you to consider science as an equipotent force in causing self- and societal destruction. Allow me to elaborate:

Originally undertaken as a project intended to solve the energy crisis through the advent of nuclear, we all know what happened when the technology of the good old Atom Bomb got into the hands of the military. Then, of course, there are the countless atrocious experiments performed on twins and other “lucky” guinea pigs under the Nazi regime; the results of which contributed greatly to our modern knowledge of genetics and genetic manipulation (what a proud history we have there!). But, if we want to predate both of the aforementioned “brilliant” (and I use that term extremely facetiously) usages of science, society’s named “progressive” and “objective” force, we needn’t look far back to our history of colonialism which was largely informed by Social Darwinian and eugenics policies that justified the extermination, mistreatment, and forced sterilization of a ridiculous number of people - the so-called “inferiors” (ie: anyone who was not a member of the dominant white class and/or anyone who was insightful enough to challenge said class’ weak “survival of the fittest” validations).

The point is that while admittedly some pretty awful acts have been committed in the name of religion (The Crusades and Witch Hunts come to mind, among others), the VERY SAME THING can be said about science! But what makes science that much more dangerous in this capacity is that while religion is perceived as socially constructed, subjective, relying on faith and therefore NOT having all of the answers, as well as open to interpretation (mind you, unless we’re talking about the Fundamentalists, but they go into a category of their own), science, on the other hand, is given ULTIMATE UNQUESTIONED (moreover to use a religious pun, “infallible”) AUTHORITY in contemporary society. As explained in Bereska’s Deviance, Conformity & Social Control in Canada, “science is seen by many people as a purely objective discipline such that its claims to truth are frequently considered unaffected by political, religious, or commercial interests.”

Given that scientific pursuits are increasingly being funded by “big corporate”, I’d say this is particularly problematic. In fact a recent study, in Fast-tracking the Plague: Drugging America to Death, documented that, “96% of [scientific] authors with ties to pharmaceutical companies produced favourable results, while only 37% of independently funded studies of the SAME DRUGS showed favourable results.” I think I’ll let that quote speak for itself.

At the end of the day, it comes down to this – science AND religion are both merely belief systems. One is no more important, objective, free from partisanship, or truthful than the other (this, of course, opens the proverbial can of worms for an entire debate on exactly what is truth, but I guess you’ll all just have to wait ‘til next year for that dousy).

While science and its associated technologies undoubtedly has its merits, on its own, I question whether or not it is able to provide our citizens with the moral compasses we need and should be embracing when it comes to living our lives. You can call me old-fashioned but, I sincerely believe the world would be a much better place if we all learned to adopt the Ten Commandments as universal rules of how we should treat one another.

To that I add only one caveat: while I self-identify as a Christian, I would NEVER infringe my personal religious beliefs onto another person, and so while the first of the said Commandments suggest that there is only one God and that he/she/it is to be honoured solely, I suggest to all of you non-religious folk to read between the lines of this expression (ie: it’s about acknowledging the fact that there are forces over and above human nature, and that those forces, along with our fellow man and womankind deserve to be acknowledged and honoured even if we can’t always understand them. In sum, don’t lead a selfish solipsistic existence.) Amen to that.

Vol #1, Col #13: You Can’t Handle the Truth

2010-11-01T19:27:00.000-07:00

I think things must have been easier in the Wild West. If you had a beef with someone, you called a duel, and whoever could pull their gun out of their holster with superior lightening speed well…problem resolved. But it wasn’t merely this method of “social control” that proved more effective (and straight to the point, I might add), but further the nature of the conflicts that emerged between people seemed to be largely based on more “tangible” concerns (ie: limited resources, whether in the form of food, water, territory and/or women).

In contrast, these days, and I propose it’s because we, as North Americans, have SO much (tell me when’s the last time you worried about whether or not you’d be able to find drinking water untouched by arsenic? Oh right, such a thing has never occurred in your lifetime!), we CREATE conflicts and social categories intended to enhance divisiveness (something I like to term “human-made drama”), that in reality don’t have very strong feet to stand on (sound familiar? 9/11 perhaps?).

A more down-to-earth example can be seen in the case of “internet flame wars.” I mean, honestly, can someone please explain to me the purpose of such juvenility, let alone the cause? As always, an instance from my very own life proves illustrative -- don’t you love it when real life serves as inspiration? I know I do! So here goes:

For absolutely no reason and without any provocation on my end, just the other day, some random chick posted up big and bold for the whole world to see, that she apparently hates me, in her Facebook headline (something I only learned about because it would seem we have some mutual acquaintances). Seeing as I’ve NEVER met NOR conversed with this individual in my entire life, I find it hard to believe that she could harbour such strong emotions toward me. I don’t know…maybe I’m crazy, but I am selective when I use said term, and you best believe that if/when I do employ “hate”, it’s for good (pardon my French) f-ing reason.

I guess I’m just of the belief that if someone has a grievance, they should have “the balls” to confront the other person to their face. (Talking trash behind peoples’ backs is underhanded and vicious. More importantly though, it also fails to solve anything! Oh yeah, and for those of you who think this is the more “polite” approach, I hate to break it to ya, quite the opposite is true.) Not only would this, I’m sure, prevent a whole hell of a lot of long drawn-out affairs that arise entirely from miscommunication (ie: it would give “the accused” an opportunity to explain him/herself), but further it is the respectful and mature way to broach said situations.

Perhaps my “flamer” was having an exceptionally bad day, but rather than host an introspective investigation into her own psyche in order to ascertain the underlying cause(s), she decided to project her negativity onto me to scapegoat any sense of personal responsibility. Or maybe…more simply, her actions were fuelled by jealously? In either scenario, I maintain that her animosity in my general direction was and remains unjustified.

There are a lot of individuals out there, in both the real world and cyberspace, with whom I don’t particularly mesh well (to put it lightly), but I don’t have the time nor do I wish to waste the emotion on creating hate postings. For what purpose? To put someone else down so that temporarily I can feel grandiose? I’d like to take this moment to send a personal message to my flamer: If the only vehicle through which you are able to develop a sense of confidence and self-worth is by putting others down, then my darling, you’ve got bigger problems than just me. But I digress…

To bring everything full circle, what this story so aptly demonstrates is contemporary humankind’s obsession with negativity (and yes it is an obsession, NOT a natural inclination - as they say, happiness is a CHOICE). Because we no longer have to direct the vast majority of our intellectual and physical faculties into acquiring the bare necessities of life, we have time for gossip, we have time for “flame wars”, we have time to bully – all instances of “human-made drama”.

We have forgotten that every word, every action, and even every thought that we put out there affects others. We have become so caught up in our own selfish individual existences that we tear each other down, without giving it a second thought, just to get ahead. We care about our lives now, instead of planning for the future. We externalize our desires, and blame everyone else for our failings. So, is money then the root of all evil? No, money is merely a medium of transaction. As for the aforementioned negative and obsessive line of thinking? Yeah, I’d say so. The truth hurts. Deal with it.

Modern society’s issues are indisputably human-made, but in the ever-so-slightly paraphrased words of Jason Mraz, “The remedy is [in] the experience.” We can AND should learn from our mistakes. And while I may be undertaking a “dangerous liaison” by pointing all of this out, “the truth” as another famous quote suggests, “will set you free.”

Vol #1, Col #12: One Pill Makes you Larger, One Pill makes you Small, And the Ones that the Doctors Give you?

2010-08-30T18:42:00.000-07:00

Too fat? Too thin? Too stressed? Too lethargic? Too happy? Too sad? Too moody? Too mellow? Irrespective of your problem, society’s got a cure…at least that’s what the “medicalization model” tells us (ie: there’s a drug for everything).

While I’d be a fool to argue that all advances in health care technology are bad (ie: we’d still be suffering from outbreaks of scurvy and the bubonic plague without ‘em!), there’s something to be said about modern society’s obsession with the “quick fix” and the medical community’s response, “well, we’ll devise a diagnoses and just invent another drug for that.” I’d even go so far as to argue (as controversial as it may seem) that some of these so-called diseases that have reached recent scary degrees of prevalence have quite frankly been made up. Take ADHD, for example.

While I’m sure that there exists out there some people who truly have been/are afflicted with what was once known as “hyperkinesis” (perhaps due to brain circuitry differences), its rate of diagnosis in contemporary society has reached such epidemic proportions that it has made me seriously question exactly what it is we are trying to “drug” and therefore control (after all that is the purpose of medicalization, ie: social control).

Last time I checked, childhood was a time of innocence. Moreover, running about, getting into mischief, having seemingly endless energy, in my view, during one’s formative years is quite “normal”; after all, said time in one’s life is characterized by a lack of responsibility (we should savour that while we can!). And yet, somehow we’ve convinced ourselves that children who possess these traits are acting up, and are problematic to deal with. Well, if children do have excessive amounts of energy, problems maintaining focus, and/or are not responding to authority figures as well as they used to, I’d like to propose it’s not because of any kind of “new” psychological disorder. No, it’s because of the structure of modern society itself. Allow me to explain:

It’s virtually impossible, these days, for a couple to substantiate themselves with one only partner working (Moreover, society’s obsession with material accumulation forces many of us into positions we don’t truly find fulfilling just so we can earn a quick buck in order to retire sooner). Therefore, you end up with situations wherein if a couple has kids, parental supervision is limited. This is commonly dealt with via one or two means: 1) the children are left to be raised by the tv, their video games, and computer systems or 2) the parents outsource the task of raising their kids to daycare services and/or babysitters. In either case, the kid’s real folks well, because they can’t be around as much as they’d like, feel guilty and so they try to “befriend” their children. The result? A generation who has no respect for authority figures. You may think it’s harsh of me to say, but it is a good thing for children to live under a certain amount of fear. Trust me (and no that is NOT a statement in support of child abuse, don’t put words in my mouth).

Further adding to this dilemma, as discussed last week, is the over-processed and questionable foodstuff that the vast majority of us are consuming. Think about it – is it really so shocking that children have an excess in energy when everything you’re feeding them is full of sugar, hormones, additives, and god knows what else?

Finally, because parents are so busy trying to make ends meet, kids aren’t participating in active recreational activities to the same degree they used to. Instead of being out there in the sunshine kicking the can, playing ball, or even skipping double dutch – pastimes that at one point were rather common – instead they’d rather remain IV-ed to their video games, and television screens for their taste of entertainment. And seriously, we wonder why they have so much energy?

Hmm…makes perfect sense to me: lack of adequate supervision/discipline + unhealthy sugar-filled foods + the inability to expend one’s vigor? What do you get? Apparently ADHD!

That’s the thing with the “medicalization model” though. Instead of acknowledging that perhaps there’s a problem with the way in which society is structured, it takes all pathology right back down to the individual level. What few people realize is that the “discovery” of the above mentioned so-called “psychological” disorder now found so commonly among our youth, coincided with both a growing interest in child psychiatry and the pharmaceutical revolution. Still convinced it’s real? I don’t know, personally I’d like to see kids just be allowed to be kids for Christ sake, but that’s just me!

While modern medicine has allowed us to control and monitor the severity of physical ailments (something that I agree is uber-beneficial and in many cases, “life saving”), because we’ve now gotten a handle on said conditions, we’ve become increasingly focused on attempting to do the same thing with psychological maladies. The problem with this, of course, is that even neurologists, who specialize in the field, admit that there is still a great deal UNKNOWN about the brain and its functions. Further, in societies like North America, where we have EVERYTHING (ie: access to the basics like fresh water, food, education, work etc., not to mention a shitload of other unnecessary luxuries), the diagnosis of psychological disorders is disproportionately concentrated.

Maybe if we started making more informed decisions about our lives, and reworked our definitions of health to mean “optimal functioning” as opposed to “symptom-free, but on your third double double of the day” (well, and your second helpng of Advil to ward off the inevitable migraine that will coincide with your caffeine crash), maybe, just maybe we’d start to see where we’re going wrong. In sum, call me crazy, but it seems to me, that we CREATE as many diseases and disorders, these days, as we CURE.

I remember being a high energy obnoxious little brat of a kid. Guess what my parents did to counteract that? I was in every sport imaginable, my tv viewing was rationed depending upon the chores I completed each day, and I certainly wasn’t chugging down Pepsi or Coca Cola by the freakin’ case. I think I turned out quite fine if I do say so myself, and no believe it or not, I was never put on Ritalin.

Vol #1, Col #11: Domestic Bliss & the Glory of Food

2010-08-15T19:16:00.000-07:00

I remember a few years back when I attended the orientation for my current post-secondary institute. The mother of someone who was to become one of my future classmates raised her hand in a frenzy to ask one of the coordinators who she could possibly pay to do her child’s laundry? I sat there astonished – uncertain as to whether I should be laughing or shaking my head in shame for the single reason that her kid was so ill-equipped for life, in his late teen years, that he didn’t even know when to use the spin or rinse cycle. My conclusion – that’s likely the least of his problems! This whole episode got me thinking…

While I could have simply written off this poor woman and her highly sheltered (moreover coddled) son as an anomaly, I started to look around. I realized what a rare thing in fact it was (and still is) to come across someone my age who is skilled in “the domestic arts” (and yes, they do constitute an art form of their own). But it’s NOT just people my age either – when it comes to good old fashioned home-cooking, making one’s house spick and span, or completing one’s own handiwork, it seems that most of us opt for the most “convenient” route, which when it comes to the latter of the two tasks involves the hiring of hands, instead of getting one’s own dirty. The consequence? Well, aside from spending unnecessary dollars, because these skills no longer occupy a place in our hearts (or minds) in which they are considered “essential” and therefore merit transmission among the generations, we, as a society, have become increasingly dependent upon one another for menial labour (read: increasingly de-skilled), and we all know who gets shafted with said ill-paying and undesirable jobs (no it ain’t us Ivy League grads, that’s for sure).

More than this however, when it comes to the “art of cooking”, in specific, I mean I’m not really surprised by the exorbitant amount of people knocking off from heart attacks, liver damage, or the like considering the crap (and yes, I said it bluntly) that most of us are consuming (and I’m not just talking the root of all evil here; that being the “fast-food” empire). God knows what the hell that neon orange powder labelled as “cheese mix” in a certain major corporation’s attempt at macaroni actually is, not to mention all of the additives that are, well “added” to our food, and/or all of the genetic tinkering that is going on. Frankly, just for pure “sanitary” reasons, I’d much rather make things from scratch (see the movie, Fast Food Nation, and I can almost guarantee unless you’ve got a real hardy stomach that you’ll seriously think twice about ordering in, eating out, and frankly just buying “ground-up” products in general from now on!).

Aside from how much our food processing and manufacturing has changed (oh the days before factory farming existed, I miss good ole’ Ma and Pa on their ranch, how ‘bout you?), along with our increased access to products that at one point were relegated to specific seasons and/or geographic terrains (thanks to globalization, we can now enjoy any fruit items we desire all year around, but one has to wonder how much pesticides, hormones, and whatever the hell else they’re putting in there for “freshness” you’re ingesting in the process), in my view it seems that our love of consumption (food that is, we’re all good when it comes to buying unnecessary materialistic items like Ipods and I say that as a musician!) has dwindled significantly. I mean whatever happened to the art of enjoying not just the meal itself, but the act of preparation? Why is it considered odd that I spend on average two hours a night making myself quite the lovely feast (well I am Italian, it comes with the territory!)? If you’re going to spend money on anything, shouldn’t your health top that list? Shouldn’t you care what you’re taking in as a source of nourishment and accordingly, take pride in making the necessary task of replenishment an enjoyable one? I don’t know, this all seems like common sense to me.

Undoubtedly, there’s a lot of misinformation (and blatant attempts at brainwashing for that matter) out there regarding making “healthier” eating choices. In fact, just the other day, I had a friend, who has never exactly been what I would call a striking example of someone who’s at the top of their game health-wise, actually try to convince me that there is NO difference between organic and factory-farmed produce, and that it’s all just media hype. Well I can tell you all in sincerity, that since I’ve gone organic and vegan, I have never felt or looked better – I’d say that’s pretty hard evidence to argue, but I’m not here to pick hairs (well I am, but not his!).

The point. The point. Yes I’m getting there. I guess I just find it rather illogical that so many people claim that the reason as to why they rely on those barely edible and highly questionable concoctions known as “microwave dinners” as their regular source of fuel (along with why they also don’t attempt to exercise, or leave their house really unless absolutely necessary) is that they just don’t have the time. It’s ALWAYS about time! Well, time in itself is a socially created concept (we don’t have “time”, as it were, to go there). Sure, the sun rises, the sun falls, people age, but this whole 24 hour clock business – it doesn’t exist in every culture.

**Moreover, the ironic part of this whole “time excuse” is that likely in the long run if people were to spend MORE time NOW investing into their health, they’d have MORE time OVERALL in their lives, thereby making this whole rushing about business to get everything accomplished within a limited timeframe rather pointless, and kinda humorous when you look at it purely as an observer.**

Ah, but this “time excuse” as I’ve just described hinges on a much deeper and more profound issue in contemporary life, and that my friends is our focus on retroactive thinking, as opposed to planning for the future wisely.

Whether it’s in regards to one’s health, social policy, environmental legislation, or even manufacturing protocol, it’s always about what will benefit us NOW at the cheapest cost and via the most efficient route. And we wonder why we are now paying for problems that were predicted centuries ago? Damn retroactive thinking – gets ya like a bitch every time. Perhaps that’s enough food for thought this week.

Vol #1, Col #10: It's in the Clothes We Wear & The Cars We Drive

2010-06-16T10:56:00.001-07:00

While I’m no Aimee Brothman (Fanshawe's very own resident fashionista; for those of you who don’t follow her weekly style guide, you should!), I would like to think that I keep a pretty good pulse on what’s in “vogue”. Though admittedly I love my leather and denim, there’s a reason as to why designers consistently look to the past for inspiration, and why “retro”, as it were, has never gone out of style. Whether we’re talking Victorian corsets, pin-up bangs, silverscreen makeup and glamour, or 70s flair, all of these trends have and will continue to be revived (albeit with innovations and/or extensions) because they’re distinctive, original, and timeless in their constitution; rarely can the same be said about purely modern “crazes”. This assertion, however, extends well beyond the red carpet. Design-wise, things of the past had a lot more “personality”. Not only that, they were also far more durable. Perhaps an example would prove illustrative:

I’ve got this horribly ugly (well quite frankly, “fugly”, see the photo - I wasn't lying) bright neon orange hairdryer quite literally from the 1970s (it was my ma’s) manufactured by Gilette (at one time, there were known for more than just their razor blades). One of my girlfriends, on the other hand, insists on always acquiring the newest and latest in personal adornment devices, and so the other day picked herself up a brand spanking new supposedly “high quality” hairdryer. No joke, within a week, it stopped working and she had to get into this big song and dance with the manager at the store where she purchased it in order to try and get a refund, or at the least, exchange it for one of equal value (hopefully a more reliable model!). Funnily enough, this friend of mine, on several occasions, has outrightly refused to use my hairdryer on her locks, and in fact, makes fun of it quite regularly.

Ah, but you see, it may be ugly, but guess what? It works! It has worked for 30+ years, and with any luck, it’ll work for 30 more, and that my friends, is this week’s thought- provoking topic: how and why is it that we live in a world that supposedly is geared towards making things bigger, better, faster, more efficient, more convenient etc. etc. (you know all of those “tag” words big business likes to tote when promoting its products), and yet our products constantly break down, malfunction, “go on the fritz”, are recalled, and for that matter, are NEVER easily repaired?! In fact, many a time (especially when it comes to electronics), I’ve been told straight-up by sales associates that it would be cheaper and faster for me simply to just buy a new one.

But I, unlike so many, DON'T want to contribute to this idea of “consumption as waste”. I want to wear my jeans until the threads quite literally tear away from their seams and cannot be sewn back into place. I want to be able to drop my cell phone repeatedly, by accident, perhaps even put it in the dryer, and have it still work. I want to easily be able to acquire necessary upgrades for my computer, without having to purchase an entirely new machine. I want to know that when a company says it’s recycling, it ACTUALLY IS. Why you ask? Because what few people are aware of is that our waste – North America’s and the rest of the Western world’s – ends up in third world countries where migrant workers NOT protected by health, human rights, or sanitation policies, tear apart our items bare-handed in order to salvage whatever they can to make a quick buck (poverty leads to desperation). The consequence? Rampant outbreaks in disease resulting from exposure to toxic metals and chemicals that we put into our devices and other wastes in order to improve so-called “efficiency”…among other things.

The point I’m trying to make is that I look back fondly on a world that once admired Art Deco, instead of mass-manufactured (and cheaply made, well it’s all outsourced labour, come on) Ikea, where cars were made out of metal and built to last (get yourself a ’88 Chevy Conversion Van like I’ve got for touring, and you’ll get what I mean, she’s a beast!), where people held wardrobe swapping parties, and where when you bought something, because high quality items were rare and super-expensive, you valued those items, and so you made damn sure you were getting everything you could out of that sucker, before it was gonna bite the dust. I still very much live in that mentality.

I don’t care if I can get a Blackberry for $30 if I sign a three year contract nowadays, versus paying several hundred to acquire a cellphone the size of a brick in the 80s, the point is I want QUALITY, I want DURABILITY, and I want VALUE. Not only that, I want something to be more than just a commodity to me – I want aesthetic appeal. I want my possessions to speak to who I am, as a person. Come on you’re gonna tell me a 2010 Honda Civic is a hotter looking car than a 77’ Trans Am Firebird? No, I didn’t think so. Quite the same logic can be applied to something as basic as the difference in design between a modern day baby stroller and a 1950s perambulator.

Design was once about craftsmanship: making something truly unique, and priceless, in my view. Moreover said tasks were labour-intensive, and accordingly, products were built to “stand the test of time.” Contemporaneously, while we make wild claims that things are better – that society has “progressed” – I wonder, can you give me any logical reason as to why my 1970s hairdryer still rocks it like it’s no one’s business, but my girlfriend’s was pooched after just a few uses? I assure you it has NOTHING to do with how we care for our possessions, as for that matter, I’m rough on everything I love. Further, I’ve got thicker hair than her (in case you were wondering)!

I don’t know, maybe it just comes down to the simple fact that people don’t take pride in their work anymore – the poor quality speaks for itself. But that would lead to a whole discussion on Marxist’s definition of “worker and workplace alienation”; something, unfortunately, we don’t have time for.

Vol #1, Col #9: Rec Daze

2010-05-30T21:12:00.000-07:00

I don’t know if it’s just me, this city, the schizophrenic weather as of late, or maybe for once I’m on to something, but in the limited free time that I do have, it really seems like there’s a lack of genuinely interesting things to do! I mean if you don’t get wasted, and aren’t looking to pick up some tail, what sort of activities are left for a gal to choose from?

The mall as a hangout? Well, that went out of style once I surpassed my designation as a “teen” (or really a “tween” by today’s standards). A movie? Frankly, with the exorbitant amount of cash they charge to watch something on the big screen, I’d rather sit in the comfort of my own home, rocking my flannels with vegan-friendly and healthful foods at hand to munch on, while viewing a flick. A concert? Don’t even get me started on the limited musical revues one can attend these days. Dinner? See the above vegan comments (we don’t have many restaurants appealing to picky eaters such as myself, and the ones we do have, well been there, done that). Perhaps the theatre? If it ain’t off-broadway in NYC, or at the very least a Stratford Shakespearean production, you can count me out. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – they just don’t make em (and by that I mean really anything AND everything) like they used to.

Long ago are the days where communities hosted large-scale dances, meet and greets, and community-oriented affairs just so their youth could have something to do (and well, to keep em out of trouble... It’s easier to police for juvenile delinquency when everyone’s gathered in the same place!). Even when London does get a festival going down in Vic Park, let’s be honest, there’s a pretty limited demographic that said events typically appeal to (and are INTENDED to appeal to). YET, you’ll notice pretty much everyone in the city comes out of their hovels to gather downtown because it’s SOMETHING (who cares what?! We’re so desperate for entertainment) to temporarily fill us with amusement.

I guess I’d just really like the opportunity to be able to attend a Beat poetry reading, a meditation/drum circle, a magic show, a philosophical debate and/or consciousness-raising seminar, a really emotional jazz performance, or a jump, jive, and wailing dance-off, if I felt so inclined ANY day of the week, not just as part of a special limited time offer sort of deal. A little maypole twirling never hurt anyone either! I’m not saying these things don’t exist altogether, but they are few and far between, and typically they tend to remain on the down-lo (read as: they’re poorly attended beyond the host’s family members, if at all). I mean even just having a genuine old-school 50s diner with a dance-floor, jukeboxes, roller-skating waitresses and all, (Why they ever closed down The Five & Dime is beyond me, it was ALWAYS busy!?) to congregate at with some of my closest pals would be an improvement. There are only so many times I can go out and sing karaoke.

What I’m trying to get at here is that (at least for kids my age) it’s not just the lack of venues offering such forms of entertainment, it’s also the people. We’ve changed. As my anti-technology discussion alluded to last week, it seemsthat there are really only two extremes:

1) you’re a shut-in who’d rather establish online penpal relationships than step out into the real world (god forbid! I know it can be a scary place, but come on people)

OR

2) you’re a sex-crazed party animal which is equally non-conducive to the aforementioned activities in which I’d like to partake.

Is it wrong that I fantasize sometimes about being swept away into a 1950s highschool romcom where all the girls get ready collectively in their Sunday’s Best to wow the boys at the Sadie Hawkins’ dance? Is it weird that I crave attending dress-up theme parties in the vein of full-on masquerades where everyone actually dresses up (and enjoys doing so, I might add)? What about storming off with a gang of 20 compadres to take over the local drive-in movie theatre, go on a crazy road-trip wherein you only make left-hand turns, or spend a day playing beach volleyball? Even hippie festivals like Woodstock far outdo the ones we try to host these days in terms of music, connectivity with others, the overall atmosphere, and quite plainly, as recreational pursuits.

Not to sound like a broken record, but again I really think the changes in what we value, then versus now, have played a considerable role. To think many people don’t actually celebrate their honeymoons or that foreign business dealings are often akin to vacations – I don’t know, it seems rather weird, moreover sad, to me. You work hard. You earn your money. Hopefully you achieve both doing what you love. But if you don’t, it’s even more essential that you value and get all that you can out of your much deserved R&R time. I mean money? You can’t take that to the grave with you. Memories? You and those involved most certainly will.

But no, instead the all-too-commonly embraced form of entertainment/social engagement is getting trashed to the point of temporary amnesia. Given what I’ve just said, don’t you see how this is rather counterproductive? But again, we gotta ask ourselves, what is it that is so wrong with our contemporary world that it causes people to want to engage in mind-numbing and mind-erasing activities as a form of leisure? Substance abuse, admittedly, is as old as humankind itself, but at one point it was primarily associated with religious rites and spirituality, as opposed to constituting the ideal form of escapism and social revelry.

While I would never opt for reviving the days of the Middle Ages where the ‘thing to do’ was watch criminals get tried, and tortured, I would like to see a bit more variety (not to mention more of a focus on “cultural and perceptual expansion”) in the typical recreational itinerary of us future leaders. Medieval Revival Fayre anyone? Come on, there’s gotta be someone out there too who believes that fun can be had without alcohol, stingy nightclubs, and clothing (if you can even call it that) that I affectionately term “slutwear” and “napkins”.

Vol #1, Col #8: From God to Goods: In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Almighty Dollar

2010-04-20T23:53:00.000-07:00

Everything sounds good in theory. Take communism for example: a utopian vision wherein social hierarchies and disparities in wealth cease to exist, where education is free and accessible to everyone, where all occupations are valued and considered essential to the successful functioning of the community... In application? Well, the fall of the Soviet Union – yeah, enough said. The same logic however, in my view, can equally be applied to communism’s economic converse; that of corporate capitalism also known as the chief commandment (if you will) by which modern society is run.

Central to its implementation has been a move towards stressful city-living, the separation of church and state, as well as an increased emphasis on efficiency, and "rationalization". For all of the social well-being that the latter economic system has brought forth (ingenuous entrepreneurialism for starters!), a lot of not-so-good by-products have too come hand-in-hand (the privatization of essential resources, exploitation of third world workers, and striking global differences in production, consumption, and profiting patterns are just a few off the top of my head). Importantly, from my perspective however, it is capitalism’s infiltration of our value system which has proven to be the most detrimental.

Accumulation, accumulation, and oh did I mention? ACCUMULATION! This has become the purpose of life for many. Whether it’s cars, lovers, gadgets and gizmos, or that funny inked paper to which we accord arbitrary value, it is a rare occasion that you come across (at least it is for me) others who simply pursue careers for the love of them.It’s all a means to an end – a way to earn dollars so that you can eventually (when you’re well into your senior years) partake in the activities you actually want to (if you’re still physically capable), and then, well…you die. Doesn’t sound like much of a plan to me! I mean, wouldn’t you rather be doing what you love all along? For that matter, considering how much of our lives we devote to the toils of our daily labour, shouldn’t we at least derive some pleasure and personal satisfaction/fulfillment from the tasks in which we’re engaged? Shouldn’t we be able to see and enjoy the fruits of our own labour? Ah, but my friends, there in lines the problem: not all occupations are equally valued in society, and further we have created technologies to replace so-called inefficient “manpower”. Therefore, we are all eventually confronted with the fact that we must “settle”, at least in terms of the economic aspect of our lives.

Even more troubling however is the fact that this model of living (more like “existing”) is cyclical in nature: you can NEVER have enough, and there’s ALWAYS something bigger and better that’s just been created waiting for you, and you can have it all (so they tell us) if only you just work hard enough to save up those pennies and dimes. The reality, of course, is that many of us are living paycheck-to-paycheck, despite the free market claims that this sort of system ensures a more level playing field.

But, above and beyond all of this, my biggest beef with capitalism is that it has taught us to externalize our desires, so when we’re depressed, we buy something new and fancy or go out for a five star meal to try and throw our troubles away. It’s never about NEEDS, only WANTS – wants created by a market that is by legal obligation purposed to drive up profits. In effect, this system has made us forget that happiness is a conscious choice – a state of mind derived from internal self-actualization; something that can only be accomplished through introspection, a task that the capitalist system distracts many from ever pursuing.

A secondary quibble I’ve got with the “big C” is its alienating capacity: not only are workers lacking personal investment in their tasks, but further, our relationships with each other have largely become based around a model of ‘goods exchange’ (the what can you do for me mentality?). Perhaps because we don’t really value our own contributions (it’s not like we’re planting and harvesting our own crops on the family farm anymore), those of others seem negligible as well. Transactions (and therefore relationships), in the modern view, are designed to be as fast, painless, and efficient as possible (I myself find the barter and trade systems still practised in some nations quite charming – nobody takes more than they personally require and value is negotiable – but maybe that’s just me). We get irritated when we have to wait in line, or when a new employee is receiving training. We’ve gotten so caught up in this go-go-go lifestyle that if a wrench gets thrown into the works, our whole day gets ruined. In essence, we’ve come to value and emphasize the wrong things (tell me, how often do you actually stop and smell the roses?), and I don’t think I need to mention any of the horror stories that have resulted purely over “money wars”.

When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, humans really only require food, water, shelter, and a mate for survival. As much as I’m sure you’d all love to consider your flatscreen TVs and Ipods necessities of living – I hate to break it to ya, but that ain’t reality.

While I’m not so naïve as to believe (though a gal can dream can’t she?) that a complete overhaul of our economic system is in order anytime soon, I would like to propose that we find a way to re-harmonize our lives, in the meantime. While it’s only a small part of the equation, I do believe a good starting point is the adoption of some sort of alternative (alternative to the heralding of ‘cash as king’) belief system.

Whether it be religious, spiritual, or philosophical in orientation, I think humans, as a species, need to get back to a place where life directives are driven by a defined moral code, as opposed to the plan of action that will prove most lucrative. We need to take a moment each day away from our quests for cash to thank the universe for all that has been bestowed upon us. After all what good is money if you’re not in adequate health to spend it?

Most importantly however, we need to get back to a place where when times are rough, we have something deeper to turn to, someone (or some being) to pray to or ask for guidance and strength, something to give us a sense of hope when nothing seems to be going our way. Despite living in the Western world – the end of the globe that seemingly has everything – the prevalence of mental illness is higher here than anywhere else, leaving me to rightly conclude that something is seriously wrong with this picture. In sum, this week’s lesson: materialism is fleeting.

Vol #1, Col #7: Electronic HandShaking & the Technological Divide: More than Just Smoother Business Practise

2010-04-09T21:32:00.000-07:00

The term “net” implies a device of capture and/or constriction that possesses enveloping properties. When used in reference to that little old invention known by html hypertext coders as the world wide web (www, for short), this is a rather apt analogy considering that few of us can live without it, and online addiction isn’t as rare as one may think. For that matter, I’m sure many of you can’t even begin to recall a time in your lives when the internet did NOT exist (though I still remember the days of typewriters, word processing and Ataris – shut up, I know I’m getting up there!) – when you weren’t able to conduct all of your research for school projects via the web, when you couldn’t maintain long distance friendships/relationships without racking up the phone bill, when you couldn’t check the status of your bank account(s) from the convenience of your living room sofa, when you couldn’t find out about the latest fashions and pop culture from around the globe, without having to ‘leave on a jet plane’ (as they say). The advent of the internet has literally changed lives – there are no two ways around it – but whether its life changing properties are for the better or worse is still largely up for debate.

Like any ground-breaking innovation, it too has some serious downfalls: the commodification/de-valuation of music and consequent stealing of tracks (a phenomenon to which I personally relate and to which I’m strongly opposed) merely scratches the tip of the iceberg. Child porn rings, white supremacist message boards, organized crime solicitation, online instructions for bomb and drug manufacture, pro-anorexia websites, and services to aid in eliciting extramarital affairs are just some of the web’s more “fantastic” (note the sarcasm) offerings. But with that said, all of this stuff already existed in the REAL world. It wasn’t that the web corrupted humans. Rather, it merely has served as a MEDIUM through which our corruption has become concentrated.

While I would never discount that the “digital web revolution” has aided tremendously in terms of conducting business (for that matter, much of my own entrepreneurial efforts would not be feasible economically if it weren’t for email) and has led to a more international perspective in terms of world issues among the general populus, when it comes to the business of personal relations, I gotta tell you, I maintain a vastly different view.To me, in the age of globalization and technological advance where academics and suits alike postulate the “interconnectedness” of our globe, it would seem, in fact, that we’re more disconnected than ever before.As knowledge of each other, different cultures, and “the underground” has become increasingly more accessible (albeit still highly oriented around the perpetuation of stereotypes), our relationships have moved into progressively more superficial terrain.

Case and point: I was recently “dating” (if you can even call it that) a gentleman who refused to pick up the phone in order to have an actual conversation with me. He’d spend hours texting me and then several more hours apologizing for the miscommunication and arguments that resulted because of texting’s limited capacity to capture the emotion and intention behind one’s words (when you’re a sarcastic bastard like myself, this is particularly difficult to convey). Yet, he couldn’t seem to understand why perhaps actually speaking may be more suitable in this scenario. His excuse was that texting was more “convenient” for him, allowing him to engage in a multitude of other activities, while socializing. Like any woman with self-respect, I read this (both literally and figuratively) as essentially his desire to half-ass a so-called “relationship”. Suffice it to say, it was short-lived. I’m not here on anyone’s convenience and as “old-fashioned” (pardon the pun) as it may sound, I’m NOT actually capable of forming a deep emotional bond with someone merely by reading words on a screen. I don’t know – in-person engagement, hearing a person’s voice, and experiencing them in a three-dimensional capacity tends to work a little better (but only just a little, of course, again note the sarcasm) – but, maybe that’s just me?

It is of my humble opinion that our technological OVERstimulation has led to intellectual AND importantly, emotional UNDER-stimulation as we battle to attend to everything at once, but NOTHING in its entirety. Everything is now seen as “fleeting” or “transient”, and we can establish intense passionate love affairs as quickly as we can end them. In sum, we’ve somehow managed to convince ourselves that wishing one of our so-called “friends” ‘Happy Birthday’ via Facebook upon receiving notification that it is so and so’s special day makes up for the fact that the other 364 days a year this person’s existence remains unacknowledged in our lives.

Then there are some – more extreme tech supporters we’ll call em - who would rather be immersed to such a degree in a virtual made-up world that they’ve gone to the extent of creating fake profiles, fake bank accounts, and yes, you've got it, fake relationships via “interactive” (and I use that term loosely) programs such as SecondLife, to which membership does not come cheap. One needs to ask themselves what is wrong with society when people would rather formulate and maintain their identities and interactions through a computer screen, than actually endeavour to intermingle the good old-fashioned way?!

If you don’t want to take my word for it that the net has led to the above-described “social ill”, I hate to break it to ya, but the social scientific research is in my favour. As I recently learned in my Sociology of Deviance class, hardcore net fanatics and individuals who were raised in “wired” families tend to socialize less (and when they do, it is within smaller social circles), suffer from increased loneliness and depression and often lack a strong sense of personal identity (the net leads to a phenomenon known as “de-individuation”).

It is built within our genetic and evolutionary codes that humans are a social species – we are naturally compelled to flock together with like-others. In this way, the idea of the “technological divide” can not only be applied to differences in accessibility and use based on socioeconomic and demographic factors, but moreover said term can be used to designate how social relations have become significantly altered as a result of the net’s introduction.

Like any major change enacted upon society, characteristically there are those who are pro and those who maintain firm positions of staunch opposition. Call me a Luddite if you will, but I look back fondly on the days where conversing meant talking in-person not through MSN, cultural education involved the incorporation of ethnographic methods and phones had not yet transmutated into all-inclusive entertainment units equipped with their very own home recording and playback devices.

Vol #1, Col #6: You Say You Wanna Revolution? Well You Know, Then Start Doing What YOU Can!

2010-03-29T20:50:00.000-07:00

If the 50s embraced traditionalism, the zeitgeist of the 60s was one of revolution, and those growing up during the 70s were characterized as belonging to the “me generation”, then the children, such as myself, who came into their own throughout the painted-faced hair metal and Nirvana decades comprise the most apathetic cohorts, to date. We bitch and bitch and bitch about how hard we’ve got it, and how much is wrong with the world, yet very few of us actually endeavour to engage in collective action in order to make a difference. As we all know from the not-so-far off “swinging 60s”, while all revolutions originate with a mere single voice, they require the support of many; otherwise they bubble and fizzle away.

This is precisely our problem: I believe there are progressive forward-thinking individuals out there the same as there have always been, but because of the structure of modern society, along with the values we promote, people our age are less apt to even bother voting, let alone take part in a countercultural movement as controversial as let’s say the anti-Vietnamers known as “The Weatherman”. In my view, this “blah” indifferent mentality stems from a combination of the following factors:

#1: A SOCIETAL FOCUS ON EXCESSIVE INDIVIDUALISM
Ah, “The (North) American Dream” and the “Be All You Can Be” speech from the army are just a small sampling of the individualistic-oriented messages that are shoved down our throats on a daily basis. For that matter, if we do receive collective ‘calls to action’, they are rarely inclusive to all parties (ie: they usually have a narrow focus, be it gender, sexual, or ethnic specific-rights that are being fought for).

As a consequence, we get so completely caught up in the struggles of our own lives (after all, we’re told that’s where the emphasis SHOULD be) that we often neglect others, not realizing, of course, that EVERYTHING we do affects other persons, irrespective of whether said actions were intended to do so. Ironically, while we claim to be more “connected” than ever before, in actuality, we are further apart.

#2: A LACK OF MORAL & ETHICAL COHESION
In a word, society has gotten “complicated”. As much as the discourse surrounding globalization makes claims that cultural mixing and integration lessen racism, and lead to more “universal” humanistic notions of culture, I think it’s fairly apparent that this is not the reality.

The US, especially in regards to popular culture (a major vehicle through which values are propagated), has maintained a position of hegemony over other countries for quite some time. While this is changing due to the aforementioned nation’s economic situation, it would be a downright lie to claim that certain countries (and accordingly, their views/cultures), not to mention certain ethnicities WITHIN those countries remain privileged at the expense of others.

We as people and the UN as an institutional body, cannot agree on what morals, ethics, values, laws, and the like should (and “if” is really the question) apply to all persons at all times. As a consequence, when it comes to binding together to fight against a so-called “common enemy” (which brings me to my next point), the decision as to whom that person(s) is/are, in it of itself, is a problem.

While I strongly maintain that the best judgements are informed by a multitude of perspectives (“nationalism kills”, people), it’s very difficult to make any solid decisions when such perspectives are conflicting, rather than complementary. In the end, it is impossible to please everyone, and because we live in a capitalist society (which ties in heavily to our promotion of individualism), well, those with the “big guns” (ie: the moula) typically win out.

#3: LACK OF A COMMON ENEMY
Should we blame our parents? The media? The government? The CEOs of multi-national corporate conglomerates? Society as a whole? Men? Women? The ethnic minorities? OR the victims themselves for the world’s growing plethora of problems?

We quite simply can’t, as a society, agree on towards whom we should be pointing our fingers. Everyone’s got a different theory, but not one is free from partisanship or personal biases.

I personally don’t think we should be attempting to scapegoat anyone as the sole perpetrator. Rather, I’d like to see a world in which EVERYONE does their part (that’s my call to collective action, take it or leave it), but that’s just me…

#4: WHERE OH WHERE ARE OUR POSITIVE ROLE MODELS?
The days of John Lennon, Mother Teresa and Princess Di are sadly long gone. Instead, we’d rather glamourize completely talentless celebs like Paris Hilton and/or make the indiscretions of pro athletes like Tiger Woods “breaking news.”

The problem with the mass media (especially when it comes to influencing the impressionable minds of our adolescents – ie: our future leaders) is that it has become nothing more than a vehicle of distraction and entertainment. At one point, those with a message used the media to promote their cause(s) and gain recruits, and if the major news outlets wouldn’t listen, they’d start their own. Now, even our news broadcasts are laughable at this point – they’ve become about nothing more than the 30 second sound-byte.

While there are a few amazing candidates out there like Bono or Angelina who are sincerely trying to make the world a better place, not only are their efforts frequently overshadowed by the latest Tinseltown scandal (shows you where our values are), but further, when they do receive airtime for their goodwill activities, the media often constructs their actions as calculated – nothing more than a means of reputation management.

#5: TOO LITTLE TOO LATE?
While admittedly there is certainly no shortage of global-reaching societal crises at this current point in history, among my list of my top five biggest pet peeves is: complaining coupled with inaction. Too many people feel completely overwhelmed by the sheer volume of maladies that our modern world has to contend with. As a consequence, they remain stagnant. IMAGINE IF EVERYONE HAD THIS VIEW.

While I don’t expect any of you (as I could hardly expect such of myself) to go out there and crusade against every single dilemma that is currently plaguing humanity whether it be in accordance with environmental concerns, human rights violations, organized crime or what have you, I don’t believe it is too much to ask everyone to try and contribute in their own way. There is ALWAYS someone who has it worse off than you, I assure you (especially considering the comfortable lives in which we live on this end of the globe).

It’s as easy as picking up after yourself, volunteering at a soup kitchen, sending money or other goods for relief, adopting a rescue animal, assisting an elder who is struggling with their groceries, or even encouraging a friend or acquaintance to seek counsel for his/her psychological distress. It doesn’t matter what it is, JUST DO SOMETHING (for someone other than yourself, that is).

#6: PRIORITY SETTING
Because we live in an industrialized wealthy Western nation, we tend to ignore the problems that are colouring our very own backyards. For example, did you know that the UN has flagged Canada’s homeless problem as one that we should seriously be ashamed of?

But let me clarify - it’s not as though the majority of us doesn’t give a shit about our own. Rather the emphasis (again thanks to the media) is almost invariably placed on the tortures and sufferings of those from undeveloped nations. Therefore, we remain ignorant regarding our home-grown predicaments. This, my friends, is by NO accident (but I don’t have time to dissect the political and ideological frameworks that inform and shape our mass media).

What it comes down to is this: how do you weigh one human’s life as being more valuable than another’s or one human’s problem(s) as being more severe than another’s? Isn’t everything relative? When faced with highly emotionally-charged questions like this, too many people would rather opt for the easy way out, than face their own biases. The result yet again? Inertia.

The point to this entire rant of mine is as follows: although we have wars, moral panics, and epidemics just the same as we did in the past, joint movements in protest of a better world, in demand of a more tolerance societyNO longer occur, and I’d like you to consider why. It’s not just oversaturation. It’s not just distraction. Something has sincerely altered our value system, and in my view, it ain’t for the better.

If I were born in the 60s, you can bet your bottom dollar, I would have been up there in the front lines fighting for what I believe in. Nowadays, it seems like a feat just to get people to come out to an awareness-raising charity event. ‘Tis a sad state indeed. Let’s change it. Break out those bellbottoms. I wanna revolution.

Vol #1, Col #5: Good Old Credentialism: Look Out Retail Management, I Just Got My B.A. in English!

2010-02-17T02:32:00.000-08:00

As much as I hate those guilt trip-ridden conversations with the parental units that begin with, “when I was your age…” I’ve gotta say there is something to them, especially when it comes to the subject of “growing up” (and by that I mean, fulfilling the checklist of getting the car, career, spouse, 1.2 kids, and the white picket fence). But, as pointed out in Foot and Stoffman’s seminal work, "Boom, Bust and Echo”, which dissects market trends based on demographic theory, the concept of the ‘generation gap’ (ie: the inability of those from a given generation to be able to relate to their predecessors and/or ancestors) is nothing new.

We all grow up within a given cohort, and it is those shared experiences (mediated and impacted by the decisions made by the generations that came prior) that determine not only many of the social aspects of our lives, but as well the marketplace with which we are faced. As alluded to by the title of this article, a growing phenomenon that us twenty-somethings are now burdened with is UNDERemployment (ie: we are overcredentialized for the positions that are accessible to us upon graduation).

The narratives that our parents and grandparents like to rely upon in order to justify why we are still co-dependent, unmarried (and childless), and only earning $9.50 an hour ($12 at best!), in our twenties, state that we are lazy, unmotivated, and seriously lacking in the strong work ethic department (ie: our social circumstances are entirely a result of our OWN failings). Now, there are obviously bad apples in every group, but we can hardly consider them representative of larger social trends. In fact, contrary to what these “generational bitchings” (yes, a term I have now coined) suggest, we have MORE people not only attending post-secondary institutes, but further obtaining post-grad degrees, than EVER before!

Taking this simple fact into consideration, it is easy to see that ultimately all of these mythologies about our cohort being spread by seniors come down to fear: they’re scared we’re gonna screw up the very world they worked so hard to create – the world we’re inheriting – and frankly, they also don’t want us to take over the reins just yet (again, it’s nothing new that people get the willies when it comes to being labeled old and incompetent, read: they’re gonna be kicking and screaming all the way to the old-age homes). The ironic part of all of this, of course, is that they (ie: the babyboomers), purely because of their sheer numbers, are largely to blame for our predicament:

PROBLEM #1: THE ERADICATION OF MANDATORY RETIREMENT

TOO many babyboomers are holding on for dear life to their jobs, which in turn disallows us from ever climbing up the social ranks. The result: while the cushy positions remain occupied, all that’s left for grabs for us are the medial labour jobs, admin positions, retail and service-oriented work, and, don’t forget, the paradise known as the fast-food industry. Even then, many of the jobs that we can “get our hands on” (or better yet, particularly in the case of the last industry mentioned on the aforementioned list, “sink our teeth into”) are still only part-time, temporary, or contractual (ie: we have NO sense of stability, and are often forced to live paycheck-to-paycheck. With student loans to pay off, this typically doesn’t go over very well).

But in all fairness, pensions have been cut dramatically in many fields, forcing seniors to take a hiatus from their golfing expeditions and air-conditioned Floridian lifestyles to re-enter the workforce. In addition, because we are in uncertain economic times (ie: thanks to the so-called war-on-terror, along with changing environmental practices, among other things), having a single job (or for that matter relying on a single family income) that is able to substantiate one’s lifestyle, in the first place, is becoming increasingly next to impossible (yes, I work three myself, and go to school part-time, I hardly think I’m lazy and unmotivated as the popular discourse would suggest).

PROBLEM #2: INFLATION, INFLATION, INFLATION!

Remember the good old days when you could purchase a full tank of gas for less than $15? NO, neither do I, but I do know that in some alternative universe, many moons ago, such was the reality. Though our technology has allowed us to produce products faster, and at a cheaper rate, the fact that only a handful of corporate conglomerates control some absurd amount (upwards of 70%) of the entire world’s economy allows them to over-charge us ignorant consumers in an effort to maximize profits which, according to the compelling documentary, The Corporation, is their legal designation, above all others. The point: everything these days, from foodstuff to rental properties, is MORE expensive.

But, don’t think for a second that our governments are innocent in this equation either. In fact, some governments go out of their way to ensure that corporations will maintain their headquarters within the territories under their charge to ensure that their economies remain solid. Consequently, white collar crimes, the disregard for environmental regulations, human rights violations (including the privatization of essential resources such as water), and the like get completely skated over as if they weren’t serious concerns. As ACDC put it: “money talks.”

PROBLEM #3: TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENT & GLOBALIZATION

Human labour in a lot of previously valued, and highly regarded positions (particularly, machine-oriented grunt work) is no longer required, thanks to technology. For all the good it has brought, it has also cost a lot of people their salaries.

Moreover, because we are increasingly moving in the globalized direction and the disparities in wealth between the poorest and richest nations continue to expand, it is in the best interests of corporations (read: more cost-effective) to outsource their labour. If you’ve ever wondered how and why it is possible that you can phone up what appears to be a local helpline for your cable, phone, or internet service, yet get connected with someone who speaks broken English at best, there’d be your answer.

PROBLEM #4: THE SOCIAL DEPRECIATION OF COLLEGE, THE TRADES, & OTHER SKILLS THAT GREATLY IMPROVE EMPLOYABILITY

Because our parents and our parents’ parents fought long and hard not only for equitable access to higher education, but as well for better quality learning overall, there is a widespread belief ingrained within our society that if you don’t obtain a university degree (moreover, a university degree in a “PRACTICAL” field like medicine, engineering, teaching, or law), you will FAIL at life. While I’m not suggesting that all of us undergrads ought to go on our spring breaks and never come back, I do feel that it would do society a lot of good if it acknowledged that the “essentiality” of a university degree is tempered by one’s residential terrain in terms of its level of urbanization, and its population characteristics (ie: which demographic groups compose the primary target markets).

For example, in London, Ontario where the available jobs for people of my educational level and age are largely in the financial, service, real estate or customer service sectors, I’ve got a girlfriend who merely finished grade twelve, and consistently has been employed in better paying positions. Why you ask? For the simple reason that she’s bilingual. Similarly, my older brother has never gone to university, likely couldn’t write a properly structured thesis for the life of him, and doesn’t have a clue as to how to study effectively, but guess what? He earns as much as THREE times what I do for the simple reason that he works within the trades.

Finally, if you come from a well-regarded family within your city, connections will often bypass the entire application and interview process. So, as much as I value my education, I question just how transferable and valued the skills that I have been taught are in the real world.

Alright, get to the point you’re all thinking, so here it is: they say that too little choice is debilitating, but I’d like to argue that the opposite is true as well. While some of our parents and grandparents may have been miserable with the changeless and predictable existences they led, in my view, it would have been a hell of a lot easier to determine your future direction when it was clearly plotted out for you. You either inherited the family business, or studied under a subject area which you knew would lead to a specific employment outcome, you either married your neighbour, highschool sweetheart, or the match arranged for you in advance, you had at least one child (preferably a boy), and were well into your rearing years by your thirties, at the latest.

These days the dialogues on the milestones one must hit throughout their life course range from stating that “40 is the new 30”, AND you’re supposed to be a worth a few million by 20. With all of these mixed messages, not to mention the catch 22 education/employment opportunities we have to contend with, I’m certainly not surprised that most of us don’t have it together just yet. Maybe it’s our parents who need to get with the program!

Vol #1, Col #4: Edu-MY-nation: Taking a Page from Plato’s Philosophers Kings

2010-02-07T20:07:00.000-08:00

I’ve met some of the most ignorant individuals in my life, at my so-called “prestigious” Ivy-league university. Not just ignorant, but close-minded, prejudice, and unrealistic as well. To sum it up, they quite simply have no concept of the “real world,” and accordingly, despite boasting B.A.s and M.A.s out their ying-yangs, they remain ill-equipped to deal with many of life’s “stresses, and messes” (if you will).

While said individuals are successfully exceeding the 4.0 GPA mark, when it comes to “street smarts”, and EQ (yes you read correctly, I’m referring to the much overlooked, but indispensable domain of “emotional intelligence”), it’s a whole nother story.
Undoubtedly, this phenomenon can partly be accounted for by the appeal of my school to “trust-fund” types, but in my view, our current academic canon (and its points of emphasis) should carry the brunt of this burden as well. While it’d be foolish (and blatantly inaccurate) of me to suggest that our Western-borne educational system has ever triumphed in the impartation of “life skills”, I do believe that aspects of our older curricula (which would aid in the development of not just well-rounded students, but better people, in general) are worth reviving. But before we embark on a little academic “time travelling”, perhaps an illustrative example of exactly what I mean when I say that my fellow post-secondary peers possess a whole host of unredeemable qualities, is necessary.

Last year, as part of my degree requirements, I had to (emphasis on HAD, and not in a positive way) acquire a full year credit in a hard science. Naturally, being a student of the social science, artistic, and humanities realm, I opted for what seemed to me to be the least of all evils (ie: geology!) Despite this area NOT appealing to my particular tastes, I was actually so successful in this endeavour that, at one point, I found myself sitting in my prof’s office overviewing an exam on which I obtained a high 90, with her trying to convince me that I should promptly change my major. (This little tidbit will prove relevant in a moment - just you wait – but in the meantime, back to this tale’s plot development…)

For one of my assignments in this course, I was required to grace the hallways of the Bio/Enviro Sci. building in order to view various mineral samples, which were on exhibit in glass cases lining the walls. It was there that I met a seemingly intelligent student (he’d apparently been studying at our academy for over seven years, and was working on his thesis) who proceeded to not only introduce himself by showering me with insults, but even after a severe bitch-out, continued to poke and prod me (I guess he really wasn’t lying when he said he’d been there for seven years, ie: his only form of interaction with anything in almost a decade was likely in the form of a dissection and so partaking in a normal conversation wasn’t really something he was all that practiced in!)

Despite my casual appearance and clear interest in the exhibits, the first words he uttered in my general direction came in the form of a sardonic query, “Rocks for jocks?” I immediately shot back, “Do I look like a jock?” (For those of you unfamiliar with the connotations laden within my adversary’s expression, essentially he was calling me stupid, and making the assumption, right from the get-go, that I couldn’t possibly be a serious student of the hard sciences, though my final grade in the course would suggest otherwise.) This wit-LESS banter continued for quite some time, until I just got so fed up that frankly I decided I’d complete the assignment later (and let me tell ya, procrastinating and/or putting things off goes against every fiber in my being).

During the process of this entire ordeal, all I could think was, “Wow! For someone so smart, how could he be so stupid?” I even contemplated suggesting to him to look into (for his own good) completing a course in human relations psychology, but figured the attempt would fall on deaf ears. So how does this relate to former models of post-secondary excellence? Well, at one point, basic communication skills (ie: reading, writing, and rhetoric – the very subjects we delved into last week) were heralded! But moreover than that, the foundation of all of Western thought and the entire Western schooling system lay in the precepts of Ancient Greek philosophy.

Plato founded the first official university known as, “The Academy” in 387 B.C. with its driving force dedicated to the “Socratic” search for truth (in a nutshell, this method consisted of continually drilling others on their opinions, until they could no longer justify why it was they believed what they did – hence it’s a rather clever means at getting at underlying discriminatory viewpoints). In addition, it is believed that Plato regularly posed various social problems to his students, and made it a competitive exercise among them to see who could come up with the best (and most humanitarian of) solutions.

The greatest strength of philosophy as a course of study, in general, however ultimately (when taught properly, that is), is that there is no such thing as a right or wrong answer. Everything is entirely subjective and as a consequence, by being exposed to this discipline, it pretty much goes without saying that one’s worldview, conceptions, and ideologies will be greatly expanded. The result? A human being who proudly embraces a liberal, inclusive, and sympathetic attitude towards others and their particular life circumstances. In a world where racism still runs rampant (don’t kid yourself, it’s just better veiled than it used to be), embracing an overall philosophical approach in the educational system is definitely something worth striving for.

Long after the Sophists, Stoics, and Epicureans, education largely became the province of clergyman; as a result, religion and academia became entangled, with Latin (because it was the “holy” language) purported as the most important of the subjects. The Middle Ages’ view was that education was intended to, “instill obedience, discipline and habits of cleanliness,” into its students. Considering the fairly recent moral panics surrounding schoolyard violence, and a general air of insolence among pupils (directed at any and every authority figure), perhaps the former of these two areas could use a little extra “umph”. As for the latter, well as they say, “cleanliness is next to godliness.”

During this time, increased attention was also paid to the encouragement of artistic development; as an artist myself, you know I’m going to have no qualms about this venture. In fact, I’d go so far as to argue that artists have been assigned the societal role of modern day philosophers, and therefore, not only should artistic pursuits be accentuated in schools (arts programs sadly, whether performance or visual, are always the first to be hit by budget cuts), but further, art overall in society is what promotes change, and therefore it should be accorded higher value by the general public. But that’s an entirely separate discussion, in it of itself.

Our final destination on this educational journey is that of “The Age of Enlightenment” (or in chronological terms, the 18th century). During this time, there was a forceful push away from religion, and a move towards critical thinking and reason, along with the expansion of literacy to the broader public (ie: it wasn’t just cool for the rich folks anymore).

Education in the 18th century was conceived of as a, “necessary tool to overcome ignorance, fear and superstition” with the ultimate aim being to realize a more, “open-minded and egalitarian society”. As this “Age” was predated only a century prior by the height of the Renaissance which looked to revive many “classical” practices, the influence of Ancient Greek philosophy, in this view, is not coincidental.

While the flaws (namely, the lack of access to women and other minority groups, or at best, the segregation policies, not to mention the widely-accepted corporal punishment practices, and well, those pesky uniforms!) of our previous educational academies largely outweigh their merits, I do think there is something to be said about reviving or at least ushering forth a new respect and regard for certain subjects of the past.

So…what do I feel should be brought “back to the future”? HOME EC. for starters! (Oh, the days of the 1950s, when women attended college just as much to earn their M.R.S. as any degree!) But in all seriousness, Home Ec = a valuable commodity, and here’s why: far too many college-aged kids don’t have a clue as to how to darn socks, do their own laundry, or prepare a meal that doesn’t consist of a questionable powered substance labeled “cheese mix” and bleached flour noodles. After all, mommy dearest isn’t going to be around forever to fulfill these demands! Aside from establishing a skill-base on the domestic front, I also feel that more focus deserves to be paid to both the liberal arts and the social sciences because of their capacity to open up one's mind, and therefore, one's world (and I’m not just saying that ‘cause I’ve majored in both).

While it has been said that we’re currently training students for technological jobs that have yet to be created, it doesn’t matter how qualified, accomplished, and up-to-speed on the latest “gear” one is, if you’re lacking in basic interpersonal abilities, as well as a global perspective, you simply ain’t gonna cut it in today’s over-saturated and over-credentialized market.

Finally, though I don’t believe that any of the following have ever been offered as REQUIRED electives in any highschool and/or post-secondary program (at least not in North America), I think that teaching students how to budget (time, money, their social lives, and the like), how to deduce whether one’s relationships (both intimate and platonic – ah another Plato reference) are healthy, as well as how to child-rear are all skills that could go a long way. Though I’m sure plenty would argue that said domains really ought to be in the charge of one’s parents, let’s face it, many of them don’t have it figured out either!

Vol #1, Col #3: "Trippingly the Tongue”: Reading, Writing, and Rhetoric, Three Rs in Desperate Need of Revisiting

2010-01-31T14:52:00.001-08:00

I prefer the term ‘shades’ to ‘sunglasses’, calling men ‘gents’ or ‘fellas’, vocalizing that ‘I shall’ rather than ‘I will’ partake in a given activity, and receiving flattery that consists of being described as ‘fetching’, ‘delectable’, ‘well-mannered’, and ‘poised’, instead of having my looks equated with a certain temperature reading one experiences in the summer.

I may even bust out a little ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ action, if the occasion calls for it (interestingly, and counter to what one would expect, my brief foray into the realm of linguistics taught me that ‘thou’ was actually the common term used to refer to others, whereas ‘you’ was reserved for address to those of higher rank. But I digress).

The important message to grasp from my elaborate comparison of synonyms is this: as philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein so rightly pointed out, in the early 1900s, “the limits of [one’s] language mean the limits of [one’s] world.” In other words, it’s not just a matter of electing one word over another, one’s choices in terms deeply reflect his/her thought processes. Further, as we all know from our adoption of “professionalism” at job interviews, the way in which we express ourselves, verbally and textually, serves as a signifier of the groups to which we belong.

Carrying on from last week’s discussion of the misuse and abuse of words of great significance, an elaboration on modern society’s general “bastardization” (pardon my French) of the English language seemed merited. While discourse scholars would argue that my stance is that of a conservative “prescriptivist” (ie: one who is incapable of accepting the so-called natural evolution of language, and so makes it his/her mission to instruct others on how to speak/write properly in an attempt to resurrect the dead aspects of a given dialect), I’d like to pose a personal challenge to said individuals to be able to come up with 101 (at least!) unique MODERN ways to describe love and/or the beauty of a woman as eloquently and as effectual as Shakespeare, “the man” himself. Any takers? No, I didn’t think so!

While both my spoken vernacular and scribbles have, at times, been labeled “verbose” (no doubt a consequence of my passion and therefore derived influence from literature of times gone by), I’ll have you know that never once have I received criticism in regards to my elocution. In fact, quite the opposite is true… I’ve oft been characterized as one with a strong command of my mother tongue; something I chalk up to the fact that yes, as a child, I used to read the dictionary as a bedtime story.

So while I don’t (and for that matter can’t) expect a restoration of the “word-smithing” practices pervasive during the Elizabethan era, I do have some suggestions as to how to improve the proficiency of your own dialogue, be it written or uttered:

1) Cut Back on Cussing

Though I admit this is a problematic area for me, as well, particularly when I’m immersed in casual social arenas (undoubtedly a consequence of touring trashy bars and hanging out with punk rockers for so many years), the excessive use of profanity in one’s speech ultimately makes said person sound ignorant. Just like love, the “f-bomb” should be reserved for when you really mean it, and by that I mean NOT as an interjection into your sentences every second or third word. If you’re really parched for terms of equal emotional connotation, I suggest taking a gander at that old dusty thesaurus that is peering out, desperately waiting to be noticed, on your bookshelf. He and you could become the best of friends, if only you’d just give him a chance. While you’re at it, givewww.dictionary.com’s Word of the Day FB app a go – you won’t be disappointed.

2) Revisit the Rules of Syntax

Any ESL student can tell ya that learning English, because of all of its irregularities, requires substantial dedication and skill. However, that does not give us native speakers (who have lifelong exposure) an excuse for laxness when it comes to clause formation, especially not those of you who are currently enrolled at a post-secondary institution.

I largely attribute the blame for students’ inability to construct grammatically correct essays to computer programs such as MS Word, with their spell-check and auto-correct functions. I mean, how can one ever learn that his/her way with words is incorrect if an electronic application can/does do all the work for him/her? But, even then (and as much as society would love to promote technology as the solution to all of life’s quibbles), such programs are never foolproof (ie: they often miss subtle grammatical errors such as when it’s appropriate to use their, there, or they’re)

3) Proofread, Proofread, Proofread!

Though your profs have likely been instructing you to do so for years, I’m sure there are several of you who fail to give your work a once over, after your inkjet has spewed out the pages. While editing throughout the process of working on assignments is an absolute must, I can tell you from personal experience that you will not catch the most glaring of errors until, quite literally, you read aloud a hardcopy of your report to yourself, your imaginary friend, and/or someone who is frankly “lucky” enough to be exposed to your genius.

In all seriousness though, the act of proofreading is a much neglected practice that not only affects scholarly tasks detrimentally when poorly executed, but as well, can create serious rifts in your personal life (resulting from miscommunication), that could have been entirely avoided had you bothered to take those few extra seconds to ensure that what you’ve written is what you actually want to say. In two words: slow down!

The instantaneous nature of the net, and personal devices like Blackberrys, has gotten us all caught up in a world that is constantly on the move. While you can always take back the words themselves, remember that the emotions the recipient(s) of your poorly and/or inappropriately worded messages experienced aren’t erasable, to the same extent. For that reason, if you have something truly important to express I suggest either a) doing it in person or b) composing a letter via pen and paper (yes, I know it seems so passé, but I assure you being penpals, at one point, was all the rage!)

For those of you courageous enough to take the next leap with your lexicon expansion and authorship endeavours, I suggest purchasing yourselves a nice hand-crafted silver-tipped quill and inkwell; the art of calligraphy is good fun. One final thing, do yourselves (and your English profs!) all a favour: learn the difference between a simile and a metaphor. Oh yeah, and a true student of the English language is well aware that the age of “Old English” did in fact NOT correspond with Shakespeare’s life and times.

Vol #1, Col #2: Choose Your Words Wisely, They May Just Be Your Last

2010-01-22T10:25:00.000-08:00

A single word can change everything. Take the “L” word for instance (and no I don’t mean lesbian).

About a month or so ago, I met who I thought was a really great guy. Now, just so you don’t get the wrong impression, let me make clear from the get-go that our relationship was entirely one of a professional nature. While I think it was likely apparent to both of us that we shared a sense of attraction towards each other (our personalities were very much complementary), the circumstances (and well, likely the fact that both of us are admittedly naïve when it comes to that sort of thing) prevented the situation from heading in the romantic direction. Although like I said, I thought fairly highly of the boy, I had come to terms with this, and was quite content with simply having him in my life as a friendly acquaintance… that was until he dropped the love bomb as part of his signature in one of his correspondences to me.

While I’m not now (nor was I then) so ridiculously out of touch with reality to believe that he was actually professing his innermost desires via this slight (yet highly noticeable from a women’s stance) interjection, I must admit it frankly, for lack of a better word, “weirded” me out! Being that I’ve been in significant relationships before, it’s not as though this was my first exposure to said term. However, I am a firm believer that the word love (well, almost all four letter words), because of the connotations with which it is associated, should be used highly selectively, moreover, only when in fact you a) mean it and b) are prepared to deal with the consequences of uttering it.

The problems between us started when I attempted to point this out to him in what I thought was a clever, humourous and non-threatening manner. I never heard back. To “save face”, I wrote him again apologizing for my “overreaction”, but I maintained I was not comfortable with his usage of that term in my general direction. Though he likely didn’t view the situation as one that was worthy of eliciting a panic attack, and despite our return back to the seemingly normal conversations we conducted prior, I couldn’t shake it – I was still really bothered by the fact that he signed his letters to me in this way (and it certainly didn’t help that he kept up this behaviour, even after I pointed out to him how awkward it made me feel!).

Because he and I both work within the entertainment biz, I could (and can) completely understand if he used this sort of tactic to reel in fans, but from a professional standpoint, I not only felt (still feel) that it was highly inappropriate, and extremely peculiar, but as well, judging by my own reaction (and yes I know I have some relationship hang-ups, but upon hearing this story, my fellow female friends have concurred), could quite possibly get him into a precarious predicament.

The easy justification would be to sum up his misuse of this term to either cultural or gender differences, but again, even taking these factors into consideration, his actions still prove bizarre. Case and point: we are both of a very similar ethnic background, and I can’t picture myself ever using the “L” word so candidly towards someone with whom I wasn’t really all that well-acquainted. In regards to the latter excuse, after imparting this story to my male friends, and asking them how they’d feel about the situation had it happened to them, and the roles were reversed, they likewise informed me that they would view it as strange.

So, what does all this have to do with being old-fashioned? Well, strict rules of conversational etiquette and decorum largely became pervasive during the Victorian Age. Advanced into contemporary society by both “Mommy Knows Best” sayings, as well as by the work of language philosophers such as Paul Grice, I think the above-documented story is good enough proof as any to indicate that clearly these rules require revisiting (moreover reiteration).

According to Grice’s Conversational Maxims, the reason for my offense, confusion, and curiosity regarding the use of the “L” word in the aforementioned situation is because my acquaintance broke the “maxim of manner” which explicitly states that in order to ensure agreeable, steady, and neutral discussion, “one should NOT use words he/she knows his/her listener(s) won’t understand and/or say things he/she knows could be taken in multiple ways.” More simply put, the moral of this week’s story is this: don’t employ words that are laden with significance, unless you truly mean them, and further, if words can be misinterpreted, they will be.

Seeing as we are now in the age of “txting” and Facebook where friendships are increasingly forged and maintained via electronic means through which the addition of emotion to (and the intention behind) one’s words is not possible, the potential for miscommunication is greater than ever before. Therefore, a return to “proper” and considerate dialogue is an absolute must. Above all, “know your audience.” While we’re on the subject of conversational etiquette, I’d also like to point out that a clever rabbit once advised his deer friend quite well when he uttered that, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, you shouldn’t say anything at all.”

Though hippies made a habit of using terms like peace, and love rather freely (mind you this was while they were often experiencing acid trips), and so resultingly, in the eyes of some, these words have lost their affective imputations, and therefore can rightly be designated as having a place in everyday casual discourse, I think it’s pretty safe to say that this view is not only inaccurate, but as well leads to problematic circumstances (to say the least!).

Unfortunately, in my final attempt to resolve things with my acquaintance, I somehow managed to only make the situation that much worst. When I merely raised the query as to why he felt it was appropriate to use said term with me, he immediately got defensive, and it seemed that everything and anything I said beyond that point would only be taken as a personal attack. Ah, and you thought intimate relationships were hard! Guess that will teach you all never to sign a letter to me with “love” and if you do, you better wash out your mouth, shortly thereafter, with soap!

Vol #1, Col #1: The Age Old Tale of the Birds & The Bees

2010-01-15T18:47:00.000-08:00

I hate being single. It’s not about me missing the affection, the couples’ activities or the ring on my finger (though those are all good things) - no it’s really more about all of the b.s. that goes along with being a woman of untaken marital status. The whistles, the cat calls, come on, give me a break – it’s 2010 already! But above all that, my biggest problem is, undoubtedly, that I’ve been out of the game for so long (since I was 16!) that, quite frankly, I don’t even know how to act around someone who strikes my fancy, nor for that matter if “the rules” I was indoctrinated with as a child/teenager even apply anymore.

Not only is it becoming increasingly impossible to meet someone in a respectable venue (let’s face it both gyms and bars alike have become akin to “meat markets” and even online dating, well one of the first responses I got to an ad after signing up was, “give me five reasons I should date you,” – right…enough said), but further all of today’s contradictory information regarding, “the art of seduction” is downright confusing making it difficult to decipher who, if anyone, really has it right. Should we listen to women? Men? Are there truly any universal laws of applicability or is everything situational? These are just some of the questions that women (and I’m sure men) contemplate when it comes to relationships. Beyond said queries, women and men also try to characterize and justify the dating behaviours of the opposite sex.

For example, women often wrongly misread male disinterest as shyness and/or apprehension based on the fact that they have yet to receive the green light. Yet movies such as The Ugly Truth posit that NO male on earth possesses such qualities, rather they take what they want and are unapologetic about such things. While I’m debating stereotypes which are overgeneralizations that can’t possibly be applied to all situations, I’d like to remind you that stereotypes do find their basis on some kernel of truth (albeit exaggerated).

And then of course, there are the many ways in which men and women attempt to “save face” to avoid rejection. Honesty and upfrontness, in the world of dating, seem to be rare commodities to come by, indeed.

I guess what I’m trying to get at is this: it seems to me that things were simpler when dating roles (and rules) were more black and white. While I’m not suggesting that we revert to the idealized vision of the 1950s housewife and her breadwinning husband (unless of course that’s your preference) as there were clearly deep-seated issues with this relationship dynamic beyond its apparent sexism (namely, that in many cases, it wasn’t the reality at all). In my view, I do believe that men (and/or those in possession of the more “dominant” personality type) should be the ones weighted with “the pursuit” for the simple reason that women have more to lose: we get more emotionally invested (and at a quicker rate), and sex for us not only leads to more health risks, but as well the potentially slight inconvenience of pregnancy (note the sarcasm). On top of all of this, when women “take the lead”, it really adds unnecessary complication to the equation.

We spend (read: waste) too much time overanalyzing the actions of men - trying to justify why they haven’t called, why they don’t find us attractive, and why they slept with us only once despite proclaiming their undying devotion. Essentially, what I’m saying is that ladies, for matters of self-preservation and emotional well-being, it is in your best interest to play the part of the mysterious object of one’s affections, rather than the initiator in the art of seduction.

I mean, I’m a feminist so approaching me like some piece of meat with a lame pick up line ain’t ever gonna work on me, but I’d at least have respect for the gent who came up to me and declared quite blatantly, “Hey, I noticed you from across the room, and I find you very attractive. Would you mind if I had a seat? I’d like to get to know you better.” But no, that’s apparently not how “the rules” are played, and god forbid I go for a sincere connection over entertaining superficial interests and small talk too soon – that would render me “high maintenance.”

Despite my ex being an asshole, I did find a comfort in not having the additional anxiety in my life provoked by these trivialities. For those of you who get completely wrapped up in this kind of stuff like I’ve found myself, as of late, I have but two suggestions:
1) get a hobby (mine's writing, couldn't you guess?!)

2) focus on improving yourself/pursuing your dreams so that you don’t feel
the need to have a mate in order to make your life complete.

Coming in January 2010!!!

2009-12-13T15:52:00.001-08:00