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

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”?

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!

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

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?

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

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?

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.