Although I really hate that Sarah Palin is the US media darling right now - the other day I realized something.
Sarah Palin is a real-life Serena Joy (a character in Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale).
Now, if you haven't read The Handmaid's Tale, I really can't paraphrase it so that you'll get it, but if you have read it, but can't remember: Serena Joy is the wife that Offred works under. The one who used to be an evangelist darling... and then may or may not regret the changes that have actually relegated her to her own home after so long...
If you're an innocent little American and you know all about Sarah Palin and nothing about Atwood's the Handmaid's Tale - you should read it! It's a wonderful book - an excellent satire and yet horrifyingly frightening possible circumstance. It's a great book to read concerning not just feminism, but totalitarian governments and fundamentalist religion - and how these things can pan out in the world. It's somewhat... ...erk... Orwellian..., but I prefer Atwood as a writer - even if Orwell gets things named after him more than Atwood does...
If you're lazy, you could always just watch the Playboy (!...?) endorsed movie from the early '90s. But the book is much better in its social commentary than the movie is. Really, it's an old, somewhat dated, book - but it's an excellent read.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Friday, October 3, 2008
A Word From Margaret Atwood In Defense of the Arts
This is a piece written by Margaret Atwood in response to Stephen Harper's cuts to the arts.
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
September 24, 2008 at 11:00 PM EDT
"What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we
already live in? What do we like? Who are we?
At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector
accounted for an 'estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).'
But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called 'ordinary people' didn't care about something called 'the arts.' His idea of 'the arts' is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand:
I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.
Every single one of those people is an 'ordinary person.' Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. 'Ordinary people' pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for 'the arts' in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. 'The arts' are not a 'niche interest.' They are part of being human.
Moreover, 'ordinary people' are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. 'Ordinary people' have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.
They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and 'ordinary people' will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.
I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is 'ordinary.' It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of 'ordinary people.' He's the 'niche
interest.' Not us.
It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is 'ideologically motivated.' Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate
his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.
Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.
The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In
communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big
statue of yourself. Now that would be Art!"
I'd like to also add a point to those who tell the artists to quit whining, that the 4.6 million dollars of cuts only constitutes a drop in the bucket, that overall its not really that much. In looking at the bigger picture, you completely miss the little things, the everyday ways that are effected by this loss. I'm certain that four million dollars are not mere pennies to the 'ordinary' Canadian. Four million dollars would go quite the way for many an artist, musician, curator, director, actor, comedian, educator, gallery, workshop program, radio broadcaster, writer, and well, you get the picture. Most artists are not gala*-going, rich disconnected elitists. In fact, artists that do live comfortably could not have done so for the most part without grant support. It's very hard to work full-time on creation when you are out working in other jobs just to pay your rent.
And anyone notice that the programs cut from the budget are the ones that affect visibility and accessibility to Native populations? So much for that apology for Canada's historic (and current) treatment earlier this year, eh Mr. Harper?
*Galas, by the way, in which his wife attends. Galas which are thrown by big-wigs in order to raise money to supplement the grants. Galas, which do not compromise the majority of the time spent by artists. Galas, which I'm pretty sure none of the people directly affected by the cuts (which by the way involved pulling money out of already existing programs right from under their feet) are going to.
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
September 24, 2008 at 11:00 PM EDT
"What sort of country do we want to live in? What sort of country do we
already live in? What do we like? Who are we?
At present, we are a very creative country. For decades, we've been punching above our weight on the world stage - in writing, in popular music and in many other fields. Canada was once a cultural void on the world map, now it's a force. In addition, the arts are a large segment of our economy: The Conference Board estimates Canada's cultural sector generated $46-billion, or 3.8 per cent of Canada's GDP, in 2007. And, according to the Canada Council, in 2003-2004, the sector
accounted for an 'estimated 600,000 jobs (roughly the same as agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil & gas and utilities combined).'
But we've just been sent a signal by Prime Minister Stephen Harper that he gives not a toss for these facts. Tuesday, he told us that some group called 'ordinary people' didn't care about something called 'the arts.' His idea of 'the arts' is a bunch of rich people gathering at galas whining about their grants. Well, I can count the number of moderately rich writers who live in Canada on the fingers of one hand:
I'm one of them, and I'm no Warren Buffett. I don't whine about my grants because I don't get any grants. I whine about other grants - grants for young people, that may help them to turn into me, and thus pay to the federal and provincial governments the kinds of taxes I pay, and cover off the salaries of such as Mr. Harper. In fact, less than 10 per cent of writers actually make a living by their writing, however modest that living may be. They have other jobs. But people write, and want to write, and pack into creative writing classes, because they love this activity – not because they think they'll be millionaires.
Every single one of those people is an 'ordinary person.' Mr. Harper's idea of an ordinary person is that of an envious hater without a scrap of artistic talent or creativity or curiosity, and no appreciation for anything that's attractive or beautiful. My idea of an ordinary person is quite different. Human beings are creative by nature. For millenniums we have been putting our creativity into our cultures - cultures with unique languages, architecture, religious ceremonies, dances, music, furnishings, textiles, clothing and special cuisines. 'Ordinary people' pack into the cheap seats at concerts and fill theatres where operas are brought to them live. The total attendance for 'the arts' in Canada in fact exceeds that for sports events. 'The arts' are not a 'niche interest.' They are part of being human.
Moreover, 'ordinary people' are participants. They form book clubs and join classes of all kinds - painting, dancing, drawing, pottery, photography - for the sheer joy of it. They sing in choirs, church and other, and play in marching bands. Kids start garage bands and make their own videos and web art, and put their music on the Net, and draw their own graphic novels. 'Ordinary people' have other outlets for their creativity, as well: Knitting and quilting have made comebacks; gardening is taken very seriously; the home woodworking shop is active. Add origami, costume design, egg decorating, flower arranging, and on and on ... Canadians, it seems, like making things, and they like appreciating things that are made.
They show their appreciation by contributing. Canadians of all ages volunteer in vast numbers for local and city museums, for their art galleries and for countless cultural festivals - I think immediately of the Chinese New Year and the Caribana festival in Toronto, but there are so many others. Literary festivals have sprung up all over the country - volunteers set them up and provide the food, and 'ordinary people' will drag their lawn chairs into a field - as in Nova Scotia's Read by the Sea - in order to listen to writers both local and national read and discuss their work. Mr. Harper has signalled that as far as he is concerned, those millions of hours of volunteer activity are a waste of time. He holds them in contempt.
I suggest that considering the huge amount of energy we spend on creative activity, to be creative is 'ordinary.' It is an age-long and normal human characteristic: All children are born creative. It's the lack of any appreciation of these activities that is not ordinary. Mr. Harper has demonstrated that he has no knowledge of, or respect for, the capacities and interests of 'ordinary people.' He's the 'niche
interest.' Not us.
It's been suggested that Mr. Harper's disdain for the arts is not merely a result of ignorance or a tin ear - that it is 'ideologically motivated.' Now, I wonder what could be meant by that? Mr. Harper has said quite rightly that people understand we ought to keep within a budget. But his own contribution to that budget has been to heave the Liberal-generated surplus overboard so we have nothing left for a rainy day, and now, in addition, he wants to jeopardize those 600,000 arts jobs and those billions of dollars they generate for Canadians. What's the idea here? That arts jobs should not exist because artists are naughty and might not vote for Mr. Harper? That Canadians ought not to make money from the wicked arts, but only from virtuous oil? That artists don't all live in one constituency, so who cares? Or is it that the majority of those arts jobs are located in Ontario and Quebec, and Mr. Harper is peeved at those provinces, and wants to increase his ongoing gutting of Ontario - $20-billion a year of Ontario taxpayers' money going out, a dribble grudgingly allowed back in - and spank Quebec for being so disobedient as not to appreciate
his magnificence? He likes punishing, so maybe the arts-squashing is part of that: Whack the Heartland.
Or is it even worse? Every budding dictatorship begins by muzzling the artists, because they're a mouthy lot and they don't line up and salute very easily. Of course, you can always get some tame artists to design the uniforms and flags and the documentary about you, and so forth - the only kind of art you might need - but individual voices must be silenced, because there shall be only One Voice: Our Master's Voice. Maybe that's why Mr. Harper began by shutting down funding for our artists abroad. He didn't like the competition for media space.
The Conservative caucus has already learned that lesson. Rumour has it that Mr. Harper's idea of what sort of art you should hang on your wall was signalled by his removal of all pictures of previous Conservative prime ministers from their lobby room - including John A. and Dief the Chief - and their replacement by pictures of none other than Mr. Harper himself. History, it seems, is to begin with him. In
communist countries, this used to be called the Cult of Personality. Mr. Harper is a guy who - rumour has it, again - tried to disband the student union in high school and then tried the same thing in college. Destiny is calling him, the way it called Qin Shi Huang, the Chinese emperor who burnt all records of the rulers before himself. It's an impulse that's been repeated many times since, the list is very long. Tear it down and level it flat, is the common motto. Then build a big
statue of yourself. Now that would be Art!"
I'd like to also add a point to those who tell the artists to quit whining, that the 4.6 million dollars of cuts only constitutes a drop in the bucket, that overall its not really that much. In looking at the bigger picture, you completely miss the little things, the everyday ways that are effected by this loss. I'm certain that four million dollars are not mere pennies to the 'ordinary' Canadian. Four million dollars would go quite the way for many an artist, musician, curator, director, actor, comedian, educator, gallery, workshop program, radio broadcaster, writer, and well, you get the picture. Most artists are not gala*-going, rich disconnected elitists. In fact, artists that do live comfortably could not have done so for the most part without grant support. It's very hard to work full-time on creation when you are out working in other jobs just to pay your rent.
And anyone notice that the programs cut from the budget are the ones that affect visibility and accessibility to Native populations? So much for that apology for Canada's historic (and current) treatment earlier this year, eh Mr. Harper?
*Galas, by the way, in which his wife attends. Galas which are thrown by big-wigs in order to raise money to supplement the grants. Galas, which do not compromise the majority of the time spent by artists. Galas, which I'm pretty sure none of the people directly affected by the cuts (which by the way involved pulling money out of already existing programs right from under their feet) are going to.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Vote, Damn You!
So, it's that time of... not quite four years again, and we've been asked to paddle our butts down to a polling office and cast our votes.
The available choices are something that I've been known to whine about. But the actual act of voting has always figured fairly high upon my list of priorities. It's not like it takes a lot of effort or anything... and when it comes down to it, it does make a difference... (a small part of a big difference?).
Once upon a time, back when I was ages 12 through to 18, I was so raring to vote... blame Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario for the larger part of the '90s. All's I really remember was: I was a gallery brat. Therefore, I knew the pains of the art communities during those years. The no-funding deals. Or, you know, the basic slash funding, programs.
But there was more. I remember my mom pointing out posters (they really made no difference in our small Ultra-Con towns) that stated: "Minimum wage $6.75, Monthly welfare payments $695, Mike Harris' political advisors' hourly wage $495". Or, you know, something along those lines. I might have forgotten the specific numbers by now (I think I have, because I remember the hourly wage being higher than the monthly welfare rate). Point is, at that age, I was already indignant and angry about PC Politics.
Oh, yeah, and to add salt to that wound... there was also that minor incident of the new curriculum. And the glorious day that we went to listen to Nelson Mandela speak at the SkyDome (now known horrendously as the "Roger's Centre"), and Harris came out to speak first. And a SkyDome full of angry 11 and 12 year old children booing him.
Long story short: while most of my friends were more into their Nintendo systems, I was so ready to cast my vote. I actually spent the 14-16 years reading books about Suffragettes (probably one of the reasons that people called me that dirty ol' f-word, you know... feminist). In Highschool Civics class (the bullshit "understanding the political system" class that Harris' new curriculum added) I railed against the unjust laws that required me to be 18 before I could vote - 16 was more than mature enough! (Of course, my classmates thought I was an utter nerd, and the teacher kind of hated me).
The point of this long, rambling story is that voting is a responsibility I feel is very, very, very important. And even if you're voting for the dirty Con Party and their head corporate robot Harper (can you tell I'm biased in favour of the the lefties?) the point is, you're voting. And that is important.
The sad thing is that I feel like most people in my generation are still no more interested in being involved than they were in highschool. I know numerous young, university educated people who refuse to vote because: "Oh, it just doesn't matter." "What has the government ever done for me?" and "My guy never wins." And we wonder why there are so few young people trusted in government. A mixture of laziness, apathy and plain old ignorance allows so many people to "justify" why they just shouldn't vote. One friend told me that she creates change through other actions. But activism, however important, shouldn't be constantly necessary. Instead, why not just try to elect a responsible government that responds to its populous? Hell, what's a walk to the polling office compared to having to organise protests or incite the revolutionary mob?
I'm sick of people who go on and on about how the world is going to shit and then, if you ask them if they voted, they say "Oh, well, my vote doesn't count for much". No, it doesn't count for much if you don't use it. It'll count for a hell of a lot more if you were to just use your vote.
I think that one of the reasons that the advertisements for the respective parties (*cough* Conservatives) have gotten so completely trashy (ie. no political message, just slamming the other guy, like, you know, the "Gamble on Dion" series?) is because people are just shutting off to actual issues. We don't want to talk about, don't want to deal with it, and don't want to take responsibility of it.
And don't even get me started on how the American Election '08 is going.
The available choices are something that I've been known to whine about. But the actual act of voting has always figured fairly high upon my list of priorities. It's not like it takes a lot of effort or anything... and when it comes down to it, it does make a difference... (a small part of a big difference?).
Once upon a time, back when I was ages 12 through to 18, I was so raring to vote... blame Mike Harris, the premier of Ontario for the larger part of the '90s. All's I really remember was: I was a gallery brat. Therefore, I knew the pains of the art communities during those years. The no-funding deals. Or, you know, the basic slash funding, programs.
But there was more. I remember my mom pointing out posters (they really made no difference in our small Ultra-Con towns) that stated: "Minimum wage $6.75, Monthly welfare payments $695, Mike Harris' political advisors' hourly wage $495". Or, you know, something along those lines. I might have forgotten the specific numbers by now (I think I have, because I remember the hourly wage being higher than the monthly welfare rate). Point is, at that age, I was already indignant and angry about PC Politics.
Oh, yeah, and to add salt to that wound... there was also that minor incident of the new curriculum. And the glorious day that we went to listen to Nelson Mandela speak at the SkyDome (now known horrendously as the "Roger's Centre"), and Harris came out to speak first. And a SkyDome full of angry 11 and 12 year old children booing him.
Long story short: while most of my friends were more into their Nintendo systems, I was so ready to cast my vote. I actually spent the 14-16 years reading books about Suffragettes (probably one of the reasons that people called me that dirty ol' f-word, you know... feminist). In Highschool Civics class (the bullshit "understanding the political system" class that Harris' new curriculum added) I railed against the unjust laws that required me to be 18 before I could vote - 16 was more than mature enough! (Of course, my classmates thought I was an utter nerd, and the teacher kind of hated me).
The point of this long, rambling story is that voting is a responsibility I feel is very, very, very important. And even if you're voting for the dirty Con Party and their head corporate robot Harper (can you tell I'm biased in favour of the the lefties?) the point is, you're voting. And that is important.
The sad thing is that I feel like most people in my generation are still no more interested in being involved than they were in highschool. I know numerous young, university educated people who refuse to vote because: "Oh, it just doesn't matter." "What has the government ever done for me?" and "My guy never wins." And we wonder why there are so few young people trusted in government. A mixture of laziness, apathy and plain old ignorance allows so many people to "justify" why they just shouldn't vote. One friend told me that she creates change through other actions. But activism, however important, shouldn't be constantly necessary. Instead, why not just try to elect a responsible government that responds to its populous? Hell, what's a walk to the polling office compared to having to organise protests or incite the revolutionary mob?
I'm sick of people who go on and on about how the world is going to shit and then, if you ask them if they voted, they say "Oh, well, my vote doesn't count for much". No, it doesn't count for much if you don't use it. It'll count for a hell of a lot more if you were to just use your vote.
I think that one of the reasons that the advertisements for the respective parties (*cough* Conservatives) have gotten so completely trashy (ie. no political message, just slamming the other guy, like, you know, the "Gamble on Dion" series?) is because people are just shutting off to actual issues. We don't want to talk about, don't want to deal with it, and don't want to take responsibility of it.
And don't even get me started on how the American Election '08 is going.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Arts Funding and the Election
So, I'm well aware that art funding is not the headlining "issue" for this year's election; in fact, usually the only people who really care about arts funding are... you got it... artists.
I was sent this video via my email - it is the husband of a friend talking there.
I just wanted to post this because it raises a reasonably good point.
If you can't watch it, it's just saying that Harper's not a big fan of arts funding. (Are you surprised?)
I was sent this video via my email - it is the husband of a friend talking there.
I just wanted to post this because it raises a reasonably good point.
If you can't watch it, it's just saying that Harper's not a big fan of arts funding. (Are you surprised?)
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Compromising Principles, Part II
This past summer, I got engaged.
Needless to say, I was quite surprised by this turn of events. Pleasantly, of course, as I love my partner, but still the decision to get married and the weight it carries left me with some complex issues.
For one, I hadn't seen myself as the marrying type. I, in fact, was looking forward to a life of living in sin. I'm actually kind of surprised about how linear and modernly traditional my life looks on paper (or blog). Let's see-->went to university right out of high school (albeit there are lots of cracks in that story), finished university, got engaged shortly thereafter. A little more heteronormative than I anticipated. But of course, our marriage is the personal story of me and my partner, and we both know our lives are more complicated than that.
I suppose my biggest issue is what marriage has historically meant and the roles that it casts out whether we notice them or not. This is problematic for someone trying to juggle her feminist principles with an institution that is not only visibly flailing, but also tied to repressive notions of property and moral norms. I mean, how much transformation can we really make within an age-old institution if the society we live in doesn't support our notions of our relationship?
I am thinking though, that my partner and I don't really care. Our marriage for him just solidifies our commitment to each other for as long as we can maintain it. It's not the commitment part about our marriage that bothers me. Just the way that marriages are constructed as an institution that worries me so.
What was troubling me as well was whether I felt like I could balance the pressure of family traditions, such as a big wedding fiasco, getting married in a church I don't believe in, etc, etc, with what would be an acceptable celebration for us. I don't want the fuss, I don't want people to not come to our wedding because they are broke, I don't want to be married by a priest, and I don't want to wear white.
I have to admit, though, if I can get my partner to cave into having a Beetlejuice wedding,that would be pretty damned awesome. Can you imagine, if I could get a hold of Lydia's dress?!
Ah yes, and the rings. I really didn't want to support this idea of my partner's success in capitalism and masculinity being reflected in the ring that I wore. Nor did I want to feel like a spoken-for piece of property. Or support the exploitation of diamond-miners.
Sigh. And I failed. My partner really wanted to get a ring. It was important to him, and I do like rings, so how could I deny it? I do love my ring that we chose together, because it's from him. And let's face it, it's a tasteful and pretty piece of jewelry. However, we felt just awful ring shopping. The whole enterprise was depressing with the expectation of expense, and the commodification of love through diamond rings. We finally found something that wasn't ridiculous (to us anyway) in expense and ostentation. As well, in my own way to subvert the engagement industries gender norms about what rings signify, I also bought a ring for my partner. I am not just engaged to him, but he is engaged to me. I realize that in a way I'm still supporting the capitalist end of the engagement market by buying him a ring as well, but our rings have become quite significant to us over these summer months and I won't deny their symbolic power to our individual union.
Though when I wear my ring I am conscious of the developmental implications that a diamond bears with it (even though in Canada, supposedly one cannot sell diamonds unless they are conflict-free--a term which is narrowly defined, and hard to guarantee). I think part of my compromises and negotiations with this whole thing has been an important exercise in awareness and consciousness. When I look at my ring, I will not forget the many things it symbolizes.
And I will not forget the possibilities of institutional transformation, even if it is just on a personal level.
When I had gotten engaged, since the boy and I are planning for a long-term engagement, I decided I didn't want to make a big deal out of it so I just changed my relationship status on Facebook. I had to work the next day, at a restaurant that is gay-friendly and active in Toronto's LGBTQ community. I figured, what did anyone care there that the straight girl is getting married?
Ah, the importance of legal battles such as the right to wed. When I walked in, everyone hugged me and jumped for joy and just made me realize that happiness is what is at the bottom here. It reminded me about the ability for society to change, to maneuver our own meanings and significances, even when we have to counterbalance them with old expectations and traditions.
I think though, that the funniest story that came out of this turn of events, is that both our sets of parents, when we announced our engagement, were firstly and openly relieved that we weren't pregnant...HA!
Needless to say, I was quite surprised by this turn of events. Pleasantly, of course, as I love my partner, but still the decision to get married and the weight it carries left me with some complex issues.
For one, I hadn't seen myself as the marrying type. I, in fact, was looking forward to a life of living in sin. I'm actually kind of surprised about how linear and modernly traditional my life looks on paper (or blog). Let's see-->went to university right out of high school (albeit there are lots of cracks in that story), finished university, got engaged shortly thereafter. A little more heteronormative than I anticipated. But of course, our marriage is the personal story of me and my partner, and we both know our lives are more complicated than that.
I suppose my biggest issue is what marriage has historically meant and the roles that it casts out whether we notice them or not. This is problematic for someone trying to juggle her feminist principles with an institution that is not only visibly flailing, but also tied to repressive notions of property and moral norms. I mean, how much transformation can we really make within an age-old institution if the society we live in doesn't support our notions of our relationship?
I am thinking though, that my partner and I don't really care. Our marriage for him just solidifies our commitment to each other for as long as we can maintain it. It's not the commitment part about our marriage that bothers me. Just the way that marriages are constructed as an institution that worries me so.
What was troubling me as well was whether I felt like I could balance the pressure of family traditions, such as a big wedding fiasco, getting married in a church I don't believe in, etc, etc, with what would be an acceptable celebration for us. I don't want the fuss, I don't want people to not come to our wedding because they are broke, I don't want to be married by a priest, and I don't want to wear white.
I have to admit, though, if I can get my partner to cave into having a Beetlejuice wedding,that would be pretty damned awesome. Can you imagine, if I could get a hold of Lydia's dress?!
Ah yes, and the rings. I really didn't want to support this idea of my partner's success in capitalism and masculinity being reflected in the ring that I wore. Nor did I want to feel like a spoken-for piece of property. Or support the exploitation of diamond-miners.
Sigh. And I failed. My partner really wanted to get a ring. It was important to him, and I do like rings, so how could I deny it? I do love my ring that we chose together, because it's from him. And let's face it, it's a tasteful and pretty piece of jewelry. However, we felt just awful ring shopping. The whole enterprise was depressing with the expectation of expense, and the commodification of love through diamond rings. We finally found something that wasn't ridiculous (to us anyway) in expense and ostentation. As well, in my own way to subvert the engagement industries gender norms about what rings signify, I also bought a ring for my partner. I am not just engaged to him, but he is engaged to me. I realize that in a way I'm still supporting the capitalist end of the engagement market by buying him a ring as well, but our rings have become quite significant to us over these summer months and I won't deny their symbolic power to our individual union.
Though when I wear my ring I am conscious of the developmental implications that a diamond bears with it (even though in Canada, supposedly one cannot sell diamonds unless they are conflict-free--a term which is narrowly defined, and hard to guarantee). I think part of my compromises and negotiations with this whole thing has been an important exercise in awareness and consciousness. When I look at my ring, I will not forget the many things it symbolizes.
And I will not forget the possibilities of institutional transformation, even if it is just on a personal level.
When I had gotten engaged, since the boy and I are planning for a long-term engagement, I decided I didn't want to make a big deal out of it so I just changed my relationship status on Facebook. I had to work the next day, at a restaurant that is gay-friendly and active in Toronto's LGBTQ community. I figured, what did anyone care there that the straight girl is getting married?
Ah, the importance of legal battles such as the right to wed. When I walked in, everyone hugged me and jumped for joy and just made me realize that happiness is what is at the bottom here. It reminded me about the ability for society to change, to maneuver our own meanings and significances, even when we have to counterbalance them with old expectations and traditions.
I think though, that the funniest story that came out of this turn of events, is that both our sets of parents, when we announced our engagement, were firstly and openly relieved that we weren't pregnant...HA!
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Random, Albeit Cheesy Thoughts...
Awesome.
This month is the first time I've ever noticed my menstrual cycle to be in sync with the full moon.
So not only have I already pulled most of my female friends into my cycle (at some point anyway), I've now complete control over the earth's gravitational pull over the moon...
muahahahahahahahaha!
This month is the first time I've ever noticed my menstrual cycle to be in sync with the full moon.
So not only have I already pulled most of my female friends into my cycle (at some point anyway), I've now complete control over the earth's gravitational pull over the moon...
muahahahahahahahaha!
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Compromising Principles, Part I
Well, you can't fight every battle, right? You have to choose.
Recently, I decided to decrease my meat intake. Decrease is the operative word.
Because this witch looooves meat. I love it all. Except maybe for rabbit, but not because I loathe the idea of eating cute little bunnies. I mean, how do you decide that it's immoral to eat one animal but not all the others that make up your Big Mac based on fluffy cuteness? That seems to be skewed a bit. Maybe cows should consider a make-over then if they want to avoid your dinner plate.
My problem has become my growing awareness at not only the awfulness of the conditions in which animals are prepped for the grocer, but also in the gross over-consumption in which we eat them. There's no need for either the way we raise and slaughter animals--which is often cruel and unhealthy and environmentally detrimental, but also their number. And we discard them a lot of them.
But alas, I can only offer a decrease. It's really hard to give everything up in one go when you come from a culture of meat-infuse cuisine. So many Portuguese dilectables and temptations to resist. Meat is so much a part of the way I grew up, from making sausages in our house, to all the traditional food that made up our dinners. I think its best to go slow, and start with limiting my meat options to poultry and fish, but trying to go for the vegetarian options when I can. Though, I must admit, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to go entirely vegetarian or even touch veganism. I will certainly try, though.
The thing is, that although I agree that current practices are cruel and unneccessary, I don't believe that meat is murder. Human beings are omnivores. Our systems were designed to eat meat. Just not the way we currently do.
Over-consumption is the problem.
I do have to concede, that after speaking to my single-working-mom sister feeding four kids, that it is a bit of a privilege to be able to choose this. She can't afford neither the time nor the money to seek out completely vegetarian options, should she even want to.
The moral of this story?
Capitalism ruins everything!
Recently, I decided to decrease my meat intake. Decrease is the operative word.
Because this witch looooves meat. I love it all. Except maybe for rabbit, but not because I loathe the idea of eating cute little bunnies. I mean, how do you decide that it's immoral to eat one animal but not all the others that make up your Big Mac based on fluffy cuteness? That seems to be skewed a bit. Maybe cows should consider a make-over then if they want to avoid your dinner plate.
My problem has become my growing awareness at not only the awfulness of the conditions in which animals are prepped for the grocer, but also in the gross over-consumption in which we eat them. There's no need for either the way we raise and slaughter animals--which is often cruel and unhealthy and environmentally detrimental, but also their number. And we discard them a lot of them.
But alas, I can only offer a decrease. It's really hard to give everything up in one go when you come from a culture of meat-infuse cuisine. So many Portuguese dilectables and temptations to resist. Meat is so much a part of the way I grew up, from making sausages in our house, to all the traditional food that made up our dinners. I think its best to go slow, and start with limiting my meat options to poultry and fish, but trying to go for the vegetarian options when I can. Though, I must admit, I'm not sure I'll ever be able to go entirely vegetarian or even touch veganism. I will certainly try, though.
The thing is, that although I agree that current practices are cruel and unneccessary, I don't believe that meat is murder. Human beings are omnivores. Our systems were designed to eat meat. Just not the way we currently do.
Over-consumption is the problem.
I do have to concede, that after speaking to my single-working-mom sister feeding four kids, that it is a bit of a privilege to be able to choose this. She can't afford neither the time nor the money to seek out completely vegetarian options, should she even want to.
The moral of this story?
Capitalism ruins everything!
Monday, June 30, 2008
Get Yo' Condom On
So. HUGE turn-off: boys who whine about condoms. "Oh, it just don't feel right, baby." "Oh, I can't get off with a condom on." "Seriously, I'm clean, you're clean, 's'all good!"
I am surprisingly liberal about sex. But, seriously? You want to start whining about fucking putting a condom on? FUCK YOU. Even if you've never slept with me and do it to other girls and boys. FUCK YOU.
I don't know if you slept through the awkward videos about boys having strange new sensations in their pants, and girls having boobs pop out of their chests, but somewhere around that time, way back in highschool (or whenever you got sex-ed) you should have heard something about protecting yourself about STDs. (Although I think my class spent more time discussing why STD [Sexually Transmitted Diseases] was not politically correct, and therefore the term was supposed to be the sanitized STI [Sexually Transmitted Infection], even we got to the point where it was stated) the best way to protect yourself against STD/Is is to wear a condom. And as much as I think teachers gave lots of shitty advice in highschool, that's rock-solid. (Personally, I think they should have made us all watch the Canadian AIDs Musical Zero Patience rather than the awkward adolescent ones, but oh, well.)
So. I fully support casual sex. But seriously, people, let's make it a habit to use condoms. It seems that since celebrities stopped dropping dead of AIDs that people are no longer quite as concerned about STD/Is. Maybe it's a trend leaking up from the USA, where sex-ed appears to be mostly "sex is godless, be abstinent until marriage, then fuck like rabbits to make God's children", but it's a fucking stupid trend, and we all need to nip the fucker in the bud.
I'm really not the most educated about sex and STD/Is. But I'm smart enough to respect my body (as well as the body of my sexual partner) and use some fucking protection. And condoms come in so many different textures and sizes... (I actually prefer screwing with condoms because boy's penises don't have interesting textures).
This was going to be a lot longer, but I'm lazy. Typing is hard work, damn it. So, instead of me bothering to do a lot of research, stringing it all together candidly and writing something somewhat useful, I will provide links to other websites where people have done all the work for me.
- Sue Johanson is my inspiration for how I want to be when I'm an older woman. This is an index of her articles, www.talksexwithsue.com/sexindex.html. (We need to put up a link to her website; Sue Johanson=God)
- Dan Savage is my gay celebrity crush. Because he's so good at snapping at people for their stupidity. We already have a link over on the side, but in case you can't find it: www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove".
On a side note: I wonder if ignorance about sexuality related topics is linked to the fact we learned about sex-ed in gendered classes in highschool. I always wondered what the boys learned in their Phys-Ed Sex Ed Unit. I remember walking in their and there was a big note on the board about how important it was that young men try out many different relationships and date girls because it would teach them important social skills.
I don't remember being told, as a girl, that it was good to try out many different relationships. More that as far as sex was concerned, you should "wait till you're ready", make sure he's "right", whatever the fuck that means. (I hated that crap, even before I was sexually active, I think I always wanted to an empowered tramp) The biggest thing I remember from girls' Phys-Ed Sex Ed Unit was being told "If he wants to have sex with you while your clothing's on, he doesn't love you." And, similarly, same thing about quickies. (Fuck that... quickies can be awesome; clothing can be hot.) That and the distressing video of a woman's vagina as she gave birth. Eugh. I think that was the final nail in the coffin for any babies I could have had; right after the semi-mythological "womanly power of fertility" crap. (I do respect women who choose to be mothers, and I think babies and young children are cute. I just don't want one of my own, thanks.)
I am surprisingly liberal about sex. But, seriously? You want to start whining about fucking putting a condom on? FUCK YOU. Even if you've never slept with me and do it to other girls and boys. FUCK YOU.
I don't know if you slept through the awkward videos about boys having strange new sensations in their pants, and girls having boobs pop out of their chests, but somewhere around that time, way back in highschool (or whenever you got sex-ed) you should have heard something about protecting yourself about STDs. (Although I think my class spent more time discussing why STD [Sexually Transmitted Diseases] was not politically correct, and therefore the term was supposed to be the sanitized STI [Sexually Transmitted Infection], even we got to the point where it was stated) the best way to protect yourself against STD/Is is to wear a condom. And as much as I think teachers gave lots of shitty advice in highschool, that's rock-solid. (Personally, I think they should have made us all watch the Canadian AIDs Musical Zero Patience rather than the awkward adolescent ones, but oh, well.)
So. I fully support casual sex. But seriously, people, let's make it a habit to use condoms. It seems that since celebrities stopped dropping dead of AIDs that people are no longer quite as concerned about STD/Is. Maybe it's a trend leaking up from the USA, where sex-ed appears to be mostly "sex is godless, be abstinent until marriage, then fuck like rabbits to make God's children", but it's a fucking stupid trend, and we all need to nip the fucker in the bud.
I'm really not the most educated about sex and STD/Is. But I'm smart enough to respect my body (as well as the body of my sexual partner) and use some fucking protection. And condoms come in so many different textures and sizes... (I actually prefer screwing with condoms because boy's penises don't have interesting textures).
This was going to be a lot longer, but I'm lazy. Typing is hard work, damn it. So, instead of me bothering to do a lot of research, stringing it all together candidly and writing something somewhat useful, I will provide links to other websites where people have done all the work for me.
- Sue Johanson is my inspiration for how I want to be when I'm an older woman. This is an index of her articles, www.talksexwithsue.com/sexindex.html. (We need to put up a link to her website; Sue Johanson=God)
- Dan Savage is my gay celebrity crush. Because he's so good at snapping at people for their stupidity. We already have a link over on the side, but in case you can't find it: www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove".
On a side note: I wonder if ignorance about sexuality related topics is linked to the fact we learned about sex-ed in gendered classes in highschool. I always wondered what the boys learned in their Phys-Ed Sex Ed Unit. I remember walking in their and there was a big note on the board about how important it was that young men try out many different relationships and date girls because it would teach them important social skills.
I don't remember being told, as a girl, that it was good to try out many different relationships. More that as far as sex was concerned, you should "wait till you're ready", make sure he's "right", whatever the fuck that means. (I hated that crap, even before I was sexually active, I think I always wanted to an empowered tramp) The biggest thing I remember from girls' Phys-Ed Sex Ed Unit was being told "If he wants to have sex with you while your clothing's on, he doesn't love you." And, similarly, same thing about quickies. (Fuck that... quickies can be awesome; clothing can be hot.) That and the distressing video of a woman's vagina as she gave birth. Eugh. I think that was the final nail in the coffin for any babies I could have had; right after the semi-mythological "womanly power of fertility" crap. (I do respect women who choose to be mothers, and I think babies and young children are cute. I just don't want one of my own, thanks.)
Friday, June 6, 2008
Art Shows
I wandered around 401 Richmond in Toronto today (for the first time in a while), looking through the shows at Open Studio, Redhead Gallery and the rest (on the main floor… I’m terrible for not going upstairs).
Two shows really stood out to me, however, Existing in Costume, by Chan-Hyo Bae at Gallery 44 and Dry Spell by Sau Wai Tai at WARC Gallery.
Existing in Costume – Chan-Hyo Bae Gallery 44
This show was a series of photographs of the (male) artist dressed up as unidentified English queens – although many of the portraits seem fairly recognisable and likely are easy to identify with very little effort.
The literature that goes with the show states that “One is readily reminded of Yasumasa Morimura, the Japanese artist who casts himself in Western art’s biggest roles, and also, perhaps, of the phenomenon of cosplay – the subculture of dressing up like fictional or historical characters … Bae seems to be performing a blatant paradox: that of the outsider gleefully destabilizing the hierarchies of a culture about which he has admittedly fantasized, but which has forbade him full entrance because of an unalterable ethnicity”. The colonial aspects of this show were interesting, and I’m sure could be used to fill many essays.
I was more interested in the gender-switches. I suppose I could write an essay that fuses together post-colonial theory with gender theory but… hey, I’m not going to.
What I enjoyed about these cross-dressing images was that they looked very honest. Like they lacked the sarcasm and over-the-top foof that generally comes with male cross-dressing. (Fuck, can’t believe I just said that… I don’t think that cross-dressing should even be a word… in my ideal world, everyone just wears whatever the fuck they want, regardless of gender norms). In fact, one of the things that I liked about these photographs was that even though proportionally Bae’s body looked a little… off… to be female, I could have believed him to be a European Renaissance queen, because regardless of the humour of the project, it also has a very stirring sincerity to it. It felt as though Bae was attempting (or, rather, succeeding?) to either understand or empathise with the English Queens he is portraying.
Dry Spell – Sau Wai Tai WARC Gallery
Now, Revista has already left an entry about this show about two days ago, so I’m not going to talk about it too much. I am still writing this because it was, in my opinion, one of the best shows I have seen in recent times.
It was well put together, and seemed all very appropriate. The artist’s concerns were amazingly (and unfortunately) appropriate, and I enjoyed the opportunity to add my own “thoughts or stories” to the wall. The privatization of fresh water is something that I find, personally, very disturbing – even a fairly revolting trend of capitalism as we continuously allow necessities of life to be bought and sold.
The show doesn’t really mention some things that have happened in recent years – like the way the World Bank forced a South American country to privatize its water system, selling it off to an American corporation. When the corporation wanted more money for the water than most could afford, they repeatedly forced laws into effect, making it illegal to even collect rainwater. Eventually this led to revolution…
That’s all that I’m planning to really add… Revista’s entry has the description included. What the description of the show doesn’t mention, is the way the scattered bottles reflect (to me at least) evoke a message about the waste involved in bottling water – not only through the waste and privatization of water resources, but the garbage created by cheap, plastic non-reusable bottles.
Two shows really stood out to me, however, Existing in Costume, by Chan-Hyo Bae at Gallery 44 and Dry Spell by Sau Wai Tai at WARC Gallery.
Existing in Costume – Chan-Hyo Bae Gallery 44
This show was a series of photographs of the (male) artist dressed up as unidentified English queens – although many of the portraits seem fairly recognisable and likely are easy to identify with very little effort.
The literature that goes with the show states that “One is readily reminded of Yasumasa Morimura, the Japanese artist who casts himself in Western art’s biggest roles, and also, perhaps, of the phenomenon of cosplay – the subculture of dressing up like fictional or historical characters … Bae seems to be performing a blatant paradox: that of the outsider gleefully destabilizing the hierarchies of a culture about which he has admittedly fantasized, but which has forbade him full entrance because of an unalterable ethnicity”. The colonial aspects of this show were interesting, and I’m sure could be used to fill many essays.
I was more interested in the gender-switches. I suppose I could write an essay that fuses together post-colonial theory with gender theory but… hey, I’m not going to.
What I enjoyed about these cross-dressing images was that they looked very honest. Like they lacked the sarcasm and over-the-top foof that generally comes with male cross-dressing. (Fuck, can’t believe I just said that… I don’t think that cross-dressing should even be a word… in my ideal world, everyone just wears whatever the fuck they want, regardless of gender norms). In fact, one of the things that I liked about these photographs was that even though proportionally Bae’s body looked a little… off… to be female, I could have believed him to be a European Renaissance queen, because regardless of the humour of the project, it also has a very stirring sincerity to it. It felt as though Bae was attempting (or, rather, succeeding?) to either understand or empathise with the English Queens he is portraying.
Dry Spell – Sau Wai Tai WARC Gallery
Now, Revista has already left an entry about this show about two days ago, so I’m not going to talk about it too much. I am still writing this because it was, in my opinion, one of the best shows I have seen in recent times.
It was well put together, and seemed all very appropriate. The artist’s concerns were amazingly (and unfortunately) appropriate, and I enjoyed the opportunity to add my own “thoughts or stories” to the wall. The privatization of fresh water is something that I find, personally, very disturbing – even a fairly revolting trend of capitalism as we continuously allow necessities of life to be bought and sold.
The show doesn’t really mention some things that have happened in recent years – like the way the World Bank forced a South American country to privatize its water system, selling it off to an American corporation. When the corporation wanted more money for the water than most could afford, they repeatedly forced laws into effect, making it illegal to even collect rainwater. Eventually this led to revolution…
That’s all that I’m planning to really add… Revista’s entry has the description included. What the description of the show doesn’t mention, is the way the scattered bottles reflect (to me at least) evoke a message about the waste involved in bottling water – not only through the waste and privatization of water resources, but the garbage created by cheap, plastic non-reusable bottles.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Dry Spell
I recently attended the opening of Sau Wai Tai's show at the Women's Art Resource Centre. Such a show, which demonstrates a feminist ethic applied to interlinking environmental and social justice issues, takes art not for its aesthetic but its potential to demonstrate, to involve the masses by taking them past speculating on a visual culture made only for their living room walls. Sau Wai Tai's exhibition "Dry Spell" deals specifically with the water crisis and allows the viewer to make the connections between the commodification/desecration of water resources to the trafficking of women caught in development paradigms.
The press release below:
"Sau Wai Tai
May 24 - June 21, 2008
Dry Spell presents Toronto artist, Sau Wai Tai¹s mixed media investigation into climate change. While floods and hurricanes command the media¹s attention as effects of global warming, severe and intensifying droughts have been largely un-reported even as the percentage of land affected has substantially increased over the last decade. Privatization of water by bottling industries, and the prioritizing of industrial needs, aggregate the problem for communities with little political/economic power. Dry Spell highlights environmental injustices against the global South with special attention to the ordeal of women. Many have suffered and perished as they tried to bring home water and feed their families. In the gallery, the artist constructs a drying, cracking Œpaddy field¹ with gradually dying seedlings. Also in the gallery lie four locked 80 litre water boxes. At the Third World Water Forum, it was said that 80 litres of water per person, per day are necessary to maintain a reasonable standard of life. Text etched onto the boxes references uses such as pop and bottled water, toilets and urban etiquette, industry and agricultural processes etc. On the floor lie scattered bottles of water containing submerged pictures of women of colour consumed/to be consumed and discarded away. A dim image with native women from Mother Earth Water Walk walking around the Great Lakes to reclaim sacred water is projected onto a gallery wall.
Bio:
Sau Wai is a cultural hybrid living and working in Toronto: She was made in Hong Kong, did her tertiary education in Australia and then worked with various non-government organizations after she returned from her studies, including relief and development works in Asian countries. Realizing the importance of how the environment plays upon the well being of people living in the margins, especially women, she came to Toronto to earn a Masters degree in environmental studies. It is thus natural for her work to cross borders and to interweave dialogue about the environment, gender, class and race to highlight connections in a perceived fragmented world. She also embraces a critical understanding of humanities role in manufacturing the environmental crises and interprets the word "environment" to include the implications of the interplay between political, social, cultural and
economical global elements."
The press release below:
"Sau Wai Tai
May 24 - June 21, 2008
Dry Spell presents Toronto artist, Sau Wai Tai¹s mixed media investigation into climate change. While floods and hurricanes command the media¹s attention as effects of global warming, severe and intensifying droughts have been largely un-reported even as the percentage of land affected has substantially increased over the last decade. Privatization of water by bottling industries, and the prioritizing of industrial needs, aggregate the problem for communities with little political/economic power. Dry Spell highlights environmental injustices against the global South with special attention to the ordeal of women. Many have suffered and perished as they tried to bring home water and feed their families. In the gallery, the artist constructs a drying, cracking Œpaddy field¹ with gradually dying seedlings. Also in the gallery lie four locked 80 litre water boxes. At the Third World Water Forum, it was said that 80 litres of water per person, per day are necessary to maintain a reasonable standard of life. Text etched onto the boxes references uses such as pop and bottled water, toilets and urban etiquette, industry and agricultural processes etc. On the floor lie scattered bottles of water containing submerged pictures of women of colour consumed/to be consumed and discarded away. A dim image with native women from Mother Earth Water Walk walking around the Great Lakes to reclaim sacred water is projected onto a gallery wall.
Bio:
Sau Wai is a cultural hybrid living and working in Toronto: She was made in Hong Kong, did her tertiary education in Australia and then worked with various non-government organizations after she returned from her studies, including relief and development works in Asian countries. Realizing the importance of how the environment plays upon the well being of people living in the margins, especially women, she came to Toronto to earn a Masters degree in environmental studies. It is thus natural for her work to cross borders and to interweave dialogue about the environment, gender, class and race to highlight connections in a perceived fragmented world. She also embraces a critical understanding of humanities role in manufacturing the environmental crises and interprets the word "environment" to include the implications of the interplay between political, social, cultural and
economical global elements."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
